Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan

ROUTT COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Approved by FEMA December 28, 2010

Table of Contents

The Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized as follows:

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 5 2. PREREQUISITES ...... 7 3. INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING AREA PROFILE ...... 21 3.1. Purpose...... 21 3.2. Background and Scope...... 21 3.3. Location, Land Forms, Topography and Environmental Factors...... 25 3.4. Socio-Economic Factors ...... 27 3.5. Current Development Trends ...... 28 4. PLANNING PROCESS...... 30 4.1. Methodology and Planning Process...... 30 4.2. Acknowledgments ...... 31 4.3. The 10-Step Planning Process...... 32 4.4. Continued Public Involvement...... 38 5. RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 39 5.1. Hazard Identification...... 39 5.2. Hazard Profiles...... 45 5.2.1. Flood ...... 47 5.2.2. Dam Failure ...... 52 5.2.3. Drought ...... 54 5.2.4. Wildfire ...... 61 5.2.5. Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic ...... 64 5.2.6. Blizzards and Severe Winter Storms...... 67 5.2.7. Lightning ...... 73 5.2.8 Windstorms …………………………………………………………………….75 5.2.9. Avalanche ...... 77 5.2.10. Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall...... 79 5.2.11. Erosion and Deposition ...... 82 5.2.12. Ground Subsidence ...... 83 5.2.13. Earthquake...... 84 5.2.14. Hazardous Materials Release (Transportation)...... 85 5.2.15. Prolonged Power Outage...... 87 5.2.16 Bridge Failure ……………………………………………………………….88 5.3. Vulnerability Assessment ...... 93 5.3.1. Community Asset Inventory ...... 94 5.3.2. Vulnerability by Hazard ...... 99 5.3.3. Development and Land Use Trends...... 117 6. MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ...... 123 6.1. Mitigation Goals and Objectives...... 123 6.2. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions...... 125 6.3. Implementation...... 130 6.4. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ...... 133 6.5. Current Mitigation Project Descriptions ...... 136

7. Current Mitigation Projects Undertaken by Participating Jurisdictions 7.1 Recent and Ongoing Mitigation Projects by Participating Jurisdictions 7.2 Future Mitigation Projects Under Consideration by Participating Jurisdictions

Table of Contents (continued) APPENDIX Appendix A: Community Location Vicinity Map Appendix B: Terrain and Road Network Map Appendix C: Floodplain FIRM Map Appendix CC: Hazard Dam Map Appendix D: 2007 Drought Outlook Map Appendix E: Streamflow Map Appendix F: Wildland Fire Map Appendix G: Avalanche Forecast Zone Map Appendix H: Geologic Hazards Sub-area Example Appendix HH: Historical Earthquake Epicenters Appendix I: Fault Map Appendix J: References Appendix K: Planning Process Documentation Appendix L: Mitigation Worksheets Appendix M: Hazus – MH: Flood Event Report

ANNEXES

Annex A: Unincorporated Routt County Annex B: Steamboat Springs Annex C: Oak Creek Annex D: Yampa Annex E: West Routt Annex F: North Routt

44 CFR requirement 201.6(c)(5) The local hazard mitigation plan shall include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan. For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of natural hazards mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards. Routt County and participating jurisdictions developed this multi- hazard mitigation plan to reduce future losses to the County and its communities resulting from natural hazards. The plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and to achieve eligibility for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.

The Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan that covers the following local governments that participated in the planning process:

Routt County

City of Steamboat Springs

Town of Oak Creek

Town of Hayden

Town of Yampa

Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District

Oak Creek Fire Protection District

Yampa Fire Protection District

West Routt Fire Protection District

North Routt Fire Protection District

The County’s planning process followed a methodology prescribed by FEMA, which began with the formation of a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) comprised of key stakeholders from Routt County, participating jurisdictions, and state and federal agencies. The HMPC conducted a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to Routt County, assessed the County’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The County is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Floods, wildfires, severe winter weather, and hazardous material release are among the hazards that can have a significant impact on the County. In writing the plan, the HMPC referenced the Summit County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan as a guideline, which was developed by Summit County and the AMEC Earth and Environmental Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Management Program.

Based upon the risk assessment, the HMPC identified goals and objectives for reducing risk to hazards. The goals and objectives of this multi-hazard mitigation plan are to:

Goal 1: Reduce risk to the people, property, and environment of Routt County from the impacts of natural hazards

Minimize the vulnerability of existing and new development to hazards

Increase education and awareness of hazards and risk reduction measures

Improve comprehensive wildfire planning, funding, and mitigation

Strengthen floodplain management programs

Goal 2: Protect critical facilities and infrastructure

Enhance assessment of multi-hazard risk to critical facilities and infrastructure

Prioritize mitigation projects based on the enhanced assessment and identify funding sources

Reduce hazard related closures of transportation routes

Goal 3: Minimize economic losses

Strengthen disaster resistance and resiliency of businesses and employers

Promote and conduct continuity of operations and continuity of governance planning

Reduce financial exposure of county and municipal governments

Goal 4: Implement the mitigation actions identified in the plan

Improve communication and coordination between communities and state and federal agencies

Engage collaborative partners, including community organizations, businesses, and others

Integrate mitigation activities into existing and new community plans and policies

Monitor, evaluate, and update the mitigation plan

To meet identified goals and objectives, the plan recommends the mitigation actions summarized in Table 4.1. The HMPC also developed an implementation plan for each action, which identifies priority level, background information, ideas for implementation, responsible agency, timeline, cost estimate, potential funding sources, and more.

The multi-hazard mitigation plan has been formally adopted by the Routt County Board of County Commissioners and the governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction and will be updated within a five-year timeframe.

2. PREREQUISITES

The following jurisdictions participated in the development of this plan and have adopted the multi- jurisdictional plan and their jurisdiction’s annex. Resolutions of Adoptions are included on the following pages.

Routt County, lead agency (adopted by Routt County Commissioners on November 2, 2010)

Town of Hayden (adopted by Hayden Town Board on November 4, 2010)

Town of Oak Creek (adopted by Town Board on October 28, 2010)

Town of Yampa (adopted by Yampa Town Board on November 3, 2010)

City of Steamboat Springs (adopted by Steamboat Springs City Council on November 2, 2010)

Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District (adopted by board on November 22, 2010)

Oak Creek Fire Protection District (adopted by board on December 13, 2010)

West Routt Fire Protection District (adopted by board on November 9, 2010)

North Routt Fire Protection District (adopted by board on December 7, 2010)

Yampa Fire Protection District (yet to be adopted)

3. INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING AREA PROFILE

3.1. PURPOSE Routt County and the participating jurisdictions prepared this local hazard mitigation plan to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the County from the effects of hazard events. This plan demonstrates the communities’ commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources.

The four goals of the Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are the following:

Goal 1: Reduce risk to the people, property, and environment of Routt County from the impacts of natural hazards

Goal 2: Protect critical facilities and infrastructure

Goal 3: Minimize economic losses

Goal 4: Implement the mitigation actions identified in the plan

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Colorado Division of Emergency Management (CDEM) is requesting that every community in the State of Colorado establishes a hazard mitigation plan for their local area. The purpose of this plan is to provide preventative measures to reduce future losses from man-made or natural hazard events.

This plan was also developed to make Routt County and participating jurisdictions eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance program. A program is available through CDEM that allows communities State-wide to be eligible for assistance or grants once a local hazard mitigation plan has been completed.

The Routt County Hazard Mitigation Plan serves the City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden, Town of Oak Creek, Town of Yampa and the communities of Toponas, Phippsburg, Clark, Hahn’s Peak and Milner.

3.2. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated.

Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council 2005).

Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts of those hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies to lessen impacts are determined, prioritized, and implemented. This plan documents Routt County’s hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the County and participating jurisdictions will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in Routt County.

The Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan that geographically covers everything within Routt County’s jurisdictional boundaries (hereinafter referred to as the planning area). Unincorporated Routt County and the following communities and special districts participated in the planning process:

Routt County

City of Steamboat Springs

Town of Oak Creek

Town of Hayden

Town of Yampa

Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District

Oak Creek Fire Protection District

Yampa Fire Protection District

West Routt Fire Protection District

North Routt Fire Protection District

This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. The 2007 amendments also incorporate mitigation planning requirements of the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. While the Disaster Mitigation Act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288).

Information in this plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for local land use policy in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to communities and their residents by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community impacts and disruptions. The Routt County planning area has been affected by hazards in the past and is thus committed to

reducing future impacts from hazard events and becoming eligible for mitigation-related federal funding.

This plan addresses natural hazards and manmade hazards.

Jurisdictional Annexes

Each jurisdiction participating in this plan developed its own annex, which provides a more detailed assessment of the jurisdiction’s unique risks as well as their mitigation strategy to reduce long-term losses. Each jurisdictional annex is referenced in Appendix N and contains the following:

Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy, and population

Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards

Vulnerability information in terms of future growth and development in hazard areas

A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts, partnerships and past mitigation projects

Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction

3.3. LOCATION, LAND FORMS, TOPOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Appendix A: Routt County Location Map

Routt County is located on the Western Slope of the Rocky Mountains in the Northwestern portion of Colorado.

Long before any living beings inhabited the area, a massive upheaval in the earth’s surface formed the Rocky Mountains. That great, slow movement of the earth defined the face of Northwestern Colorado as we know it today. Exposed during the uplift were massive seams of bituminous coal, a mineral which was to become one of Routt County’s major natural resources.

During the ice age, glaciers formed, moved and carved the valleys along the slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Wind and water erosion further modified the landscape. Streams cut into the low areas. Channels formed, disappeared and formed again during periods of flooding, broadening them into the Yampa River Valley. Soils, washed down from the mountain slopes, became fertile, crop-growing bottom land.

The history of the Routt County people started when Ute Indians camped in the valley as long as 1,000 years ago. During the summers, they migrated from Utah to hunt, fish and bathe in the healing waters of the many springs found in the area. By 1820, trappers had visited the valley, looking for beaver. They came but left no written trace.

The discovery of gold at Hahn’s Peak in 1861; the area’s great coal reserves; the fertile valleys, sheltered on three sides by high mountain ranges---these led the way to the “modern” development of Routt County.

In the late 1800s, heavy wooden wagons, loaded with household furnishings, migrated west into the valley of the Yampa River and its tributaries. These first settlers came to ranch the rich, fertile valleys. They were soon joined by entrepreneurs, hoping to find fortunes in coal. The 1909 arrival of the first train into Steamboat Springs opened the coal fields for production and a new era for this section of the state.

Northwestern Colorado was now accessible and ready for development. New communities formed to serve those coming here to work on the ranches and mine the coal. For the first decades of the Twentieth Century, mining and agriculture formed the economic base of the county.

As more people arrived, more homes were needed, more public services were demanded. Commerce grew. Pressures for land development led to a growing concern for protection of Routt County’s delicate natural environment. No longer was it acceptable for growth without responsible limits.

ROUTT COUNTY CLIMATE AND WEATHER: Source: www.yampavalley.info

Diverse climatic conditions occur across Routt County due to the varied terrain, bringing us abundant snowfall in the winter and a vibrant forest, agricultural and river valley environment in the summer. Surface elevation ranges from 6400 feet at the western border along the Yampa

River valley to over 12,100 feet for Mt. Zirkel and other peaks along the Continental Divide at the eastern border.

The location of northwestern Colorado in the middle of the North American continent allows air masses from many different regions to influence our weather conditions. Air arriving along a direct northerly trajectory from northern Canada or southerly airflow from central Mexico can reach our locale without being significantly moderated along the way, sometimes causing short periods of surprisingly cold or mild temperatures. On the whole, the climate of Routt County is very pleasant, with typically cool dry summer evenings and sun-warmed winter days.

Winter: The snowfall which is produced so abundantly along the Park Range and nearby mountains of Routt County is extremely important to water supply for a large region of the southwestern U.S. The Yampa River originates in south Routt County from streams flowing out of the Flat Tops and Gore ranges, and is joined by the Elk River from the Park Range in north Routt County. This hydrologic resource provides our county with recreation, fishing, riparian habitat and beauty in our valley also carries essential water to the Colorado River through Utah and beyond.

Summer: The north-south orientation of the mountain ranges in Routt County contribute to what is termed “orographic enhancement” of precipitation as the prevailing westerly airflow is lifted up and over the ridges. Mountain terrain also plays a role in summer precipitation. Solar heating and evapotranspiration from forested slopes facing the sun hasten the development of cumulus clouds and rainshowers. Summer months are characterized by these afternoon showers, some of which produce thunder and lightning but rarely cause damaging hail.

Downslope or “chinook” winds typically occur once or twice per year along the western slope of the Park Range due to strong easterly winds. One such event on 25 October 1997 termed the “Blowdown” caused significant forest destruction due to uprooting and breaking of trees in the Routt National Forest. Limited-area flooding has occurred in some Spring months, as warm air and solar radiation lead to rapid snowmelt, particularly in events where rainfall contributes to snowpack melting.

All of Routt County is at a relatively high elevation. Having less of an atmospheric column between the surface and the top of the atmosphere leads to more intense sunshine at ground level, which is a benefit when it contributes to our thermal comfort while outside, but also increases our exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The incidence of sunburn, skin cancer and cataracts are known to increase in high altitude environments, and the presence of snow cover and scattered clouds increases UV exposure through multiple reflection of the UV rays between these surfaces and ourselves.

Weather Conditions: Variations in surface elevation also cause significant differences in temperatures and precipitation. Using an average decrease in atmospheric temperature with height, the air temperature you experience near the ground can be expected to decrease by approximately 20 degrees Fahrenheit as you move from the lowest elevation to the highest elevations in the County. However, the typical decrease of temperature with height can be modified and even reversed by weather conditions. A temperature inversion often forms during

clear winter nights, with cold air draining along stream and river valleys, producing temperatures that are coldest in the valleys and increasing with height. These inversions may last just a few hours after sunrise, or may continue for several days if clear sky and high pressure weather patterns persist.

Climate and weather data are collected for a wide range of sites operated by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and State Department of Transportation. In addition, meteorological monitoring is carried out for special purposes by the Steamboat Springs school district, the Steamboat Ski and Resort, the Desert Research Institute's Storm Peak Laboratory, and other groups or individuals.

Weather and climate each play distinct roles in the economic and environmental vitality of Routt County. Day-to-day weather events can impact our recreational opportunities, road safety, livestock health, crop management, water treatment, fish habitat, and construction scheduling. Seasonal and longer-term climate parameters control the success of our ski resort business, the ability to sustain non-irrigated and irrigated crops from one year to the next, the evolution of our river channels, the vulnerability of the forest to ecological stresses such as the Blowdown, the management of wildfire danger, and many other aspects of our livelihood.

ROUTT COUNTY ECOSYSTEMS

See Appendix B: Routt County Ecosystems Map for details of the land ecosystems of Routt County.

3.4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

Routt County Profile Table 1.1. 2009 Population (estimated from 2000 census)…..24,806 Steamboat Springs population (2007)..………….. ...11,502 Oak Creek………………………….…………………………...978 Hayden………………………………………..……………..….1,869 Yampa…………………………………………………….…….504 Unincorporated Area……………………………...……….8,207 Surge Population (estimated)..……………………..…30,000 Population Growth from 2000………………………..…19.8% County Seat: ..………………….…....…...…Steamboat Springs County Size (square miles).………………………… …2,3 68.5

Routt County encompasses 2,368.5 square miles, which includes industries in agriculture, forestry, mining, ranching, power generation and tourism. Routt County has the 22nd largest population of the 64 counties in Colorado. Routt County has grown by 19.8 percent since the 2000 U.S. Census. The estimated County population in 2009 is 24,806, but can double during the winter months due to a world-class ski resort in Steamboat Springs. During the summer months, the tourism industry thrives with outdoor recreational activities and cultural events.

Routt County has four incorporated areas: the county seat is the City of Steamboat Springs, along with the Towns of Hayden, Oak Creek, and Yampa. Other communities in the county include Clark, Milner, Phippsburg, Hahn’s Peak, and Toponas. Resulting from a Master Plan policy adopted by the Routt County Board of County Commissioners in 1980, the majority of new construction is confined to these areas. Exceptions to this policy include rural 35-acre subdivided lots (permitted under state statute), the Stagecoach area (identified as a potential growth center), and infill within the Steamboat Lake, Hahn’s Peak, Milner, and Phippsburg platted subdivisions/townsites. If future County Commissioners and Planning Commissioners uphold this policy, then the rural areas throughout the County will remain somewhat as they are today.

Each incorporated area has approved a comprehensive plan that depicts land to be developed and annexed. Such plans were jointly adopted by the municipalities and Routt County. As a result of the community’s goals within these plans, urban or sub-urban sprawl has been kept to acceptable levels.

Approximately 50 percent of county land is publicly owned, with the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, including Mt. Zirkel and Sarvis Creek Wilderness, making up the majority of county lands. Routt County has more State Parks that any other county in Colorado: Stagecoach Reservoir, Elkhead Reservoir, Pearl Lake and Steamboat Lake.

At seven thousand feet up in the Colorado Rockies, Routt County has a diverse climate. Winter conditions can produce up to 400 inches of snow or more, making the conditions ideal for the ski industry. Summer months are typically warm and dry, which provides a pleasant climate for campers, fishermen, hunters and other outdoorsmen. Snowfall depth during the winter is extremely important to the water supply for the area and also for large regions in the southwestern United States that depends on Colorado for essential water needs.

The Routt County Road and Bridge department maintains a total of 950 miles of county roads. Not including those roads that are privately maintained and plowed, the various municipalities maintain approximately 100 additional traveled roadway miles. Colorado Highway 40 and Colorado Highway 131 are the state highways that run through the county.

The county is home to two community colleges, several public and private schools and a world renowned performing arts academy. The Yampa Valley Regional Airport, located in the Town of Hayden, provides the major transportation hub to the area.

3.5. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS

Construction has traditionally been a booming industry in the County. According to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Routt County has experienced an average annual population growth of 22.2% from 1997-2007. In 2008, there were 392 building permits issued by the Routt County Building Department. This is a reflection of the growing population that lives in the county year-round and second home owners who live here part-time.

As of the fourth quarter 2008, the largest workforce sectors in Routt County are Construction (with 19% of the employment), Accommodation and Food Services (with 13%), and Retail (with 12%). As much as 21% of the local workforce commutes to Routt County to work, but live in Moffat County. The largest growing sector in the county is the service industry.

Select 2000 U.S. Census demographic and social characteristics for Routt County are shown in Tables 1.2 and 1.3. Characteristics for Routt County are for the entire County.

Table 1.2. Routt Routt City of Town of Town of Oak Town of County County Steamboat Hayden Creek Yampa Springs Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic Male (%) 53.6* 55.3 51.1 50.5 54.2 Female (%) 46.4* 44.7 48.9 49.5 45.8 Under 5 Years (%) 5.7* 4.7 7.3 7.2 6.3 65 Years and Over (%) 6.4* 4.4 6.1 7.8 7.7 White (%) 92.9* 94.7 92.5 91.5 93.2 Hispanic/Latino (Any 4.4* 3.1 5.7 4.6 4.5 Race) (%) Average Household 2.44 2.35 2.63 2.32 2.37 Size High School Grad or 95.3 97.1 90.5 88.1 92.8 Higher (%) *data represent values for 2008 as projected or estimated by the US Census Bureau

Table 1.3. Routt Routt City of Town of Town of Town of County Economic County Steamboat Hayden Oak Creek Yampa Springs Characteristics Families below Poverty Level 135 59 25 14 6 Individuals below Poverty 1,183 7.2 7.0 10.5 8.4 Level (%, #) 6.2** 692 116 88 38 Median Home Value ($) 268,500 308, 100 132,100 109,600 121,200 Median Household Income 63,797** 54,647 42,147 36,500 37,500 ($)* Per Capita Income ($) 49,890*** 31,685 18,574 16,388 21,141 28,792**** Population in Labor Force 15,395*** 6,833 941 512 238 Unemployment** 6.0% *** n/a n/a n/a n/a ** data represent values for 2007 as projected or estimated by the US Census Bureau *** according to December 2009 data released by Colorado Department of Labor and Employment ****according to 1999 values by the US Census Bureau

4. PLANNING PROCESS

4.1. METHODOLOGY AND PLANNING PROCESS

44CFR Requirement 201.6©(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

The plan before you is the first to be submitted to the State and FEMA. The County previously attempted a disaster mitigation plan between 2004 and 2009, but the process used primarily just County staff members, and it was never finalized. The current process used a more comprehensive countywide approach and detailed analysis.

In order for the completion of this Hazards Mitigation Plan, the Routt County Office of Emergency Management worked to establish the framework and process for this planning effort using FEMA’s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (2008) and the State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guides (2001), which include Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (2006). The ten step process with four phases was used.

Multi-Jurisdictional Participation

44 CFR Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan.

Routt County invited incorporated cities and special districts in the County to participate in the multi- jurisdictional Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Disaster Mitigation Act requires that each jurisdiction participate in the planning process and officially adopt the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. Each jurisdiction participated in the development of this plan. Participation included:

Designating a representative to serve on the HMPC

Participating in HMPC meetings – group meetings as well as jurisdictional meetings

Providing jurisdiction information including hazard and risk information

Identifying mitigation actions for the plan

Reviewing and commenting on plan drafts

Informing the public, local officials, and other interested parties about the planning process and providing opportunity for them to comment on the plan

Finally, we anticipate that each jurisdiction will formally adopt the mitigation plan

Table 2.1 shows the list of meetings held during the planning process; sign-in sheets are included in Appendix K: Planning Process Documentation

Table 2.1. HMPC Meetings Participating Groups

July 29, 2009 City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Yampa

Aug. 24, 2009 Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs

September 17, 2009 City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden

Sept. 21, 2009 Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Steamboat Springs Fire and Rescue, Town of Oak Creek, Oak Creek Fire Protection District, Town of Yampa, Yampa Fire Protection District June 14, 2010 Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Steamboat Springs Fire and Rescue, Town of Yampa, North Routt Fire Protection District, West Routt Fire Protection District August 11th, 2010 Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Yampa, North Routt Fire Protection District, Town of Hayden, Colorado Mountain College, Bark Beetle Task Force

4.2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Routt County extends special thanks to those who assisted with the development of this Plan. Those critical team members include:

Tom Sullivan, Routt County Manager

Bob Struble, Routt County Emergency Services Director

Chuck Vale, Routt County Emergency Services Director (past)

Chad Phillips, Routt County Planning Department Director

Paul Draper, Routt County Road and Bridge Department, Director

Mike Zopf, Routt County Environmental Health Department, Director

C.J. Mucklow, Colorado State Extension Service, Director

Winnie Delliquadri, City of Steamboat Springs Grant Writer

Ben Beall, City of Steamboat Springs Public Works Engineer

Russ Martin, Town of Hayden Town Manager

Chuck Wisecup, Town of Oak Creek Fire Marshall

Janet Ray, Town of Yampa Town Clerk

Eric Barry, Town of Yampa Public Works Superintendant

44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

The Routt County Office of Emergency Management recognized the need and importance of this plan and was responsible for its initiation. The County began working in July 2009 to facilitate and revise the previous Routt County Disaster Mitigation Plan into a multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan that included all interested municipalities and special districts.

4.3. THE 10-STEP PLANNING PROCESS

The Routt County Office of Emergency Management worked with the Intergovernmental Services Office at the City of Steamboat Springs to establish the framework and process for this planning effort using FEMA’s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (2008) and the State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guides (2001), which include Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (2006). The plan is structured around a four-phase process:

1) Organize resources 2) Assess risks 3) Develop the mitigation plan 4) Implement the plan and monitor progress

Into this process, project partners integrated a more detailed 10-step planning process used for FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs. Thus, the modified 10-step process used for this plan meets the funding eligibility requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, Community Rating System, and Flood Mitigation Assistance program. Table 2.2 shows how the modified 10-step process fits into FEMA’s four-phase process.

Table 2.2. Mitigation Planning Process Used to Modified CRS Process Develop the Plan DMA Process 1) Organize Resources 201.6(c)(1) 1) Organize the Planning Effort 201.6(b)(1) 2) Involve the Public 201.6(b)(2) and (3) 3) Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies 2) Assess Risks 201.6(c)(2)(i) 4) Identify the Hazards 201.6(c)(2)(ii) 5) Assess the Risks 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i) 6) Set Goals 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 7) Review Possible Activities 201.6(c)(3)(iii) 8) Draft an Action Plan 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress 201.6(c)(5) 9) Adopt the Plan 201.6(c)(4) 10) Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan

Bob Struble from the Routt County Office of Emergency Management worked with Winnie Delliquadri and Ginger Scott from the Intergovernmental Services Department to coordinate meetings, and gather hazard information from the various jurisdictions. The Office of Emergency Management was key in evaluating the risk assessments of each hazard.

Phase I Organize Resources

Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort

The planning process officially began with a kickoff meeting on August 24th, 2009. The Routt County Office of Emergency Management mailed letters of invitation to the kickoff meeting to county, municipal, district, state, and other stakeholder representatives. This list is included in Appendix K.

Prior to the kickoff meeting, representatives of Yampa and Hayden notified Routt County and the City of Steamboat Springs that they would not be able to travel to the kick off meeting. In order to gather the concerns of these entities, meetings were held in Yampa on July 29th and in Hayden on September 17th.

The Disaster Mitigation Act requires that each jurisdiction participate in the planning process and officially adopt the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. A planning committee was created that includes representatives from each participating jurisdiction, departments of the County, and other local, state, and federal organizations responsible for making decisions in the plan and agreeing upon the final contents. Kickoff meeting attendees discussed potential participants, hazards specific to their communities that they felt needed consideration, and how the process would continue forward for implementation.

The HMPC contributed to this planning process by: providing facilities for meetings, attending meetings, collecting data, managing administrative details, making decisions on plan process and content, submitting mitigation action implementation worksheets, reviewing drafts, and Coordinating and assisting with public involvement and plan adoptions.

The HMPC communicated during the planning process with a combination of face-to-face meetings, phone interviews, and email correspondence. The meeting schedule and topics are listed in Table 2.3. The sign-in sheets and agendas for each of the meetings are included in Appendix K.

Table 2.3. Schedule of HMPC Topic Date Meetings Meeting Kickoff Meeting – Citizen’s Hall (Steamboat Introduction to DMA and the August 24th, 2009 Springs) planning process; (July 29th – Yampa) Identification of hazards (Sept 17th – Hayden) impacting Routt County

HMPC #2 – South Routt Fire House (Oak Review of risk assessment; September 21st, 2009 Creek) Identification of goals and objectives HMPC #3 - Hayden Fire Station (Hayden) Identification and prioritization June 14th, 2010 of mitigation actions; Discussion of process to monitor, evaluate, and update plan Public Meeting – Routt County Offices Public Meeting – HMPC also August 11th, 2010 met to discuss changes to the plan

During the kickoff meetings, information was presented on the scope and purpose of the plan and the proposed project work plan and schedule. Plans for public involvement (Step 2) and coordination with other agencies and departments (Step 3) were discussed. The HMPC discussed past events and impacts and future probability for each of the hazards required by FEMA for consideration in a local hazard mitigation plan. The HMPC refined the list of hazards to make it relevant to Routt County. Participants were given the Data Collection Guide to facilitate the collection of information needed to support the plan, such as data on historic hazard events, values at risk, and current capabilities. Each participating jurisdiction completed and returned the worksheets in the data collection guide.

Step 2: Involve the Public

At the kickoff meeting, the HMPC discussed options for soliciting public input on the mitigation plan and developed an outreach strategy by consensus.

During the plan’s drafting stage, the HMPC held a Natural Hazards Planning Open House at the Routt County Historic Courthouse Building in Steamboat Springs on Wednesday, August 11th 2010 from 10am to 11:30am. The public was informed of the meeting through advertising in the local newspaper. A copy of the sign-in sheet is provided in Appendix K.

At the open house, the public was invited to share their opinions and recommendations for changes to the document. Staff members from the various jurisdictions were available to discuss and answer questions. Revisions were made to the plan.

The public was also given an opportunity to provide input on a final draft of the complete plan prior during the same time that FEMA is conducting a review of the plan. The draft was available on the City of Steamboat Springs Website at http://steamboatsprings.net/departments/city_manager/intergovernmental_services and in hard copy at the following locations:

Office of Emergency Management – Routt County Courthouse – 5th and Lincoln, Steamboat Springs, CO

City of Steamboat Springs - 137 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO

Yampa Town Hall - 56 Lincoln Street, Yampa, CO

Hayden Town Hall - 178 West Jefferson Avenue, Hayden, CO

Oak Creek Administration Building - 129 Nancy Crawford Boulevard, Oak Creek, CO

The first draft plan was available at the first two locations from June 14, 2010 to August 11, 2010 and all of the above listed locations from August 5, 2010 to August 11, 2010. Routt County advertised the availability of the draft plan and the public comment period in the Steamboat Pilot on July 11, 2010. A copy of this notice is provided in Appendix K.

The Routt County Office of Emergency Management also emailed all staff involved in the planning process, including the County, Town, and City Managers’ Offices and the Routt County Board of County Commissioners on August 19, 2010, asking for final review and comment on the plan.

One member of the public from the Bark Beetle Task Force came to the meeting and asked questions regarding tree removal and fuel mitigation. She was informed that these were both listed in the plan as potential mitigation actions. A representative from Colorado Mountain College came to the meeting and asked questions regarding potential mitigation efforts of the college and whether these should be listed in the plan. The committee members present discussed whether they felt creating a new (second) access road to the college would be considered a mitigation action.

The final draft plan was available in all of the above listed locations starting Monday, September 20th at the same time it was being reviewed by FEMA. The public was notified of this and encouraged to comment and make suggestions through the City of Steamboat Springs website, and posting at each location.

Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies

44 CFR Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process. (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

There are numerous organizations whose goals and interests interface with hazard mitigation in Routt County. Coordination with these organizations and other community planning efforts is vital to the success of this plan. The HMPC developed a list of neighboring communities and local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, as well as other interested parties, to invite by email to the open house on August 11, 2010. The list of invited stakeholders is included in Appendix K.

As part of the coordination with other agencies, the HMPC collected and reviewed existing technical data, reports, and plans. State and federal agency data sources, including National Weather Service web pages and FEMA Flood Insurance Studies, were used to collect information. Routt County and its communities use a variety of comprehensive planning mechanisms, such as land use and general plans, emergency operations plans, and municipal ordinances and building codes, to manage community growth and development. This information was used in the development of the hazard

identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment and in the formation of goals, objectives, and mitigation actions. Phase 2 Assess Risk

Step 4: Identify the Hazards

Using the State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan as a guide, local knowledge, and studies undertaken by Routt County and the many municipalities, the group was able to identify the natural hazards that have impacted or could impact communities in Routt County. At each meeting, the HMPC discussed past events and impacts and future probability for each of the hazards required by FEMA for consideration in a local hazard mitigation plan. The HMPC refined the list of hazards to make it relevant to Routt County. A profile of each of these hazards was then developed. Web resources, existing reports and plans, and existing GIS layers were used to compile information about past hazard events and determine the location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity of each hazard. The Routt County Data Collection Guide distributed at the kickoff meeting helped identify hazards and vulnerabilities. Information on the methodology and resources used to identify and profile hazards is provided in Sections 3.1-3.2.

