Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Village, Town of Basalt,

Aspen Fire Protection District, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District,

Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District

January 4, 2012

Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update

Participating Jurisdictions:

Pitkin County City of Aspen Town of Snowmass Village Town of Basalt Aspen Fire Protection District Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District

04 January 2012

Emergency Management Pitkin County Sheriff's Office 506 E Main Street, Garden Level Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: 970.920.5234 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Disclaimer:

This plan has been specifically prepared for planning purposes only. The figures and specifications contained herein are not suitable for individual property analyses or budgeting purposes. Mapping and analyses were conducted using data from others and were not technically verified for accuracy. Modeling software used for this plan is limited to planning-level analyses.

ii Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Acknowledgements

Pitkin County Emergency Management x Tom Grady, Pitkin County Emergency Manager x Valerie MacDonald, Pitkin Emergency Management Administrator

Aspen/Pitkin County Public Safety Council x Pitkin County Board of Commissioners x Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office x Pitkin County Combined Communications x Pitkin County Airport x Aspen Ambulance District x City of Aspen x Aspen Police Department x Aspen Fire Protection District x Basalt Police Department x Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District x Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District x Mountain Rescue Aspen x Snowmass Village Police Department x Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District x Aspen Valley Hospital

URS Corporation x David Cooper, Project Manager x Jean Sanson, Senior Planner x Jennifer Orozco, Senior Planner x Rich Chamberlain, HAZUS-MH/GIS x Jason Campbell, GIS/Mapping x Kimberly Pirri, Floodplain Manager, Mitigation Engineer

iii Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction to Mitigation Planning ...... 1-1 1.1. Plan Purpose and Participating Jurisdictions ...... 1-1 1.2. Mitigation Planning Requirements ...... 1-2 1.3. Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Plans ...... 1-3 1.4. Plan Organization ...... 1-5 2.0 Planning Process...... 2-1 2.1. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Workshops ...... 2-1 2.2. 10-Step Planning Process ...... 2-2 3.0 Community Profile...... 3-1 3.1. Location, Geography, and Climate ...... 3-1 3.2. History ...... 3-3 3.3. Population ...... 3-4 3.4. Economy ...... 3-5 3.5. Government ...... 3-6 3.6. Fire Protection Districts ...... 3-8 4.0 Risk Assessment...... 4-1 4.1. Hazard Identification ...... 4-1 4.2. Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability ...... 4-5 4.3. Wildfire – Prioritized Hazard ...... 4-8 4.4. Winter Storms – Prioritized Hazard ...... 4-14 4.5. Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall – Prioritized Hazard ...... 4-18 4.6. Seasonal/Flash Flooding – Prioritized Hazard ...... 4-22 4.7. Avalanche – Other Hazard ...... 4-37 4.8. Drought – Other Hazard ...... 4-41 4.9. Lightning – Other Hazard ...... 4-45 4.10. Windstorms/Tornados – Other Hazard ...... 4-48 4.11. Earthquake – Other Hazard ...... 4-50 4.12. Hazard Profile Summary ...... 4-57 5.0 Capability Assessment ...... 5-1 5.1. Community Asset Inventory ...... 5-1

iv Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

5.2. Social Vulnerability ...... 5-7 5.3. Land Use and Development Trends ...... 5-8 5.4. Capability Summary ...... 5-10 6.0 Mitigation Strategy ...... 6-1 6.1. Plan Strategy Statements, Goals, and Objectives...... 6-1 6.2. Identification of Mitigation Action Alternatives ...... 6-3 6.3. Implementation of Mitigation Actions ...... 6-4 7.0 Plan Implementation and Maintenance ...... 7-1 7.1. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ...... 7-1 7.2. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ...... 7-3 7.3. Continued Public Involvement ...... 7-3

v Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Appendices

Appendix A: Plan Review Crosswalk Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation Appendix C: Mitigation Action Evaluation Appendix D: Plan Maintenance Forms Appendix E: References

vi Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Figures

Figure 4-1: Avalanche Fatalities by County, 1950-2010 ...... 4-39 Figure 4-2: Colorado Drought Conditions August 27, 2002 – Extreme Drought ...... 4-42 Figure 4-3: Colorado Drought Conditions August 25, 2009 – No Drought Conditions ...... 4-43 Figure 4-4: Lightning Fatalities by State, 2001-2010 ...... 4-47 Figure 4-5: Pitkin County Excerpt from Colorado’s Earthquake and Fault Map ...... 4-52 Figure 4-6: Probability of 5.0 or Greater Earthquake in the Next 150 Years ...... 4-54 Figure 4-7: Colorado Seismic Hazard Map—10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years ...... 4-54 Figure 5-1: Social Vulnerability by County Compared with the Nation ...... 5-8 Figure 5-2: City of Aspen/Pitkin County Urban Growth Boundary ...... 5-12 Figure 6-1: STAPLEE Criteria Used for Prioritization of Mitigation Actions ...... 6-4

vii Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Tables

Table 2-1: 10-Step Planning Process Used to Develop the Plan...... 2-2 Table 2-2: Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Workshops ...... 2-3 Table 2-3: Workshop Participants ...... 2-5 Table 3-1: Monthly Statistics for Temperature and Precipitation in Aspen ...... 3-3 Table 3-2: Pitkin County Population by Jurisdiction (2000 – 2010) ...... 3-5 Table 3-3: Pitkin County Jobs by Sector (2009 Estimate) ...... 3-5 Table 3-4: Aspen/Pitkin County Public Safety Council ...... 3-7 Table 4-1: Federal Disaster Declaration History in Pitkin County, 1953-2009 ...... 4-2 Table 4-2: USDA Farm Service Agency Disaster Designations, Pitkin County 2002-2010 ...... 4-3 Table 4-3: Hazards Identified in the 2005 All-Hazards PDM Plan and 2011 PDMP Update ...... 4-4 Table 4-4: Hazards Not Profiled in this Plan ...... 4-4 Table 4-5: Potential Wildfire Losses, by Jurisdiction ...... 4-14 Table 4-6: Significant Winter Storms in Pitkin County ...... 4-15 Table 4-7: Landslides/Rockslides/Rock Fall in Pitkin County ...... 4-19 Table 4-8: Flood History for Pitkin County ...... 4-24 Table 4-9: NFIP Status for Pitkin County ...... 4-25 Table 4-10: Damage Summary by Building Occupancy (% of Total Estimated Damages) ...... 4-35 Table 4-11: Structures Damaged During Modeled Flood Events...... 4-35 Table 4-12: Expected Damages (number of buildings), 100-year event ...... 4-35 Table 4-13: Expected Damages (number of buildings), 500-year event ...... 4-36 Table 4-14: Damage Estimates and Economic Losses for Modeled Flood Events ...... 4-36 Table 4-15: Pitkin County Avalanche Occurrences, 1997-2011 ...... 4-39 Table 4-16: Known Drought periods in Pitkin County ...... 4-44 Table 4-17: Lightning Events in Pitkin County ...... 4-46 Table 4-18: List of Windstorms/Tornado in Pitkin County...... 4-49 Table 4-19: Magnitude and Intensity Scales for Earthquakes ...... 4-51 Table 4-20: Known Historical Earthquakes, Pitkin County ...... 4-53 Table 4-21: Potential Earthquake Losses in Pitkin County ...... 4-56 Table 4-22: Overall Risk Ranking of Hazards by Jurisdiction ...... 4-57 Table 5-1: Building Permits Issued for Pitkin County, 2000-2010 ...... 5-1 Table 5-2: Critical Facilities by Category ...... 5-2 Table 5-3: Critical Facilities in Pitkin County ...... 5-2