Step 5: Assess the Risks

After profiling the hazards that could affect Routt County, the HMPC collected information to describe the likely impacts of future hazard events on the participating jurisdictions. This step included two parts: a vulnerability assessment and a capability assessment.

Vulnerability Assessment—Participating jurisdictions inventoried their assets at risk to natural hazards—overall and in identified hazard areas. These assets included total number and value of structures; critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, historic, and cultural assets; and economic assets. The HMPC also analyzed development trends in hazard areas.

Capability Assessment—This assessment consisted of identifying the existing mitigation capabilities of participating jurisdictions. This involved collecting information about existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and plans that mitigate or could be used to mitigate risk to disasters. Participating jurisdictions collected information on their regulatory, personnel, fiscal, and technical capabilities, as well as ongoing initiatives related to interagency coordination and public outreach. This information is included in the jurisdictional annexes.

Phase 3 Develop the Mitigation Plan

Step 6: Set Goals

The HMPC gathered the stakeholders in September, 2010. They assessed the geographic locations of potential hazards of each jurisdiction, discussed the severity of each hazard, brainstormed local and regional mitigation projects, prioritized projects and confirmed goals by consensus. The goals were:

1. Reduce risk to the people, property and environment of Routt County from the impacts of natural/man made hazards. 2. Protect critical facilities and infrastructure 3. Minimize Economic Loss 4. Implement the mitigation actions identified in the plan

Step 7: Review Possible Activities

The HMPC reviewed and prioritized mitigation actions at their third meeting. The HMPC participated in a brainstorming process, in which each committee member identified at least one mitigation action to address each of the plan’s four goals. The HMPC then reviewed potential mitigation alternatives and identified new actions by hazard to ensure that all of the plan’s profiled hazards were addressed.

The HMPC discussed criteria for narrowing down and prioritizing the identified actions. The group assessed the social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental implications of each action. Each member used these criteria to come to consensus on which projects should be included, and the level of priority for each.

The HMPC also identified the responsible agency for implementing each action. The identified agencies then completed a mitigation action implementation worksheet for each action. The purpose of these worksheets is to document background information, ideas for implementation, alternatives, responsible agency, partners, potential funding, cost estimates, benefits, and timeline for each identified action.

Each jurisdiction was responsible for completing mitigation action implementation worksheets for each action identified by the HMPC that they would need to implement on the jurisdictional level. The jurisdictions were also responsible for working with their local staff to submit additional mitigation actions unique to their jurisdiction.

Step 8: Draft the Plan

Drafts of the jurisdictional annexes to the plan were developed and submitted to the HMPC for internal review. Once the committee’s comments were incorporated, a complete draft of the plan was made available online and in hard copy for review and comment by the public and other agencies and interested stakeholders. Methods for inviting interested parties and the public to review and comment on the plan were discussed in Steps 2 and 3, and materials are provided in Appendix K. Comments were integrated into a final draft for submittal to the Colorado Division of Emergency Management and FEMA Region VIII.

Phase 4 Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress

Step 9: Adopt the Plan

To secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction adopted the plan and their jurisdictional annex.

Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan

The HMPC developed and agreed upon an overall strategy for plan implementation and for monitoring and maintaining the plan over time during Meeting #3. This strategy is described in Chapter 5.

4.4. CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

44 CFR Requirement201.6©(4)(iii) [The plan maintenance process shall include a ] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.

Plan progress and recommended changes will be reported to the Routt County Board of County Commissioners and governing bodies of participating jurisdictions. The public will be informed and input will be solicited from the public. Updating of the plan will be by written changes and submissions, as the Routt County Office of Emergency Management deems appropriate and necessary, and as approved by the Routt County Board of Commissioners and the governing boards of the other participating jurisdictions.

5. RISK ASSESSMENT

Routt County, Colorado 3.1 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2008 Requirement §201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include] A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.

Risk to natural hazards is a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and capability. This chapter will examine hazards and vulnerability. Jurisdictional annexes to the plan discuss the capabilities for each of the participating jurisdictions as well as the hazards and vulnerability particular to their area.

The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of lives, property, and infrastructure to these hazards. The goal of the risk assessment is to estimate the potential loss in Routt County, including loss of life, personal injury, property damage, and economic loss, from a hazard event. The risk assessment process allows communities in Routt County to better understand their potential risk to natural hazards and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events.

The risk assessment for Routt County and its jurisdictions followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication 386-2, Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (2002), which includes a four-step process:

1) Identify Hazards 2) Profile Hazard Events 3) Inventory Assets 4) Estimate Losses

This chapter is divided into three parts: hazard identification, hazard profiles, and vulnerability assessment:

Section 5.1 Hazard Identification identifies the hazards that threaten the planning area and describes why some hazards have been omitted from further consideration.

Section 5.2 Hazard Profiles discusses the geographic location, past events, future probability, magnitude/severity, and overall vulnerability of the planning area to each hazard.

Section 5.3 Vulnerability Assessment assesses the County’s total exposure to natural hazards and considers assets at risk, including critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, historic, and cultural resources; and economic assets.

5.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Requirement 201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include] a risk assessment that provides factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.

Historically, Routt County has been impacted by both natural and man made large-scale emergencies. These emergencies have been in the form of small airplane accidents, floods, dam failures, hazardous material spills (along the transportation corridors), natural gas explosions, wildland fires, and ski area accidents.

Routt County is addressing these hazard areas from a risk-based direction in creating its priorities for the development of disaster mitigation and response plans. All of the emergency response community in Routt County is using a standard Incident Command System (ICS) known as the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as directed by the President of the United States in presidential directive # 5 for the management of all incidents.

Flood, geologic and wildfire hazards are all normal dynamic processes. Such processes or conditions become a hazard to humans only when we conduct activities that intrude upon or interact with these natural processes. In addition, human activity often increases the frequency or magnitude of the processes. For example, naturally occurring landslides that have long been inactive may be triggered into renewed activity and consequent damages by the building of a road, construction of a building, or changes in the natural drainage.

Hazard mapping is used to pinpoint potential problems. Additional problems may exist that are not mapped and problem areas may be limited to areas smaller than those identified on a hazard map.

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type…of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.

The Routt County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) reviewed data and discussed the impacts of each of the hazards required by FEMA for consideration to determine the hazards that threaten the planning area.

Data on the past impacts and future probability of these hazards was collected from the following sources:

State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2008)

Information on past hazard events from the Spatial Hazard Event and Loss Database (SHELDUS), a component of the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab, that compiles county-level hazard data for 18 different natural hazard event types

Information on past extreme weather and climate events from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center

Disaster declaration history from FEMA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency

The HMPC eliminated some hazards from further profiling because they do not occur in the planning area or their impacts were not considered significant in relation to other hazards. Table 3.1 lists these hazards and provides a brief explanation for their elimination.

Table 3.1. Hazards Not Profiled in the Plan

Hazard Explanation for Omission

Coastal Storm Planning area is not near coastal areas. Expansive Soils Expansive soils are not a common soil type in the planning area and the HMPC was unaware of past impacts. Extreme Heat The hazard has not created problems in the past. Due to the high altitude and alpine environment of Routt County temperatures are rarely hot enough to affect human health. Hailstorm Hailstorms occur, but large-sized damaging hail similar to that occurring on the Front Range of Colorado is very rare. Past damage has been negligible. Hurricane Planning area is not near coastal areas. Tornado Past events have been rare and weak in strength (F1 in 1980, funnel cloud in 1993, and F0 in 1995). Damages are addressed in the profile for windstorm. Tsunami Planning area is not near coastal areas. Volcano Dotsero, near Glenwood Canyon, is the only volcano of concern in Colorado. It has not erupted in 4,000 years. Source: Routt County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, 2008

The HMPC identified 16 natural hazards that significantly affect the planning area and organized these hazards to be consistent with the State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2008). These hazards are profiled in further detail in the next section and are listed in Table 3.2 along with a checkmark indicating the jurisdictions impacted by the hazard.

Although not required by the Disaster Mitigation Act, the HMPC decided to address a number of manmade hazards—hazardous materials release, prolonged power outages, and bridge failure.

The HMPC also decided to profile mountain pine beetle infestation. This hazard affects the lodgepole pine tree population in the County and exacerbates wildfire risk.

Table 3.2. Hazards Routt City of Town of Town of North West Identified for Each County Steamboat Oak Creek Yampa Routt Routt Participating Springs Jurisdiction

Hazard Avalanche

Blizzards and Severe Winter Weather

Bridge Failure

Dam Failure

Drought

Earthquake

Erosion and Deposition

Flood

Ground Subsistence

Hazardous Materials Release (Transportation) Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Lightning

Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation

Prolonged Power Outage

Wildfire

Windstorms

Disaster Declaration History

One method used by the HMPC to identify hazards was to examine events that triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations. Federal and/or state declarations may be granted when the severity and magnitude of an event surpasses the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental and sequential. When the local government’s capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state governments’ capacities are exceeded; a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued allowing for the provision of federal assistance.

The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the USDA, and/or the Small Business Administration (SBA). FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors.

A USDA disaster declaration certifies that the affected county has suffered at least a 30 percent loss in one or more crop or livestock areas and provides affected producers with access to low-interest loans and other programs to help mitigate the impact of the disaster. In accordance with the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, all counties neighboring those receiving disaster declarations are named as contiguous disaster counties and, as such, are eligible for the same assistance.

Table 3.3 lists state and federal disaster declarations received by Routt County. Many of the disaster events were regional or statewide; therefore, reported costs are not accurate reflections of losses to Routt County.

Table 3.3. Disaster Name Declaration Type Disaster Cost (2008$) Disaster Number/Turndown Declaration Number Local History in Routt (Statewide) County, 1953- Present

Date Declared

June 3, 1957 Flooding Presidential 57007 Declaration Turned Down

May 19, 1977 Winter Storms Presidential 77059 Declaration Turned Down

July 27, 1984 Flooding Presidential 719 344,828 Declaration (10,111,469)

June 22, 1990 Severe Storms Presidential 90027 Declaration Turned Down

2000 Drought USDA (contiguous)

June 19, 2002 Wildfires Presidential 1421 (29,700,000) Declaration

2002 Drought USDA (contiguous)

Source: State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan; Public Entity Risk Institute Presidential Disaster Declaration Site, www.peripresdecusa.org/mainframe.htm; Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvriapps/sheldus_setup/sheldus_location.aspx

Table 3.4 lists other notable disasters as reported by SHELDUS and the National Climatic Data Center(NCDC) but not indicated as declared disasters. For purposes of this assessment, a “notable” disaster is one with total property and crop damage equal to or in excess of $20,000 adjusted to 2008 dollars.

Table 3.4. Disaster Disaster Name Affected Area Cost – Property and Crop Reporting Routt County, Damage (2008$) 1953-Present Date Reported

Aug. 12, 1964 Severe Storm/Rain 20,833

Dec. 23, 1982 Winter Weather 801,588

Feb. 1, 1989 Winter Weather 79,365

Mar. 1, 1989 Drought 943,396

Feb. 8, 1995 Winter Weather 40,698

June 1, 1997 Flooding 35,000

Sept. 20, 1997 Hail Hayden 150,000

Oct. 25, 1997 Wind 25,000

April 22, 1999 Wind 30,000

April 18, 2000 Wind 78,947

May 30, 2000 Flooding 20,000

April 23, 2003 Winter Weather 30,000

May 29, 2003 Flooding 50,000

June 1, 2003 Flooding 20,000

July 8, 2004 Severe Steamboat 45,000 Storm/Wind Springs

Sept. 19, 2004 Severe Steamboat 40,000 Storm/Wind Springs

June 3, 2009 Lightning Yampa 30,000

Source: State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan; Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvriapps/sheldus_setup/sheldus_location.aspx

It is important to be aware that hazard events that happen outside of the County boundaries also can have direct and indirect impacts to Routt County. For instance, transportation routes or power supply could be interrupted by severe winter storms or wildfire hazards outside of the County.

5.2. HAZARD PROFILES

Requirement 201.6©(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the possibility of future hazard events.

Requirement201.6(c)(2)(ii): [the risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph ©(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.

The hazards identified in Section 5.1 Hazard Identification are profiled individually in this section. The section will conclude by summarizing the probability of future occurrence and potential magnitude of each hazard for each jurisdiction, as well as assigning an overall vulnerability, or planning significance, rating of high, moderate, or low for each hazard.

The sources used to collect information for these profiles include the following:

Disaster declaration history from FEMA, the Public Entity Risk Institute, and the USDA Farm Service Agency

State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2008)

Routt County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2010 draft)

Routt County Countywide Master Plan (2003)

Internet resources on past hazard events, such as the SHELDUS database created by the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab and the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database

NOAA Satellite and Information Service

Western US COOP Station

United States Geologic Survey

Geographic information systems (GIS) data from the Routt County GIS Department

Statewide GIS datasets compiled by state and federal agencies

Other existing plans and reports

Personal interviews with HMPC members and other stakeholders

Routt County Data Collection Guide completed by each participating jurisdiction

Detailed profiles for each of the identified hazards include information on the following characteristics of the hazard:

Hazard Description

This section consists of a general description of the hazard and the general impacts it may have on a community.

Geographic Location

This section describes the geographic extent or location of the hazard in the planning area and assesses the affected areas as isolated, small, medium, or large.

Large—More than 50 percent of the planning area affected

Medium—25-50 percent of the planning area affected

Small—10-25 percent of the planning area affected

Isolated—Less than 10 percent of the planning area affected

Previous Occurrences

This section includes information on historic incidents, including impacts and costs, if known. A historic incident worksheet was used to capture information from participating jurisdictions on past occurrences. Information from the HMPC was combined with other data sources, including those previously mentioned.

Probability of Future Occurrence

The frequency of past events is used to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Based on historical data, the Probability of Future Occurrence is categorized as follows:

Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or happens every year

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less

Occasional—1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years

Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years

The probability, or chance of occurrence, was calculated where possible based on existing data. Probability was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years and multiplying by 100. This gives the percent chance of the event happening in any given year. An example would be three droughts occurring over a 30-year period, which suggests a 10 percent chance of a drought occurring in any given year.

Magnitude/Severity

This section summarizes the magnitude/severity or extent of a hazard event in terms of deaths, injuries, property damage, and interruption of essential facilities and services. Magnitude and severity is classified in the following manner:

Catastrophic—Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; and/or interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours

Critical—Isolated deaths and/or multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property damage that threatens structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for 24-72 hours

Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours

Negligible—No or few injuries or illnesses; minor quality of life loss; little or no property damage; and/or brief interruption of essential facilities and service

5.2.1. FLOOD

Hazard Description

Flooding occurs when soils become saturated from prolonged rains and/or snowmelt. If runoff or rain continues, water begins to accumulate faster than it can be absorbed or carried away in stream channels, stream levels begin to rise and eventually overflow the normal stream channel.

In Routt County there are two types of flooding. The first is referred to simply as flooding and occurs over a minimum period of at least a few hours and can take days to reach flood crest height. The second is known as flash flooding which happens so fast that little warning can be given.

Riverine flooding is defined as when a watercourse exceeds its “bank-full” capacity and is usually the most common type of flood event. Riverine flooding generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with soils already saturated from previous rain events. It also occurs as a result from snowmelt, in which case the extent of flooding depends on the depth of winter snowpack and spring weather patterns.

The area adjacent to a river channel is its floodplain. In its common usage, “floodplain” most often refers to that area that is inundated by the 100-year flood, the flood that has a 1 percent chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. Other types of floods include general rain floods, thunderstorm generated flash floods, alluvial fan floods, dam failure floods and local drainage floods. The 100-year flood is the national standard to which communities regulate their floodplains through the National Flood Insurance Program.

The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land surface. A change in environment can create localized flooding problems inside and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining watersheds or natural drainage channels. These changes are commonly created by human activities. These changes can also be created by other events such as wildfires. Wildfires create hydrophobic soils, a hardening or “glazing” of the earth’s surface that prevents rainfall from being absorbed into the ground, thereby increasing runoff, erosion, and downstream sedimentation of channels.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is small—10-25 percent of the planning area affected.

According to the Routt County Flood Insurance Study dated February 4, 2005, major stream flooding on Routt County streams is caused by snowmelt, which increases as temperatures rise. Snowmelt runoff generally reaches its peak in May and recedes to a base flow by mid-July or August. Spring rains can appreciably increase streamflows, although usually this situation is coupled with reduced temperatures and thus less snowmelt. According to the Routt County Flood Insurance Study, most flooding is caused by snowmelt runoff from April through June. However, the study also points out that major flood producing cloudburst storms usually occur in September and October in western Colorado. These rains, in July and August, are those that have the greatest potential for causing major flooding in the County. These events typically include localized flooding and debris-flow activity. The following information from the Flood Insurance Study completed for Routt County, outlines the principal flood problems by jurisdiction in Routt County.

Town of Hayden Low lying areas in the western part of Hayden are subject to periodic flooding caused by the overflow of Dry Creek. Flooding caused by ponding of runoff and overflow from two irrigation ditches that intercept runoff from a small watershed southeast of the town occur in low-lying areas in the eastern and central parts of the town. The flooding generally occurs in early spring as a result of snowmelt or a combination of snowmelt and rain.

The effect of historical floodflows from the Yampa River has been essentially negligible as a result of the protection provided by the railroad earth embankment that parallels the town’s northern corporate limits

Town of Oak Creek Significant flooding occurred in 1914, 1939, 1950 and 1984 as well as other years. Typical flooding along Oak Creek is caused by snowmelt runoff. However, at frequencies as rare as the 100 year event, flooding can occur from rainfall runoff. A significant degree of overtopping would occur at each of the five road crossings during a 100 year flood event. Culvert capacities are insufficient to pass the 100 year flood flow in each case. Only minor blockage of the culverts was assumed at each

creek crossing. Insufficient culvert capacity at the CR 27 crossing would cause water to back up south of the D&RCWRR tracks nearly to the Bell Avenue bridge over Oak Creek. Several low lying residences would be flooded as a result of this backwater effect. Insufficient culvert capacity at the crossings of Bell and Sharp Avenues, in conjunction with adjacent low lying ground to the north of the creek, would cause flooding of some of the buildings in the downtown area. The area at the baseball field to the east of Moffat Avenue would be flooded because of insufficient capacity at the Moffat Avenue crossing.

Oak Creek headwaters are located at an approximate elevation of 10,240 feet. The highest point in the basin is Sand Point, at 11,182 feet. Oak Creek, at the northern Town of Oak Creek boundary is at 7,390 feet. The length of Oak Creek from its headwaters to its intersection with Oak Creek’s northern corporate limit is approximately 14.4 miles. The creek travels in a northeasterly direction for this entire distance.

The drainage area of Oak Creek is 22.7 square miles. There are no major tributaries to Oak Creek..

The study reach along Oak Creek covers the area within the Town of Oak Creek corporate limits. The length of the study reach is approximately 1 mile. Oak Creek formerly meandered widely through town. However, over the years, it has been rerouted and straightened.

Town of Yampa No flood hazards have been identified in the Town of Yampa. Therefore, it has been designated as non-floodprone.

City of Steamboat Springs Most of the annual precipitation in the Yampa River Basin occurs as snow, and a deep snowpack accumulates in the high elevations. General rainstorms covering large areas for extended periods can occur in the Steamboat Springs region from late spring through early fall. Convective cloudburst storms of small areal extent can be expected frequently during the summer.

Major floods in Steamboat Springs have been the result of snowmelt augmented by rain in spring or early summer. In general, snowmelt in spring or early summer constitutes a frequent but comparatively minor flood threat. General rainstorms alone have not caused significant floods in the Yampa River Basin, however rare but very large floods resulting from general rain are possible in the Yampa River Basin. Records show that major flood producing rainstorms almost always occur during the months of September and October in western Colorado. The highest runoff of record on the Yampa River, in June 1921, was the result of heavy rain falling on a melting snowpack. There is little definitive information available on flooding from cloudburst storms in the Steamboat Springs area.

See Figure 1.1 for Yampa River flows throughout the year.

Figure 1.1. Yampa River Hydrograph through Steamboat Springs

Source: U.S. Geological Survey website

Routt County The flood hazard in Routt County downstream of Steamboat Springs results from Yampa River overflows. The Yampa River flows from the southeast to Steamboat Springs and then westerly. Slate Creek enters the Yampa River in the study reach. However, the potential for flood damage along the Yampa River is not great because of lack of development.

The flood hazard upstream of Steamboat Springs is also a result of overflow from the Yampa River. This reach of the Yampa River flows northerly. Here, Oak Creek and other smaller tributaries enter the Yampa River. The potential for flood damage along this study reach is also not great because of lack of development.

Flooding problems in the vicinity of the communities of Clark and Glen Eden result from overflow from the Elk River, which flows from the northeast along the northwestern boundaries of these two communities. Several small tributaries enter the Elk River within the reach studied. The potential for flood damage along the Elk River is not great because of the lack of development.

Ice dam flooding also occurs in Routt County. This flooding generally occurs when warm weather and rain break up frozen rivers or any time there is a rapid cycle of freezing and thawing. The broken ice floats down river and/or the superficial accumulation of layers of ice build until the conveyance path is blocked. This type of activity is very difficult to model or anticipate. Manmade structures which alter river, creek, and even ditch flow regimes are most susceptible to ice dam flooding.

FEMA, Routt County, and the City of Steamboat Springs have recently completed an update of the County’s floodplain mapping. In 1998, these entities began the update process by identifying

mapped areas that have seen recent development, and unmapped areas that would likely see development in the future. The new FEMA FIRM maps are used by the County to limit development in flood hazard areas under the County’s Floodplain Resolution. Routt County, Hayden, Oak Creek, Yampa, and Steamboat Springs participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City of Steamboat Springs is rated eight on the Community Rating System (CRS) Eligible Communities List.

Several rivers and creeks in the Steamboat Springs area are listed as high flood hazard areas, including: Yampa River, Elk River, Soda Creek, Butcher Knife Creek, Walton Creek and Fish Creek.

Flood Protection Measures

No flood protection structures exist in the floodplain

The following table shows the property loss estimates for Routt County within the 100 year floodplain. See individual jurisdiction maps in Appendix C which show the parcels in the 100-year floodplain.

Parcels with Structures Intersecting 100 year flood Total Land Total Improvement Jursidiction Value Value Total Value Steamboat Springs 250,491,936 111,653,258 362,145,194 Hayden 4,224,450 5,146,320 9,370,770 Oak Creek 8,397,390 11,471,812 19,869,202 Yampa 0 0 0 Unincorporated Routt County 176,887,024 115,287,693 292,174,717 Totals 440,000,800 243,559,083 683,559,883

Previous Occurrences

According to the flood insurance studies, there is little evidence of significant flooding in Routt County in recent years. Noted exceptions from the studies and the HMPC include the following:

June 1921—A storm which produced 2.5 inches of rain caused widespread flooding and cut off highway travel in Steamboat Springs. Flowing at 2,000cfs, Soda Creek jumped its banks in Downtown Steamboat flowing half a block wide over Lincoln Avenue and damaging several homes, a bridge, and causing significant erosion. The railroad was badly damaged and debris was hung up on many bridges. The Yampa River was recorded as flowing at 7,000cfs, 1,000cfs greater than any previous record. All of the bridges which caused the backwater flooding have since been replaced.

April 25-27, 1974 –Unseasonably warm weather coupled with heavy rain, caused Butcherknife Creek to flow at 500cfs above flood stage, damaging some 50 homes in Steamboat Springs. Serious damage along the Yampa River and Fish Creek was averted by about 300 flood fighters placing sandbags and placing emergency berms.

May 1984 – There were several notable events county-wide during the month of May in 1984, including:

Routt County was included in the presidential disaster declaration for the flooding during 1984. Oak Creek, flowing through the town of the same name, created significant flooding, destroying the town’s water source, sewer lines, culverts, and recreational facilities. Damages exceeded $250,000. The flow was estimated to be 650cfs, which equates to a recurrence interval of approximately a 41-year flood event. Local residents note this as the “flood of record.” The largest flood recorded at USGS gauging station No. 09241000 on the Elk River in Clark, CO occurred on May 23, 1984, but provided minimal property damage.

Unknown Date - A frozen culvert caused water backup in Yampa causing an irrigation ditch to overflow. This caused minimal water damage to a home in Yampa and resulted in road closures for part of a day.

Unknown Date - Landslides and flooding caused road and bridge damage along Wolf, Dry and Oak Creeks and the Snake River.

Unknown Date - In Hayden, floodwaters in Dry Creek washed out the approach to the Third Street Bridge.

With most of the populated areas of the county being in one of the major water corridors the low level areas have had some flooding in the spring, mostly due to heavy snow pack and a sudden run off created by warm weather patterns. See Appendix C: Routt County Floodplain FIRM Map as well as the Jurisdictional maps which show the floodplain areas of each jurisdiction, and the parcels that intersect the floodplain.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less

Despite the lack of information about past flood events, the HMPC agreed that some level of flooding is almost an annual occurrence in Routt County.

Magnitude/Severity

In Routt County, floods can cause injuries and deaths. Flood water, as well as debris from steep tributary channels, can damage property and infrastructure and close roads. However, past flood damages have been limited.

5.2.2. DAM FAILURE

Hazard Description

Dams are manmade structures built for a variety of uses, including flood protection, power, agriculture, water supply, and recreation. Dams typically are constructed of earth, rock, concrete, or mine tailings. Two factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded and the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream.

Dam failures can result from any one or a combination of the following causes:

o Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding, which result in overtopping (overtopping is the primary cause of earthen dam failure) o Earthquake o Inadequate spillway capacity resulting in excess overtopping flows o Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping or rodent activity o Improper design o Improper maintenance o Negligent operation o Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is small—10-25 percent of the planning area affected.

HAZUS-MH contains a database of dams based on the National Inventory of Dams. This database classifies dams based on the potential hazard to the downstream area resulting from failure or misoperation of the dam or facilities:

High Hazard Potential—Probable loss of life (one or more) Significant Hazard Potential—No probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environment damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact other concerns; often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas with population and significant infrastructure. Low Hazard Potential—No probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental losses; losses are principally limited to the owner’s property.

Based on these classifications, there are nine high hazard dams, four significant hazard dams, and 45 low hazard dams in Routt County. Two high hazard and twelve low hazard dams in Garfield County would affect Routt County. High and Significant hazard dams are listed in Table 3.5 and are mapped on Appendix CC. The high and significant hazard dams all have emergency action plans in place.

Table 3.5. Routt County River Near City/Town/ Maximum Hazard Class Dams Name Community Storage (acre- feet) Hahns Peak Lake Dam Willow Creek Hahns Peak 526.86 High (Hazard 1) YamColo Reservoir Bear River Yampa 12,044 High (Garfield County) Stagecoach Yampa River Oak Creek 33,275 High Catamount Yampa River Steamboat Springs 7,422 High

Fish Creek Reservoir Fish Creek Steamboat Springs 4,167 High Long Lake Dam S. Fork Fish Creek Steamboat Springs 595 High Lester Creek Dam/Pearl Lester Creek Clark 6,150 High Lake Gardner Park Gardner Creek Yampa 603 Significant (Hazard 2) Stillwater #1 Dam Bear River Yampa 6,088 High (Garfield County) Tributary to the Yampa River Grimes-Brooks Reservoir Red Dirt Creek McCoy 720 High Willow Creek Willow Creek Clark 23,064 High Dam/Steamboat Lake Sheriff Dam Trout Creek Milner 987 High Chapman Dam Little Oak Creek Oak Creek 246 Significant Allen Basin Dam Middle Hunt Creek Phippsburg 2,250 Significant Lake Creek Dam Wheeler Lake Yampa 261 Significant Creek

Previous Occurrences

There was no information available indicating that dam failures had occurred in Routt County in the past.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years

Using the methodology adopted for natural hazards in this plan, no past events represent an unlikely probability of future occurrence. However, because dam failure is a manmade hazard, the methodology for calculating probability based on past occurrences does not necessarily reflect the actual risk of future occurrence. Further information on this risk is unknown.

Magnitude/Severity

Catastrophic—Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; and/or interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours

Water released by a failed dam generates tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life and property located in the inundation area.

5.2.3. DROUGHT

Hazard Description

Drought is a condition of climatic dryness that is severe enough to reduce soil moisture and water below the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and human life systems. Drought can cause serious problems such as crop damage and/or water supply shortages. Lack of annual precipitation and poor water conservation practices can result in drought conditions.

Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends.

Single season droughts over some portion of the state are quite common. The onset of drought in western Colorado mountain counties is usually signaled by a lack of significant winter snowfall. Hot and dry conditions that persist from spring into summer and fall can aggravate drought conditions, making the effects of drought more pronounced as water demands increase during the growing season and summer months.

Drought is a complex issue involving many factors—it occurs when a normal amount of moisture is not available to satisfy an area’s usual water-consuming activities. Drought can often be defined regionally based on its effects:

Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average water supply.

Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of crops and other agricultural operations such as livestock.

Hydrological drought is defined as deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is generally measured as streamflow, snowpack, and as lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels.

Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and quality of life or when a drought starts to have an adverse economic impact on a region.

Drought affects the water supply of communities and water districts in the County, as well as the ski and recreation industries that drive the County’s economy.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is large—more than 50 percent of the planning area affected.

Although the Mount Zirkel area along the Routt/Jackson County line receives the highest average precipitation in the state of Colorado (over 55”), drought is not uncommon. In 2000 and 2002, Routt County received USDA declarations for drought conditions.

The Western Regional Climate Center reports precipitation data from weather stations in and around Routt County. The data reported here are from three of the stations: Steamboat Springs, Yampa, and Hayden. Average annual precipitation is greatest in Steamboat Springs at 23.75 inches with January being the month with the highest average precipitation. Table 3.6 contains precipitation summaries for the three stations, and Figures 1.2 through 1.4 show monthly average total precipitation.

Appendix E: Streamflow Map

Table 3.6. Routt County Average Month with Most Highest Highest

1 Precipitation Summaries Annual Precipitation/Avera Monthly Annual Station Precipitation ge Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Steamboat Springs 23.75 Jan./2.50 8.15/Sept. 2005/35.52 1961 Yampa 16.38 July/1.79 12.71/Feb. 24.08/1957 1922 Hayden 16.75 April/1.56 6.20/Sept. 27.41/1997 1997

Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.4.