viii Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 5-4: List of Rare Species in Pitkin County ...... 5-5 Table 5-5: Pitkin County Historic Properties/Districts in National Register ...... 5-5 Table 5-6: Principal Employers in Pitkin County ...... 5-6 Table 5-7: Labor Force Statistics for Pitkin County ...... 5-7 Table 5-8: Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2000-2010 ...... 5-9 Table 5-9: Growth in Housing Units in Pitkin County, 2000-2010 ...... 5-9 Table 5-10: Population and Housing Unit Density in Pitkin County, 2000-2010 ...... 5-10 Table 5-11: Population Projections for Pitkin County, 2010-2040...... 5-10 Table 5-12: Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities...... 5-11 Table 5-13: Pitkin County Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation ... 5-12 Table 5-14: City of Aspen Land Use Policy Guidelines related to Natural Hazard Mitigation ...... 5-13 Table 5-15: Town of Snowmass Village Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation ...... 5-15 Table 5-16: Town of Basalt Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation . 5-15 Table 5-17: Regional Policy Guidelines related to Natural Hazard Mitigation ...... 5-16 Table 5-18: Administrative and Technical Capabilities ...... 5-18 Table 5-19: Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities ...... 5-18 Table 6-1: Categories of Mitigation Actions ...... 6-3 Table 6-2: Mitigation Action Matrix ...... 6-5

ix Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibits

Exhibit 3-1: Pitkin County Context Map ...... 3-2 Exhibit 3-2: Pitkin County Fire Protection Districts ...... 3-11 Exhibit 4-1: Pitkin County Wildland Urban Interface Hazards Map ...... 4-10 Exhibit 4-2: Pitkin County Historic Wildfire Occurrence Map ...... 4-12 Exhibit 4-3: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Aspen ...... 4-29 Exhibit 4-4: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Aspen ...... 4-30 Exhibit 4-5: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village ...... 4-31 Exhibit 4-6: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village ...... 4-32 Exhibit 4-7: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Basalt ...... 4-33 Exhibit 4-8: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Basalt ...... 4-34 Exhibit 5-1: Pitkin County Critical Facilities Map ...... 5-3

x Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Prerequisites

xi Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Documentation of Plan adoption by participating jurisdictions.

xii The purpose of the Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan update process was to eliminate or reduce long-term risks to people and properties due to natural and human-caused hazards. This multi-hazard mitigation Plan update (hereafter the “Plan”) was developed to reduce future losses caused by natural and human-caused hazards within unincorporated Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt. The Plan update was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to achieve eligibility for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation grant programs including: x Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) x Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) x Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) x Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) x Repetitive Flood Claim (RFC) This Plan is an update of the 2005 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties (2005 PDMP). This update focuses exclusively on Pitkin County and includes the following participating jurisdictions: x Pitkin County x City of Aspen x Town of Basalt x Town of Snowmass Village x Aspen Fire Protection District x Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District x Carbondale Fire Protection District x Snowmass Fire Protection District Through the leadership of the Pitkin County Office of Emergency Management, participating jurisdictions and a cross-section of representatives from throughout the community assisted with the development of this Plan update, including data collection, public input on history, community assets

xiii Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

and strategies, and identification of preferred mitigation alternatives. Representatives from participating jurisdictions, stakeholders and members of the general public participated in two planning workshops. This Plan update represents the collective work of the citizens, elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders in the County. Following FEMA’s guidelines in developing a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, participating jurisdictions identified risks, assessed vulnerabilities, prioritized hazards and identified goals, objectives and actions for mitigating the effects of natural and human-caused hazards on communities in the County. The following hazards were profiled in this Plan update: x Wildfire x Winter Storm x Avalanche x Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall x Seasonal/Flash Flooding x Drought x Lightning x Windstorm/Tornado x Earthquake The results of the risk assessment for identifying probability and magnitude of these hazards in Pitkin County are summarized below by jurisdiction. Overall Risk Ranking of Hazards by Jurisdiction (Table 4-22)

Pitkin County and Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Critical 2 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Catastrophic 1 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked

xiv Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Critical 2 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked Town of Basalt and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Flood - Significant Occasional Catastrophic 1 Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked * Based on input at planning workshops, perceived threat of natural hazards – number 1 being the largest perceived threat.

Planning workshop participants used the risk and vulnerability assessment to develop mitigation strategies through a list of goals, objectives, and actions. Workshop participants recommended consolidating the goals from the original 2005 PDM Plan to (1) reduce repetition and (2) provide a more overarching policy statement that is more supportive of the comprehensive range of mitigation action types needed to reduce vulnerability. Participants also carefully reviewed the 2005 PDM Plan objectives and revised and updated each based on updated conditions and a renewed emphasis on goals and objectives that encompass multi-hazard categories. The following goals and objectives were developed for the Pitkin County mitigation strategy for the 2010 update:

GOAL 1: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by natural hazards.

GOAL 2: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by human-caused hazards.

xv Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

x Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies.1 x Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. x Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. x Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. x Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. x Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. x Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. x Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning.

Planning workshop participants identified and prioritized mitigation actions to achieve these goals and objectives and to support the purpose of this planning process. Responsible jurisdictions/agencies were assigned to each action and workshop participants agreed upon timeframes and rough cost estimates.2 The mitigation actions are summarized in the following table.

Mitigation Action Matrix (Table 6-2) Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 1.1 Continue the Public Safety Council, which County provides multi-agency and jurisdictional $26K/ High All Emergency Ongoing coordination for hazard planning and incident year Management management. 1.2 Provide training and equipment to improve Training: Training: Pitkin County communications between different agencies 1 year staff time High All Communicatio and remote locations, with interoperability with Equipment: Equipmen ns the 800mhz statewide radio system. 3 years t: $400K 1.3 Establish Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Identify, train and drill EOC staff to ensure basic level of training for County staff, High All All 1 year $100K not just emergency agencies. Conduct, at minimum, annual EOC full-scale disaster exercise across jurisdictions and agencies.

1 The Federal Emergency Management Institute supports this objective. January 2009 IEMC: EOC-IMT Interface training materials state that the role of the EOC is to “…Provide a program with which government at any level can provide interagency coordination and executive decision-making in support of incident response or maintenance of community wide services and protection.”

2 It is important to note that the cost estimates do not represent budgeted amounts. The County will seek grants as appropriate, but at this time there is no expectation that Pitkin County will be appropriating funds for these projects from its General Fund.

xvi Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 1.4 Identify, train and drill EOC staff to ensure basic level of training for targeted staff (Finance, Public Works, Fleet, PIO, Administrative staff, GIS). Conduct, at a County minimum, an annual EOC tabletop exercise High All Emergency 1 year Staff time (all agency participation), continue tri-annual Management full-scale exercises at Sardy Field, and consider planning other full-scale exercises to address natural hazards. 1.5 Ensure that existing mutual aid agreements are current and establish new ones as County required. (Note that mutual aid Administration/ Medium All 1 year Staff time Intergovernmental Agreements are complete Emergency for Fire and EMS services, but are not Management complete for Law and Public Works). Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. 2.1 Designate enforcement body within policy and County regulation. Administration, City of Aspen, High All Town of 1 year $10K Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt 2.2 Establish policies and processes to ensure County governmental bodies communicate regarding Community development applications that could be Development, impacted by hazards, and provide input to City of Aspen, High All 1 year Staff time governmental bodies. Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt 2.3 Create or refine enforceable flood and County mudslide policies through permit restrictions. Administration, Flood/ City of Aspen, High Landslide/ Town of 2-3 years $100K Rockslide Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt 2.4 Update the Land Use Code to incorporate new County State regulations into local floodplain High Floods Community 1 year Staff time regulations. Development 2.5 Adopt new floodplain maps. County Community Summer High Floods Staff time Development/ 2012 Engineering

xvii Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 2.6 Strengthen regulations to require mandatory AFPD, clearing of flammable vegetation in key areas, SWFPD, High Wildfire 3-5 years $50K i.e. around houses as a prerequisite to BRFPD, land/structure modifications. CRFPD 2.7 Prioritize needed Community Wildfire County Protection Plans for subdivisions (from the Emergency Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). Management, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass High Wildfire 3-5 years $300K Village, Town of Basalt, CSFS, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD 2.8 Continue to conduct required and voluntary County wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate Community info to FPDs (from the Pitkin County Wildfire Development, Protection Plan, 2011). High Wildfire AFPD, Ongoing Staff time SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD 2.9 Develop, implement and maintain wildfire AFPD, codes (including brush management, weed SWFPD, abatement, building code, construction types). BRFPD, CRFPD, County $200K + 1 High Wildfire Administration, 2-3 years full time City of Aspen, employee Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. 3.1 Update and maintain annual hazard High All County GIS 1 year $5K occurrences maps and critical facilities. 3.2 Develop and maintain access to ownership County GIS/ and property value information in hazard High All Ongoing Staff time Assessor areas. 3.3 Create a web map application with property High All County GIS 1 year $10K information, including hazards. 3.4 Acquire new floodplain mapping for entire County County. Community High Floods Development/ 1-3 years $10K Engineering/ GIS

xviii Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 3.5 Create useable mud and debris flow mapping County Public (including dry gulch and alluvial fan). Works/ Floods/ Engineering/ High 1-3 years $200K Mudslide Community Development/ GIS 3.6 Create avalanche prone area mapping and County Public historical occurrences. Works/ Engineering/ Medium Avalanche 1-2 years $50K Community Development/ GIS Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. 4.1 Continue to use and market various means of County communicating early warnings and alerts, High All Community Ongoing Staff time including multimedia. Review and improve the Relations process quarterly 4.2 (a) Identify hazard areas for each of the four prioritized hazards in this Plan and pre-build County automated emergency notification lists for High All Community 6 months Staff time these areas. (b) Develop subscription groups Relations for emergency notification on Pitkin Alert specific to identified hazards. 4.3 Continue to improve the Mud and Flood County management team and involve Emergency Floods/ Snowmass/Aspen/Carbondale. Med Management, Ongoing Staff time Mudflow Public Safety Council 4.4 Improve coordination with Bureau of County Reclamation and other water rights entities, Med Floods Ongoing Staff time Administration such as the City of . Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. 5.1 Create and assign a multi-jurisdictional team County to implement physical mitigation actions and High All Ongoing Staff time Administration update actions annually. 5.2 Complete the Basalt levee project (currently in County final design). Engineering/ High Floods Public Works, Ongoing $1.5M Town of Basalt, CDOT 5.3 Improve levee conditions at the Roaring Fork Pitkin/Eagle Mobile Home Park and adjacent areas. Counties High Floods 1-3 years $80K Public Works, HOAs 5.4 Continue to pursue ongoing stormwater Pitkin County/ mitigation projects in the Capital Improvement Aspen Plan. High Floods Consolidated Ongoing Variable Sanitation District

xix Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 5.5 Improve drainage at the Aspen Airport Pitkin County/ Business Center and Aspen Consolidated Aspen Floods and Sanitation District wastewater treatment High Consolidated 1-3 years $250K Mudflows facility. Sanitation District 5.6 Identify cross-boundary (CSFS, USFS/BLM) CSFS, Staff time fuel reduction projects within the Wildland USFS/BLM, and Urban Interface (from the Pitkin County AFPD, High Wildfire Ongoing project Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). SWFPD, dependen BRFPD, t CRFPD 5.7 Remove/down trees with Pine Mountain Wildfire & BLM, County Med – Beetle hazards where they interface with blow down Open Space, Ongoing $50K/year High residential and public use areas. trees USFS 5.8 Design and install mitigation measures (concrete barriers) in areas along roadways Floods, that are susceptible to mud and rock slides. CDOT, IPF, Project Landslide/ Areas should include Independence Pass, Med County Public Ongoing dependen Rockslide/ Hwy. 133, Snowmass Creek, Castle, Works t Mudflows Redstone Boulevard and other county road “hot spots.” 5. Conduct a study to identify risks and potential City of Aspen, 9 damages of mudslides off Aspen Mountain. County Med Mudflows Engineering, 1-3 years $100K 5. Conduct a study at the base of ski County 10 area to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation Floods/ Engineering, Med 1-3 years $100K conditions. Mudflows Aspen Skiing Company 5. Conduct a study at the base of Ajax ski area County 11 to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation Floods/ Engineering, Med 1-3 years $100K conditions. Mudflows Aspen Skiing Company 5. Improve, or restore, the river alignment at the County 12 confluence of Coal Creek and the Crystal Engineering, Low Floods 3-5 years $20M+ River. CDOT, Forest Service Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation.