Previous Occurrences

According to the 2004 Drought and Water Supply Assessment, Colorado has experienced multiple severe droughts. The most significant of the instrumented period (which began in the late 1800s), are listed in Table 3.7. Routt County may or may not have been affected by these droughts.

Table 3.7. Significant Colorado Worst Years Major State Impact Areas Drought Periods of the Modern Instrumented Era Years 1890–1894 1890 and 1894 Severe drought east of mountains 1898–1904 1902–1904 Very severe drought over southwestern Colorado 1930–1940 1931–1934, 1939 Widespread, severe, and long lasting drought in Colorado 1950–1956 1950, 1954–1956 Statewide, worse than the 1930s in the Front Range 1974–1978 1976-1977 Statewide, driest winter in recorded history for Colorado’s high country and Western Slope 1980–1981 Winter 1980–1981 Mountains and Western Slope; stimulated writing of the Colorado Drought

Response Plan and the formation of the Water Availability Task Force. 2000-2003 2001–2002 Significant multi-year statewide drought, with many areas experiencing most severe conditions in Colorado in instrumented history. Estimated losses of $1.1 billion to Colorado’s agricultural, tourism, and recreation industries.

2002—This year was the driest year on record for the Denver region and much of the state. For the first time in state history, the Colorado governor asked the federal government to declare all of Colorado a drought disaster area. With an average temperature of 52 degrees, 2001 was the warmest year since 1986. The drought started in late 1999 and was compounded by scarce snowfall in 2001. Total precipitation for 2002 was 7.48 inches; the average is 15.81 inches (National Weather Service, Denver Office). In Routt County, the drought depleted reservoirs and the resulting exposed soils along the shorelines caused problems with dust and air pollution.

2000—Strong La Niña conditions created below average precipitation and above average temperatures for most months in 2000. Statewide, snowpack started out well below average but recovered to near average in March. However, an early snowmelt resulted in low stream flows, and by June, drought conditions began to affect most of the state. By fall, weather patterns returned to near normal with average precipitation and below average temperatures.

1989—In March 1989, the State Drought Water Availability Task Force met to access drought conditions within Colorado. Warm dry conditions during April of 1989 reduced snowpack to 50 percent of average.

1980–1981—This drought, beginning in the fall of 1980 and lasting until the summer of 1981, had costly impacts to the ski industry.

1976–1977—This drought was characterized as a winter event, limited in duration. It was the driest winter in recorded history for much of Colorado’s high country and western slope, severely impacting the ski industry. Colorado agriculture producers and municipalities received over $110 million in federal drought disaster aid.

The National Drought Mitigation Center developed the Drought Impact Reporter in response to the need for a national drought impact database for the United States. Information comes from a variety of sources: online drought-related news stories and scientific publications, members of the public who visit the website and submit a drought-related impact for their region, members of the media, and members of relevant government agencies. The database is being populated beginning with the most recent impacts and working backward in time.

The Drought Impact Reporter contains information on 101 drought impacts from droughts that affected Routt County between 1990 and 2008. The list is not comprehensive. Most of the impacts, 28, were classified as “agricultural.” Other impacts include “social” (14), “fire” (14), “environment” (8), “Water/energy” (3), and “other” (34). These categories are described as follows:

Agriculture—Impacts associated with agriculture, farming, and ranching. Examples include damage to crop quality, income loss for farmers due to reduced crop yields, reduced productivity of cropland, insect infestation, plant disease, increased irrigation costs, cost of new or supplemental water resource development, reduced productivity of rangeland, forced reduction of foundation stock, closure/limitation of public lands to grazing, high cost/unavailability of water for livestock, and range fires.

Water/Energy—Impacts associated with surface or subsurface water supplies (i.e., reservoirs or aquifers), stream levels or streamflow, hydropower generation, or navigation. Examples include lower water levels in reservoirs, lakes, and ponds; reduced flow from springs; reduced streamflow; loss of wetlands; estuarine impacts; increased groundwater depletion, land subsidence, reduced recharge; water quality effects; revenue shortfalls and/or windfall profits; cost of water transport or transfer; cost of new or supplemental water resource development; and loss from impaired navigability of streams, rivers, and canals.

Environment—Impacts associated with wildlife, fisheries, forests, and other fauna. Examples include loss of biodiversity of plants or wildlife; loss of trees from urban landscapes, shelterbelts, and wooded conservation areas; reduction and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat; lack of feed and drinking water; greater mortality due to increased contact with agricultural producers, as animals seek food from farms and producers are less tolerant of the intrusion; disease; increased vulnerability to predation; migration and concentration; and increased stress to endangered species.

Fire—Impacts associated with forest and range fires that occur during drought events. The relationship between fires and droughts is very complex. Not all fires are caused by droughts and serious fires can result when droughts are not taking place.

Social—Impacts associated with the public, or the recreation/tourism sector. Examples include health-related low-flow problems (e.g., cross-connection contamination, diminished sewage flows, increased pollutant concentrations, reduced fire fighting capability, etc.), loss of human life (e.g., from heat stress, suicides), public safety from forest and range fires, increased respiratory ailments; increased disease caused by wildlife concentrations, population migrations, loss of aesthetic values; reduction or modification of recreational activities, losses to manufacturers and sellers of recreational equipment, and losses related to curtailed activities.

Other—Drought impacts that do not easily fit into any of the above categories.

Appendix D - 2007 Drought Outlook Map (Source - NOAA)

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less

Magnitude/Severity

Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours

5.2.4. WILDFIRE

Hazard Description Fire conditions arise from a combination of hot weather, an accumulation of vegetation, and low moisture content in air and fuel. These conditions, especially when combined with high winds and years of drought, increase the potential for wildfire to occur. The wildfire risk is predominantly associated with wildland-urban interface areas, areas where development is interspersed or adjacent to landscapes that are prone to wildfire. Wildfire in the wildland-urban interface can result in major losses of property and structures. Generally, there are three major factors that sustain wildfires and predict a given area’s potential to burn. These factors are fuel, topography, and weather.

Fuel—Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and by volume. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree needles and leaves, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Also to be considered as a fuel source are manmade structures, such as homes and associated combustibles. The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Light fuels such as grasses burn quickly and serve as a catalyst for fire spread. In addition, “ladder fuels” can spread a ground fire up through brush and into trees, leading to a devastating crown fire that burns in the upper canopy and cannot be controlled. The volume of available fuel is described in terms of fuel loading.

Topography—An area’s terrain and land slopes affect its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Both fire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. The arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes.

Weather—Weather components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning also affect the potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out the fuels that feed the wildfire creating a situation where fuel will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Wind is the most treacherous weather factor. The greater the wind, the faster a fire will spread and the more intense it will be. In addition to wind speed, wind shifts can occur suddenly due to temperature changes or the interaction of wind with topographical features such as slopes or steep hillsides. Lightning also ignites wildfires, which often occur in terrain that is difficult for firefighters to reach. Drought conditions contribute to concerns about wildfire vulnerability. During periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases.

Wildfires are of significant concern throughout Colorado. According to the Colorado State Forest Service, vegetation fires occur on an annual basis; most are controlled and contained early with limited damage. For those ignitions that are not readily contained and become wildfires, damage can be extensive. There are many causes of wildfire, from naturally caused lightning fires to human- caused fires linked to activities such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson.

According to the State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, a century of aggressive fire suppression combined with cycles of drought and changing land management practices has left many of Colorado’s forests unnaturally dense and ready to burn. Further, the threat of wildfire and potential losses are constantly increasing as human development and population increases and the wildland- urban interface expands.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is medium—25-50 percent of the planning area affected.

Figure 3.8. shows the wildfire threat in Routt County classified as low, medium, and high. This threat ranking was developed for the Routt County Community Wildfire Protection Plan by the County, fire protection districts, and U.S. Forest Service. It is based on fuel hazards, risk of wildfire occurrence, essential infrastructure at risk, community values at risk, and local preparedness and firefighting capability.

The wildfire threat GIS layer was used to determine the number of acres in each wildfire threat zone by fire protection district and total land in Routt County that is not part of a fire protection district. The results are shown in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8. Acreage in Low Medium High Total Wildfire Threat Zones by Acres Jurisdiction % Acres % Acres % Acres Acres Jurisdiction Total Total Total

Routt County – No Fire District 51.3 231,088 28.7 128,980 19.9 89,654 449,722 Oak Creek Fire District 46.2 49,446 27.3 29,146 26.4 28,204 106,796 Yampa Fire District 53.3 99,079 27.6 51,279 19.1 35,525 185,883 West Routt Fire District 65.2 81,985 22.6 28,359 12.2 15,313 125,657 Steamboat Rural Fire District 37.9 88,466 26.9 62,763 35.1 82,071 233,300 North Routt Fire District 25.2 56,027 31.4 69,878 43.4 96,488 222,393 Craig Rural Fire District 67.3 4,137 21.4 1,313 11.4 699 6,149 County Total 45.9 610,227 28.0 371,718 26.2 347,955 1,329,900

Based on the information presented in Table 3.9, areas of Routt County that are not included in a fire district have the most acreage at risk to wildfire, with 218,634 acres (48.6 percent of the County’s non district acreage) in medium to high wildfire threat zones. North Routt Fire Protection District has the highest percentage of acreage at risk to wildfire with 96,488 acres at high risk and 69,878 acres at medium risk for a combined 74.8 percent of the district at risk to wildfire.

Appendix F: Wildland Fire Map (Shows areas of low, medium, and high risk in Routt County)

Previous Occurrences

There has been an increase in development of urban/wildland interface areas. Between 1999 and 2003, twenty-one wildland fires were recorded. Colorado State Forest Service figures report in 1999 there were 109 subdivisions, totaling 33,027 acres in the urban/wildland interface. In the summer of 2002, the Mount Zirkel Complex was comprised of the Burn Ridge and Hinman fires. These were lightning caused fires located within the Routt National Forest/Mount Zirkel Wilderness area. The fires consumed over 31,000 acres of timber. The cost of fighting the fire was $13.3 million dollars. In 2002, Routt County received a Presidential Disaster Declaration for wildland fires. (DOLA)

With the changes in the weather patterns (for example less snow in the high country), the overall forest health (beetles and drought) and the increased development in the urban interface areas between Oak Creek, Steamboat and Clark the fire hazard areas are ever increasing and the need to better prepare our inter governmental plans is also increasing. The 1994 fire season was the busiest ever in the history of the county with 45 calls for service. This increase demand for service continued in 2000 there were 102 and in 2001 over 90. The worst year was recorded in 2002 with over 40,000 acres burned in our county. In 1997 a weather event (Routt Divide Blow Down) occurred and caused approximately 20,000 acres of spruce timber to fall increasing the fire potential.

According to the Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data website (which reports official fire occurrence data collected from five federal agencies), there were 70 wildland fires in Routt County between 1980 and 2006 that burned one acre or more. Thirtyfive of the fires were between one and five acres. Fifteen fires between 5.5 and 25 acres. Fourteen fires were between 25 and 400 acres. There were no fires between 400 and one thousand acres. There were five fires that burned more than one thousand acres. Nineteen of the fires were caused by human activity; human caused fires ranged from 1-240 acres burned

Fires that burned more than one thousand acres are described below.

June 14, 2002—The Green Creek fire started on this date from natural causes. It was controlled by October 3rd and was put out on October 30th. It burned 4,400 acres.

June 12, 2002—The Hinman fire started on this date from natural causes. It was controlled by October 3rd and was put out on October 30th. It burned 16,852 acres.

August 8, 2002—The Burn Ridge fire started on this date from natural causes. It was controlled by October 3rd and was put out on October 30th. It burned 14,403 acres.

July 8, 2001—The Mad Creek fire started on this date from natural causes. It was controlled by October 29th and was put out on November 30th. It burned 1,270 acres.

August 1983—The Greasewood fire started from natural causes. It was controlled by August 29, 1983 and put out on August 29, 1983. It burned 7,590 acres.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or happens every year

According to the Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence website, there were 70 wildland fires in Routt County that burned one acre or more between 1980 and 2006. Thus, there is a 100 percent chance

that at least one wildfire will occur each year in Routt County. Given the conditions described above and the mountain pine beetle infestation, a small fire could easily become a big one.

Magnitude/Severity

Catastrophic—Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours

Potential losses from wildfire include human life; structures and other improvements; natural and cultural resources; the quality and quantity of the water supply; assets such as timber and range; and recreational opportunities; and economic losses. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. In addition, wildfire can lead to secondary impacts due to vegetation loss such as future flooding, landslides, erosion, stream siltation, and loss of reservoir capacity. Another consequence of wildfire is the cost of firefighting. If fire suppression requirements exceed a county’s resources, and state or federal agencies are asked for assistance, the county must bear the costs incurred by those agencies.

5.2.5. MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE EPIDEMIC

Hazard Description

Mountain pine beetle is native to western North America. The insect develops in and affects primarily pines, such as ponderosa, lodgepole, Scotch, and limber pines, and less commonly bristlecone and piñon pines. Beetle epidemics are a natural part of forest ecosystems, but certain factors, such as age of forests, drought, crowding, poor growing conditions, and warm temperatures, can fuel epidemics. While the stressed trees are targeted first, as beetle populations increase, they attack most of the large trees in an outbreak area.

During an epidemic, enough beetles can emerge from an infested tree to kill at least two, and possibly more, trees the following year. The direction and spread rate of an infestation is impossible to predict. However, attacked trees usually are adjacent to or near previously killed trees. Once the beetle infests a tree, nothing practical can be done to save it, so prevention is critical. Prevention includes forest management (e.g., creating diversity in age and structure) and treating infested trees to kill developing beetles before they emerge as adults. Discolored foliage is generally the first sign of beetle-caused mortality. Needles on infested trees begin changing color several months to one year after attack, going from green to yellowish green, then sorrel and red to rusty brown.

According to the Colorado State University Extension Office, the following are signs of Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) Infestation:

Popcorn-shaped masses of resin, called "pitch tubes," on the trunk where beetle tunneling begins. Pitch tubes may be brown, pink or white. Boring dust in bark crevices and on the ground immediately adjacent to the tree base. Evidence of woodpecker feeding on trunk. Patches of bark are removed and bark flakes lie on the ground or snow below tree. Foliage turning yellowish to reddish throughout the entire tree crown. This usually occurs eight to 10 months after a successful MPB attack.

Presence of live MPB (eggs, larvae, pupae and/or adults) as well as galleries under bark. This is the most certain indicator of infestation. A hatchet for removal of bark is needed to check trees correctly (Figures 3, 5 and 8). Bluestained sapwood.

(http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05528.html)

Geographic Location

Medium—25-50 percent of the planning area affected

Lodgepole pine forests exist throughout Routt County in upper montane to subalpine elevations. There are a total of 167,645 acres in Routt County that are classified as primarily Lodge pole pine forests, although mountain pine beetle activity also occurs in forest with a diversity of tree species. Figure 1.5 shows mountain pine beetle activity in Routt County through 2009.

Figure 1.5

Routt County Pine Beetle Activity through 2009 Red: New activity in 2009 Yellow: Activity from 1996-2009

http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/mountain-pine-beetle.html

Previous Occurrences

Routt County is in the midst of a statewide mountain pine beetle infestation. Tree mortality from this infestation is unprecedented in Colorado’s recorded history. Colorado lost 500,000 acres of lodge

pole pines in 2007 alone and approximately 1.5 million acres since the infestation began in 1996. At current rates of spread and intensification, it is likely that the beetle will kill the majority of Colorado’s mature lodge pole pine forests by 2013. However, younger lodge pole pines will survive and seedlings will regenerate naturally.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year

Magnitude/Severity

Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours

The definitions for Magnitude/Severity are not well-suited to this hazard. Although the Mountain Pine Beetle is unlikely to cause deaths or injuries or significant damage to property and infrastructures, it is killing millions of trees each year. Widespread tree mortality can alter the forest ecosystem in numerous ways, including:

Converting forested areas to grass and shrubs,

Changing wildlife species composition,

Increasing water yield, which may contribute to flooding and landslides, and

Creating a source of fuel for wildfire.

Overall vulnerability to mountain pine beetle is moderate. The hazard is widespread and the infestation is likely to continue to grow. Although it is unlikely to cause deaths or injuries or damage to structures, it has the potential to have significant impacts on the forest ecosystems and the recreation and tourism-based economy of Routt County, as well as increase wildfire risk.

5.2.6. BLIZZARDS AND SEVERE WINTER STORMS

Hazard Description

Winter weather includes snow, ice, blizzard conditions, and extreme cold. Heavy snow can immobilize a region, stranding commuters, stopping the flow of supplies, and disrupting emergency and medical services. Accumulations of snow can collapse roofs and knock down trees and power lines. The cost of snow removal, damage repair, and business losses can have a tremendous impact on cities and towns.

Heavy accumulations of ice can bring down trees, electrical wires, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers. Communications and power can be disrupted for days until damage can be repaired. Even small accumulations of ice may cause extreme hazards to motorists and pedestrians.

Some winter storms are accompanied by strong winds, creating blizzard conditions with blinding wind-driven snow, severe drifting, and dangerous wind chills. Strong winds with these intense storms and cold fronts can knock down trees, utility poles, and power lines. Blowing snow can reduce

visibilities to only a few feet in areas where there are no trees or buildings. Serious vehicle accidents can result with injuries and deaths.

Extreme cold often accompanies a winter storm or is left in its wake. Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and can become life-threatening. Infants and the elderly are most susceptible. Pipes may freeze and burst in homes or buildings that are poorly insulated or without heat. Extreme cold is most likely to occur in the winter months of December, January, and February.

In 2001, the National Weather Service implemented an updated Wind Chill Temperature index. This index was developed to describe the relative discomfort/danger resulting from the combination of wind and temperature. Wind chill is based on the rate of heat loss from exposed skin caused by wind and cold. As the wind increases, it draws heat from the body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the internal body temperature. The National Weather Service will issue a Wind Chill Warning for Routt County when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill values of - 35°F.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is large—more than 50 percent of the planning area affected.

Winter weather can occur throughout Routt County.

Heavy snow, ice, severe winter storms and blizzards are common to northwestern Colorado. Precipitation patterns are largely controlled by mountain ranges and elevation. Precipitation increases with elevation both winter and summer but the elevation effect is greatest in mid winter when winds at mountain top level are typically strongest. High peaks and mountain ranges generally receive the majority of their precipitation during with winter months. Snow accumulates without melting in shaded or level areas at elevations above about 8,000 feet. Routt County is location within the Park Range, which is the first significant barrier in the Northern Colorado Rockies to storms arriving from the Pacific resulting in abundant snowfall.

The Western Regional Climate Center reports data from weather stations in and around Routt County. The data reported here are from three of the stations: Steamboat Springs, Yampa, and Hayden. Table 3.9 contains winter weather summaries for the three stations and illustrates differences within the County. Figures 1.6 through 1.11 show daily snowfall and temperature averages and extremes. The Steamboat Springs station records the most extreme weather of the three stations. The coldest temperature recorded in Routt County was at the Steamboat Springs station at - 54 degrees F along with the coldest winter average minimum temperature (16.9 F) and the largest number of days with temperatures below 32 F (251.2). The Steamboat Springs station records the most snow fall in inches of the three stations including the average annual snowfall (166.2), the highest monthly average (36) and month on record (111.6) , the highest seasonal snowfall (185.5) and the highest average snow depth (7).

2 Table 3.9. Average Snowiest Highest Highest Average Winter Minimum # Routt Annual Month/ Monthly Seasonal Snow Average Temp. Days County Snowfall Average Snowfall Snowfall Depth Minimum < Winter (inches) Snowfall (inches) (inches) (feet) Temp. 32F/ Weather (inches) Year 1 Summaries Station Steamboat 166.2 36 111.6 185.5 7.0 16.9 F -54 F 251.2 Springs Jan. Jan. 2008 Jan. 7 1996 1913

Yampa 115.2 20.3 68.6 123.3 4.0 20.2 F -36 F 228.9 Jan. Jan. 1996 Dec. 23 1996 1990

Hayden 107.5 24.7 74.5 130.8 4.0 26.9 -45 F 212.7 Jan. Dec. 1974 Jan. 12 1983 1963

Figure 1.6

Figure 1.7

Figure 1.8

Figure 1.9

Figure 1.10

Figure 1.11

Previous Occurrences

Historical data from SHELDUS and the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database were combined to determine that there were roughly 45 recorded winter weather events in Routt County between 1960 through 2009. Of the 45 recorded events for Routt County or its National Weather Service forecast zones (Zone COC107) in the period of record, 6 were specifically for freeze or cold.

Data limitations: Some events may have been missed due to limitations in the manner in which events that occurred over multiple forecast zones are reported. Dollar figures reported for winter weather events in both SHELDUS and the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events database are total damages for all counties associated with an event. Specific Routt County losses are not available.

According to SHELDUS notable events from the HMPC are included below:

April 23, 2003—Winter Weather resulting in $30,000.00 in property damage

December 8, 1998—Winter Weather resulting in $15,000.00 in property damage

February 8, 1995—Winter Weather resulting in $40,697.67 in property damage

February 1, 1989—Winter Weather resulting in $79,365.10 in property damage

March 27, 1987—Wind and Winter Weather resulting in $4,545.45 in property damage

April 13, 1986—Wind and Winter Weather resulting in $4,545.45 in property damage

November 26, 1983—Wind and Winter Weather resulting in $7,936.51 in property damage

December 23, 1982—Winter Weather resulting in $793,651.00 in property damage

January 8, 1962—Wind and Winter Weather resulting in $7,936.51 in property damage

Probability of Future Occurrence

Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or occurs every year.

There were 45 recorded winter weather events in Routt County 1960. On average, there are 0.94 severe winter weather events in the County each year, which equals 94 percent chance of occurrence in each year.

Magnitude/Severity

Critical—Multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property damage that threatens structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for 24-72 hours.

Winter weather in Routt County, including strong winds and blizzard conditions, can result in property damage, localized power and phone outages, and closures of streets, highways, schools, businesses, and nonessential government operations. People can also become isolated from essential services in their homes and vehicles. A winter storm can escalate, creating life threatening situations when emergency response is limited by severe winter conditions. Other issues associated with severe winter weather include hypothermia and the threat of physical overexertion that may lead to heart attacks or strokes. Snow removal costs can impact budgets significantly. Heavy snowfall during winter can also lead to flooding or landslides during the spring if the area snowpack melts too quickly. High snow loads also cause damage to buildings and roofs.

On occasion the ski area will shut down the lifts due to high winds and the mountain passes close due to poor visibility. The Yampa Valley Regional Airport has only closed on a very rare occasion. The delays usually occur with the airlines choosing to divert to Denver or Grand Junction for improved visibility for landings. Routt County can be isolated on all sides by highway closures. The County usually has about three days worth of commodities (food and gasoline). This supply is based upon the needs of a community of 19,690 and is quickly depleted during peak tourism periods when the average daily population rises significantly.

5.2.7. LIGHTNING

Hazard Description

Lightning is an electrical discharge between positive and negative regions of a thunderstorm. Intracloud lightning is the most common type of discharge. This occurs between oppositely charged centers within the same cloud. Usually it takes place inside the cloud and looks from the outside of the cloud like a diffuse brightening that flickers. However, the flash may exit the boundary of the cloud, and a bright channel can be visible for many miles.

Although not as common, cloud-to-ground lightning is the most damaging and dangerous form of lightning. Most flashes originate near the lower-negative charge center and deliver negative charge to earth. However, a large minority of flashes carry positive charge to earth. These positive flashes often occur during the dissipating stage of a thunderstorm’s life. Positive flashes are also more

common as a percentage of total ground strikes during the winter months. This type of lightning is particularly dangerous for several reasons. It frequently strikes away from the rain core, either ahead or behind the thunderstorm. It can strike as far as 5 or 10 miles from the storm in areas that most people do not consider to be a threat. Positive lightning also has a longer duration, so fires are more easily ignited. And, when positive lightning strikes, it usually carries a high peak electrical current, potentially resulting in greater damage.

According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, lightning causes more than 26,000 fires in the United States each year. The institute estimates property damage, increased operating costs, production delays, and lost revenue from lightning and secondary effects to be in excess of $6 billion per year. Impacts can be direct or indirect. People or objects can be directly struck, or damage can occur indirectly when the current passes through or near it.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is large.

Lightning can occur anywhere in the County.

Previous Occurrences

Data from the National Lightning Detection Network ranks Colorado 31st in the nation (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) with respect to the number of cloud-to-ground lightning flashes with an average number of 517,217 flashes per year (based on data collected between 1996 and 2005). Colorado ranks second for the number of lightening deaths at 30 deaths between 1997 and 2006. In 2006, there were 5 lightning deaths and 15 reported lightning injuries in Colorado. None of these were in Routt County. In an average year in Colorado, 3 people are killed and 13 are injured.

While lightning is a regular occurrence in Routt County, damaging lightning is not. According to the National Climatic Data Center Storm Event Database, there were two notable lightning events in Routt County between 1989 and December 2009:

June 3, 2009—Lightning struck the South Routt Elementary School in Yampa and started the building on fire. The fire and related damage totaled $30,000.00 and were confined to the gymnasium.

July 28, 2003—Three mare quarter horses were killed by a lightning strike in an open field two miles southeast of Steamboat Springs, resulting in $10,000.00 in damages.

July 22, 1989 - A 40 year old man was killed on top of Hahns Peak. Two other woman (27 and 29 years old) and a man (age unknown) were also injured.

It should be noted that this database captures only small portion of damaging lightning events; most go unreported.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less

It is highly likely that lightning will occur every year in Routt County, but not all will be damaging. In the last 20 years, the County experienced two damaging lightning events. This averages to a damaging lightning event every ten years, or a 10 percent chance of an event in any given year.

Magnitude/Severity

Lightning can cause deaths, injuries, and property damage, including damage to buildings, communications systems, power lines, and electrical systems. It also causes forest and brush fires.

5.2.8. WINDSTORM

Hazard Description

A windstorm contains winds that are strong enough to at least lightly damage trees and buildings but may cause significant damage. Windstorms may or may not be accompanied by precipitation, thunder, lightening, hail, snow, or sleet. Wind speeds during a windstorm typically exceed 34 miles per hour with the damage being attributed to gusts, short bursts of high-speed winds. Damage can also be caused by longer periods of sustained winds. The National Weather Service classifies wind from 38 to 55 MPH as gale force winds; 56 to 74 MPH as storm force winds and any winds over 75 MPH as hurricane force winds.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is large—more than 50 percent of the planning area affected.

High winds can occur throughout Routt County and may be most severe at high elevations.

High winds occur year round in Routt County. In the spring and summer, high winds often accompany severe thunderstorms. These winds are typically straight-line winds, which are generally any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation (i.e., is not a tornado). It is these winds, which can exceed 100 miles per hour (mph) that represent the most common type of severe weather and are responsible for most wind damage related to thunderstorms.

In the mountains of Colorado, strong winds are also common throughout the winter months and can exceed 50 to 100 mph in exposed locations. Specifically, these winter winds can force the closure of highways (blowing snow) and induce avalanches (see Section 3.2.1 Avalanche and Section 3.2.11 Severe Winter Weather).

Previous Occurrences

Historical data from National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database reported that there were roughly 20 recorded wind events in Routt County between 1969 and 2009. (Note: These wind events

were reported as wind only or thunderstorm wind events. The summary does not include winds that were part of severe winter weather (see Section 3.2.11 Severe Winter Weather).

Data limitations may have been missed due to limitations in the manner in which some events that occurred over multiple forecast zones are reported. Dollar figures reported for wind events in National Climatic Data Center Storm Events database are total damages for all counties associated with an event. Specific Routt County losses are not available.

Notable events mentioned by the HMPC include the following:

September 19, 2004 – Strong thunderstorm outflow winds totally destroyed a 12 foot by 60 foot Civil Air Patrol trailer at the airport. The trailer had rooms for office space, training, and briefing. A section of chain link fence at the airport was also destroyed when the trailer was blown through it. Numerous large trees were blown over or snapped off throughout the town, with at least one vehicle crushed and a mobile home damaged by falling trees.

July 8, 2004— Strong winds blew over a number of large healthy trees and broke off numerous tree branches. A power pole was snapped off, several power lines were severed, and at least 3 cars were damaged. Two of the cars were crushed by fallen trees. Electrical power was off for several hours in a large section of town due to the downed power lines. Damages were approximately $45,000.00.

October 25, 1997—An intense windstorm blew over the Continental Divide just north of Steamboat Springs and flattened over 13,000 acres of trees in the Routt National Forest. Because of its location, this event did not have a direct impact on the citizens of the County.

September 20, 1997—Outflow winds from an approaching thunderstorm sent five airline baggage carts travelling about 50 feet before plowing into a glider plane, resulting in $5,000.00 damage.

In a time period between 1950 and 1995, two tornados were reported in Routt County. Routt County does not have mitigation measures specific to tornadoes because of the low probability of occurrence.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.

There were 20 significant recorded high wind events in the past 40 years in Routt County, which equals one wind event every 2 years on average, or a 50 percent chance of occurrence in any given year.

Magnitude/Severity

Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours

Wind storms in Routt County are rarely life threatening, but do threaten public safety, disrupt daily activities, cause damage to buildings and structures, increase the potential for other hazards (e.g., wildfire), and have adverse economic impacts from business closures and power loss. Although

windstorms are likely to occur in the future, data indicates that past losses have not been significant, and the overall magnitude of this hazard is limited.

5.2.9. AVALANCHE

Hazard Description

Avalanche hazards occur predominantly in the mountainous regions of Colorado above 8,000 feet. The vast majority of avalanches occur during and shortly after winter storms. Avalanches occur when loading of new snow increases stress at a rate faster than strength develops, and the slope fails. Critical stresses develop more quickly on steeper slopes and where deposition of wind-transported snow is common. While most avalanches are caused simply by the weight of accumulated snow, other triggers can be a human (e.g., skier, snowshoer, snowmobiler), animal, or a sonic boom.

The combination of steep slopes, abundant snow, weather, snowpack, and an impetus to cause movement create an avalanching episode. According to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC), about 90 percent of all avalanches start on slopes of 30-45 degrees; about 98 percent of all avalanches occur on slopes of 25–50 degrees. Avalanches release most often on slopes above timberline that face away from prevailing winds (leeward slopes collect snow blowing from the windward sides of ridges). Avalanches can run, however, on small slopes well below timberline, such as gullies, road cuts, and small openings in the trees. Very dense trees can anchor the snow to steep slopes and prevent avalanches from starting; however, avalanches can release and travel through a moderately dense forest. An average-sized avalanche travels around 80 miles mph; the typical range of impact pressure from an avalanche is from 0.5 to 5.0 tons per foot.