xx Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 6.1 Develop comprehensive, pro-active, on-going public and business outreach program to improve awareness and educate the public about hazards, including seasonal hazards. For example: x Hold public forums at the start of each season and discuss hazards and include seasonal populations. x Improve Emergency Management web page with links to pertinent safety information, videos, etc. with pages for each potential hazard with localized (not generic) information. x Awareness raising campaign for CGTV County Channel 11…the place where videos will Emergency be broadcast about all hazards, safety High All Mgt./ 1-3 years Staff time info. etc. Increase viewership. Community x Install river-watch web cams. Relations x Host live press conferences during emergent situations in board rooms wired for television, including Aspen City Council, Board of County Commissioners, and Town of Snowmass Village. x Produce regularly scheduled TV series on all hazards safety. x Educate the public by participating in bi- annual Safety Fairs, setting up Safety Awareness booths at farmer’s markets, Public Service Announcements, Grass Roots Spotlight programs, etc. 6.2 Improve public signage that provides warnings County and information about hazards, such as Administration/ dangerous rockfall areas, flood areas, and Public Works, areas at risk to seasonal fires. City of Aspen, High All 1-3 years $20K Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. 7.1 Identify a secondary emergency shelter and High All All 1 year Staff time intermediate care facilities. 7.2 Increase security of critical infrastructure, Med All All 3-5 years $500K including city/ county / public safety bases. 7.3 Conduct an annual threat analysis by area agencies to prioritize critical infrastructure and Med All All 1 year+ Staff time determine vulnerability points that could be strengthened. Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning

xxi Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 8.1 Create an all-hazard team from Public Safety Council membership (and others as PSC Public Safety High All 6 months Staff time identifies) to address planning and recovery Council needs 8.2 Create sustained funding for planning and 6 months – High All All Unknown training exercising and recovery expenses 1 year 8.3 Initiate and develop use of the Emergency Support Function #8 (ESF-8) role of disaster Medical Public Safety High 1 year Staff time recovery/ surge capacity at the local medical Disaster Council level. This Plan update resulted in 48 mitigation actions which update, consolidate, and enhance the mitigation actions developed in the 2005 PDMP. The Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update will be maintained and updated according to the plan maintenance structure summarized in Chapter 7. This Plan will be updated again within the next five years to maintain eligibility for the FEMA mitigation grant programs.

xxii This chapter provides information on the purpose and participating jurisdictions for the Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update (“Plan”), describes federal hazard mitigation planning requirements and grant programs, and lists an outline of the plan’s organization. This 2011 plan updates the 2005 Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties.

1.1. Plan Purpose and Participating Jurisdictions

Pitkin County prepared this Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update to better protect the people and property within the county from the impacts of natural hazard events. The 2005 plan was a multi- jurisdictional plan prepared in partnership with Eagle County and its incorporated municipalities. As part of the plan update process, Pitkin County decided to prepare its own multi-jurisdictional plan, focused specifically on the hazards, goals, priorities, and projects most important to the County and its municipalities. Participating jurisdictions include: Pitkin County, the City Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village, the Town of Basalt, Aspen Fire Protection District, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, and Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District.

1-1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal Emergency Haz·ard Mit'i·ga'tion n. Management Agency (FEMA) as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property Any sustained action taken to reduce or from a hazard event.” Mitigation creates safer communities by eliminate long-term risk to human life and reducing loss of life and property damage. Hazard mitigation property from a hazard event. planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified and profiled; likely impacts of those hazards are assessed; and mitigation strategies to lessen those impacts are identified, prioritized, and implemented. 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. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an This plan demonstrates the participating jurisdictions’ average of $4 in avoided future commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a losses, in addition to saving lives tool to help decision makers direct and coordinate mitigation and preventing injuries.3 activities and resources, including local land use policies.

1.2. Mitigation Planning Requirements

The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) passed by Congress includes a mitigation planning section (322). This section emphasizes the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. In addition, it provides the legal basis for FEMA’s mitigation plan requirements for mitigation grant assistance. To implement these planning requirements, FEMA published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (FEMA 2002a), 44 CFR Part 201 with subsequent updates. The planning requirements for local entities are identified in their appropriate sections throughout this plan. FEMA’s October 31, 2007 changes to 44 CFR Part 201 combined and expanded flood mitigation planning requirements with local mitigation plans (44 CFR §201.6). It also required that communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) identify and address properties repetitively damaged by flood in both their risk assessments and mitigation strategies. Appendix A, attached to this plan, includes a completed FEMA Crosswalk, which is an official report card used by FEMA when reviewing local hazard mitigation plans for compliance with 44 CFR§201.6.

3 National Institute of Building Science Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, 2005.

1-2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

1.3. Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Plans

Local hazard mitigation plans qualify communities for the following federal mitigation grant programs: x Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), x Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), x Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), x Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL), and x Repetitive Flood Claim (RFC). The HMGP and PDM grant programs are authorized under the Stafford Act and DMA 2000, while the FMA, SRL, and RFC grant programs are authorized under the National Flood Insurance Act and the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act. The HMGP is a state competitive grant program for communities in areas covered by a recent disaster declaration. The PDM, FMA, RFC, and SRL programs are also competitive but are available on an annual basis and do not require a disaster declaration; they rely on specific pre-disaster grant funding sources. In 2008, FEMA combined the PDM program with the FMA, RFC, and SRL programs into a unified Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program application cycle. The intent of this alignment was to enhance the quality and efficiency of grant awards on an allocation and competitive basis. The HMA program supports States, Indian Tribal governments, and local entities in undertaking worthwhile, cost-beneficial activities designed to reduce the risks of future damage in hazard-prone areas.