Historically in Colorado, avalanches have occurred during the winter and spring months between November and April. The avalanche danger increases with major snowstorms and periods of thaw. About 2,300 avalanches are reported to the CAIC in an average winter. More than 80 percent of these fall during or just after large snowstorms. The most avalanche-prone months are, in order, February, March, and January. Avalanches caused by thaw occur most often in April.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is isolated—less than 10 percent of the planning area affected

The prevailing winds in the region are westerlies, and most slides start on the lee (downwind) or eastern side of ridges where snow accumulates, The most severe avalanche terrain in Routt County is on federally owned lands. Unincorporated Routt County is the jurisdiction with the most avalanche risk. However, highway closures due to an event can affect all participating jurisdictions.

Appendix G: Avalanche Forecast Zone Map (Colorado Avalanche Information Center)

Previous Occurrences

According to the information from a History of Colorado Avalanche Accidents, 1859-2006, there were 4 avalanche-related deaths in Routt County between 1859 and 2006. The National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database and the CAIC have information on 1 notable avalanche (e.g.,

avalanches that involved people) that occurred in Routt County between 1997 and 2009, details of this event is summarized below.

January 3, 2005 – Around lunchtime Monday the Routt County Sheriffs Office was notified a backcountry skier had been buried on Soda Mountain near Buffalo Pass. Companions quickly found their friend after 8-10 minutes but could not revive the 26-year-old skier. The group had used snowmobiles to access the backcountry.

March 18, 2001 – Routt County experienced its first avalanche fatality in almost 30 years when a local construction worker, died in a snow slide on Farwell Mountain in North Routt . He was a member of a party that was using snowmobiles to access untracked skiing.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.

Between 1997 and 2009, there was one notable avalanche in Routt County (e.g., avalanches that involved people). This suggests that at least one notable avalanche occurs approximately every ten years in Routt County.

Magnitude/Severity

Avalanches in Routt County can injure and kill multiple people, damage property and infrastructure, and cause road closures.

An avalanche site is an area or location with one or more avalanche paths. An avalanche path is made up of starting zone(s) at the top, where the unstable snow breaks away from the more stable part of the snow cover, runout zone(s) at the bottom where moving snow and entrained debris stop, and track(s) that run between the starting zone and the runout zone. Unfortunately, runout zones can be considered prime development land. Some paths may also have an airblast zone, where damage occurs from the turbulent winds that accompany fast-moving powder avalanches. The airblast zone is usually in the vicinity of, but not necessarily continuous with, the lower track or runout zone.

Deaths may be caused by avalanches whenever people are within the area affected by the avalanches. This area is the entire avalanche path including the airblast zone. Death can be caused by impact and/or suffocation. Property damage can occur throughout the entire avalanche path. Avalanches can cause minor to major damage to any structure, vehicle, equipment, road, bridge and building within the path. Roads, highways and railroads may also be blocked by snow, ice and debris which delays travel and requires costly snow removal.

The Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC) is a good online resource for Colorado avalanche information and contains a page on avalanche forecasts in the Steamboat area. Historically we know that they do occur and on average someone gets trapped and killed in one every

10 years. This will be on the increase due to the ability and the increase numbers of back country travelers.

5.2.10. LANDSLIDE, MUDFLOW/DEBRIS FLOW, ROCK FALL

Hazard Description

A landslide is a general term for a variety of mass-movement processes that generate a down slope movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. For the purposes of this plan, the term “landslide” includes mudslides, debris flows, and rock falls. Some of the natural causes of ground instability are stream and lakeshore erosion, heavy rainfall, and poor quality natural materials. In addition, many human activities tend to make the earth materials less stable and, thus, increase the chance of ground failure. Human activities contribute to soil instability through grading of steep slopes or overloading them with artificial fill, by extensive irrigation, construction of impermeable surfaces, excessive groundwater withdrawal, and removal of stabilizing vegetation. When structures or land alterations are located on or adjacent to areas characterized by the natural settling phenomena of landslides, conflicts arise which may constitute serious problems and hazards. Some landslides can damage permanent structures incrementally as material slowly moves downhill. Large, rapidly moving slides have the capacity to completely destroy buildings, roads, bridges and other costly man-made structures. Maintenance of structures in active slide areas is very costly, and in many cases will equal or exceed the price of the structure prior to expiration of its useful life. Excavation in unstable slopes can cause landslides or rock falls. Water and vibrations are primary causes of rock falls and landslides.

A mudslide is a mass of water and fine-grained earth materials that flows down a stream, ravine, canyon, arroyo, or gulch. If more than half of the solids in the mass are larger than sand grains (e.g., rocks, stones, boulders), the event is called a debris flow. Many of Colorado’s older mountain communities built in major mountain valleys are located on or near debris fans. A debris fan is a conical landform produced by successive mud and debris flow deposits, and the likely spot for a future event. The mud and debris flow problem can be exacerbated by wildfires that remove vegetation that serves to stabilize soil from erosion. Heavy rains on the denuded landscape can lead to rapid development of destructive mudflows.

A rock fall is the falling of a detached mass of rock from a cliff or down a very steep slope. Weathering and decomposition of geological materials produce conditions favorable to rock falls. Rock falls are caused by the loss of support from underneath through erosion or triggered by ice wedging, root growth, or ground shaking. Changes to an area or slope such as cutting and filling activities can also increase the risk of a rock fall. Rocks in a rock fall can be of any dimension, from the size of baseballs to houses. Rock fall occurs most frequently in mountains or other steep areas during the early spring when there is abundant moisture and repeated freezing and thawing. Rocks falling on highways or railroads may strike vehicles, block traffic, cause accidents and sometimes damage the road. Clearing the highways and barrow ditches is a minor but costly consequence. Any structure in the path of a large rock fall is subject to damage or destruction.

Unstable slopes are a naturally occurring phenomenon composed of rock, soil, artificial fill or combinations of these materials which move downhill in response to gravity.

Potentially unstable slopes are more widespread and differ from unstable slopes such as active areas of landslide, mudflow and rock fall because the process is not ongoing but imminent. Actual slope failure can be initiated by a change of conditions, either natural or man induced.

Potentially unstable slopes are often recognized when signs of creep are discovered. Creep is a slow down slope movement of soils and/or weak bedrock in response to gravity and is a normal process on nearly all slopes not composed of strong bedrock. It generally does not constitute a threat to the works of humans. However, when a slope approaches the failure condition, the process intensifies and can be termed accelerated creep. At this stage, it becomes an engineering problem because it exerts increased pressure on the upslope side of structures. More importantly, it forewarns of active sliding if further detrimental changes occur.

Landslides, mudslides, and rock falls occur commonly throughout Colorado, and the annual damage is estimated to exceed $3 million to buildings alone. California, Washington, and Colorado were the first three states to use federal disaster funds to acquire property in landslide hazard areas.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is isolated—less than 10 percent of the planning area affected.

According to the HMPC, problem areas in the County include Highway 40 at mile marker 114 and County Road 14 north of Mount Werner Road, however there are additional areas with slide occurrences including CR 82, CR 129, CR 80, CR 74A, and CR 50.

Appendix H - Geologic Hazards Map Example

Previous Occurrences

Figure 1.12 maps occurrences of slides in 2010. Additional significant slides are described below.

Figure 1.12.

Map Courtesy Routt County Road and Bridge Department

March 10, 2010— A basketball-sized rock fell from a ledge about 300 yards above the roadway in the Mt. Harris Canyon west of Steamboat Springs near mile marker 114. It killed the passenger of in an eastbound traveling vehicle.

April 15, 2008—A mudslide closed County Road 14 in both directions about three-tenths of a mile north of the Routt County Road 14 and Mount Werner Road intersection.

September 6, 2007— A mudslide closed Routt County Road 14 from the Brooklyn neighborhood in Steamboat Springs to Mount Werner Road. A large amount of earth - carrying entire trees and large boulders with it - slid about 75 feet down a hillside directly below the Tree Haus neighborhood just outside city limits.

Data on other specific past events was not available.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less

Magnitude/Severity

Critical—Isolated deaths and/or multiple injuries and illnesses; major or long-term property damage that threatens structural stability

Landslides, rockslides, and mudslides in Routt County can injure and kill multiple people, damage property and infrastructure, and cause road closures.

5.2.11. EROSION AND DEPOSITION

Hazard Description

The Colorado Geological Survey defines erosion as “the removal and simultaneous transportation of earth materials from one location to another by water, wind, waves, or moving ice” and sedimentation (deposition) as “the placing of the eroded material in a new location. All material that is eroded is later deposited in another location.”

While these are natural processes, human activities greatly influence the rate and extent of erosion and sedimentation. Examples of these activities include removal of vegetation, alteration of natural drainages, and actions that rearrange the earth, such as subdivision development, highway construction, and modification of drainage channels.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is small—10-25 percent of the planning area affected.

Soil erosion and the associated deposition have proven to be problems in Routt County due to steep slopes and frequent slide activity. Erosion and deposition occurs due after wildfire instances decrease vegetation on slopes.

Previous Occurrences

Data on specific past events was not available.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less

Magnitude/Severity

Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours.

In severe conditions, erosion can lead to exacerbated stream bank deterioration; channel instability; loss of agricultural, residential, industrial or private property; loss of infrastructure; and increased sediment loads to downstream reaches.

Similarly, sedimentation in an uncontrolled or unmanaged system can lead to loss of channel and reservoir capacity, habitat, and fisheries; decreased channel stability; increased floodplain widths; more variable channel meander patterns; plugging of stormwater outlets; loss of agricultural, residential, industrial, or private property; and increased probabilities of flooding. Undercutting caused by erosion can lead to landslides and rock falls.

Over time, the processes of erosion and sedimentation can have negative impacts on communities and the environment in Routt County. Resultant economic losses may include damage to property and infrastructure, and lost recreational or development opportunities.

5.2.12. GROUND SUBSIDENCE

Ground subsidence is the sinking of the land over man-made or natural underground voids. It may occur uniformly over a wide area as local depressions or pits separated by areas which have not visibly subsided. Subsidence may occur abruptly or gradually over many years. Generally, subsidence is most common when sedimentary rocks over abandoned coal mines are unable to support surface activities and/or the bedrock above the former mine. Abandoned hard rock mines are less susceptible to subsidence because the crystalline rocks in their vicinity are usually stronger. Subsidence can also be found where either ground water or dissolved materials have been removed, leaving a void which is unable to support materials above the cavity. Subsidence can also occur where underground water has dissolved subsurface materials or has been withdrawn by wells.

While specific locations of potential subsidence areas are often not available, subsidence can result in serious structural damage to buildings, roads, irrigation ditches, underground utilities and pipelines. It can disrupt and alter the flow of surface or underground water. Surface depressions created by subsidence may be filled in, only to sink further because the underground void has not been completely closed. Development can accelerate subsidence.

Geographic Location

Isolated—Less than 10 percent of the planning area affected

The land in Routt County contains large amounts of coal. According to the Colorado Division of Mining Reclamation and Safety, there are approximately 100 permits that have been issued or are in the process of being issued for coal mining. The permits include mine operations for both underground and surface coal mining. Among these is the Twentymile Mine near Oak Creek, Colorado, which is one of the largest underground mines in the United States. Other permits among those reported by the Colorado Division of Mining Reclamation and Safety represent abandoned mines. Subsidence is most common at underground mines when the rock that still exists over the mine is unable to support surface activity or the bedrock above the mine.

Previous Occurrences

Data on previous occurrences of ground subsidence in Routt County was unavailable.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Occasional—1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years

Magnitude/Severity

Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours

5.2.13. EARTHQUAKE

Hazard Description An earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth’s outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth’s crust and cause the shaking that is felt during an earthquake.

Earthquakes are dangerous because they produce damage from: 1) ground movement; 2) ground shaking; 3) ground failure, such as land sliding, soil liquefaction, dam failures and ground cracking— all of which result from interaction of earthquake shaking and near-surface soil, rock and ground water; and 4) seiching or other abnormal water wave action.

Geologic features such as surface fault scarps, that have been described by various geologists as being a few hundred to a few thousand years old, indicate that major earthquakes have occurred in the recent past and may occur in the foreseeable future.

Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury, and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks, such as water, power, communication, and transportation lines. Other damage-causing effects of earthquakes include surface rupture, fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground. Secondary impacts can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, fires, and dam failure.

The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a Richter magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking, typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes, at any given location on the surface as felt by humans and defined in the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Table 3.7 features abbreviated descriptions of the 12 levels of intensity.

Indirect effects include dam failure and accompanying flooding; fires from ruptured gas lines; uncontrolled fires due to failure of water distribution systems and health problems from malfunctioning or loss of sanitary facilities.

Geographic Location

Large—More than 50 percent of the planning area affected

Although most of Routt County is not directly on a fault, the effects of an earthquake may spread well beyond the fault line. Appendix I shows the fault lines in Routt County.

Previous Occurrences

According to the Colorado Geologic Survey, there have been eight earthquakes in Colorado between 1867 and 2007. Two of the eight occurred before 1962 and six occurred after 1962. Appendix HH shows the location and magnitude of the earthquakes.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less

There were six recorded earthquakes between 1962 and 2007, which is a span of 45 years. This level of historical occurrence suggests there is a 13 percent chance of an earthquake in Routt County during a one year period.

Magnitude/Severity

Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours

5.2.14. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE (TRANSPORTATION)

Hazard Description

Routt County is susceptible to accidents involving the transport of hazardous materials on County roads, City and Town streets, State highways, and the Union Pacific Railroad. A hazardous material is any item or agent (biological, chemical, physical, radiological) that has the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment, either by itself or through interaction with other factors. An accident could occur at any time or as a result of a natural disaster. The release of hazardous materials can threaten people and natural resources in the immediate vicinity of the accident, including residences, resorts, and businesses along transportation routes.

Geographic Location

The geographic extent of this hazard in Routt County is isolated—less than 10 percent of the planning area affected—(based on historical experience), but depending on the type and quantity of spill and the medium affected, the geographic extent could become large.

Routt County is concerned about the transport of hazardous materials on U.S. Highway 40, which serves as a major east-west corridor for the state. Closure of the road due to a hazardous materials incident would disrupt traffic flow between the Denver metropolitan area and Salt Lake City and could cause severe economic impacts to the Routt County area. Colorado Highway 131 serves as a major north-south corridor for the state. Closure of the road would result in major disruption of travel between Interstate 70 and Steamboat Springs. The economies of Routt County and Steamboat Resorts, the ski area, are all dependent on U.S. 40 and CO 131 and would be severely impacted if a major incident were to occur on the route, especially one that caused soil or water contamination.

The Union Pacific Railroad runs through Routt County and also poses risk of hazardous materials release.

Previous Occurrences

Hazardous materials incidents in Routt County have been relatively insignificant. Statistics from the National Response Center, which serves as the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories, indicate that between 1990 and the end of 2009, 20 transportation- related hazardous materials incidents were reported in Routt County. The majority of the incidents were related to gasoline and diesel fuel spills resulting from an accident (i.e., not from cargo), although incidents were also the result of equipment failure and operator failure. Seven of the events involved hazardous materials carriers (as identified in the reports). Spills from these events were largely gasoline. Other substances reported in transportation- related incidents include gilsibind (seal coating for asphalt), ethylene glycol, kerosene, bulk emulsion, and hydraulic oil. The National Response Center also reported 12 railroad incidents, although they did not all result in discharges.

One of the most notable spills occurred on December 15, 2006 when a tanker truck carrying a load of gasoline overturned on U.S. Highway 40 at mile marker 145 causing a spill of 1500 gallons of gasoline.

Probability of Future Occurrence

Likely—10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less

Transportation- related hazardous materials incidents occur in Routt County every year. These are most often fuel spills that are not related to the cargo being transported. Based on previous experience, the probability of a spill of a nonfuel hazardous material or a spill with significant impact to people, the environment, or the economy is much less likely.

Magnitude/Severity

Catastrophic—Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; and/or interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours

Impacts in the past have been limited but depending on the type and quantity of spill and the medium affected, an event’s magnitude and severity could become catastrophic. A hazardous materials release could cause personal injury or death to humans or damage to property or the environment. Humans are affected through inhalation, ingestion, or direct contact with skin. Air releases can prompt large-scale population evacuations and spills into water or onto the ground can adversely affect public water and sewer systems

Population centers along US40 , SH131, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks are vulnerable to accidents involving hazardous materials. Damage to the environment and road closures due to accidents would negatively impact the tourism and recreation based economy. The Yampa River, Elk River, and Stagecoach Reservoir are also at risk, which impacts drinking and wildlife habitat water quality.

5.2.15 Prolonged Power Outage

Hazard Description

Interruptions in electric service occur from situations such as lightning, high winds, ice, heavy snow, animal interference, vehicles hitting poles, or human error. Most outages last a short time, but they can last for days. Hazardous conditions may arise when electrical interruptions last beyond a short time. Risks include but are not limited to the safety of people who rely upon electricity for health related issues, heating homes in the winter, communication devices, and food safety.

Additionally, some regions of the country may face power shortages in the next few years if more electricity is not made available.

Geographic Location

Large—More than 50 percent of the planning area affected

Extreme weather in Routt County accounts for the majority of power outages. Winter and early spring weather causes issues with ice building up on power lines and heavy snow or wind causing trees to fall on lines.

Yampa Valley Electric Association is the electricity provider for Routt County.

Previous Occurrences

Numerous power outages have occurred in Routt County due to weather related events and wildlife destroying infrastructure. There is no data available on any prolonged outages occurring.

Probability of Future Occurrences

Occasional—1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years

The probability of a prolonged power outage at this time is occasional, however the probability could increase to likely if energy supplies are depleted by lack of resources or increase in energy consumption.

Magnitude/Severity

In the event of a prolonged power outage, essential facilities and services would be interrupted for 24 or more hours. Heat, food availability, and health related needs could lead to death or illness.

5.2.16 Bridge Failure

Hazard Description

Bridge failures are often caused by scour, which is the hole left behind on a riverbed when sediment is washed away from the bottom of a river. Scour action is most likely to occur during floods because the swiftly flowing water lifts the sand, gravel and rock on the riverbed and carries it down stream. Bridges become hazardous if sediment or rock on which bridge supports rest is scoured by a river, the bridge could become unsafe for travel.

According to the USGS, there are three types of scour that affect bridge stability:

1) Local scour is removal of sediment from around bridge piers or abutments. (Piers are the pillars supporting a bridge. Abutments are the supports at each end of a bridge.) Water flowing past a pier or abutment may scoop out holes in the sediment; these holes are known as scour holes.

2) Contraction scour is the removal of sediment from the bottom and sides of the river. Contraction scour is caused by an increase in speed of the water as it moves through a bridge opening that is narrower than the natural river channel.

3) Degradational scour is the general removal of sediment from the river bottom by the flow of the river. This sediment removal and resultant lowering of the river bottom is a natural process, but may remove large amounts of sediment over time.

(http://ma.water.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/scour.htm)

Geographic Location

Medium—25-50 percent of the planning area affected

In the event of a bridge failing, the travel of a significant number of citizens and visitors could be impacted.

Routt County experiences seasonal flooding when large amounts of snow melt in the spring. Numerous bridges allow roadway travel over Routt County’s many streams and rivers, which are subject to flooding. The Federal Highway Administration has rated three Routt County bridges as needing to be either closed or closely monitored during and after high water events. There are also two bridges that need to be closely monitored during high water events, or closed if monitoring is not feasible. An explanation of the Federal Highway Administration’s rating system is below as well as Figure 1.14, which displays Routt County bridges’ assigned rates.

Federal Highway Administration’s Scour Critical Analysis of the National Bridge Inventory database rates bridges based on the following system.

0-These bridges are scour critical, have failed and are closed to traffic 1-These bridges are scour critical and must be closed, inspection suggests that failure is imminent

2-These bridges are scour critical and should be closed or monitored closely during and after a high water event. 3-These bridges are scour critical and should be monitored closely during and after a high water event, or closed if monitoring is not feasible. 4-These bridges have determined to be stable for calculated scour conditions, but field review indicates action is required to protect exposed foundations from further erosion 5-8 These bridges have been assigned a code by the State of Colorado that are not incorporated with the Federal Highway Administration’s system. The bridges should be monitored closely during high water events. 6-Scour calculation/evaluation has not been made.

Figure 1.14.

Previous Occurrences

There is no data indicating past bridge failure.

Probability of Future Occurrences

Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years

Mitigation efforts drastically reduce occurrences of bridge failure. Proper response to the Federal Highway Administration’s evaluation of bridges requires close monitoring and maintenance of bridges.

Magnitude/Severity

Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours

Depending on the location of the bridge, citizens and visitors could be cut off from services and essentials.

Hazard Profiles Summary

This section summarizes the results of the hazard profiles and assigns a level of overall planning significance to each hazard of low, moderate, or high. Significance was determined based on the hazard profile, focusing on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, including deaths/injuries and property, crop, and economic damage. This assessment was used by the HMPC to prioritize those hazards of greatest significance to the planning area; thus enabling the County to focus resources where they are most needed. Those hazards that occur infrequently or have little or no impact on the planning area were determined to be of low significance. Those hazards determined to be of high and moderate significance were characterized as priority hazards that required further evaluation in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment.

Table 3.10 Summary of Geographic Probability Magnitude Overall Hazard Profiles Location Vulnerability Hazard Type Flood Small Likely Critical High Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Critical High Wildfire Medium Highly Likely Catastrophic High Drought Large Likely Limited Moderate Dam Failure Small Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate Hazardous Materials Release Isolated Likely Catastrophic Moderate (Transportation) Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Isolated Likely Critical Moderate Rock Fall Lightning Large Likely Critical Moderate Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic Medium Highly Likely Limited Moderate Prolonged Power Outage Large Occasional Critical Moderate Bridge Failure Medium Occasional Limited Low Avalanche Isolated Likely Critical Low Earthquake Large Likely Limited Low Erosion/Deposition Small Likely Limited Low Windstorm Large Likely Limited Low Land Subsidence Isolated Occasional Limited Low

The following tables summarize the results of the hazard profiles for incorporated communities that are participating jurisdictions in the hazard mitigation plan. Each jurisdiction completed their own

assessment for hazards in their areas which provides a more detailed assessment of the jurisdiction’s unique risks as well as their mitigation strategy to reduce long-term losses. Each jurisdiction annex is referenced in Appendix N and contains the following: Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy and population Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards Vulnerability information in terms of future growth and development in hazard area A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, edministrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts, partnerships and past mitigation projects Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction.

Table 3.11. Routt Steamboat Oak Creek Yampa North West Routt Probability of County Springs Routt Future Occurrence of Identified Hazards by Jurisdiction Hazard Type Avalanche Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Unlikely Bridge Failure Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Dam Failure Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Drought Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Earthquake Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Erosion/Deposition Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Flood Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Hazardous Materials Likely Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Release (Transportation) Landslide, Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Land Subsidence Occasional Likely Occasional Likely Occasional Occasional Lightning Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Mountain Pine Beetle Highly Highly Likely Highly Highly Highly Occasional Epidemic Likely Likely Likely Likely Prolonged Power Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Outage Severe Winter Highly Highly Likely Highly Highly Highly Highly Weather Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Wildfire Highly Highly Likely Highly Highly Highly Highly Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Windstorm Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely

Table 3.12. Routt Steamboat Oak Creek Yampa North Routt West Routt Magnitude/Severity County Springs of Identified Hazards by Jurisdiction Hazard Type

Avalanche Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Bridge Failure Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Dam Failure Catastrophi Critical Catastrophi Catastrophi Catastrophi Limited c c c c Drought Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Earthquake Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Erosion/Deposition Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Flood Critical Critical Critical Limited Critical Critical Hazardous Materials Critical Critical Critical Critical Limited Critical Release (Transportation) Landslide, Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Land Subsidence Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Lightning Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Mountain Pine Beetle Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Epidemic Prolonged Power Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Outage Severe Winter Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Weather Wildfire Catastrophi Critical Catastrophi Catastrophi Catastrophi Critical c c c c Windstorm Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited

Table 3.13. Routt Steamboat Oak Creek Yampa North West Routt Planning County Springs Routt Significance of Identified Hazards by Jurisdiction Hazard Type Avalanche Low Moderate Low High High Low Bridge Failure Low Low Low Low Low Low Dam Failure Moderate Moderate High High High Moderate Drought Moderate Low High High Moderate Low Earthquake Low Moderate High Low Low Low Erosion/Deposition Low Low Low Low Low Low Flood High High High Low High High Hazardous Materials Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Release (Transportation) Landslide, Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Land Subsidence Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Lightning Low High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mountain Pine Beetle Moderate High High High High Low

Epidemic Prolonged Power Moderate Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Outage Severe Winter High High High High High High Weather Wildfire High High High High High High Windstorm Low Low High High Moderate Moderate

5.3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

Methodology

The vulnerability assessment further defines and quantifies populations, buildings, critical facilities and infrastructure, and other community assets at risk to natural hazards. The vulnerability assessment for this plan followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your Risks—Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (2002).

The vulnerability assessment was conducted based on the best available data and the overall planning significance of the hazard. Data to support the vulnerability assessment was collected from the same sources identified in Section 3.1 Hazard Identification and Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles and from FEMA’s HAZUS-MH MR3 loss estimation software.

The vulnerability assessment includes three sections:

Community Asset Inventory—This section inventories assets exposed to hazards in Routt County, including the total exposure of people and property; critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, cultural, and historic resources; and economic assets.

Vulnerability by Hazard—This section describes the County’s overall vulnerability hazards; identifies existing and future structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure in identified hazard areas; and estimates potential losses to vulnerable structures, where data is available. Only hazards of moderate or high planning significance, or that have identified hazard areas are addressed in the vulnerability assessment.

Development and Land Use Trends—The final section analyzes trends in population growth, housing demand, and land use patterns.

In addition, a capability assessment was conducted for each jurisdiction as part of the risk assessment process. A capability assessment identifies the existing programs, policies, and plans that mitigate or could be used to mitigate r

5.3.1. COMMUNITY ASSET INVENTORY This section assesses the population, structures, critical facilities and infrastructure, and other important assets in Routt County at risk to natural hazards.

Total Exposure to Hazards

Table 3.14 shows the total population, number of structures, and assessed value of improvements to parcels by jurisdiction. Building counts and values (includes building contents) were taken from the Routt County Department of Revenue. The census blocks nest into the city boundaries for the most part, but sometimes census block boundaries cross city boundaries. In these cases, the counts and values were attributed to that city (or unincorporated county) where the majority of the census blocks is located.

Table 3.14. Maximum Population and Estimated 2009 2009 Total Structure Building Exposure by Community Population Value ($) Town of Hayden 1,869 30,143,462 Town of Oak Creek 978 12,966,842 City of Steamboat Springs 11,502 905,524,454 Town of Yampa 504 6,044,487 Unincorporated Areas 8,207 1,458,062,557 Total 23,060 1,458,756,940

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure

A critical facility may be defined as one that is essential in providing utility or direction either during the response to an emergency or during the recovery operation. Table 3.15 displays the inventory of critical facilities (based on available data) in Routt County as provided by the HMPC and Routt County GIS data. The locations of these facilities are shown in the Routt County Critical Infrastructure Maps for the jurisdictions located in Appendix A2 through A5.

Table 3.15. Steamboat West Routt North Routt FPD Oak Creek FPD Yampa FPD County Critical Springs RFPD FPD Clark Hahns Town of Oak Town of Yampa Totals City of SS and Town of Peak and Creek and and Facilities in Milner Hayden Columbine Stagecoach Phippsburg Routt County Floodplain Facility Type Ambulance 2 - 2 - 1 5 Bridge 10 2 7 - - 19 Dam 3 - 3 - 3 9 EMS 2 - 1 - 2 5 Transmitter Fire Lookout ------Fire Station 2 - 2 - 2 6 Government 9 1 - - 5 15

Building Helicopter 2 2 2 - - 6 Pad/Staging Incident - 1 2 - - 3 Command Post Medical ------Facility School 3 2 2 - 2 9 Water/Wastew 1 1 1 - 4 7 ater Totals 34 9 22 - 19 84

Other facilities in the County, such as locations that hold concerts, sporting events, and other events that attract large numbers of people, may also be at higher risk due to concentrations of people.

Natural, Historic, and Cultural Assets

Assessing the vulnerability of Routt County to disaster also involves inventorying the natural, historic, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons:

The community may decide that these types of resources warrant a greater degree of protection due to their unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy If these resources are impacted by a disaster, knowing so ahead of time allows for more prudent care in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts are higher. The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for these types of designated resources. Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, such as wetlands and riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters.

One particular asset that falls into all three categories is the Howelsen Hill Ski Area. Howelsen Hill Ski Area holds a unique place in the history of skiing. It has sent more skiers to international competition than any other area in North America. It is the oldest ski area in continuous use in Colorado, and has the largest and most complete natural ski jumping complex in North America. Howelsen has been the training ground for more than 64 Olympians making over 90 Winter Olympic appearances, 15 members of the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame and 6 members of the National Ski Hall of fame. Howelsen Hill was recently acknowledged as a "Pioneer Ski Resort" by the International Skiing History Association and the Colorado Ski & Snowboard Museum and Hall of Fame. Any disaster-related damage done to Howelsen Hill Ski Area could have negative implications on tourism, and thus the economy, in Routt County.

Natural Resources Natural resources are important to include in benefit-cost analyses for future projects and may be used to leverage additional funding for projects that also contribute to community goals for protecting sensitive natural resources. Awareness of natural assets can lead to opportunities for meeting multiple objectives. For instance, protecting wetlands areas protects sensitive habitat as well as attenuates and stores floodwaters.

A number of natural resources exist in Routt County, including wetlands, endangered species, and imperiled plant communities.

Wetlands Wetlands are a valuable natural resource for communities, due to their benefits to water quality, wildlife protection, recreation, and education, and play an important role in hazard mitigation. Wetlands reduce flood peaks and slowly release floodwaters to downstream areas. When surface runoff is dampened, the erosive powers of the water are greatly diminished. Furthermore, the reduction in the velocity of inflowing water as it passes through a wetland helps remove sediment being transported by the water. They also provide drought relief in water-scarce areas where the relationship between water storage and stream flow regulation are vital.

According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, over half of the wetlands in Colorado have been lost due to human activities (e.g., filling and other degrading activities) since the 1870s when major settlement activities started. In Routt County, wetland has loss resulted from the construction of reservoirs and development, including homes and businesses.

Endangered Species To further understand natural resources that may be particularly vulnerable to a hazard event, as well as those that need consideration when implementing mitigation activities, it is important to identify at-risk species (i.e., endangered species) in the planning area. An endangered species is any species of fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or most of its range. A threatened species is a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Both endangered and threatened species are protected by law and any future hazard mitigation projects are subject to these laws. Candidate species are plants and animals that have been proposed as endangered or threatened but are not currently listed.

There are six federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species in Routt County. These species are listed in Table 3.16 along with state listed species. State special concern is not a statutory category, but suggests a species may be in danger; there is one state special concern specie in Routt County.

Table 3.16 Routt County rare species Species Scientific Name Species Type Status Bonytail Gila Elegans Fish Federal Endangered Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus Lucius Fish Federal Endangered Humpback chub Gila Cypha Fish Federal Endangered Razorback sucker Xyrauchen Texanus Fish Federal Endangered Greenback cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki Fish Federal Threatened trout stomias Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Federal Threatened Western yellowbilled Coccyzus americanus Bird State Special Concern cuckoo

Imperiled Natural Plant Communities

According to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, there are a number of natural plant communities in Routt County that have been identified as critically imperiled, imperiled, or imperiled/rare or uncommon in the state of Colorado and globally. These communities are listed below.

Critically imperiled Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Common Chokecherry

Imperiled Foothills/Plains Floating/Submergent Palustrine Wetlands Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian Forests Booth Willow/Canadian Reed Grass Wet Meadow Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian Forests

Imperiled/rare or uncommon Montane Riparian Forests Riparian Willow Carr Geyer's Willow/Mesic Graminoid Booth's Willow/Mesic Forb Cottonwood Riparian Forest Thinleaf Alder-Red-osier Dogwood Riparian Shrubland Montane Willow Carr Lower Montane Willow Carrs Geyer's Willow/Beaked Sedge Booth's Willow/Beaked Sedge Thinleaf Alder-Mixed Willow Species Montane Willow Carr Aspen Wetland Forests Thinleaf Alder/Mesic Forb Riparian Shrubland Geyer's Willow-Rocky Mountain Willow/Mesic Forb

Ecologically Sensitive Areas Colorado Natural Heritage Program provides best estimates of the primary areas required to support the long-term survival of targeted species or natural communities. Each conservation area is given a biodiversity rank of B1 (most significant) through B5 (general interest) based on observed occurrences in the area. The Yampa River area in the western portion of Routt County has a biodiversity rank of B2 (very high). Areas of high, moderate, and general biodiversity rank are scattered throughout Routt County.

Historical and Cultural Resources Several national and state historic inventories were reviewed to identify historic and cultural assets in Routt County:

The National Register of Historic Places is the Nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources. Properties listed include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American

history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The Colorado State Register of Historic Properties is a listing of the state’s significant cultural resources worthy of preservation for the future education and enjoyment of Colorado’s residents and visitors. Properties listed in the Colorado State Register include individual buildings, structures, objects, districts, and historic and archaeological sites. The Colorado State Register program is administered by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation within the Colorado Historical Society. Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places are automatically placed in the Colorado State Register.

Table 3.17 lists the properties and districts in Routt County that are on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. Those properties that are also on the National Register of Historic Places are indicated with an asterisk.

Table 3.17. Routt County City Location Date Historic Properties/Districts in Listed State and National Registers Property Name Bell Mercantile* Oak Creek 111 Moffat Ave 06/07/1990 Christian Science Society Building* Steamboat 641 Oak St. 08/22/2007 Springs Columbine* Clark 645 Routt Cty Rd. 129 08/07/2007 Crawford House* Steamboat 1184 Crawford Ave. 08/07/2005 Springs Foidel Canyon School* Oak Creek NW of Oak Creek 05/09/1983 Hahns Peak Schoolhouse* Hahns Peak Main Street 02/15/1974 Hayden Depot* Hayden 300 W Pearl St. 10/22/1992 Hayden Rooming House* Hayden 285 S. Poplar St. 09/17/1999 Maxwell Building* Steamboat 840 Lincoln Ave. 09/25/1995 Springs Mesa Schoolhouse* Steamboat 33985 S U.S. 40 11/01/2007 Springs Perry-Mansfield School of Theatre Steamboat 40755 Routt Co. Rd. 36 07/14/1995 and Dance* Springs Rock Creek Stage Station* Toponas E of Toponas off CO 84 10/21/1982 Routt County National Bank Steamboat 802-806 Lincoln Ave. 05/20/2002 Building* Springs Steamboat Laundry Building* Steamboat 127 and 131 11th St. 08/07/2007 Springs Steamboat Springs Depot* Steamboat 39265 Routt County Rd. 33B 12/20/1978 Springs Summit Creek Ranger Station* Columbine Routt Cty Rd. 129 07/28/2004 Bolten Ranch Hayden Hayden vicinity 12/12/2001 Dawson Carpenter Ranch Hayden 13250 W. US Hwy. 40 05/06/1998 Howelsen Hill Steamboat 845 Howelsen Pkwy 12/13/2000 Springs F.M. Light House Steamboat 204 Park Ave. 03/09/1994 Springs Rabbit Ears Motel Sign Steamboat 201 Lincoln Ave. 08/31/2006 Springs

Antlers Café & Bar Yampa 40 and 46 Moffat Ave. 03/11/1998 Boor-Redmond Ranch Yampa 22190 County Road 13 09/08/2004 First National Bank Building* Steamboat 803-807 Lincoln Ave. 01/11/2001 Springs It should be noted that as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any property over 50 years of age is considered a historic resource and is potentially eligible for the National Register. Thus, in the event that the property is to be altered, or has been altered, as the result of a major federal action, the property must be evaluated under the guidelines set forth by NEPA. Structural mitigation projects are considered alterations for the purpose of this regulation.

Economic Assets

Economic assets at risk may include major employers or primary economic sectors, such as, agriculture, whose losses or inoperability would have severe impacts on the community and its ability to recover from disaster. After a disaster, economic vitality is the engine that drives recovery. Every community has a specific set of economic drivers, which are important to understand when planning ahead to reduce disaster impacts to the economy. When major employers are unable to return to normal operations, impacts ripple throughout the community. Table 3.18 lists the top employers in Routt County, which all employ over 100 people.

Table 3.18 Routt County Employers with over 100 Employees Address Location Employer Alpine Taxi 1755 Lincoln Ave. Steamboat Springs Catamount Ranch and Club 33400-A Catamount Dr. Steamboat Springs City Market 1825 Central Park Dr. Steamboat Springs City of Steamboat Springs 137 10th St. Steamboat Springs Mountain Resorts 2150 Resort Dr Steamboat Springs Sheraton Steamboat Resort and 2200 Village Inn Court Steamboat Springs Conference Center Steamboat Grand Resort Hotel 2300 Mount Werner Circle Steamboat Springs Steamboat Resorts 1847 Ski Time Square Dr. Steamboat Springs Steamboat Ski & Resort 2305 Mount Werner Circle Steamboat Springs Corporation Steamboat Springs School 325 7th St. Steamboat Springs District The Industrial Company (TIC) 2211 Elk River Rd. Steamboat Springs Twentymile Coal Co. 29515 Routt Cty Rd 27 Oak Creek U.S. Forest Service 925 Weiss Dr Steamboat Springs Walmart 1805 Central Park Dr Steamboat Springs Yampa Valley Medical Center 1024 Central Park Dr Steamboat Springs

5.3.2. VULNERABILITY BY HAZARD

Only hazards of moderate or high planning significance, or that have identified hazard areas are addressed in the vulnerability assessment.

Dam Failure

Although there is no specific evidence to indicate the likelihood of dam failure within the County, there are several high hazard dams located in Routt County. A dam failure could result in impacts greater than the 100-year flood event and could be catastrophic. Although there are not incorporated communities immediately downstream of any high risk dams, dam failure would result in necessary evacuations of residents in unincorporated areas and downstream communities. A failure of the Stagecoach Dam would be catastrophic to the Town of Steamboat and Hayden and unincorporated areas of the County from the dam downstream to the Routt County border. Likewise, a failure of the Willow Creek Dam at Steamboat Lake would be equally catastrophic to the Town of Hayden and unincorporated areas downstream of the dam along the Elk and Yampa Rivers.

A catastrophic dam failure would challenge local response capabilities and require evacuations to save lives. Impacts to life safety will depend on the warning time available and the resources to notify and evacuate the public. Major loss of life could result as well as potentially catastrophic effects to roads, bridges, and homes. Associated water quality and health concerns could also be an issue.

Existing Development The Routt County Office of Emergency Management has copies of emergency action plans for all high and significant hazard dams in the County; and these are available upon request for inspection by FEMA and the Colorado Division of Emergency Management.

Future Development Flooding due to a dam failure event is likely to exceed the special flood hazard areas regulated through local floodplain ordinances. The County and towns should consider the dam failure hazard when permitting development downstream of the eleven high hazard and four significant hazard dams.

Drought

The majority of past disaster declarations are related to drought, which indicates the County’s vulnerability to this hazard. Ongoing drought has left areas more prone to beetle kill and associated wildfires. Other past impacts of drought have included degradation of air quality due to dust, reduction of tourism and recreation activities, and damage to the ranching economy. The economy of Routt County, which is based upon the ski industry and other outdoor recreation and tourism, is very vulnerable to drought conditions.

Existing Development Drought normally does not impact structures and can be difficult to identify specific hazard areas. Data is not available to estimate potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas. Routt County and communities use public education efforts to encourage water conservation during the summer months.

Future Development As population grows, so do the water needs for household, commercial, industrial, recreation, and agricultural uses. Vulnerability to drought will increase with these growing demands on existing

100

water supplies. Future water use planning in Colorado is complex and has to account for increasing population size as well as the potential impacts of climate change.

Routt County drought policies include: 1. Keep water rights on agricultural lands to maintain the opportunity for raising animals and growing crops. 2. Reduce water consumption by requiring conservation practices in all new development at a neighborhood and individual lot and home owner level. 3. Use high efficiency irrigation systems in all developments where irrigation is essential. 4. Expand storage capacity of reservoirs so that drinking water is available in drought years. 5. Keep Yampa Valley and Elk River water rights tied to lands in those basins.

Most of the jurisdictions in Routt County encourage drought resistant landscaping in their master plans for new development.

Flood

Flood hazards affect most of the communities in the County, will continue to occur in the future, and can be critical in their magnitude causing deaths and damaging property and infrastructure.

Existing Development Stagecoach and Catamount Reservoirs provide limited flood protection in eastern Routt County. These reservoirs are upstream from Steamboat Springs and Hayden on the Yampa River. The reservoir storage, namely that of Stagecoach and Catamount to a lesser extent, reduce the peak discharges of the Yampa River at the top of the watershed and serve to partially control discharges of the Yampa River through Steamboat Springs. The primary function of Stagecoach Reservoir is the collection and storage of snowmelt runoff for agricultural use.

The Town of Hayden has constructed two levees along the banks of Dry Creek as it flows through town. Although these levees have partially deteriorated, they may provide some flood protection. Additionally, an earth embankment of the Union Pacific provides flood protection along the Yampa River at the northern town limits

The Fish Creek Reservoir, a small reservoir immediately upstream of Steamboat Springs, also serves as a flood protection measure for Fish Creek. The reservoir marginally reduces the peak discharge of Fish Creek runoff due to snowmelt.

101

Parcels in 100-Year Flood Plain Please see Appendix C for Flood Plain Maps of Each Jurisdiction

102

103

104

105

106

National Flood Insurance Program Table 3.23 provides information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in participating jurisdictions in Routt County.

Table 3.23. Initial Policies Insurance in Number Claims Community Community FIRM date in Force ($) of Totals ($) Rating Participation in Force Claims System the NFIP Rating Jurisdiction Steamboat Springs 01/19/1978 375 74,109,500 14 4,749 8 Oak Creek 07/17/1989 11 1,913,900 0 0 N/A Yampa 02/04/2005 0 0 0 0 N/A Hayden 06/01/1978 14 1,310,800 2 1,236 N/A Unincorporated Routt 09/29/1989 60 15,648,400 3 49,996 N/A County TOTAL 460 92,982,600 19 55,981

NFIP insurance data indicates that as of March 16, 2010, there were 460 flood insurance policies in force in the County with $92,982,600 of coverage. There have been 19 historical claims for flood losses totaling $55,981. Although the 14 out of 19 claims were from Steamboat Springs, 89.3% of dollars in claims was from unincorporated Routt County.

There is one repetitive loss property within Routt County. It is located in Steamboat Springs and it is a single family residential property.

Steamboat Springs is the only jurisdiction that is in the Community Rating System (CRS). On May 1, 2010 Steamboat Springs was increased from a Class 9 to a Class 8.

Future Development The risk of flooding to future development should be minimized by the floodplain management programs of the County and its municipalities, if properly enforced. Risk could be further reduced by strengthening floodplain ordinances and floodplain management programs beyond minimum NFIP requirements.

A Hazus Level One Analysis of Routt County was conducted – below is a summary of information obtained through this model. For the full report, see Appendix M. the

General Description of the Region

HAZUS is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The primary purpose of HAZUS is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi -hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery.

107

Flood Event

The geographical size of the region is 2,361 square miles and contains 1,531 census blocks. There are over 8 thousand households in the region and has a total population of 19,690 people (2000 Census Bureau data). The distribution of population by State and County for the study region is provided in Appendix B of the Hazus Report.

There are an estimated 11,139 buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of 1,959 million dollars (2006 dollars). Approximately 90.25% of the buildings (and 75.35% of the building value) are associated with residential housing. Building Inventory HAZUS estimates that about 185 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 25% of the total number of buildings in the scenario. There are an estimated 42 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The definition of the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the HAZUS Flood technical manual.

Expected damage to Essential Facilities: 2 Fire Stations 1 Hospital 5 Police Stations 5 Schools

Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the flood. The model breaks debris into three general categories: 1) Finishes (dry wall, insulation, etc.), 2) Structure (wood, brick, etc.) and 3) Foundations (concrete slab, concrete block, rebar, etc.). This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle the debris. The model estimates that a total of 5,495 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Finishes comprises 56% of the total, Structure comprises 16% of the total. If the debris tonnage is converted into an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 220 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the flood.

The total building related losses were 58.44 Million dollars. 1% of the estimated losses were related to business interruption of the region. The residential occupancies made up 45.28% of the total loss.

Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Fall, Rock Fall

Existing Development In Routt County, vulnerability to landslides primarily occurs along roadways, where the hazard could cause deaths or injuries. Road closures due to landslide events also affect the County economically. An example is the area on U.S. Highway 40 near mile marker 114. Landslides in neighboring counties along major highways that carry traffic into the County can affect Routt County.

Future Development

108

The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition and avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas or by corrective engineering. The mountainous topography of the County presents considerable constraints to development, most commonly in the form of steep sloped areas. These areas (defined as having a grade change of 30 percent or more) are vulnerable to disturbance and can become unstable.

Landslide hazard areas are not well mapped in Routt County. Improving mapping and information on landslide hazards and incorporating this information into the development review process could prevent siting of structures and infrastructure in identified hazard areas.

The following Routt County Policies regarding landslides and rock falls are sited in section 8.7 of the Routt County Master Plan:

1. Routt County strongly discourages all construction on potential landslide and rock fall areas. 2. Routt County strongly discourages all excavations on unstable slopes and in rock fall or potential landslide areas. 3. Routt County strongly discourages removal of natural supportive material at the toe of a landslide area and in the area immediately adjacent to the slide area. 4. Routt County strongly discourages loading on unstable areas. 5. Development should not increase drainage through potential landslide or rock fall areas. 6. Development which changes existing drainage should include permanent improvements and controls to prevent additional surface or subsurface drainage in landslide or rock fall areas and on unstable or potentially unstable slopes. 7. Routt County discourages permanent structures on unstable geology which is, or will be, subject to significant vibrations. 8. Routt County encourages all people who will engage in blasting, railroad construction and highway construction to evaluate the possible adverse effects to potential rock fall areas prior to commencing activities. 9. When development occurs in potential rockfall or landslide areas, Routt County encourages the use of standard Best Management Practices (BMP's) for stabilization of rocks or construction of slowing and/or diversion devices to be used when applicable and useful. Such BMP's shall be shown on plans specific to the site under review. 10. Routt County discourages developments which require access roads to cross potential landslide and rock fall areas. 11. Individual unstable or potentially unstable slopes must be analyzed by a geologist or licensed engineer to determine the specific geologic hazard. 12. When specific geologic hazards are determined, the relevant policies from this plan should be applied. 13. Routt County encourages the disclosure on final plats of the possibility of unstable slope conditions to the owner or prospective buyers of affected projects.

Lightning

Existing Development

109

Damaging lightning events are likely to occur and can be critical if a fatality occurs. Outdoor recreationists and others outside at high altitude during summer months are vulnerable to lightning. The HMPC is also concerned about the impacts lightning can have on the County’s power grid and information technology network. Failure of these systems would have cascading effects that would disrupt other critical infrastructure in the County, such as water treatment facilities. Damage to communications infrastructure has the potential to cause widespread impacts.

Future Development

Lightning can occur anywhere in Routt County, and it is not possible to identify specific hazard areas. Data was not available to identify specific structures at risk or estimate potential losses to these structures.

Severe Winter Weather

Existing Development In the alpine environment of Routt County, severe winter weather occurs several times every season. This hazard has been critical in its magnitude and severity in the past. Vulnerability is high along roadways and mountain passes, particularly on U.S. Highway 40 over Rabbit Ears Pass and between Steamboat Springs and Hayden where severe winter weather conditions may cause traffic related deaths and injuries. Colorado State Highway 131 and Routt County Road 129 also are vulnerable due to the high amount of commuter traffic and tight curves. Road closures due to winter weather conditions also restrict or prevent the movement of people and goods and services (including food and gas), which can be crippling during the high tourism season and create the need for emergency sheltering for travelers. The County is more vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards during the winter months due to the increased volume of people living, working, and visiting here.

Future Development Future residential or commercial buildings built to code should be able to withstand snow loads from severe winter storms. Population growth in the County and growth in visitors will increase problems with road, business, and school closures and increase the need for snow removal and emergency services related to severe winter weather events.

Routt County policies regarding sever winter weather include

1. Place utilities underground in subdivisions to protect from storm damage. 2. Educate the public about winter preparedness.

Wildfire

The following methodology was used to obtain the values in the table below.

1. The parcels were joined to the Routt County Assessor’s property information which includes Land Value, Improvement Value, and Total Value by PIN 2. A select by Location was performed: a. ‘select features from parcel that intersect cities (definition query on cities, ex. ‘name’ = ‘steamboat springs’)

110

3. From those selected parcels, those intersecting the threat zones by category were selected. a. ‘select from currently selected features in parcels that intersect wildfire (definition query on wildfire ex. ‘hazclass’ = ‘low’) 4. The sums of Land Value, Improvement Value, and Total Value were calculated on those selected parcels and reported in the table. 5. This methodology was repeated for each individual City, Fire District, and wildfire hazard level in Routt County.

Property Values in Wildfire Land Value Improved Value Total Value Threat Zones by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Steamboat Springs LOW 1,835,631,272 898,656,326 2,734,287,598 MODERATE 1,608,524,274 780,227,535 2,388,751,809 HIGH 415,541,774 234,734,854 650,276,628 EXTREME 138,002,634 63,147,211 201,149,845 TOTALS 3,997,699,954 1,976,765,926 5,974,465,880

Hayden LOW 61,090,744 122,770,105 183,860,849 MODERATE 23,802,285 39,621,722 63,424,007 HIGH 110,600 0 110,600 EXTREME - - - TOTALS 85,003,629 162,391,827 247,395,456

Oak Creek LOW 40,090,028 62,320,784 102,410,812 MODERATE 13,954,984 19,486,562 33,441,546 HIGH 6,482,912 6,076,491 12,559,403 EXTREME - - - TOTALS 60,527,924 87,883,837 148,411,761

Yampa LOW 15,355,223 39,577,424 54,932,647 MODERATE 285,610 1,317,020 1,602,630 HIGH - - - EXTREME - - - TOTALS 15,640,833 40,894,444 56,535,277

Unincorporated RC LOW 1,080,493,563 1,864,850,823 2,945,344,386 MODERATE 762,964,301 1,414,629,003 2,177,593,304 HIGH 485,897,769 863,435,619 1,349,333,388 EXTREME 198,278,958 181,885,926 380,164,884

111

TOTALS 2,527,634,591 4,324,801,371 6,852,435,962

Craig Fire Protection District LOW 1,920,790 3,346,520 5,267,310 MODERATE 1,738,760 2,494,050 4,232,810 HIGH 563,840 463,870 1,027,710 EXTREME - - - TOTALS 4,223,390 6,304,440 10,527,830

North Routt Fire Protection District LOW 114,241,209 260,564,112 374,805,321 MODERATE 100,549,723 236,681,499 337,231,222 HIGH 39,050,410 86,072,414 125,122,824 EXTREME 13,850,310 27,230,285 41,080,595 TOTALS 267,691,652 610,548,310 878,239,962

Oak Creek Fire Protection District LOW 203,774,575 271,079,055 474,853,630 MODERATE 89,283,623 133,016,361 222,299,984 HIGH 42,964,056 83,145,020 126,109,076 EXTREME 7,077,982 12,754,330 19,832,312 TOTALS 343,100,236 499,994,766 843,095,002

Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District LOW 2,562,278,003 2,127,321,823 4,689,599,826 MODERATE 2,130,384,089 1,693,764,055 3,824,148,144 HIGH 786,799,544 864,111,119 1,650,910,663 EXTREME 170,599,074 112,802,981 283,402,055 TOTALS 5,650,060,710 4,797,999,978 10,448,060,688

West Routt Fire Protection District LOW 94,601,056 195,623,578 290,224,634 MODERATE 53,922,685 103,282,575 157,205,260 HIGH 20,691,844 33,061,370 53,753,214 EXTREME 908,360 3,668,500 4,576,860 TOTALS 170,123,945 335,636,023 505,759,968

Yampa Fire Protection District LOW 48,887,896 132,516,824 181,404,720 MODERATE 23,564,753 74,371,830 97,936,583 HIGH 15,200,112 37,280,900 52,481,012 EXTREME 3,782,590 14,771,930 18,554,520

112

TOTALS 91,435,351 258,941,484 350,376,835

TOTALS COUNTYWIDE LOW 3,032,660,830 2,988,175,462 6,020,836,292 MODERATE 2,409,531,454 2,255,281,842 4,664,813,296 HIGH 908,092,475 1,104,668,684 2,012,761,159 EXTREME 198,278,958 181,885,926 380,164,884 COUNTY TOTALS 6,548,563,717 6,530,011,914 13,078,575,631

Based on this analysis, unincorporated Routt County has the highest total property value at risk to wildfire, with roughly $3.9 Billion in medium to extreme wildfire threat zones. Steamboat Springs is the city most at risk to wildfire, with nearly $3.2 Billion in moderate to extreme wildfire threat zones. Hayden is second most at risk, with approximately $64 Million in medium and high wildfire threat zones.

Among the fire protection districts, the Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District has the highest total property value at risk to wildfire, with more than $283 million in the extreme wildfire threat zone alone. Total property values in medium to extreme wildfire threat zones in this district approximates $5.8 billion.

Overall, the County has over $7 billion in property values in medium to extreme wildfire threat zones.

The following information was taken from the draft of the Routt County Community Wildfire Protection Plan:

According to Jones report, Routt County is a hazardous county with respect to wildland/urban interface. It rates as high: only 11 counties rate higher, the majority of which are along the Front Range.

An estimated 28% of private parcels in Routt County are in high hazard areas. This estimate is strictly based upon the fuel hazard and does not consider ignition potential, as there is insufficient data. As growth continues, ignition potential will certainly increase.

Ranches, small groupings of homes, and freestanding homes are present throughout Routt County. Widely scattered homes located on large 35+ acre lots are prevalent in subdivisions, especially in northern and central portions of the planning area. The total population for the planning area, according to the 2000 census is 19, 690. An estimate in 2008 shows the population to have increased 16.7% to 22,980. Of that, 1,634 live in Hayden, 9,815 live in Steamboat Springs, 849 live in Oak Creek and 443 live in Yampa. The median home value within the planning area is $268,500.

A variety of businesses, some of which cater to area visitors because of tourism, as well as churches, and other local businesses providing area services are located in Steamboat Springs, Hayden, Oak Creek, Yampa and Clark/Hahns Peak. All municipalities are served by their own water company; most rely on surface water. Electrical power, telephone service, and cable and internet service are provided primarily by local or companies or regional companies, i.e. Yampa Valley Electric Association, Qwest.

113

Hazardous Materials Release (Transportation)

Existing Development

Hazardous Materials Release events are likely to occur. The magnitude of occurrences can range from minimal to catastrophic depending on the type, amount, and location of released material.

Future Development

Hazardous Materials Release can occur anywhere on any Routt County roadway or railroad track, and it is not possible to identify specific hazard areas. Data was not available to identify specific structures at risk or estimate potential losses to these structures. Mitigation efforts regarding release of hazardous materials while being transported through Routt County focus on appropriate procedures for first responders and proper notification of assisting agencies.

Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic

Existing Condition

The most significant hazard related to Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic is the extreme risk of wildfire due to the exorbitant amount of fuel provided by dead trees. Values placed on structures and facilities that are at risk due to Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic are similar to those outlined in the wildfire section. In order to mitigate the risks of wildfire exasperated by the dead trees, Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) have been developed and updated by numerous contingencies in Routt County along with a Routt County CWPP. Scientists have deemed that attempts to halt the spread of Mountain Pine Beetle by spraying trees is ineffective at this stage of the epidemic, although isolated areas may be sprayed in an attempt at protection. Mitigation of the epidemic is focused on reducing fuels created by the dead trees. Figure 1.15 shows completed, current, and planned mitigation activities in Routt County.

114

Figure 1.15.

Below is information on fuel reduction and fire mitigation projects completed by CWPP areas.

North Routt CWPP: (1) Many landowners have begun and/or completed fuels reduction projects. Many have also been able to take advantage of grant funding to help offset the associated project

115

costs. (2) Steamboat Lake State Park and Pearl Lake State Park have both completed large scale fuel reduction projects as a result of the beetle infestation. Most of these individual projects were completed in 2009 and some in 2010. A few areas are still planned for future treatments.

Fish Creek – Sanctuary CWPP: (1) The Sanctuary Fuels Treatment Project of 2007 leveraged grant money to create a 1.5 mile shaded fuel break behind 23 lots. (2) A 2009 project involved removing the beetle kill and other deadwood along Fish Creek and replanting.

Burgess Creek CWPP: (1) Many homeowners have created defensible space either on their own or with the assistance of grant money. (2) In 2005, the USFS substantially reduced oak brush fuels located at the eastern end of this CWPP area. (3) In 2009, most homes with mountain pine beetle related trees had them removed.

Steamboat Pines CWPP: (1) Several homeowners have created defensible space either on their own or with the assistance of grant money. (2) Water supply has been improved with the creation of a hydrant and underground tank.

Stagecoach Area CWPP: (1) Several homeowners along County Rd 16 have created defensible space either on their own or with the assistance of grant money. (2) Oak Creek Fire Protection District has received a grant to further implement the recommendations of this CWPP.

Future Development

CWPPs developed by Routt County and Routt County contingencies identify and rate the significance of fuel treatment projects, projects to reduce structural instability, and projects to increase emergency preparedness. The identification of these projects enables each CWPP area to focus on high priority mitigation efforts.

There are areas in Routt County that are not covered by a CWPP at this time. Effort needs to be focused on either developing a CWPP for these areas or developing a plan for fuel reduction activities. The following information highlights areas needing coverage.

North Routt areas needing coverage: north and west of North Routt Fire Protection District, which includes mostly large private ranches.

Steamboat Springs areas needing coverage: City of Steamboat Sprints, Ski Area, Fish Creek Reservoir, Long Lake watershed, Spring Creek area, Strawberry Park to Mad Creek area, Howelsen Hill/Emerald Mountain area, Milner area, Highway 131 Corridor, Lower Elk River Corridor, Catamount/U.S. 40 area.

South Routt areas needing coverage: Oak Creek area, Yampa/Toponas area

West Routt does not have a CWPP, but has identified project areas of need and concern. Agricultural burning is very common in western Routt County. The possibility for escaped prescribed fire exists. Increasing public awareness as well as proper notification by the ranchers should be a priority.

Prolonged Power Outage

116

Existing Condition

A prolonged power outage with current electric usage and supply may happen on occasion and will likely be caused by severe weather. A prolonged outage is possible throughout Routt County. Damage to structures and facilities due to an outage is considered minimal. The greater risk is in regards to human health and safety due to accessibility of basic goods and services.

Future Development

Critical facilities such as Yampa Valley Medical Center, Routt County Communications, and water treatment plants need to continually update and revisit management plans during prolonged power outages. Back up power sources should be present and maintained. Education of the public needs to focus on emergency preparedness so that people have back up power supplies for medical conditions, food supplies, heat sources, and the ability to communicate during an emergency.

5.3.3. DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE TRENDS As part of the planning process, the HMPC looked at changes in growth and development and land use trends and examined these changes in the context of hazard-prone areas, and how the changes in growth and development affect loss estimates and vulnerability. Information from the Routt County Master Plan, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, and the U.S. Census Bureau form the basis of this discussion.

Current Status and Past Development According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2008 estimated population of Routt County was 22,980. This is an increase of 15 percent from the 2000 U.S. Census population of 19,690. Tables 3.24-3.26 illustrate past growth in Routt County in terms of population, housing units, and density.

Table 3.24. Past Population Percent Change # Change Estimated Growth in Routt County (%) Ending Time Frame/Years Population 1970-1980* +203.3 +6,812 13,404 1980-1990 +5.1 +684 14,088 1990-2000 +39.8 +5,602 19,690 2000-2007 +16.7 +3,290 22,980

Table 3.25. Population Growth for Jurisdictions in Routt County, 2000-2008

Table 3.27. 2000 2008 Percent # Change Percent of Percent of Total Population Estimate Change County (%) Growth (%) Growth for (%) Jurisdictions in Routt County, 2000- 2008 Jurisdiction Steamboat 9,815 11,939 21% 2,124 50% 52% Springs Oak Creek 849 979 15% 130 4% 3% Yampa 443 519 17% 76 2% 2%

117

Hayden 1,634 1,894 16% 260 8% 6% Unincorporated 6,949 8,407 21% 1,458 35% 36% Area

Total County 19,690 23,738 20% 4,048 100 100%

Table 3.26. Population and Area in 2000 2008 2000 2008 Housing Unit Density for Square Population Population Housing Housing Jurisdictions in Routt County, Miles Density Density Density Density 2000-2008 Estimate Estimate Jurisdiction Routt County 2,362 8.3 10.05 4.7

According to the State Demography Office, in 2008 Routt County is estimated to be ranked 22nd out of 64 counties in Colorado according to population.