1.3.1. Disaster Funded Mitigation Assistance Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The HMGP provides grants to States, Indian Tribal governments, local entities, and private non-profit organizations to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem: for example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood damages as opposed to purchasing supplies to fight the flood. In addition, a project’s potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to protect property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The amount of funding available for the HMGP under a disaster declaration is limited. The program may provide a State or Indian Tribal government with up to 20 percent of the total disaster grants awarded by FEMA. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal.

1.3.2. Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Programs Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program The PDM program provides funds to States, Indian Tribal governments, and local entities, for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Grants are awarded on a nationally competitive basis. Like HMGP funding, a PDM project’s potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. In addition, funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase

1-3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent Federal/25 percent non-Federal (or 90 percent federal/10 percent non-federal if the subgrantee or Tribal grantee is a small impoverished community). There is approximately $50 million to $150 million available each year. Communities compete nationally for the funds, although Colorado is guaranteed $500,000 in annual project dollars; so it is expected that at least one community in Colorado will receive money, assuming approvable grant applications are received. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program The goal of the FMA grant program is to reduce or eliminate flood insurance claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Particular emphasis for this program is placed on mitigating repetitive loss properties. Repetitive loss properties are properties for which two or more NFIP losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10-year period since 1978. Project grants, which use the majority of the program’s total funding, are awarded to States, Indian Tribal governments, and local entities, for planning and technical assistance and/or to apply mitigation measures to reduce flood losses to properties insured under the NFIP. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal (or 90 percent federal/10 percent non-federal for severe repetitive loss properties with a Repetitive Loss Strategy). In Colorado there is approximately $100K-$150K available annually state-wide. After communities compete for a share of state-allocated funds, they may go on to compete for national funds, if there is money left over in the system. Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program The RFC program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to residential and nonresidential structures insured under the NFIP that have had one or more claim payments for flood damages. All RFC grants are eligible for up to 100 percent federal funding. There is $100 million available each year. This is nationally competitive program for "small and impoverished" communities and it only provides mitigation assistance to properties with flood insurance that have previous flood claims. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program The SRL program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to residential structures insured under the NFIP that have at least four NFIP claim payments over $5,000 each, when at least two such claims have occurred within any 10- year period, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or for which at least two separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the value of the property, when two such claims have occurred within any 10-year period. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal (or 90 percent federal/10 percent non-federal with a Repetitive Loss Strategy).

1-4 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

1.4. Plan Organization

The Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update is organized as follows: x Prerequisites include the participating jurisdictions’ resolutions of adoption for the plan. x Executive Summary provides a general summary of the plan update document. x Chapter 1: Introduction describes the plan’s purpose, hazard mitigation planning requirements, and federal hazard mitigation grant programs. x Chapter 2: Planning Process describes the planning process used to develop the plan update, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. x Chapter 3: Community Profile provides a general description of Pitkin County and its municipalities, including location, geography, climate, history, population, economy, and government. x Chapter 4: Risk Assessment identifies and profiles the hazards that could affect the county and assesses vulnerability to those hazards. It provides an inventory of critical facilities and other community assets in the city, and describes land use and development trends. x Chapter 5: Capability Assessment details existing plans, programs, and policies in the participating jurisdictions that relate to mitigation. x Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategy identifies goals and actions to mitigate hazards in Pitkin County based on the results of the risk assessment. The mitigation actions are analyzed and prioritized, including a status update on the mitigation actions identified in the 2005 plan. This chapter also includes an implementation strategy. x Chapter 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance provides a formal process for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan; discusses how to incorporate the plan into existing planning mechanisms; and offers plans for continued public involvement. x Appendix A: Plan Review Crosswalk includes a completed FEMA crosswalk for local hazard mitigation plans documenting compliance with 44 CFR§201.6. x Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation compiles agendas, sign-in sheets, press releases, and other materials documenting the planning process. x Appendix C: Mitigation Action Evaluation includes the worksheets used by the workshop participants to identify and prioritize mitigation actions. x Appendix D: Plan Maintenance Forms provides a mitigation action progress reporting form and an annual plan review questionnaire to assist in evaluating and maintaining the plan. x Appendix E: References provides references for information sources cited in the plan and a list of key contacts, web resources, and acronyms used in the plan.

1-5 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

This page intentionally left blank.

1-6 This chapter describes the planning process used to develop the 2011 plan update, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

2.1. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Workshops FEMA Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(c)(1):

Pitkin County contracted with URS Corporation (URS) of [The plan shall document] the planning process Denver in April 2011 to assist in updating the pre-disaster used to develop the plan, including how it was mitigation plan by facilitating the planning process and prepared, who was involved in the process and developing the plan document. The Pitkin County Sheriff’s how the public was involved. Office and the Emergency Manager, together with URS, worked to convene two workshops to guide the planning process and make key decisions. In the planning process for the 2011 update, the workshop participants reviewed and updated each of the sections of the previously approved 2005 plan, including improving organization and formatting and adding substantially more in-depth information specific to Pitkin County. The process for updating each section is described in the following planning process steps, as well as in each relevant plan chapter. The plan preparation process was similar to that of the 2005 PDMP in that the County formed a team, included the public and state and federal agencies, pulled information from other various sources and stakeholders, and reviewed drafts of the document. This plan update builds upon the success of the 2005 process. To ensure adequate participation in plan development, workshop participants were asked to do the following: x Participate in workshop activities; x Collect risk assessment data; x Make decisions on plan process and content; x Submit mitigation action implementation worksheets; x Coordinate and assist with the public outreach strategy; x Review plan drafts; and x Coordinate the final adoption of the plan.

2-1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

The Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update was prepared over six months. Table 2-2 lists the dates and agenda items for the planning workshops. Full agendas and sign-in sheets are included in Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation.

2.2. 10-Step Planning Process

The workshop participants used FEMA’s 10-step planning process and integrated recommendations from FEMA’s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (2008), the Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guides, and the 10-step planning process used for FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs. Table 2-1 shows how the modified 10-step process corresponds with the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act.

Table 2-1: 10-Step Planning Process Used to Develop the Plan Disaster Mitigation Act Requirements 44 CFR 201.6 Modified CRS Planning Steps Phase I: Organize Resources 201.6(c)(1) Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort 201.6(b)(1) Step 2: Involve the Public 201.6(b)(2) and (3) Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies Phase II: Assess Risks 201.6(c)(2)(i) Step 4: Identify the Hazards 201.6(c)(2)(ii) Step 5: Assess the Risks Phase III: Develop the Mitigation Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i) Step 6: Set Goals 201.6(c)(3)(ii) Step 7: Review Possible Activities 201.6(c)(3)(iii) Step 8: Draft an Action Plan Phase IV: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress 201.6(c)(5) Step 9: Adopt the Plan 201.6(c)(4) Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan Source: FEMA Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, 2008.

The following section provides a narrative description of the planning process.

2.2.1. Phase I: Organize Resources Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort The planning process began with a kick-off workshop on June 23, 2011. During the first workshop, URS presented information on the scope and purpose of the plan, participation requirements, and an overview of the planning process and schedule.

2-2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 2-2: Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Workshops Date Meeting Type and Agenda Workshop #1: Project Kick-off: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment x Introduce the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and purpose and requirements of hazard mitigation planning; x Discuss requirements and expectations for participation; x Discuss the planning process and the public outreach requirements and strategies June 23, 2011 x Discuss hazard identification, preliminary risk assessment results, and the data collection process; x Share expectations for the planning process and results; and x Distribute data request for assistance with capability assessment and identification of critical facilities. Workshop #2: Goals and Mitigation Actions x Review capability assessment and the critical facilities data; x Review and refine mitigation goals; July 21, 2011 x Review, refine, and introduce objective and actions; x Prioritize mitigation actions; and x Agree upon a method and schedule for plan implementation and for monitoring, evaluating, and maintaining the plan over time.

Step 2: Involve the Public Prior to the kick-off workshop, URS, the Pitkin County Emergency Manager, and the Pitkin County Public Information Specialist discussed ideas for involving the public (Step 2) and coordination with other agencies and departments (Step 3). Workshop Recording and Television Broadcast: Both Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Workshops were video-recorded. Video of the workshops was streamed live on the County website and recordings were provided for later public viewing on the Pitkin County Emergency Management Website: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Emergency- Management. Additionally, video of the workshops was rebroadcast 22 times on the local Government TV channel. General Community Outreach: Pitkin County Community Relations sent numerous public service announcements Television Broadcast of Hazard Mitigation to both local newspapers and both ran stories on the Planning Workshop PDMP project (see Appendix B). The Pitkin County Emergency Manager did an interview on KJAX Aspen Public Radio regarding the PDMP. Project information was also distributed by the County via Facebook Page and Twitter (see Appendix B) and repeated emails were sent to the County’s outreach list to keep people apprised of meeting dates and assignments.

2-3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Presentations to Governing Authorities: The FEMA Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(b): PDMP project was an agenda item at three Public Safety Council meetings from May to An open public involvement process is essential to the September 2011. Additionally, the Pitkin development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more County Emergency Manager provided comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An informational reports to the Board of County opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the Commissioners on June 18 and September 6, drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity 2011. These appearances streamed live on for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies the County website and aired on Government involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that TV multiple times. have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private a non-profit interests Public Review of Plan Drafts: to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, The draft PDMP plan update was available for reports, and technical information. public review in hard copy from September 6, 2011 until September 20, 2011 at the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office at 506 E. Main Street, Suite 101, Aspen, as well as in the other participating jurisdictions. The draft plan was also available for electronic review on the Pitkin County Emergency Management website at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Emergency-Management from September 6, 2011 to September 20, 2011, and beyond. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager and Public Information Specialist publicized the availability of the draft plan by purchasing airtime on the local radio station during the public review period: 18 advertisements over a nine-day period. Additionally, the public review period and the two planning workshops were publicized by a ticker tape message on Government TV and announcements in the local paper. Several editorial comments were received from workshop participants and members of the Public Safety Council; however, no additional public comments were received during the Plan review period. Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies The Pitkin County Emergency Manager invited a range of local, state, and federal departments and agencies and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process. Workshop sign-in sheets are included in Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation. The agencies that participated are listed in Table 2-3.

2-4 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 2-3: Workshop Participants Agencies/Organizations/Individuals that participated in the Pitkin County PDM workshops: x Pitkin County Emergency Management x City of Aspen Power and Electric x Pitkin County Administration x Aspen Valley Hospital x Pitkin County Community Relations x Aspen Ambulance x Pitkin County Board of Commissioners x District x Pitkin County Community Development x Aspen/Pitkin County Airport x Pitkin County Public Works x Aspen Historical Society x Pitkin County Coroner x Colorado Mountain College, Aspen Campus x Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office x Aspen Mountain Ski Area x Pitkin County 911 x Highlands Ski Area x Pitkin County Local Emergency Planning x Snowmass Ski Area Committee x Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District x Pitkin County Public Safety Council x Snowmass Village Police x Pitkin County Health and Human Services x Basalt Police x Pitkin County Public Health/Community Health x Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Services x Basalt Sanitation District x Pitkin County Senior Services Council x Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District x Pitkin County Landfill x Holy Cross Energy x Aspen Pitkin GIS x Roaring Fork Transportation Authority x City of Aspen x Upper Colorado Interagency Fire Management Unit x City of Aspen Engineering (Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, x City of Aspen Stormwater ) x Aspen Volunteer Fire Department/Aspen Fire x NWIMT Protection District x Colorado Division of Emergency Management x Aspen Police Department x Colorado Water Conservation Board x American Red Cross

Incorporation of Other Plans and Studies: As part of the coordination with other departments and agencies, URS and workshop participants reviewed and incorporated existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. This information was used in the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment in Chapters 4 and 5, and in the formation of goals, objectives and mitigation actions in Chapter 6. These sources are documented throughout the plan and in Appendix E: References. The plans and studies specific to Pitkin County and the participating jurisdictions included the following: x Aspen Area Community Plan, draft March 2011 x “The Aspen Economy,” Economics Research Associates, October 2008 x Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for Colorado, August 2007 x Multi-Jurisdictional All- Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties, June 2005 x Pitkin County Land Use Code, July 2006 x “Pitkin County Land Use Policy Guidelines,” September 2002 x Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, July 18, 2011 x Stewardship Master Plan for the Town of Basalt, 2003 x Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, draft March 2011

2-5 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

x “Rural Living in Pitkin County,” Pitkin County Community Development, November 2006 x State of the Aspen Area, 2008 x State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, January 2011 x Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan, March 2010 x Basalt Master Plan, 2008