Current Status and Past Development Summary

8,407 individuals, or 35 percent of Routt County’s residents, live in unincorporated portions of the County.

Population growth between 2000 and 2008 was greatest in Steamboat Springs (21 percent) and Unincorporated areas of Routt County (21 percent).

All areas of the County experienced growth, but Oak Creek (15 percent) experienced the least.

Routt County has a Master Plan which was adopted April 3, 2003. The plan is focused towards preservation and encourages growth that is consistent with the rural character without promoting sprawl. Regarding development, the goal is to protect the viability of the County’s agricultural lands, critical wildlife areas, and rural character, locate new urban development and compatible uses within Growth Centers which include Steamboat Springs, Hayden, Oak Creek and Yampa (see Growth Center Location Map below). The unincorporated areas of Steamboat Lake, Phippsburg, Milner, Hahns Peak, Clark, Toponas, and McCoy could be considered designated growth centers. Also Stagecoach should be considered a potential Growth Center because it does have existing platting, zoning (including commercial), a special district and an approved sub-area plan.

118

119

Land Use For the first decades of the Twentieth Century in Routt County, mining and agriculture formed the economic base of the county. More recently, tourism began to be an important part of the local economy. As more people arrived, more homes were needed, more public services were demanded. Commerce grew. Pressures for land development led to a growing concern for protection of Routt County’s delicate natural environment. It was no longer acceptable to have growth without responsible limits. In 1972 the county adopted a Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations to guide this growth.

Although the Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations continued to serve the citizens of the county, planning goals changed and became more sophisticated. During the 1970’s, recreation and tourism assumed an increasingly important place the county’s economy.

From the Routt County Master Plan – April 3, 2003

Future Development Beginning in the late 1990’s, Routt County has seen a trend towards large vacation homes (or second homes) located both on the fringe of Growth Centers and in more remote locations throughout the County. These take place within subdivisions with a minimum lot size of 35 acres (allowed by state statute) or in the County’s Land Preservation Subdivision (LPS) Exemptions.

The goals of the Routt County Master Plan are to protect land outside of the designated Growth Centers from suburban or urban-type sprawl and the impacts of the cumulative effects of smaller residential developments and/or commercial uses, to encourage sensitive development and uses that preserve the rural character, wildlife habitat and agricultural uses, and to concentrate development and uses in or near Growth Centers.

From the Routt County Master Plan – April 3, 2003

Table 3.28 shows the population projections for the County as a whole through 2035.

Table 3.28. Population 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Projections for Routt County, 2010-2035 Population 24,340 27,394 31,204 35,380 39,717 43,922 Percent Change (%) 2.1% 2.4% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.0%

Risk Assessment Summary

The Routt County Risk Assessment revealed a number of problem areas to be addressed in the mitigation strategy. These key findings are summarized in the following list.

Flood

120

According to the jurisdictions, there are 84 instances of Critical Facilities within the 100-year flood plain including five ambulance barns, 19 bridges, nine dams, five EMS transmitters, six fire stations, 15 government buildings, six helicopter pad/staging areas, three incident command posts, nine schools, and seven water/wastewater plants.

There is $92,982,600 in flood insurance in force (460 policies) in Routt County

Dam Failure

Eleven high hazard (probable loss of life if failure) dams are located in Routt County

The largest water storage is in Stagecoach and Steamboat reservoirs, where failures could result in catastrophic flooding

Steamboat Springs is the area with the largest population at risk to a dam failure

New development in dam inundation areas increases risk and may cause dam hazard rankings to change

Drought

Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on average in Routt County

Drought can affect both water quantity and quality

The tourism and recreation economy is particularly vulnerable to drought

Drought increases risk to other hazards, such as erosion and deposition, mountain pine beetle infestation, and wildfire

Hazardous Materials Release (Transportation)

There were 20 transportation-related hazardous materials incidents reported between 1990-2007; these mainly related to gasoline and diesel fuel spills resulting from an accident Seven of the events involved hazardous materials carriers (as identified in the reports). Spills from these events were largely gasoline.

Key areas of concern are U.S. Highway 40, Colorado State Highway 131, and the Union Pacific Railroad

Streams and reservoirs are also vulnerable to contamination

Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall

Slides cause safety concerns on roadways and have impeded traffic flows

121

Problem areas in the County include Highway 40 at mile marker 114 and County Road 14 north of Mount Werner Road.

A death occurred in March of 2010 due to a basketball sized rock falling on Highway 40 near mile marker 114.

Lightning

Lightning-caused injuries have occurred in Routt County in the past

Lightning-caused livestock deaths and property damage have occurred in the past

Outdoor recreationists at high altitude during summer months are very vulnerable to lightning

Lightning can damage power grid and information technology and communications networks

Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation

The mountain pine beetle hazard is widespread and predicted to grow

The infestation is likely to significantly affect forest ecosystems, the economy, and wildfire risk

Severe Winter Weather

There is high vulnerability to severe winter weather along highways and mountain passes

Increased population exposed to hazards and emergencies during high tourist seasons

The severe winter weather hazard has been critical in magnitude and severity in the past

Wildfire

54.2 percent of Routt County acreage is at medium to high risk to wildfire

Countywide there is an estimated $2 billion in property value in high wildfire risk areas; $380 million in extreme wildfire risk areas

Prolonged Power Outage Extreme weather in Routt County accounts for the majority of power outages Occurrences of prolonged power outages could increase with population growth straining electricity supplies Critical facilities in Routt County need to have emergency plans in place for back up power supplies

122

Multi-Hazard

Past emergency declarations have been for drought and severe winter weather; state declaration for flood

Hazard events that cause road closures, such as landslides, avalanches, and winter storms, affect the economy of Routt County by restricting access of visitors, workers, and goods and services

Unique vulnerabilities of resort economy

Need improved coordination among districts within Routt County, with neighboring counties, and with state and federal agencies

6. MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.

This section presents the mitigation strategy developed by the Routt County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) based on the County’s risk assessment in Chapter 3. The mitigation strategy was developed through a collaborative group process and consists of goals, objectives, and mitigation actions. The following definitions are based upon those found in FEMA publication 386- 3, Developing a Mitigation Plan (2002):

Goals are general guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. They are usually long-term, broad, policy-type statements.

Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals and are specific and measurable.

Mitigation Actions are specific actions that help achieve goals and objectives.

6.1. MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The HMPC created goals to provide direction for reducing hazard-related losses in Routt County. The HMPC looked at the goals of the State of Colorado and the needs of Routt County. The goals they came up with were based upon the results of the risk assessment and a review of goals and objectives from other state and local plans, specifically, the Colorado State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2007, Summit County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Routt County Master Plan, and Routt County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. This review was to ensure that this plan’s mitigation strategy was integrated with existing plans and policies.

Following the development of goals, the HMPC identified specific objectives to achieve each goal. Goals and objectives are listed below, but are not prioritized:

123

These goals are key general guidelines that explain what the County wants to achieve with this plan. The following were identified that apply to the County and Incorporated Towns:

Goals

1. To reduce the risk of potential impact on natural and man-made disasters on the County’s citizens and guests.

2. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on Critical Facilities, Infrastructure, and Critical Support Services.

3. To reduce the potential impact of natural and man-made disasters on public and private property, the economy, natural environment, and historic resources.

4. Minimize economic losses.

Goal 1: Reduce risk to the people, property, and environment of Routt County from the impacts of natural hazards

Minimize the vulnerability of existing and new development to hazards

Increase education and awareness of hazards and risk reduction measures

Improve comprehensive wildfire planning, funding, and mitigation

Strengthen floodplain management programs

Goal 2: Protect critical facilities and infrastructure

Enhance assessment of multi-hazard risk to critical facilities and infrastructure

Prioritize mitigation projects based on the enhanced assessment and identify funding sources

Reduce hazard related closures of transportation routes

Goal 3: Minimize economic losses

Strengthen disaster resistance and resiliency of businesses and employers

Promote and conduct continuity of operations and continuity of governance planning

Reduce financial exposure of county and municipal governments

Goal 4: Implement the mitigation actions identified in the plan

Improve communication and coordination between communities and state and federal agencies

Engage collaborative partners, including community organizations, businesses, and others

124

Integrate mitigation activities into existing and new community plans and policies

Monitor, evaluate, and update the mitigation plan

6.2. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.

A majority of the participating jurisdictions had a representative present at the third meeting of the HMPC to identify and analyze potential mitigation actions. There was follow up with the jurisdictions that were unable to attend this meeting to include their potential mitigation actions. Each identified hazard was evaluated. The HMPC agreed to remove the following hazards because there are other entities in charge in case of these accidents.

Airport Accident, Mining Accident, Industrial Accident

The group discussed the potential hazards and mitigation items and rated them on a scale of 1-3 (one being most important, 3 being least important). The following were discussed as Routt County’s priority hazards:

Flood Dam Failure Drought Wildfire Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic Blizzards and Severe Winter Storms Lightning Windstorms Avalanche Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Erosion and Deposition Ground Subsidence Earthquake Hazardous Materials Release Prolonged Power Outage Bridge Failure

A. Process Routt County’s mitigation strategy was generally developed by a team. The group combined the results of the risk assessment; reviewed other State and local County Plans. The review was to make sure that this Plan’s mitigation strategy was integrated with existing plans and policies.

B. Issues The strategy is based on the results of this planning process’s analysis of hazards, risks and capabilities. From this assessment we learned that:

125

o Wildfire safety hazards have exponentially increased due to the bark beetle infestation. It continues to be a significant threat to the County and its residents. This threat is growing with more development in forested areas. o Flooding will continue to be a threat to natural areas and existing development within the Yampa and Elk River floodplains. Floodplain management ordinances for Steamboat Springs and the 2009 County Zoning regulations have been effective in reducing risk to future growth in floodplains, but much of the existing Town of Steamboat Springs is at risk. Flood insurance is currently the most appropriate mitigation option in Steamboat Springs for existing structures, given that the high property values and historic structures in town make acquisition projects technically and financially difficult. o Geologic hazards including landslides, mud and debris flows, and rockfall come with the territory of steep, eroding slopes. The County and the Town of Steamboat Springs have geohazards regulations in their respective Land Use Codes. o Ongoing drought has impacted the tourism and agriculture economies within the County, and contributed to increasing the wildfire hazard. o Problems associated with severe weather occur almost every year and exacerbate problems with geologic hazards, avalanches, flooding, and wildfire. o Earthquakes pose a low probability but high consequence event, particularly with the presence of historic building stock located in Steamboat Springs. o Transportation routes over Rabbit Ears Pass and other mountain passes are susceptible to severe weather, occasional avalanches and rockslides causing dangerous driving conditions for commuters and tourists. o The Yampa Valley Airport and Bob Adams Field are at risk to natural and man caused hazards including hazardous materials. o Dams, and the potential for dam failure flooding, could cause significant damage as a result of a natural or man-caused event. o The Power plant, regional transmission lines, and power outages from severe weather and avalanches are an ongoing concern especially as they relate to Mount Werner gondola. o Facilities that store gas, propane, chemicals and other hazardous materials could cause additional health and safety concerns if impacted by a natural or man caused event. o Many plans, procedures, and policies exist that either promote public safety or wise development procedures within the County and the incorporated towns. Often the implementation of these capabilities is hindered by lack of funding, staffing, political or public pressures, and respect for private property rights.

126

Meetings in the past two years have been held with the emergency responders. Taking all of the above into consideration, the Routt County Planning Department initially crafted the overall mitigation strategy.

At the third meeting of the HMPC, participants initially discussed hazards that should be removed from this plan. The group decided to remove Airport Accidents, Mining Accidents and Industrial Accidents from the plan because each of these disasters would be controlled by other entities. The group agreed they would help as needed in these instances.

The group then discussed potential hazards that are both region-wide and personal to each jurisdiction. Through consensus, they rated each potential hazard 1-3 (1 being most important, 3 being least important).

Table 4.1 Potential Mitigation Activities Considered by Routt County More information is available on the High Priority Activities on the Individual Mitigation Worksheets in Appendix L

Activity Jurisdiction(s) to Hazard Potential Mitigation Activity Priority conduct action High Routt County Increase DTR 800 towers in the county Communications High Institute CAD/RMS/MDT for integrated Routt County, Fire communications and data tracking Districts, municipalities

Institute an interagency dispatch center High Routt County in order to provide inter-operability with Communications Multi-hazard/Regional the Craig, CO

Add 50,000 gallon water storage and booster pump at Yampa Valley Town of Hayden Public High Regional Airport – for fire suppression Works Department and in case of stranded people Colorado Mountain Provide Second Access Road to High/Moderate College – Steamboat Colorado Mountain College Springs Moderate Develop a master site for disaster Routt County, Fire communication with real time updating Districts, municipalities

Moderate Develop an Emergency Operations Routt County, Fire Center Districts, municipalities

Develop a multiagency communications Routt County, Fire Moderate center that is outside of the 500 year Districts, municipalities flood plain

Conduct a dam breach study of the Upper Yampa Water Dam Failure High cascading impacts of dam failure from Conservancy District Stillwater reservoir and Routt County Mitigate dam facilities in critical High condition Dam owners.

127

Develop an evacuation plan in the Dam owners and law High event of dam failure for communities enforcement.

Implement remote, electronic dam/river Moderate Dam owner. flood monitoring systems

Low Municipalities and water Drought Water use reduction projects districts

Water conservation education and Municipalities and water Low outreach districts

Change location of gauge in Walton Flooding High USGS and NWS. Creek

Clean Dry Creek from Poplar Street to Town of Hayden Public High Yampa River in Hayden to prevent Works Department flooding

Repair or replace bridges that fall below High Bridge owners. 40 on SCOUR list

Mitigate critical facilities in the 100 year High flood plain Facilities owner.

Mitigate flood flow bypass for High Butcherknife Creek, Spring Creek, Oak Municipalities Creek and in Hayden Do level 2 runs on HAZUS Software to Routt County, City of High evaluate flood potential and dangers Steamboat Springs City of Steamboat High Bank Stabilization – Soda Creek Springs Public Works City of Steamboat Continue to comply with the regulations Springs, Town of High of the National Flood Insurance Hayden, Town of Oak Program Creek, Town of Yampa, Routt County Culvert upgrade/replacement at Moffat High Town of Oak Creek Avenue Culvert upgrade/replacement at South High Town of Oak Creek Lincoln Avenue Replace undersized culverts State, local government Moderate and private industry. Moderate Redesign the floodplain around Walton City of Steamboat Creek in Steamboat Springs Springs

Moderate Fire districts and law Acquire MDT/GIS in response vehicles enforcement.

Moderate Mitigate bridges that are above 40 on Bridge owner. the SCOUR list

Moderate Mitigate critical facilities in 500 year Facilities owner floodplain

128

Conduct volume study with reservoirs Upper Yampa Water Low and snow melt pre-releases ( Conservancy District, Stagecoach, Catamount, Steamboat dam owners and water Lake Reservoirs) districts. Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District Support Craig Regional Hazardous Moderate Local government. Hazardous Waste Materials Team Materials Release High Remove hazard trees from utility Utility companies, USFS easements

High Remove hazard trees from roads Local government, USFS

High Remove hazard trees from public use Local government, USFS Mountain Pine Beetle areas and State Parks Epidemic / Dead Trees High Address biomass storage due to tree Local government, USFS removal and private industry

Low Education and outreach to property Local government, USFS owners regarding hazard trees and State Parks

Develop a detailed plan to mitigate Local government public High hazards works departments. Landslide, Mudflow/Debris flow, Moderate Carry out projects to implement the plan Local government public Rock Fall works departments.

Local government public Moderate Develop a plan for isolation works departments. Develop mapping for lightening strikes Fire districts and GIS High in Fire Districts departments High Lightening Backup power to critical infrastructures, Local government and including communications towers private industry.

Moderate Education and public outreach Fire districts. Develop a plan for long term isolation Public safety agencies Moderate and education/outreach and public works

Education and public outreach using Local government GIS the internet, including maps of high Moderate departments and public Severe Winter Weather hazard areas safety.

Acquire additional tools for First Low Responders, including gear and Public safety. snowmobiles

High Wildfire Fuels reduction on Federal lands USFS, BLM

High Fuels reduction on non-Federal lands CSFS, fire districts and private land owners

129

Complete and adopt the Routt County Routt County, fire High CWPP districts, CSFS, USFS and BLM

Develop a post wildfire plan for USFS, BLM, CSFS and High watershed/reservoir protection water districts/municipalities.

USFS, BLM, CSFS and High Implement post wildfire plan for water watershed/reservoir districts/municipalities.

USFS, BLM, CSFS and High Protect watershed from wildfire water districts/municipalities.

Moderate Adopt Wildland Fire Interface Code with Fire District Board’s and county and each district BCC

Moderate Increase firefighting water supplies Fire districts and private land owners. Map water sources for water supply Fire districts and GIS Moderate departments. Establish alternate power to critical High Public and private infrastructure owners of infrastructure

Generator at Golden Meadows Pump Town of Hayden Public High Station in Hayden Works Department

Generator at Washington Street Lift Town of Hayden Public Prolonged Power High Outage Station in Hayden Works Department

Colorado Mountain Installing Power Generators at High College – Steamboat Colorado Mountain College Springs

Plan for dissemination of information Public and private Moderate owners of infrastructure

6.3. IMPLEMENTATION 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include an action strategy describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefits review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.

To prioritize the mitigation actions, the HMPC generally followed the guidelines outlined by the STAPLEE prioritization criteria recommended by FEMA. STAPLEE is a tool used to assess the costs and benefits and overall feasibility of mitigation actions. STAPLEE stands for the following:

Social: Will the action be acceptable to the community? Could it have an unfair effect on a particular segment of the population?

130

Technical: Is the action technically feasible? Are there secondary impacts? Does it offer a long-term solution?

Administrative: Are there adequate staffing, funding, and maintenance capabilities to implement the project?

Political: Will there be adequate political and public support for the project?

Legal: Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement the action?

Economic: Is the action cost-beneficial? Is there funding available? Will the action contribute to the local economy?

Environmental: Will there be negative environmental consequences from the action? Does it comply with environmental regulations? Is it consistent with community environmental goals?

The HMPC met in June 2010 to determine which of the identified actions were most likely to be implemented and effective. Each potential hazard was written on the dry erase board. Members of the committee looked at each hazard, and came up with mitigation possibilities for the various jurisdictions. Committee members then discussed the hazards and the mitigation actions, and taking the above questions into consideration, rated each action 1 to 3. One (1) was listed for highest priority, two (2) for medium priorities, and three (3) for low priorities. The ratings were decided on through consensus of the group.

These mitigation actions were also reviewed by attendees of the Hazards Planning Open House in August 2010.

The mitigation actions developed by the HMPC are summarized in Table 4.1. The HMPC came to consensus on which departments and persons are responsible for completing an implementation worksheet for the County for each identified mitigation action. The worksheets document background information, ideas for implementation, lead agency, partners, potential funding, cost estimates, benefits, and timeline for each identified action.

Following this HMPC meeting, the representatives from each participating jurisdiction worked on their individual mitigation actions.

Routt County communities have been very proactive about mitigating risk to natural hazards when the need is identified and guiding new development away from hazard areas. As a result, there are few structural mitigation projects that need to be addressed in these jurisdictions. The mitigation strategy instead focuses on improving communication and coordination within the County and between its jurisdictions to improve efficiency and effectiveness of existing mitigation activities. Many actions are also aimed at additional proactive planning efforts and integrating existing plans to further enhance local capabilities.

The County’s highest priority hazard in the mitigation strategy is wildfire. The County and jurisdictions continue to contribute their own resources to education, planning, land use and building regulations, defensible space, and fuel reduction. However, the vulnerability is high and even greater resources are required to implement needed loss reduction measures.

131

Table 4.1 summarizes all of the prioritized mitigation actions and indicates which jurisdictions plan to implement them; it also provides information on the level of prioritization assigned to each action. The mitigation action implementation worksheets for multi-jurisdictional actions follow the matrix. The implementation worksheets for each jurisdiction are included at the end of this plan.

Implementation and maintenance are critical to the mitigation plan’s overall success. While this plan makes many important recommendations, the jurisdictions will need to decide which action(s) to undertake first. Two factors will help with making that decision: the priority assigned the actions in the planning process and funding availability. Low or no-cost actions most easily demonstrate progress toward successful plan implementation.

An important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying principles into other plans and mechanisms, such as comprehensive planning, capital improvement budgeting, economic development goals and incentives, and other regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated in the day-to-day functions and priorities of government and in land use and development planning. This integration can be accomplished through identifying multi-objective, win-win programs and projects and through the routine actions of monitoring agendas, attending meetings, sending memos, and promoting safe, sustainable communities.

Simultaneous to these efforts, it is important to maintain a constant monitoring of funding opportunities that can be leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended actions. This will include creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or participation requirements. When funding does become available, the participating jurisdictions will be in a position to capitalize on the opportunity. Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre- and post-disaster funds, special district budgeted funds, state and federal earmarked funds, and other grant programs, including those that can serve or support multi-objective applications. Additional mitigation strategies include consistent and ongoing enforcement of existing rules and regulations and vigilant review of countywide programs for opportunities for better coordination.

INCORPORATION INTO EXISTING PLANNING MECHANISMS

44 CFR Requirements 201.6©(4)(ii) [The Plan shall include[ process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.

Most of the Policies identified are taken directly from the Routt County Master and Comprehensive Community or Sub-area Plans. These serve as the basis laying the groundwork for this Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, there are several emergency management plans and projects in Routt County primarily revolving around Floods and Wildfire.

44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii):[The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. Where possible, plan participants will use existing plans and/or programs to implement hazard mitigation actions. Based on the capability assessments of the participating jurisdictions, communities in Routt County continue to plan and implement programs to reduce losses to life and property from hazards. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related

132

planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing actions, where possible, through the following plans:

- Routt County Master Plan

- Routt County Emergency Operations Plan

- Routt County Community Wildfire Protection Plan

- General or master plans of participating jurisdictions

- Ordinances of participating jurisdictions

- Capital improvement plans and budgets

- Other plans and policies outlined in the capability assessments in the jurisdictional annexes

Efforts should be made to monitor the progress of mitigation actions implemented through these other planning mechanisms and, where appropriate, their priority actions should be incorporated into updates of this hazard mitigation plan.

6.4. MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND UPDATING THE PLAN 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(4): The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five- year cycle. Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee

Recognizing that many mitigation projects are ongoing, and that while in the implementation stage communities may suffer budget cuts, experience staff turnover, or projects may fail altogether, a good plan needs to provide for periodic monitoring and evaluation of it’s successes and failures and allow for updates of the Plan where necessary.

Changes should be made to the plan to accommodate for projects that have failed or are not considered feasible after a review for their consistency with the Plan, the time frame, the community’s priorities, and funding resources. Priorities that were not ranked high, but identified as potential mitigation strategies, should be reviewed as well during the monitoring and update of this plan to determine feasibility of future implementation. In keeping with the process of adopting the Routt County Hazard Mitigation Plan, a public hearing to receive public comment on plan maintenance and updating should be held during the annual review period, and the final product adopted by the Board of County Commissioners appropriately.

With adoption of this plan, the HMPC will be tasked with plan monitoring, evaluation, and maintenance. The Routt County Office of Emergency Management will take the lead on this, and all participating jurisdictions and agencies agree to:

133

Meet biannually and after a disaster event to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the plan;

Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues;

Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants;

Pursue the implementation of high priority, low- or no-cost recommended actions;

Maintain vigilant monitoring of multi-objective, cost-share, and other funding opportunities to help the community implement the plan’s recommended actions for which no current funding exists;

Monitor and assist in implementation and update of this plan;

Keep the concept of mitigation in the forefront of community decision making by identifying plan recommendations when other community goals, plans, and activities overlap, influence, or directly affect increased community vulnerability to disasters;

Report on plan progress and recommended changes to the Routt County Board of County Commissioners and governing bodies of participating jurisdictions; inform and solicit input from the public.

The HMPC is an advisory body and will not have any powers over County, City, Town, or District staff. Its primary duty is to see the plan successfully carried out and to report to the community governing boards and the public on the status of plan implementation and mitigation opportunities. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, hearing stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and posting relevant information on the County website.

The HMPC agrees to meet biannually to review the plan. Routt County Office of Emergency Management will take the lead on this.

Plan Maintenance Schedule

In order to track progress and update the Mitigation Strategies identified in the Action Plan (Table 4.1), the County will revisit the Routt County Hazard Mitigation plan annually, or after a hazard event. A 5-year written update will be submitted to the Colorado Division of Emergency Management and FEMA Region VIII, unless disaster or other circumstances (e.g., changing regulations) lead to a different time frame. The Emergency Management Director/Emergency Manager is responsible for initiating this review and will consult with the Routt County Board of County Commissioners.

Plan Maintenance Process

Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities identified in the plan. Changes in vulnerability can be identified by noting:

Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions,

134

Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions, and/or

Increased vulnerability as a result of new development (and/or annexation).

Updates to this plan will:

Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation,

Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective,

Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective,

Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked,

Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks,

Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities,

Incorporate growth and development-related changes to inventories, and

Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.

To best evaluate any changes in vulnerability as a result of plan implementation, the participating jurisdictions will follow the following process:

A representative from the responsible office identified in each mitigation action will be responsible for tracking and reporting on an annual basis to the jurisdictional lead on action status and provide input on whether the action as implemented meets the defined objectives and is likely to be successful in reducing vulnerabilities.

If the action does not meet identified objectives, the jurisdictional lead will determine what additional measures may be implemented, and an assigned individual will be responsible for defining action scope, implementing the action, monitoring success of the action, and making any required modifications to the plan.

Changes will be made to the plan to accommodate for actions that have failed or are not considered feasible after a review of their consistency with established criteria, timeframe, community priorities, and/or funding resources. Actions that were not ranked high but were identified as potential mitigation activities will be reviewed as well during the monitoring and update of this plan to determine feasibility of future implementation. Updating of the plan will be by written changes and submissions, as the Routt County Office of Emergency Management deems appropriate and necessary, and as approved by the Routt County Board of Commissioners and the governing boards of the other participating jurisdictions.

44 CFR Requirement201.6©(4)(iii) [The plan maintenance process shall include a ] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.

135

If changes are requested, the public will be informed and input will be solicited . Updating of the plan will be by written changes and submissions, as the Routt County Office of Emergency Management deems appropriate and necessary, and as approved by the Routt County Board of Commissioners and the governing boards of the other participating jurisdictions.

7. CURRENT MITIGATION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

7.1. RECENT AND ONGOING MITIGATION PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS

Hayden Floodplain Mitigation Project 2008 Spring Creek/US40 Box Culvert Installation 2009 Butcherknife Creek/US40 Box Culvert Partial Installation 2009 Cog Road Hill Stabilization Project 2010 Routt County Fuels Reduction Project

7.2. FUTURE MITIGATION PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS

(See Table 4.1)

136

MAP APPENDICES

Appendix A: Community Profile Map

Source: Routt County Geographic Information Systems

137

Appendix A1: Routt County Fire Protection Districts

138

Appendix A2: Routt County Infrastructure Maps

139

Appendix A3: Town of Hayden Infrastructure Map

140

Appendix A4: Steamboat Springs Infrastructure Map

141

Appendix A5: South Routt Infrastructure Map

142

Appendix B: Routt County Ecosystems Map

143

Parcels in 100-Year Flood Plain The following maps of each jurisdiction show the parcels located in the 100-year flood plain. The methodology used to obtain the information is as follows:

For all jurisdictions except City of Steamboat Springs:

1. We selected address points that intersected 100 year flood 2. We selected lots that intersected selected address points 3. Flood status = YES if lots were selected 4. If the lot type = ag vacant or vacant then flood status = no 5. For all the NULL values, GIS staff zoomed to parcel and using 2009 NAIP 1m aerial imagery, determined if a structure was in the flood zone.

FOR CITY LIMITS :

1. Used City Parcels, selected all parcels intersection 100 year flood 2. Copied those into file geodatabase and added to project 3. Selected building footprints that intersected 100 year flood 4. Selected city parcels that intersected those selected buildings 5. Assigned a yes attribute to those selected parcels to yes. Those parcels are structures and their respective parcels that intersect the 100 year flood 6. Assigned a no attribute to those parcels that intersected the floodplain but did not have a structure in the floodplain.