2.2.2. Phase II: Assess Risks Step 4: Identify the Hazards At the Project Kick-off Workshop on June 23, 2011, URS presented information on the requirements for the risk assessment section of the hazard mitigation plan. The workshop participants reviewed the list of hazards that FEMA recommends for consideration in mitigation planning and discussed the past and potential impacts of these hazards on the city. The workshop participants initially agreed to eliminate six hazards due to low risk and insufficient data or lack of relevance with this plan’s purpose and scope (dam failure, expansive soils/subsidence, extreme heat, hailstorm, and volcano). Chapter 4 describes the identified hazards that impact Pitkin County and the participating jurisdictions: x Wildfire, x Winter Storm, x Avalanche, x Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall, x Seasonal/Flash Flooding, x Drought, x Lightning, x Windstorm/Tornado, and x Earthquake. Step 5: Assess the Risks A profile of each identified hazard was created using available online data sources and existing plans and reports. The profiles include a hazard description, geographic location, past occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity (extent) for each hazard. The profiles also describe overall vulnerability to each hazard and identify structures and estimate potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas. Workshop participants used a worksheet to provide additional information to URS about hazard data sources and past events in the county. The draft risk assessment was posted online at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Emergency-Management for public review prior to developing the mitigation strategy. Workshop participants also completed a mitigation capability assessment, which identifies the existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and plans that mitigate or could be used to mitigate risk to disasters. This plan update includes information on the participating jurisdictions’ regulatory, personnel, fiscal, and technical capabilities, as well as ongoing initiatives related to interagency coordination and public outreach. This capability assessment is contained in Chapter 5. Capability Assessment.

2-6 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

2.2.3. Phase III: Mitigation Strategy Step 6: Set Goals Also at the first planning workshop on June 23, 2011, URS provided an overview of the mitigation strategy and the goals of the 2005 All-Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, as well as the Colorado State Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. The workshop participants discussed the goals to be included in this plan update and listed possible objectives and mitigation actions. Step 7: Review Possible Activities After reviewing risk assessment data and a group discussion of priorities at the first workshop, participants decided to focus on four priority hazards in the PDMP mitigation strategy. x Wildfire, x Winter Storm, x Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall, and x Seasonal/Flash Flooding. Workshop participants agreed that these hazards pose the greatest to Pitkin County. It is highly likely that each of these hazards will occur annually. Although occurrences may have a limited or negligible magnitude and severity, there is definite potential for critical or catastrophic losses. At the second workshop on July 23, 2011, the participants also identified and prioritized mitigation actions. Details on this process are included in Chapter 6. Mitigation Strategy. The workshop participants identified the responsible agency and completed an implementation worksheet for each mitigation action. The purpose of these worksheets is to document background information, ideas for implementation, alternatives, responsible offices, partners, potential funding, cost estimates, benefits, and timeline for each identified action. Step 8: Draft the Plan URS developed a draft of the plan update document for review by the workshop participants. The draft was made available online and in hard copy for review and comment by the public and other agencies and interested stakeholders. This review period was from September 6, 2011 through September 20, 2011. 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 B: Planning Process Documentation. Comments were integrated into a final draft for submittal to the Colorado Division of Emergency Management, Colorado Water Conservation Board, and FEMA Region VIII.

2.2.4. Phase IV: Plan Maintenance Step 9: Adopt the Plan The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, Aspen City Council, Snowmass Village Town Board, and Basalt Town Board adopted the Plan in 2012. Copies of the resolutions of adoption are included in the Prerequisites section of the Plan. Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan

2-7 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

The workshop participants developed and agreed upon a method and schedule for plan implementation and for monitoring, evaluating, and maintaining the Plan over time. This information is described in Chapter 7. Plan Implementation and Maintenance.

2-8 The following sections describe the location, geography, climate, history, population, and governments of Pitkin County.

3.1. Location, Geography, and Climate

Location

Pitkin County is situated in the mountains of west , approximately 200 miles southwest of Denver. The county encompasses vast areas of National Forest surrounding private and state-owned lands. Pitkin County includes the incorporated communities of Aspen, Snowmass, and portions of Basalt; and the unincorporated communities of Woody Creek, Old Snowmass, Meredith, Thomasville, and Redstone. Other rural residential areas with active homeowner associations or local caucuses include Brush Creek Village, Aspen Village and Castle/Maroon Creek. Ghost towns within the county are Ashcroft and Independence. Pitkin County and its communities are illustrated in Exhibit 3-1. Geography

This section was taken directly from the 2005 PDMP, with minor adaptations and updates:

Pitkin County, Colorado is located in the Colorado River watershed. It comprises a land area of 975 square miles, with mountain elevations ranging from 6,625 to 14,259 feet atop . Within the county, the U.S. Forest Service manages 493,007 acres of the White River National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management manages over 26,000 acres. Along the eastern boundary are the Hunter Fryingpan and Wilderness Areas, and to the south is the -Snowmass Wilderness Area. Additionally, the proposed Hidden Gems Wilderness Area would contain 15 areas totaling approximately 65,000 acres. Pitkin County also boasts two State Wildlife and Resource Management Areas.

The Continental Divide forms the eastern boundary along the crest of the and is drained by the , which is dammed to form the Ruedi Reservoir. The Roaring Fork River flows northwest from the high peaks, and the is on the western side of the county. The Crystal, Roaring Fork and Frying Pan rivers flow into Pitkin County from the north, and tributaries of the Roaring Fork, including Castle and Maroon Creeks, flow into the southern part of the county.

3-1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 3-1: Pitkin County Context Map

3-2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

The city of Aspen, the county seat and the county’s largest municipality, is located on Colorado Highway 82 with an airport nearby. Highway 82 is the only major roadway in Pitkin County leading into and out of Aspen: via I-70 at Glenwood Springs to the north and over the 12,000-foot Independence Pass to the south.

Located high in the , Aspen, originally known as Ute City, is the 53rd largest city in the state. Situated 200 miles southwest of Denver and 130 miles east of Grand Junction, it is at the southeastern end of the . The Roaring Fork Valley stretches from Glenwood Springs at the northwest end to the top of Independence Pass on the southeast end. Aspen encompasses 3.66 square miles and is surrounded by the White River National Forest. At an elevation of 7,800 feet, Aspen is positioned in a relatively flat valley floor surrounded on three sides by 14,000-foot Peaks: Aspen Mountain, Smuggler Mountain and Red Mountain.