144

Appendix C1: Parcels in 100-Year Floodplain ROUTT COUNTY

145

Appendix C2: Parcels in 100-Year Floodplain NORTH ROUTT COUNTY

146

Appendix C3: Parcels in 100-Year Floodplain TOWN OF HAYDEN

147

Appendix C4: Parcels in 100-Year Floodplain CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS

148

Appendix C5: Parcels in 100-Year Floodplain TOWN OF OAK CREEK

149

Appendix C6: Parcels in 100-Year Floodplain TOWN OF YAMPA

150

Appendix CC: Hazard Dam Map

Source: Routt County Geographic Information Systems

151

Appendix D: 2007 Drought Outlook Map

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.html

152

Appendix E: Streamflow Map

Source: U.S. Geological Survey website

153

Appendix F: Wildland Fire Map

Source: Routt County Geographic Information Systems

154

Appendix G: Avalanche Forecast Zone Map

Source: Routt County Geographic Information Systems

155

Appendix H: Geologic Hazards Map

Source: Routt County Geographic Information Systems

156

Appendix HH: Routt County Historical Earthquake Epicenters

Source: Routt County Geographic Information Systems

157

Appendix I: Fault Map

Source: Routt County Geographic Information Systems

158

Appendix J: References

Colorado Division of Mining Reclamation and Safety. http://mining.state.co.us/

Colorado Division of Wildlife. Wetland Wildlife Conservation Program. http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/

Colorado Geologic Survey. Earthquakes. http://geosurvey.state.co.us/Default.aspx?tabid=108

Colorado Natural Heritage Program. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/index.asp

Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. Directory of Colorado State Register Properties. http://www.coloradohistory-oahp.org/programareas/register/1503/cty.htm

Colorado State University Extension. Mountain Pine Beetle. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05528.html

Colorado State University. Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic Map 1996-2009. http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/mountain-pine-beetle.html

BureauNet National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA: National Flood Insurance Reports. http://bsa.nfipstat.com/reports/reports.htm

National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database. Storm Events Database. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms

National Register of Historic Places. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/

National Response Center. Query NRC Reports. http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/apex/f?p=109:1:874441558039586

NOAA Satellite and Information Service. http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/

SHELDUS. Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States. http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvriapps/sheldus_setup/sheldus_login.aspx

United States Census Bureau. State and County Quickfacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08107lk.html

United States Geologic Survey. http://www.usgs.gov/

United States Geologic Survey. Scour at Bridetes—What’s it all about? http://ma.water.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/scour.htm

Western Regional Climate Center. Western US COOP Station. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/coopmap/

Other Sources Consulted

Routt County Flood Insurance Study dated February 4, 2005

159

2004 Drought and Water Supply Assessment

Disaster declaration history from FEMA, the Public Entity Risk Institute, and the USDA Farm Service Agency

State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2008)

Routt County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2010 draft)

Routt County Countywide Master Plan (2003)

Statewide GIS datasets compiled by state and federal agencies

Geographic information systems (GIS) data from the Routt County GIS Department

Other existing plans and reports

Personal interviews with HMPC members and other stakeholders

Routt County Data Collection Guide completed by each participating jurisdiction

160

Appendix K: Planning Process Documentation

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Meeting Distribution List

Members:

Ben Beall [email protected] City of Steamboat Springs Public Works Bob Matteo [email protected] East Routt Library District Bob Redding [email protected] Town of Oak Creek Public Works Bob Reilley [email protected] North Routt Fire Protection District Bob Struble [email protected] Routt County Office of Emergency Management Brian Hoza [email protected] Colorado Mountain College – Alpine Campus Brian Kelly [email protected] Steamboat Springs School District School Board Chuck Vale [email protected] DOLA- Colorado Division of Emergency Mgmt Chuck Wisecup [email protected] South Routt Fire District Cindy Anderson [email protected] South Routt Library District Cindy Maddox [email protected] Steamboat Springs Cemetery District Debra Funston [email protected] Steamboat Springs Fire Department Denise Connelly [email protected] Steamboat Springs School District School Board Doug Baker [email protected] Steamboat II Metro District Emma Williamson [email protected] Yampa Fire Protection District Eric Berry [email protected] Town of Yampa Public Works Gena Hange [email protected] South Routt School Board Jay Gallagher [email protected] Mount Werner Water District Jeff Buffetti [email protected] South Routt Fire Protection District Jeff Erickson [email protected] Morrison Creek Water District Jeff Peterson [email protected] Mount Werner Water District Jim Stanko [email protected] Joel Harris [email protected] South Routt School Board John McCollum [email protected] South Routt School Board Josephine Semotan [email protected] Karen Halterman [email protected] Town of Oak Creek Kurt Frentress [email protected] Hayden School District Board of Education Laura Anderson [email protected] City of Steamboat Springs Public Works Lisa Brown [email protected] Steamboat Springs School District School Board Lisa Rangel [email protected] South Routt Library District Lisa Zirkel [email protected] Hayden Cemetery District Mel Stewart [email protected] Steamboat Springs Fire Prevention Michael Holloran [email protected] East Routt Library District Morrison Creek Water District [email protected] Morrison Creek Water District Peter (Mike) Yurich [email protected] South Routt Library District Robin Crossan [email protected] Steamboat Springs School District School Board Rodney Wilson [email protected] South Routt School Board Sharon Nereson [email protected] Hayden School District Board of Education Sharon Roberts [email protected] South Routt Library District Steve Colby [email protected] Morrison Creek Water District Thomas Hopp [email protected] East Routt Library District Tim Frentress [email protected] Hayden School District Board of Education Timothy Corrigan [email protected] South Routt School Board Tony Borean [email protected] Morrison Creek Water District Vance Fulton [email protected] Hayden School District Board of Education Wendy Villa [email protected] South Routt Library District West Routt Fire Protection District [email protected] West Routt Fire Protection Willie Smith [email protected] South Routt School Board Winnie Delliquadri [email protected] City of Steamboat Springs IGS

161

In addition, the following people were sent a final draft of the Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for additional feedback:

Tom Soos, Director Moffat County OEM [email protected] John Hutchins, Manager Rio Blanco County OES [email protected] Trevor Denney, Emergency Manager Grand County EMS/OEM [email protected]

162

Posting of Public Meeting on August 11, 2010

163

Notice of Public Meeting Posted at Yampa Town Hall and Post Office 8-4-10

ROUTT COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN PUBLIC MEETING

WEDNESDAY - AUGUST 11, 2010 10 am to 11:30 am Historic Courthouse 522 Lincoln Avenue Third Floor Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Hard copy of the draft document is available for review at: Yampa Town Hall 56 Lincoln Street Yampa, Colorado

164

Notice of Public Meeting Posted at Hayden Town Hall 8-5-10

Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC MEETING

Routt County is hosting a public meeting on Wednesday, August 11th from 10am to 11:30am at the Historic County Courthouse, 3rd Floor – 522 Lincoln Avenue, Steamboat Springs. The meeting is to get public feedback on the draft of the Routt County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Copies of the draft for your review are available at Hayden Town Hall, Steamboat Springs City Hall, Routt County, Oak Creek Town Hall and Yampa Town Hall – and on the City of Steamboat Springs website at http://steamboatsprings.net/sites/default/files/page/660/Routt_County_Hazard_Mitigatio n_Plan_DRAFT.pdf

For more information contact Bob Struble at 879-0108 or [email protected].

165

Notice of Public Meeting Posted at Oak Creek Town Hall and Post Office 8-5-10 Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting August 11, 2010 10am to 11:30am Historic Courthouse, 522 Lincoln Avenue – Third Floor Steamboat Springs

166

September 21, 2009 Meeting Sign-in Sheet

167

June 14, 2010 Meeting Sign-in Sheet

168

August 11, 2010 Meeting Sign-in Sheet

169

Appendix L: Mitigation Alternatives and Prioritization

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Increase DTR 800 towers in the county

Jurisdiction: Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden, Town of Oak Creek, Town of Yampa, North Routt Fire Protection District, West Routt Fire Protection District, Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District, Oak Creek Fire Protection District, Yampa Fire Protection District

Issue/Background: Current number of towers is inadequate for consistent and clear communication regarding emergency situations.

Other Alternatives: Continue to operate as is.

Responsible Office: Routt County Communications Director

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $1,500,000 per site

Benefits: Communication within agencies and among agencies will increase in effectiveness, resulting in better emergency management and safety.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

170

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Institute CAD/RMS/MDT for integrated communications and data tracking

Issue/Background: Current integrated communication technology and data tracking is not up to date according to industry standards.

Other Alternatives: Continue to operate as is.

Responsible Office: Routt County Communications Director, Fire Districts, Municipalities

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $750,000

Benefits: Communication within agencies and among agencies will increase in effectiveness, resulting in better emergency management and safety.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

171

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Develop and Implement Emergency Operations Dispatch and Communications Center that: 1) Provides inter-operability with Craig, CO 2) Is a communication center with real time updating 3) Is outside of the 500 year flood plain

Issue/Background: There is not a communications center outside of the 500 year floodplain. Technology is not in place that allows for inter-operability with Craig, CO, allow some emergency management efforts are shared between the two regions. The current communications system does not allow for real time updating.

Other Alternatives: Continue to operate as is. Implement some of the specific actions identified as part of the entire Emergency Operations Center initiative.

Responsible Office: Routt County Communications Director

Priority (high, medium, low): High (Inter-operability with Craig, CO) Moderate (real time communication and out of 500 year floodplain)

Cost Estimate: $3,000,000 to $5,000,000

Benefits: Communication within agencies and among agencies will increase in effectiveness, resulting in better emergency management and safety.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

172

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): 50,000 gallon water storage and booster pump at Yampa Valley Regional Airport

Jurisdiction: Town of Hayden

Issue/Background: If a major catastrophe were to happen at the Airport, this would provide better water service for fire suppression and longer chlorine residual for the safety of people who might be stranded for extended periods of time.

Other Alternatives: 250,000 gallon storage tank

Responsible Office: Town of Hayden Public Works

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $250,000

Benefits: This would provide better firefighting abilities, more water pressure, more water flow and better chlorine residual.

Potential Funding: FEMA

Schedule: When funding is available

173

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Conduct a dam breach study of the cascading impacts of dam failure from Stillwater reservoir and Routt County

Jurisdiction: Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden, Town of Yampa, Town of Oak Creek

Issue/Background: Stillwater reservoir sits high above Routt County. The water released from the dam flows through drainages throughout all of the jurisdictions except North Routt. Impacts of a dam breach would be catastrophic to many areas. There is not a study in place that details the impact of a dam breach.

Other Alternatives: Operate without a detailed study.

Responsible Office: Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District/Dam Owners

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $75,000

Benefits: A full analysis of dam breach impacts allow personnel to implement meaningful emergency preparedness including emergency planning for impacted residents and critical facilities.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

174

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Mitigate dam facilities in critical condition

Jurisdiction: Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden, Town of Yampa, Town of Oak Creek

Issue/Background: It is important to repair and maintain the dam facilities so there is not a catastrophic breach.

Other Alternatives: Leave the dam facilities as is.

Responsible Office: Dam Owners

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $500,000 to $1,500,000

Benefits: Making sure that dam facilities are working correctly and are trustworthy is critical.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

175

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Develop an emergency evacuation plan in the event of dam failure for communities

Jurisdiction: Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden,

Issue/Background: A dam breach for numerous dams in Routt County could have catastrophic impacts on population centers. Plans need to be developed in order to communicate dam breaches to community members and to notify them of evacuation procedures. Emergency management officials need plans in place in order to operate quickly to save lives.

Other Alternatives: Operate without a detailed plan.

Responsible Office: Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District / Routt County Office of Emergency Management

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Personnel time

Benefits: A detailed plan for specific dam breaches and community members’ awareness of the plan could save many people’s lives in the event of an emergency

Potential Funding: Not Applicable

Schedule: present through 2015

176

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Change location of gauge on Walton Creek

Jurisdiction: Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs

Issue/Background: The gauge is not at a proper location to read water levels. If moved to a different location, water levels will be read to provide more accurate data on potential flooding and to allow officials and residents time to prepare for flood events.

Other Alternatives: Operate with the gauge at the present location.

Responsible Office: City of Steamboat Springs Public Works Department

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Personnel time.

Benefits: The gauge is not at a proper location to read water levels. If moved to a different location, water levels will be read to provide more accurate data on potential flooding and to allow officials and residents time to prepare for flood events.

Potential Funding: Personnel time

Schedule: present through 2015

177

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Clean Dry Creek from Poplar Street to the Yampa River to prevent flooding.

Jurisdiction: Town of Hayden

Issue/Background: A large amount of water introduced into Dry Creek could result in flooding to crucial areas of Town including Hayden Valley Elementary School, West Routt Fire Station and Dry Creek Park.

Other Alternatives: Build large reservoir upstream

Responsible Office: Town of Hayden Public Works

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $100,000

Benefits: This would minimize and/or prevent flooding in the areas mentioned above and would also protect bridges.

Potential Funding: FEMA

Schedule: Winter - when funding is available

178

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Repair or replace bridges that fall below 40 on SCOUR list.

Jurisdiction: Routt County, multi-jurisdictional

Issue/Background: There are multiple bridges in the county that fall below 40 on the SCOUR list as determined by the Department of Transportation. These bridges pose a risk of failing and need to be mitigated.

Other Alternatives: Close bridges if alternative routes exist.

Responsible Office: Routt County Road & Bridge Department

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $500,000 to $1,500,000

Benefits: Bridges will be able to remain open if mitigation occurs.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

179

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Mitigate facilities in 100 year flood plain.

Jurisdiction: City of Steamboat Springs, Routt County, Town of Hayden, Town of Oak Creek

Issue/Background: There are important emergency and infrastructure facilities located in the 100 year flood plain.

Other Alternatives: Facilities should be relocated or protected against flooding.

Responsible Office: Public Works Departments in affected Communities

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $750,000 to $1,500,000

Benefits: Emergency operations will be able to continue effectively. Critical infrastructure will continue to be available for residents.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

180

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Mitigate flood flow bypass for Butcherknife Creek, Spring Creek, Oak Creek and in Hayden.

Jurisdiction: City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden, Oak Creek, Routt County

Issue/Background: Flood flow bypass structures need to be accessed and remedied in order to accommodate flood waters. Bypass structures have at times not been effective in handling flood waters.

Other Alternatives: Operate as is and mitigate for specific flood events that are likely to exceed flood flow bypasses.

Responsible Office: Public Works Departments of Affected Communities

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $350,000 to $500,000

Benefits: Fewer flood events will impact infrastructure and buildings in communities.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

181

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Attend training on HAZUS-MH Software and do Level 2 runs on flooding risks

Jurisdiction: Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs

Issue/Background: Both Routt County and the City of Steamboat Springs have purchased the HAZUS-MH software and are attending training this year. Unfortunately we were unable to use the software for this year’s plan.

Other Alternatives: Use current available GIS software to evaluate risks

Responsible Office: Routt County GIS, City of Steamboat Springs GIS

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Personnel time

Benefits: HAZUS-MH can help the county to evaluate potential losses from floods, hurricane winds and earthquakes.

Potential Funding: Not Applicable

Schedule: by 2015 update

182

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Bank Stabilization of Soda Creek

Jurisdiction: City of Steamboat Springs

Issue/Background: The bank of Soda Creek in Steamboat Springs is deteriorating and needs to be stabilized. The location of the deterioration is near the Bud Werner Memorial Library in Little Toots Park – a highly used family park in Steamboat Springs.

Other Alternatives: Leave the bank as is.

Responsible Office: City of Steamboat Springs Public Works Department

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $75,000

Benefits: Increased safety, decrease in flooding of Little Toots Park, and increased health and enjoyment of the river

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: 2011 - 2015

183

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Support Craig Regional Hazardous Materials Team.

Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdiction

Issue/Background: Routt County does not have an Hazardous Materials Team; therefore, the team from Craig, CO assists with Hazardous Materials release events in Routt County. Emergency responders and other officials in Routt County need to be prepared to assist the team.

Other Alternatives: Allow Craig Regional Hazardous Materials Team to handle situations without the support of Routt County. Develop a Routt County Hazardous Materials Team.

Responsible Office: Routt County Office of Emergency Management, Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District, North Routt Fire Protection District, West Routt Fire Protection District, Oak Creek Fire Protection District, Yampa Fire Protection District

Priority (high, medium, low): Moderate

Cost Estimate: Personnel time

Benefits: Increased communication and efficiency in handling hazardous materials release.

Potential Funding: Not Applicable

Schedule: present through 2015

184

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Remove hazardous trees from the following concern areas: utilities easements, roads, federal lands, non-federal lands, public use areas, and areas critical to protecting watersheds.

Issue/Background: The Mountain Beetle Epidemic has resulted and will continue to result in expansive tree death in Routt County forests. Dead and standing trees pose a safety risk as roots become weak, resulting in trees falling. Trees that fall on utilities can impede residents, businesses, and critical facilities from accessing utilities. Trees that fall on roads can impede travel and poses a risk of falling on vehicles. Trees that fall in public use areas impede access to those areas and can fall on people and vehicles. Trees also need to be removed to reduce the amount of fuels in order to reduce wildfire risks. Trees on federal and non-federal land that are not in near utilities, roadways, and public use areas also need to be removed in order to reduce wildfire fuels. These efforts will also help to protect watersheds from wildfire.

Other Alternatives: The trees could be left standing.

Responsible Office: Fire Departments of All Communities

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $3,000 to $4,000 per acre.

Benefits: Public safety increases. Utilities are protected. Public accesses are protected. Fuels are reduced. Watershed quality is protected.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

185

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Address bio-mass stores due to tree removal

Issue/Background: The extremely significant number of trees that have been and need to be removed from hazard areas needs to be addressed. Trees that have been felled should not be left at the site because of continued wildfire danger.

Other Alternatives: Bio-mass stores need to be addressed.

Responsible Office: Local Governments or County in Affected Areas

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $3,000 to $4,000 per acre.

Benefits: Timber can be used as a material for products such as wood pellets for heating, construction, and furniture.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

186

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Develop detailed plan to mitigate Landslide, Mudflow/Debris flow, Rock Fall hazards.

Jurisdiction: Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden, Town of Oak Creek, Town of Yampa

Issue/Background: Routt County and jurisdictions have not developed a plan to mitigate for these hazards. Landslide and rock falls can be particularly hazardous and there was a death in 2010 due to a rockslide in Routt County. A detailed study of activities needs to occur in order to study and implement the most effective mitigation activities.

Other Alternatives: Conduct mitigation activities that seem to be the most important before developing a mitigation plan.

Responsible Office: Public Works Departments of Affected Communities and Routt County Road and Bridge Department

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Personnel time.

Benefits: Developing a mitigation plan for Landslide, Mudflow/Debris flow, Rock Fall hazards allows the opportunity to analyze specific hazard areas and to analyze what mitigation efforts would be most effective.

Potential Funding: Not Applicable

Schedule: present through 2015

187

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Develop mapping for lightening strikes in fire districts.

Jurisdiction: North Routt Fire Protection District, West Routt Fire Protection District, Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District, Oak Creek Fire Protection District, Yampa Fire Protection District, Routt County

Issue/Background: Lightening strike data has not been documented in a cohesive, visual document. Lightening strike information can be used to educate the public and to track lightening that has the potential to cause wildfires.

Other Alternatives: Operate as is.

Responsible Office: Fire Districts in all Jurisdictions, GIS Departments

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Personnel time.

Benefits: Lightening strike information can be used to educate the public and to track lightening that has the potential to cause wildfires.

Potential Funding: Not Applicable

Schedule: present through 2015

188

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Backup power to critical infrastructures, including communications towers.

Jurisdiction: Routt County, City of Steamboat Springs, Town of Hayden, Town of Oak Creek, Town of Yampa

Issue/Background: Not all critical infrastructures in Routt County have a secondary power source in the event of an electrical power outage due to a lightening strike.

Other Alternatives: Operate as is. Identify infrastructure that may be able to assist if power is eliminated in an area.

Responsible Office: Routt County Communications Director, Local Government Entities

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $50,000

Benefits: Back up power for critical infrastructure and communications towers will ensure that residents and emergency operations are able to have critical services. Communications towers will be functional in order to assist in emergency operations.

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

189

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Fuels reduction on federal and non-federal lands

Issue/Background: It is important in the prevention of wildfire to reduce the amount of dead trees and other fuels that can increase the spread of wildfire

Other Alternatives: Do nothing.

Responsible Office: United States Forest Service, BLM, Colorado State Forest Service, fire districts and private land owners

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $3,000 to $4,000 per acre

Benefits: Reducing the potential for wildfires to spread

Potential Funding: FEMA, General Fund

Schedule: present through 2015

190

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Complete and adopt the Routt County CWPP.

Jurisdiction: Routt County

Issue/Background: The Routt County CWPP is in draft stage and has not been adopted. Many of the jurisdictions have completed and adopted a CWPP along with numerous other communities in Routt County.

Other Alternatives: Not Applicable.

Responsible Office: Routt County Office of Emergency Management

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Personnel time.

Benefits: A Routt County CWPP will help to coordinate the efforts of other CWPPs and will help include unincorporated areas and areas without jurisdictions in efforts to complete mitigation activities and in safety plans.

Potential Funding: Not Applicable

Schedule: present through 2015

191

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Develop and implement a post-wildfire plan for watersheds/reservoirs.

Issue/Background: Wildfires have serious impacts on water quality in watershed and reservoirs. The ashen debris associated with wildfires impacts water quality. Erosion after wildfire creates debris accumulation in the watershed and settles in reservoirs.

Other Alternatives: Operate as is and develop a plan when the need arises.

Responsible Office: Routt County Office of Emergency Management

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Personnel time.

Benefits: A plan will help personnel to operate efficiently in the event of a wildfire that poses a risk to watershed and reservoirs. Studies will have been completed that analyzes high priority forests to protect from wildfires.

Potential Funding: Not Applicable

Schedule: present through 2015

192

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Generator at Golden Meadows Pump Station

Jurisdiction: Town of Hayden

Issue/Background: Extended power outage would result in no water availability to properties served by the Golden Meadows Pump Station.

Other Alternatives: 50,000 gallon elevated water tank

Responsible Office: Town of Hayden Public Works

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $50,000

Benefits: This would provide potable water to houses and would supply water for fire protection.

Potential Funding: FEMA

Schedule: When funding is available

193

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Generator at Washington Street Lift Station

Jurisdiction: Town of Hayden

Issue/Background: Extended power outage would result in the lack of ability to pump sewage from the Washington Street Lift Station.

Other Alternatives: N/A

Responsible Office: Town of Hayden Public Works

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $50,000

Benefits: This would keep sewage moving to the gravity fed lines.

Potential Funding: FEMA

Schedule: When funding is available

194

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Culvert upgrade/replacement at Moffat Avenue

Jurisdiction: Town of Oak Creek

Issue/Background: This six foot box culvert restricts the flow of Oak Creek and during high water, backs up into residential areas near Moffat Avenue. A new/improved culvert is necessary to alleviate this flooding.

Other Alternatives: N/A

Responsible Office: Town of Oak Creek

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $100,000

Benefits: Reduced flooding in residential neighborhoods of Oak Creek.

Potential Funding: FEMA

Schedule: When funding is available

195

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Culvert upgrade/replacement at South Lincoln Avenue

Jurisdiction: Town of Oak Creek

Issue/Background: This makeshift culvert was put together by available materials and is not extremely effective. Currently the culver restricts the flow of Oak Creek and during high water, backs up into residential areas near South Lincoln Avenue. In 1984, high water flooded the residential area and homeowners were trapped. A new/improved culvert is necessary to alleviate this potential flooding.

Other Alternatives: N/A

Responsible Office: Town of Oak Creek

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: $100,000

Benefits: Reduced flooding in residential neighborhoods of Oak Creek.

Potential Funding: FEMA

Schedule: When funding is available

196

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): Routt County will continue to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Jurisdiction: Routt County

Issue/Background: Routt County participates in the NFIP. The project restates the commitment of Routt County to implement sound floodplain management practices. This includes ongoing activities such as enforcing local floodplain development regulations, and remaining current on NFIP Policies. Routt County has a Certified Floodplain Manager. Section 5.13 of the Routt County Zoning Regulations was adopted to meet NFIP minimums. The following provisions in various County plans and ordinances are designed to minimize damage from flooding.

- Zoning regulations establish a required 50-foot setback from waterbodies in the County. - The Routt County Master Plan discusses flooding as an environmental constraint and hazard to development and establishes general policies regarding flooding. - The Routt County Subdivision Regulations include several standards related to flood hazard areas including: Section 3.1.E Any land subject to flooding or in a natural drainage channel shall not be platted for occupancy. The areas subject to flooding should be left as open space or reserved as conservation easement areas. Section 5.1.6.C. Locate residential structures outside of the 100-year floodplain.

Other Alternatives: No action

Responsible Office: Routt County Floodplain Manager – Rebecca Bessey, Planner III, Routt County Planning, CFM

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Staff Time

Benefits: Minimizing risks to life and property due to flooding.

Potential Funding:

Schedule: Ongoing

197

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): The City of Steamboat Springs will continue to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Jurisdiction: City of Steamboat Springs

Issue/Background: The City of Steamboat Springs participates in the NFIP. The City also participates in the Community Rating System and was just re-classified in January 2009 from a CRS Class 9 to a CRS Class 8. The project restates the commitment of the City of Steamboat Springs to implement sound floodplain management practices. This includes ongoing activities such as enforcing local floodplain development regulations, and remaining current on NFIP Policies. The City of Steamboat Springs has a Certified Floodplain Manager. The following regulations were adopted to meet NFIP minimums: Municipal Code Sec. 26-72 Floodplain Development Permit Municipal Code Sec. 26 Article 6 Flood Damage Prevention Building Code The Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan states community goals that limit development within the regulatory floodplain, increase the amount of freeboard from 1‘ to 2’ for residential construction, increase the required waterbody setback to 100’ and for protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

Other Alternatives: No action

Responsible Office: City of Steamboat Springs Floodplain Manager – Bob Keenan, Senior Planner, CFM

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Staff Time

Benefits: Reduced Flood Insurance Rates for residents

Potential Funding:

Schedule: Ongoing

198

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): The Town of Hayden will continue to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Jurisdiction: The Town of Hayden

Issue/Background: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Hayden finds that there are, within the Town of Hayden, floodplains which constitute natural hazards of state and local interest, that flooding may cause serious damage to properties and lives and have adopted regulations in Article 8 of their Land Use Code to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and minimize flood hazards and losses. They employ several methods to reduce potential flood loss including but not limited to: Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion, flood heights or velocities; Controlling filling, grading, dredging and any other development activities which may increase flood damage; Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; Controlling the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels and natural protective barriers which help accommodate or channel floodwaters; and, Preventing or regulating construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.

Other Alternatives: No action

Responsible Office: The Town of Hayden – As of this publication, there was no Town Manager, so the official Floodplain Administrator is the Hayden Town Council

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Staff Time

Benefits: Reduction in loss of human life and destruction of property due to flooding

Potential Funding:

Schedule: Ongoing

199

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): The Town of Oak Creek will continue to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Jurisdiction: The Town of Oak Creek

Issue/Background: The Town of Oak Creek understands the importance of good flood prevention practices, and has adopted regulations and procedures in Chapter 17.06 of their Land Use Code. They employ several methods to reduce potential flood loss including but not limited to: Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to the public’s health, safety, welfare or property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in increased erosion, flood heights or velocities; Controlling filling, grading, dredging and any other development activity which may increase flood damage; Requiring that any use vulnerable to flood related damage, including public facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; Controlling the alteration of natural floodways, stream channels, and other natural protective barriers which mitigate or channel floodwaters; and, Preventing or regulating construction of flood barriers which will either divert floodwaters into or increase flood hazards in other areas.

Other Alternatives: No action

Responsible Office: The Town of Oak Creek

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Staff Time

Benefits: Reduction in loss of human life and destruction of property due to flooding

Potential Funding:

Schedule: Ongoing

200

Proposed Mitigation Action(s): The Town of Yampa will continue to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Jurisdiction: The Town of Yampa

Issue/Background: Eric Berry, Public Works Director of the Town of Yampa is the town’s Floodplain Administrator. The NFIP and FEMA have determined that Town of Yampa is a non-floodprone community. Their index panel number is 1225 thus no floodplain work has been done within the town.

Other Alternatives: No action

Responsible Office: The Town of Yampa – Eric Berry, Public Works Director

Priority (high, medium, low): High

Cost Estimate: Staff Time

Benefits: Reduction in loss of human life and destruction of property due to flooding

Potential Funding:

Schedule: Ongoing

201

202

203

Appendix M: Hazus-MH Flood Event Report

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

ANNEXES – APPENDIX N

Annex A: Routt County Jurisdiction Annex

Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy, and population Routt County is located on the Western Slop of the Rocky Mountains in the Northwestern portion of Colorado. Long before any living beings inhabited the area, a massive upheaval in the earth’s surface formed the Rocky Mountains. That great, slow movement of the earth defined the face of Northwestern Colorado as we know it today. Exposed during the uplift were massive seams of bituminous coal, a mineral which was to become one of Routt County’s major natural resources.

215

Routt County Profile

2009 Population (estimated from 2000 census)….24,806 Steamboat Springs population (2007)..………….. ...11,502 Oak Creek………………………….…………………………...978 Hayden………………………………………..……………..….1,869 Yampa……………………………………………………….…….504 Unincorporated Area…………………………....………….8,207 Surge Population (estimated)..…………………..…..…30,000 Population Growth from 2000………………………..…19.8% County Seat: ..………………….…....…...…Steamboat Springs County Size (square miles).………………………… …2,368.5

The Routt County Road and Bridge department maintains a total of 950 miles of county roads. Not including those roads that are privately maintained and plowed, the various municipalities maintain

216

approximately 100 additional traveled roadway miles. Colorado Highway 40 and Colorado Highway 131are the state highways that run through the county.

Construction has traditionally been a booming industry in the County. According to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Routt County has experienced and average annual population growth of 22.2% from 1997-2007. In 2008, there were 392 building permits issued by the Routt County Building Department in 2008. This is a reflection of the growing population that lives in the county year-round and second home owners who live here part-time.

As of the fourth quarter 2008, the largest workforce sectors in Routt County are Construction (with 19% of the employment), Accomodation and Food Services(with 13%), and Retail(with 12%),. As much as 21% of the local workforce commutes to Routt County to work, but live in Moffat County. The largest growing sector in the county is the service industry.

The local workforce and public schools have seen a recent increase of minority populations throughout the County. There also has been an increase in the percentage of retirement age people who are moving to the area, frequently as second homeowners. Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards

Routt County Hazard Previous Occurrences Probability of Future Magnitude/Severity of Information Occurrences Hazard Avalanche A skier died in a Buffalo Likely Critical Pass avalanche in 2005 Bridge Failure Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Dam Failure Data on past events was Unlikely Catastrophic unavailable Drought USDA declarations for Likely Limited drought conditions in 2000 and 2002.

217

in 2003 from lightening strikes Mountain Pine Beetle 167,645 acres in Routt Highly Likely Limited Epidemic County are classified as primarily Lodgepole pine forests Prolonged Power Outage Data on past events was Occasional Critical unavailable Severe Winter Weather Numerous occurrences Highly Likely Critical resulting in property damage Wildfire Occur to varying degrees Highly Likely Catastrophic most years; 2002 Mount Zirkel Complex was the most recent and significant

Hazard map(s) at an appropriate scale for the jurisdiction, if available Not Available

Number and value of buildings, critical facilities, and other community assets located in hazard areas, if available There are five ambulances, 19 bridges, nine dams, five EMS transmitters, six fire stations, 15 government buildings, six helicopter pads, three incident command posts, nine schools, and seven water/wastewater plants located in the 100 year flood plain in Routt County as a whole.

The total value of property located in high or extreme wildfire threat zones within Routt County is $2,392,926,043.

Vulnerability information in terms of future growth and development in hazard areas Hazards the have the most potential to impact future growth and development include Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic and Wildfire. These two hazards could have drastic impacts on the quality of life in the region. The reduction in quality of life would be due to impacts on water and air quality, the scenic nature of the landscape, and hazardous recreation. The lower quality of life could result in viewer visitors, viewer people moving to the community, and more people leaving the community, which would have a significant negative effect on the economy. The impact of other hazards are isolated, unlikely, or manageable.

A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts and partnerships and past mitigation projects Mitigation projects have been completed in the past through partnerships with municipalities, fire protection districts, USFS, BLM, Division of Wildlife, and other agencies. Funding for projects have and may come from county funds, partnering agencies, and local, state, and federal grants. County wide plans are in place to support and plan for mitigation activities and administrative support exists to ensure project completion.

Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction

Potential Mitigation Activities Considered by Routt County Hazard Activity Potential Mitigation Activity Priority Multi-hazard/Regional High Increase communications to 800 towers in the county

High Institute CAD/RMS/MDT for integrated communications and data tracking

218

High Institute an interagency dispatch center in order to provide inter- operability with the Craig, CO Moderate Develop a master site for disaster communication with real time updating Moderate Develop an Emergency Operatives Center

Moderate Develop a multiagency communications center that is outside of the 500 year flood plain Dam Failure High Conduct a dam breach study of the cascading impacts of dam failure from Stillwater reservoir and Routt County

High Mitigate dam facilities in critical condition

High Develop an evacuation plan in the event of dam failure for communities

Moderate Implement remote, electronic dam/river flood monitoring systems

Drought Low Water use reduction projects

Low Water conservation education and outreach

Flooding High Change location of gauge in Walton Creek

High Repair or replace bridges that fall below 40 on SCOUR list High Mitigate critical facilities in the 100 year flood plain

High Mitigate flood flow bypass for Butcherknife Creek, Spring Creek, Oak Creek and in Hayden Moderate Replace undersized culverts

Moderate Redesign the floodplain around Walton Creek in Steamboat Springs Moderate Acquire MDT/GIS in response vehicles

Moderate Mitigate bridges that are above 40 on the SCOUR list

Moderate Mitigate critical facilities in 500 year floodplain

Low Conduct volume study with reservoirs and snow melt pre-releases ( Stagecoach, Catamount, Steamboat Lake Reservoirs) Hazardous Waste Moderate Support Craig Regional Hazardous Materials Team Materials Release Mountain Pine Beetle High Remove hazard trees from utility easements Epidemic High Remove hazard trees from roads

High Remove hazard trees from public use areas

High Address biomass stores due to tree removal

Low Education and outreach to property owners regarding hazard trees

Landslide, High Develop a detailed plan to mitigate hazards Mudflow/Debris flow,

219

Rock Fall Moderate Carry out projects to implement the plan

Moderate Develop a plan for isolation

Lightening High Develop mapping for lightening strikes in Fire Districts

High Backup power to critical infrastructures, including communications towers

Moderate Education and public outreach Severe Winter Weather Moderate Develop a plan for long term isolation and education/outreach

Moderate Education and public outreach using the internet, including maps of high hazard areas

Low Acquire additional tools for First Responders, including gear and snowmobiles

Low Ask Search and Rescue for their demographics

Wildfire High Fuels reduction on Federal lands

High Fuels reduction on non-Federal lands

High Complete and adopt the Routt County CWPP

High Develop a post wildfire plan for watershed/reservoir protection

High Implement post wildfire plan for watershed/reservoir

High Protect watershed from wildfire

Moderate Adopt Wildland Fire Interface Code with county and each district

Moderate Increase firefighting water supplies

Moderate Map water sources for water supply

Prolonged Power High Establish alternate power to critical infrastructure Outage Moderate Plan for dissemination of information

220

Annex B: Steamboat Springs Jurisdiction Annex

Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy, and population The estimated 2009 population of Steamboat Springs is 11,502. The population increases dramatically during the summer and winter due to tourism. The economy is based on the service industry related to tourism and construction. The city is located in the Yampa River drainage and is bordered by the Medicine Bow National Forest to the North and Emerald Mountain to the South. The elevation is 6,695 feet above sea level. The climate is typical of a mountain valley between 6,000 and 7,000 feet, resulting in large amounts of snow in the winter and thunderstorms in the summer. The Ute people historically enjoyed the pleasant Yampa Valley summers by travelling from the Meeker area to the Steamboat Springs area for the summer. In the late 1800s settlers started moving into the area to mine and farm. By 1909 the railroad was servicing Steamboat Springs, resulting in increased development.

Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards

Steamboat Springs Previous Occurrences Probability of Future Magnitude/Severity of Hazard Information Occurrences Hazard Avalanche Data on past events was Likely Critical unavailable Bridge Failure Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Dam Failure Data on past events was Unlikely Critical unavailable Drought USDA declarations for Likely Limited drought conditions in 2000 and 2002.

Earthquake Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Erosion/Deposition Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Flood Season flooding occurs Likely Critical yearly; a major flood occurred in 1974 that damaged 50 homes Hazardous Materials Minimal incidents, usually Likely Critical Release (Transportation) involved fuel spills Landslide, Mudflow/Debris A slide occurred on Hwy Likely Critical Flow, Rock Fall 40 that killed a person in 2010. CR 14 experienced slides in 2007 and 2008 Land Subsidence Data on specific past Likely Limited events was unavailable Lightning Data on past events was Likely Critical unavailable Mountain Pine Beetle The epidemic has infested Highly Likely Limited Epidemic Lodgepole pine forests Prolonged Power Outage Data on past events was Occasional Critical unavailable Severe Winter Weather Numerous occurrences Highly Likely Critical resulting in property damage Wildfire Occur to varying degrees Highly Likely Critical most years

221

Hazard map(s) at an appropriate scale for the jurisdiction, if available Not Available

Number and value of buildings, critical facilities, and other community assets located in hazard areas, if available There are two ambulance barns, ten bridges, three dams, two EMS transmitters, two fire stations, nine government buildings, two helicopter pads, three schools, and one water/wastewater plants located in the 100 year flood plain in the City of Steamboat Springs, Steamboat Springs Fire Protection and the Town of Milner.

The total value of property located in high or extreme wildfire threat zones within the City of Steamboat Springs is $851,426,473, and in the Steamboat Springs Fire Protection District is $1,934,312,718.

A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts and partnerships and past mitigation projects Mitigation projects have been completed in the past through partnerships with Routt County, USFS, BLM, Division of Wildlife, and other agencies. Funding for projects have and may come from municipal funds, fire district funds, partnering agencies, and local, state, and federal grants. Municipal and fire district planning documents are in place to support mitigation activities and administrative support exists to ensure project completion.

Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction There are three areas with CWPP coverage in the Steamboat Springs Area: Fish Creek/Sanctuary, Burgess Creek, and Steamboat Pines. These areas have identified and completed mitigation activities. In addition to these CWPP areas, the following has been identified as mitigation activities according to the Routt County CWPP.

Ski Area Concerns: Utilities, infrastructure, watershed, recreational opportunities Priorities: dead lodgepole removal, vegetation management around infrastructure and utilities, break up continuity of Gambel oak fuels where appropriate

Fish Creek/Sanctuary Area Even though the Fish Creek/Sanctuary CWPP already exists, Fish Creek Reservoir and Long Lake watersheds are a priority and efforts made to protect that watershed.

Spring Creek Area Concerns: maintain recreational opportunities Priorities: dead lodgepole and hazard tree removal, vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions.

Strawberry Park to Mad Creek Area Concerns: hazard trees on ROW in Strawberry Park, Buffalo Pass, Hot Springs and top of Perry Mansfield Priorities: dead lodgepole and hazard tree removal, vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions.

222

Howelson Hill/Emerald Mountain Area Concerns: maintain recreational opportunities; utilities and other infrastructure protection. Priorities: dead lodgepole and hazard tree removal; vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions and infrastructure; increase signage due to usage.

BLM Emerald Mountain Fuels Project– Proposed. This project is located in Steamboat Springs on Emerald Mountain. It would afford protection of the community from wildfire, reduce the risk of wildfire escaping public lands, reduce the risk of large, high intensity wildfires, improve and maintain healthy ecosystems, and protect critical community infrastructures, i.e., FAA tower and power lines. Prescribed fire or mechanical methods may be used to reduce fire hazards or improve resource conditions for this parcel. Public input will be solicited for this hazardous fuel treatment and further details will be forthcoming.

Milner Area (North and South) Concerns: Agricultural burning is very common in this area. Priorities: vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions and infrastructure; increase public awareness of ag burning and proper notification to authorities

Hwy 131 Corridor Concerns: Agricultural burning is common in this area; hazard trees in and around structures and ROWs. Priorities: dead lodgepole and hazard tree removal; vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions and infrastructure; increase public awareness of ag burning and proper notification to authorities

Lower Elk River Corridor Concerns: Agricultural burning is very common in this area; maintain recreational opportunities; utilities and other infrastructure protection. Priorities: dead lodgepole and hazard tree removal; vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions and infrastructure; increase public awareness of ag burning and proper notification to authorities

BLM Elk Mountain Prescribed Fire – 700 acres. Project site is on south side of Elk Mountain eight miles northwest of Steamboat Springs. The vegetation is thick sagebrush, mountain shrub at higher elevations with some patches of aspen. Burning will convert the sagebrush dominated areas into primarily grass and forb (wildflower) areas. Burning will reduce the height and volume of mountain shrubs but will initiate rapid resprouting which improves habitat for deer and elk. Disturbance, such as fire, is also required for aspen regeneration. In addition to hazardous fuel reduction, the introduction of fire will improve overall ecosystem health by creating a mosaic of vegetation age classes.

Catamount/US40 Area Concerns: maintain recreational opportunities; utilities and other infrastructure protection; hazard trees in and around structures and ROWs. Priorities: dead lodgepole and hazard tree removal; vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions and infrastructure; increase signage due to usage and hazards.

Catamount Ranch & Club. This development along US Highway 40 has create defensible space plans for 76% of the lots as of 2009. Implementation has occurred on many with the goal being 100%.

Storm Mountain Ranch. This subdivision is along US Highway 40 adjacent to Catamount Ranch and Club. All individual lots have created defensible space plans. Many have implemented those plans (some as part of the ARRA Grant). Lake Catamount. This development surrounds Lake Catamount to the south of Rabbit Ears Pass. While most of those lots either haven’t been built upon or are located in meadow/grass, 35% of those lots have created defensible space plans.

223

Annex C: Oak Creek Jurisdiction Annex

Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy, and population The estimated 2009 population of Oak Creek is 978. The economy of the Oak Creek community is based on agriculture, mining, service industry, and construction. Many Oak Creek residents commute to Steamboat Springs for employment. The mining industry was thriving in Oak Creek in the early 1900s. Immigrants travelled to the area from around the world in order to work in the coal mines. There were 2,000 people living in Oak Creek in 1915. Mining peaked in 1930 and declined at that time. The decline in mining was due to trains transitioning to diesel fuel. The elevation of Oak Creek is 7,414 feet above seal level. The winters are long with a lot of snow. Summers are pleasant with typical mountain thundershowers and sunshine.

Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards

Oak Creek Hazard Previous Occurrences Probability of Future Magnitude/Severity of Information Occurrences Hazard Avalanche Data on past events was Unlikely Critical unavailable Bridge Failure Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Dam Failure Data on past events was Unlikely Catastrophic unavailable Drought USDA declarations for Likely Limited drought conditions in 2000 and 2002.

Earthquake Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Erosion/Deposition Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Flood Seasonal flooding occurs Likely Critical yearly; a major flood occurred in 1984 that caused $250,000 worth of damage Hazardous Materials Minimal incidents, usually Likely Critical Release (Transportation) involved fuel spills Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Data on past events was Likely Critical Flow, Rock Fall unavailable Land Subsidence Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Lightning Data on past events was Likely Critical unavailable Mountain Pine Beetle The epidemic has infested Highly Likely Limited Epidemic Lodgepole pine forests Prolonged Power Outage Data on past events was Occasional Critical unavailable Severe Winter Weather Numerous occurrences Highly Likely Critical resulting in property damage Wildfire Occur to varying degrees Highly Likely Catastrophic most years

Hazard map(s) at an appropriate scale for the jurisdiction, if available Not Available

224

Number and value of buildings, critical facilities, and other community assets located in hazard areas, if available There are no critical facilities located within the 100 year flood plain in Oak Creek.

The total value of property located in high or extreme wildfire threat zones within Oak Creek is $12,559,403 and within the Oak Creek Fire Protection District is $145,941,388.

A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts and partnerships and past mitigation projects Mitigation projects have been completed in the past through partnerships with Routt County, USFS, BLM, Division of Wildlife, and other agencies. Funding for projects have and may come from municipal funds, fire district funds, partnering agencies, and local, state, and federal grants. Municipal and fire district planning documents are in place to support mitigation activities and administrative support exists to ensure project completion.

Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction The following mitigation activity information is found in the Routt County CWPP

Concerns: Agricultural burning is very common in this area; maintain recreational opportunities; utilities and other infrastructure protection. Priorities: dead lodgepole and hazard tree removal; vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions and infrastructure; increase public awareness of agricultural burning and proper notification to authorities

225

Annex D: Yampa Jurisdiction Annex

Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy, and population The estimated 2009 population for Yampa is 504. Yampa’s economy is based on agriculture and tourism. The town is situated at the entrance to the Flattops Wilderness area and is surrounded by the Routt National Forest. Recreationalists enjoy visiting Yampa because of the access to forest, lakes, trails, and hunting. The town is at 7,892 feet above sea level and is seated in a broad valley. Winter brings large amounts of snow and can be very windy, causing drifting snow. Summers are mild. The town was first inhabited as a hunting camp, but grew to be a distribution center for goods being transported from Wolcott to Steamboat Springs in the late 1800s. The town also flourished with the lumber industry and in growing lettuce and spinach.

Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards

Yampa Hazard Previous Occurrences Probability of Future Magnitude/Severity of Information Occurrences Hazard Avalanche Data on past events was Likely Critical unavailable Bridge Failure Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Dam Failure Data on past events was Unlikely Catastrophic unavailable Drought USDA declarations for Likely Limited drought conditions in 2000 and 2002.

Earthquake Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Erosion/Deposition Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Flood Seasonal flooding occurs Unlikely Limited yearly; a culvert overflowed causing a road closure and home damage Hazardous Materials Minimal incidents, usually Likely Critical Release (Transportation) involved fuel spills Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Data on past events was Likely Critical Flow, Rock Fall unavailable Land Subsidence Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Lightning Lightening struck the Likely Critical Elementary School and started a fire in 2009 Mountain Pine Beetle The epidemic has infested Highly Likely Limited Epidemic Lodgepole pine forests Prolonged Power Outage Data on past events was Occasional Critical unavailable Severe Winter Weather Numerous occurrences Highly Likely Critical resulting in property damage Wildfire Occur to varying degrees Highly Likely Catastrophic most years

Hazard map(s) at an appropriate scale for the jurisdiction, if available Not Available

226

Number and value of buildings, critical facilities, and other community assets located in hazard areas, if available There is one ambulance, three dams, two EMS transmitters, two fire stations, five government buildings, two schools and four water/wastewater plants located in the 100 year flood plain in the Town of Yampa, Town of Phippsburg and the Yampa Fire Protection District.

There are no properties in the Town of Yampa located within high or extreme wildfire threat zones. The total property value located in high or extreme wildfire threat zones within the Yampa Fire Protection District is $71,035,532.

A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts and partnerships and past mitigation projects Mitigation projects have been completed in the past through partnerships with Routt County, USFS, BLM, Division of Wildlife, and other agencies. Funding for projects have and may come from municipal funds, fire district funds, partnering agencies, and local, state, and federal grants. Municipal and fire district planning documents are in place to support mitigation activities and administrative support exists to ensure project completion.

Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction The following mitigation activity information is found in the Routt County CWPP

Concerns: Agricultural burning is very common in this area; maintain recreational opportunities; utilities and other infrastructure protection.

Priorities: dead lodgepole and hazard tree removal; vegetation management around adjacent subdivisions and infrastructure; increase public awareness of agricultural burning and proper notification to authorities

227

Annex E: West Routt Jurisdiction Annex

Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy, and population The Town of Hayden is the incorporated community located in West Routt. The town sits along the Yampa River west of Steamboat Springs with Highway 40 running through; therefore travelers moving between Steamboat Springs and Salt Lake City pass through Hayden. The town site was incorporated in 1894 and was based on coal mining and cattle ranching. The economy of Hayden is still dependent on coal mining and cattle ranching, but it also benefits from the Yampa Valley Regional Airport, tourism, and hunting. The estimated 2009 population of Hayden is 1,869. The elevation of Hayden is 6,337 feet above sea level. It is located in a broad valley resulting in strong winter winds.

Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards

West Routt Hazard Previous Occurrences Probability of Future Magnitude/Severity of Information Occurrences Hazard Avalanche Data on past events was Unlikely Critical unavailable Bridge Failure Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Dam Failure Data on past events was Unlikely Limited unavailable Drought USDA declarations for Likely Limited drought conditions in 2000 and 2002.

Earthquake Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Erosion/Deposition Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Flood Seasonal flooding occurs Likely Critical yearly; Dry Creek washed out the approach to the 3rd St. Bridge Hazardous Materials Minimal incidents, usually Likely Critical Release (Transportation) involved fuel spills Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Data on past events was Likely Critical Flow, Rock Fall unavailable Land Subsidence Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Lightning Data on past events was Likely Critical unavailable Mountain Pine Beetle The epidemic has infested Occasional Limited Epidemic Lodgepole pine forests Prolonged Power Outage Data on past events was Occasional Critical unavailable Severe Winter Weather Numerous occurrences Highly Likely Critical resulting in property damage Wildfire Occur to varying degrees Highly Likely Critical most years

Hazard map(s) at an appropriate scale for the jurisdiction, if available Not Available

228

Number and value of buildings, critical facilities, and other community assets located in hazard areas, if available There are two bridges, one government building, two helicopter pads, one incident command post, two schools, and one water/wastewater plants in the 100 year floodplain within the West Routt Fire Protection District and Town of Hayden.

The total value of property located in high or extreme wildfire threat zones within the West Routt Fire Protection District is $58,330,074 and in the Town of Hayden is $110,600.

Vulnerability information in terms of future growth and development in hazard areas Wildfire has the most potential to impact future growth and development because it could have drastic impacts on the quality of life in the region. The reduction in quality of life would be due to impacts on water and air quality, the scenic nature of the landscape, and hazardous recreation. The lower quality of life could result in viewer visitors, viewer people moving to the community, and more people leaving the community, which would have a significant negative effect on the economy. The impact of other hazards is isolated, unlikely, or manageable.

A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts and partnerships and past mitigation projects Mitigation projects have been completed in the past through partnerships with Routt County, USFS, BLM, Division of Wildlife, and other agencies. Funding for projects have and may come from municipal funds, fire district funds, partnering agencies, and local, state, and federal grants. Municipal and fire district planning documents are in place to support mitigation activities and administrative support exists to ensure project completion.

Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction The following mitigation activities are found in the Routt County CWPP

Post standardized address signs Create defensible space and reduce fire hazards on private property Maintain proper right-of-ways as it relates to hazard fuels/trees Maintain infrastructure Deadwood removal and replanting as needed for proper regeneration Increase public awareness of agricultural burning Generator at Golden Meadows Pump Station 50,000 gallon water storage and booster pump at Yampa Valley Regional Airport Clean Dry Creek from Poplar Street to the Yampa River to prevent flooding Generator at Washington Street Lift Station

229

Annex F: North Routt Jurisdiction Annex

Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy, and population There are no incorporated towns in the northern portion of Routt County, however there are unincorporated population centers, including Clark and Hahn’s Peak Village. The elevation of Clark is 7,260 and the elevation of Hahn’s Peak Village is at 8,128 feet above sea level. North Routt population centers are at higher elevations than other communities in Routt County. Residents experience longer winters and more snow than most other inhabited areas of the county. The region was settled for mining activity, but the economy is now based on tourism and agriculture. There are numerous resort, guest ranch, guiding, and service based businesses.

Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards

North Routt Hazard Previous Occurrences Probability of Future Magnitude/Severity of Information Occurrences Hazard Avalanche Data on past events was Likely Critical unavailable Bridge Failure Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Dam Failure Data on past events was Unlikely Catastrophic unavailable Drought USDA declarations for Likely Limited drought conditions in 2000 and 2002.

Earthquake Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Erosion/Deposition Data on past events was Likely Limited unavailable Flood Seasonal flooding occurs Likely Critical yearly Hazardous Materials Minimal incidents, usually Unlikely Limited Release (Transportation) involved fuel spills Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Slides occur on CR 129 Likely Critical Flow, Rock Fall Land Subsidence Data on past events was Occasional Limited unavailable Lightning Data on past events was Likely Critical unavailable Mountain Pine Beetle The epidemic has infested Highly Likely Limited Epidemic Lodgepole pine forests Prolonged Power Outage Data on past events was Occasional Critical unavailable Severe Winter Weather Numerous occurrences Highly Likely Critical resulting in property damage Wildfire Occur to varying degrees Highly Likely Catastrophic most years; 2002 Mount Zirkel Complex was most recent and significant

Hazard map(s) at an appropriate scale for the jurisdiction, if available Not Available

Number and value of buildings, critical facilities, and other community assets located in hazard areas, if available

230

There are two ambulances, seven bridges, three dams, one EMS transmitter, two fire stations, two helicopter pads, two incident command posts, two schools and one water/wastewater plants located in the 100 year flood plain in North Routt County.

The total value of property located in high or extreme wildfire threat zones within the North Routt Fire Protection District is $166,203,419.

A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts and partnerships and past mitigation projects Mitigation projects have been completed in the past through partnerships with Routt County, USFS, BLM, Division of Wildlife, and other agencies. Funding for projects have and may come from Routt County, fire district funds, partnering agencies, and local, state, and federal grants. Fire district and Routt County planning documents are in place to support mitigation activities and administrative support exists to ensure project completion.

Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction The following information is found in the North Routt CWPP that was finalized in 2007

Fuel Treatment Projects Seedhouse (In progress) Larson 2 – scheduled for 2008 Big Creek Ridge Prospector Develop fuel break system for Homeowners Association Fuel Reduction on State Parks and particularly Division of Wildlife land Review for treatment on all state lands within the Wildland Urban Interface US Forest Service land adjacent to Willow Creek subdivision Utilize existing roads for fuel breaks State, federal and private lands adjacent to Pearl Lake State Park Treat fuels near homes

Projects to reduce structural ignitability Create defensible space and reduce fire hazards on private property Evaluate defensibility of private property Post standardized address signs Research cost and feasibility of dry hydrant placement Ensure proper handling of power and electric line slash generated during hazard reduction projects Establish proper right-of-way clearance for all power lines in the area. Educate community about Fire Wise concepts Evaluate existing Wildland Urban Interface codes for rural communities

Projects to increase emergency preparedness Post standardized address signs Develop North Routt Area individual and community evacuation plans. Recruit North Routt Area residents to become members of North Routt Fire Identify community members to serve as communication liaisons in the event of evacuation

231

Identify residents with mobility issues and inform NR Fire and Rescue Properly maintain road signage Routt County Annual review of CWPP

Completed Projects Many landowners have begun and/or completed fuels reduction projects. Many have also been able to take advantage of grant funding to help offset the associated project costs.

Steamboat Lake State Park and Pearl Lake State Park have both completed large scale fuel reduction projects as a result of the beetle infestation. Most of these individual projects were completed in 2009 and some in 2010. A few areas are still planned for future treatments.

232

Annex G: Fire Protection Districts Jurisdiction Annex

The towns of Steamboat Springs, Hayden, Hahn’s Peak, Oak Creek and Yampa are the incorporated communities within the planning area.

The topography of the planning area is widely varied. Generally, the terrain in the lower elevations/valleys is relatively flat but rolling, while the mountains in the northern and eastern portion is broken. Elevations range from approximately 6,200 to just over 12,000 feet. While slope is not a factor on the plains, except in drainages there is enough topographic relief that all aspects and degrees of slope are present. Routt County is on the western slope meaning it is located on the western side of the Continental Divide.

The planning area rises from the plains/valleys to the summit of the Park Range and Elk Mountains. As a result, there are variations in the weather. The Wet Mountains can receive heavy snowfall and spawn severe storms that can produce lightening, hail, and lead to flash flooding.

Although floods make up about 75 percent of the state’s natural disasters, experts say that Colorado is also vulnerable to a severe, long-term drought that also could have devastating impacts on people, property, and the economy.

The planning area is the entire Routt County area. It is formed by the boundary between Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties on the West, Jackson and Grand Counties on the east, Eagle County to the south and the state of Wyoming to the north.

Emergency and wildland fire suppression services in Routt County are provided by the following eight local, state and federal agencies. The first five fire protection districts are jurisdictions that participated in the planning process for the Routt County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

NORTH ROUTT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The North Routt Fire Protection District is the northern-most local response agency in the planning area. The department was formed in 1974 as the Clark Fire Department and has a total response area of 410 square miles. The department is fully voluntary except for a paid Fire Chief. North Routt Fire Protection operates out of two fire stations with a staff of 20 volunteer firefighters. Their equipment includes 2 type-1 engines, 2 water tenders, 2 ambulances, 1 type-3 engine, 1 type-4 engine, 1 squad, 1 all-terrain gator and associated equipment.

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS FIRE-RESCUE The City of Steamboat Springs along with the Steamboat Springs Rural Fire Protection District comprises Steamboat Springs Fire-Rescue. It is the central-most local response agency in the planning area. The original Steamboat Springs Fire Department was formed in 1898 and has evolved from a voluntary organization to a combination department. It has a total response area of 384 square miles. Steamboat Fire Rescue

233

operates out of three stations (2 manned, 1 unmanned) with a total staff of 26 career officers and firefighters and an additional 12 seasonal and volunteer firefighters. Eight personnel staff a 4-person engine and two, two person ambulances that provide a dual role of firefighter/medics. Their equipment includes: 3 type-1 engines; 2 aerials; 2 type- 6 engines; 2 tactical tenders; 4 ambulances and other associated equipment.

WEST ROUTT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The West Routt Fire Protection District is the western-most local response agency in the planning area. The department was formed in 1963 and has a total response area of 197 square miles. The department uses paid on call staff except for a paid Fire Chief, Asst Chief and part-time Captains. West Routt Fire Protection operates out of one fire station with a staff of 22 paid per call firefighters. Their equipment includes 3 class A engines, 1 type 6 engine, 2 type 2 tenders and associated equipment.

OAK CREEK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Oak Creek Fire Protection District directly covers approximately 239 square miles surrounding the Town of Oak Creek. The District provides structural and wild land fire suppression, technical rescue including motor vehicle accidents, water rescue, and ALS and BLS Emergency Medical transport. Oak Creek operates out of three stations, 2 in Oak Creek and a newly constructed station in Stagecoach. Their apparatus fleet consists of 2 engines (Type-1 & Type-2), 2 brush trucks (Type-3 & Type-6), 1 water tender, 2 rescue squads, 2 ambulances, and 2 Command vehicles. Staffing is currently 4 full time staff and 12 Volunteer/Reserves.

YAMPA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Yampa Fire Protection District is the southern-most local response agency in the planning area. The department was formed in 1981 and has a total response area of 356 square miles. The department is 100% voluntary. Yampa Fire Protection operates out of two fire stations (Yampa and Phippsburg) with a staff of 15 volunteer firefighters and EMTs. Their equipment includes: 3 type-1 engines; 1 type-6 engine; 2 tenders; 1 rescue; 1 ambulance and associated equipment.

CRAIG RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Craig Rural Fire Protection District is located in Moffat County but has a response area of 100 square miles within Routt County by Elk Head reservoir.

US FOREST SERVICE (HAHN’S PEAK AND YAMPA RANGER DISTRICT) The Hahn’s Peak/Bear’s Ears and Yampa Ranger Districts administer approximately 980,000 acres of public lands. The agency maintains and staffs one Type-6 engine based in Yampa and one initial attack hand crew based in Steamboat Springs. The agency provides initial attack assistance through mutual aid agreements on lands indentified in the Routt County CWPP.

BLM (LITTLE SNAKE FIELD OFFICE) The Bureau of Land Management administers about 50,000 acres of public lands in Routt County. The agency staffs and maintains 2-Type 6X engines, 1-Type 4 engine,

234

out of Craig and The Craig Hot Shots, and 1-4 person initial attack squad. The BLM provides support as outlined in the Annual Operating Plan. Support and resource ordering is provided through the Craig Interagency Fire Dispatch Center. Routt County is a cooperator with the Northwest Colorado Fire Management Unit.

COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE The Colorado State Forest Service, Steamboat District is based in Steamboat Springs and encompasses Routt, Jackson and Moffat Counties. The Colorado State Forest Service does not have any first response fire suppression responsibilities. The agency fulfills their role in fir by providing training, equipment, technical assistance and funding, and by facilitating interagency mutual aid agreements and annual operating plans.

Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards

Earthquake There have been eight Likely Limited earthquakes in Routt County between 1967 and 2007 Erosion/Deposition Data on specific past Likely Limited events was unavailable Flood Season flooding occurs Likely Critical yearly; a major flood Hazardous Materials Minimal incidents, usually Likely Critical Release (Transportation) involved fuel spills Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Numerous slides occur on Likely Critical Flow, Rock Fall county roads including CR 129, 50, 82, 74A, 14, 27, 67 Land Subsidence Data on specific past Occasional Limited events was unavailable Lightning Three horses were killed Likely Critical in 2003 from lightening strikes Mountain Pine Beetle 167,645 acres in Routt Highly Likely Limited Epidemic County are classified as primarily Lodgepole pine forests Prolonged Power Outage Data on past events was Occasional Critical unavailable Severe Winter Weather Numerous occurrences Highly Likely Critical resulting in property damage

235

Wildfire Occur to varying degrees Highly Likely Catastrophic most years; 2002 Mount Zirkel Complex was the most recent and significant

Hazard map(s) at an appropriate scale for the jurisdiction, if available Not Available

The total value of property located in high or extreme wildfire threat zones within all of the Fire Protection Districts is $2,375,823,131.

A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts and partnerships and past mitigation projects Mitigation projects have been completed in the past through partnerships with Routt County, USFS, BLM, Division of Wildlife, and other agencies. Funding for projects have and may come from municipal funds, fire district funds, partnering agencies, and local, state, and federal grants. Municipal and fire district planning documents are in place to support mitigation activities and administrative support exists to ensure project completion.

236

Mitigation actions specific to the Fire Protection Districts

MITIGATION ACTION ITEM PRIORITY LEVEL JURISDICTIONS Increase DTR 800 towers in the county – Current number HIGH Routt County of towers is inadequate for consistent and clear Communications communication regarding emergency situations. Institute CAD/RMS/MDT for integrated communications HIGH and data tracking - Current integrated communication Routt County, Fire Districts, technology and data tracking is not up to date according to municipalities industry standards Develop an Emergency Operations Center - Develop and MODERATE Implement Emergency Operations Dispatch and Routt County, Fire Districts, Communications Center that provides inter-operability with municipalities Craig, CO, has real-time updating, and is outside the 500 year flood plain MODERATE Develop a multiagency communications center outside of Routt County, Fire Districts, the 500 year floodplain municipalities

MODERATE Fire districts and law Acquire MDT/GIS in response vehicles enforcement.

HIGH Complete and adopt the Routt County CWPP Routt County, fire districts, CSFS, USFS and BLM

HIGH CSFS, fire districts and Fuels reduction on non-Federal lands private land owners

MODERATE Education and Public Outreach about lightening strikes Fire Districts

Adopt Wildland Fire Interface Code with county and each MODERATE Fire District Board’s and district BCC

MODERATE Increase firefighting water supplies Fire districts and private land owners.

MODERATE Map water sources for water supply Fire districts and GIS departments.

237