Climate

The climate of Pitkin County is typical of high altitude areas with low humidity and intense sunshine. Summer weather is warm and dry with temperatures occasionally reaching 90 degrees during the day. During the winter, sunny days and clear blue skies often give way to severe conditions and significant snowfall accumulations. Average December and January highs are relatively temperate at 35-degrees Fahrenheit, while lows during the winter months average about 8-degrees Fahrenheit.

Table 3-1: Monthly Statistics for Temperature and Precipitation in Aspen Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature 35 39 45 52 63 72 78 76 69 58 43 35 55.5 (F) Average Min. Temperature 9.1 12 20 26 35 41 47 46 39 30 19 9.7 27.7 (F) Average Total Precipitation 1.7 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.8 1.6 2.1 2 2.6 1.9 24.37 (in.) Average Total 25 27 28 20 7.8 10 0 1 11 28 25 173.8 Snowfall (in.) Average Snow 21 28 27 12 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 14 Depth (in.) Source: Station 050372 at Aspen 1 SW, Colorado from City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan, April 2010.

3.2. History

This section was adapted from the 2005 PDMP; the 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan; and the Snowmass Village, Basalt, and Aspen Valley Hospital, websites: Long before skiers and even settlers discovered the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan, and Brush Creek Valleys, the Ute Indians hunted, fished, and gathered wild foods in the summers. The first European/non-natives

3-3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

explored the as early as 1853 during the Gunnison Survey, and returned in the 1870s for the Hayden Survey. During the height of silver mining in the early 1880s, there was great change and dynamic growth in the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and neighboring river valleys. In 1881 Aspen was incorporated as a silver mining town and the nearby Brush Creek Valley became home to numerous ranches running sheep and cattle. Between 1880 and 1892 Aspen grew to become the third largest city in Colorado, behind Denver and Leadville. Demand for charcoal from smelters in Aspen resulted in the construction of seven kilns near the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers in 1882. With the development of the railroad and the Colorado Midland Railroad Company, the Town of Aspen Junction was formed in 1887 across the Fryingpan River from the kilns. In 1895 Aspen Junction was renamed Basalt for the basaltic rock formation of Basalt Mountain, north of the town; the Town of Basalt was officially incorporated during the summer of 1901. 1891, the Citizens' Hospital Association opened Aspen's first hospital. However, only two years later, Congress repealed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act [which demonetized silver] and Aspen’s development as a silver mining community quickly declined. Aspen’s population dropped from 12,000 residents in 1893 to just 3,300 by 1900. The closed permanently in 1910. The area then settled into its quiet years until the late 1930s creation of a downhill ski run by Andre Roch aptly called “Roch Run Trail” or “the Roch.” Just after World War II in 1946, Aspen permanently carved out a place among international ski resorts with the longest chairlift in the world – Lift 1. In 1958 Olympic Skier Bill Janss began buying up ranches in the Brush Creek Valley with an eye toward emulating the Aspen ski area’s success. In December of 1967, Snowmass-At-Aspen opened with five chairlifts, fifty miles of ski trails, seven hotels, and six restaurants. A decade later the Town of Snowmass was incorporated. Around the same time, industrialist and his wife Elizabeth began promoting Aspen as an intellectual center. The Paepckes had a clear vision for the town and brought influential and celebrated artists, writers, and thinkers to Aspen which led to the creation of the , Aspen Center for Physics, and Aspen Music Festival to name a few, and ultimately led to the development of the Aspen Idea – the pursuit of mind, body and spirit. Pitkin County now supports a vibrant, diversified economy, in addition to four world-class ski mountains. Aspen and Snowmass Village are internationally renowned as a winter and summer resorts and host various music and arts festivals. Aspen Valley Hospital, relocated and expanded through the formation of a hospital district in the 1970s, is considered one of the most sophisticated small hospitals in the country.

3.3. Population

According to the 2010 Census, there are 17,148 people residing in Pitkin County, which ranks it as the 28th largest population of the 64 counties in Colorado. Of this population, 6,658 people reside in Aspen and 2,826 reside in Snowmass Village. As illustrated in Table 3-2, the rate of population growth in the county over the past decade has nearly kept pace with growth in the State. The county has 8,152 households and 12,953 housing units, of which approximately one-third, or 3,807 units, are for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. The racial makeup of the county is 93.5% White, 0.5% Black or African American, 0.3% American Indian, 1.2% Asian, and 0.5% from other races. 9.1% of the population is

3-4 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Hispanic or Latino of any race. The high season population is greater than 25,000 and is concentrated in the county’s two primary population centers: Aspen and Snowmass Village. According to “The Aspen Economy,” a white paper prepared for the City of Aspen in October, 2008, it is estimated that a third of Aspen area employees live in government-supported affordable housing, 55 percent commute via Highway 82, and only about 13 percent of total employees actually live in local free market housing. An increasing percentage of permanent and seasonal residents are retired, a trend that can be expected to continue. Accordingly, the average age of the Pitkin County resident population is rising considerably, with the median age increasing from 34.9 years to 42 years from the 1990 to 2010 census.

Table 3-2: Pitkin County Population by Jurisdiction (2000 – 2010)

Area 2000 2010 Percent Change City of Aspen 5,914 6,658 12.6% Town of Snowmass Village 1,822 2,826 55.1% Town of Basalt 2,681 3,857 43.9% Pitkin County 14,872 17,148 15.3% Colorado 4,301,261 5,029,196 16.9% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/2010censusdata.html

3.4. Economy

The basic industry in Pitkin County is tourism, including the winter ski industry, summer outdoor recreation, special events, second homes, etc. Activities associated with the tourism industry include the area’s hotels and lodging, eating and drinking places, retail and transportation. While the real estate and construction sectors have lost ground in the recent economic recession, these industries have traditionally been strong sectors within Pitkin County’s economy. In 2009, per capita personal income for Pitkin County was $84,264 which ranked 1st in the state. By comparison, Colorado’s 2009 per capita income was $41,895 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010). Within the county, the Accommodation and Food sector accounts for 19% of jobs, with Arts, Real Estate, and Government sectors accounting for 32% of jobs. Table 3-3 lists primary job sectors by number of employees.

Table 3-3: Pitkin County Jobs by Sector (2009 Estimate) Sector Jobs Percent of Total Jobs Accommodation and Food 3,791 19% Arts 2,132 11% Real Estate 2,115 11% Government 2,035 10% Admin and Waste 1,662 8% Retail Trade 1,497 8% Other Services, except public administration 1,438 7%

3-5 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Sector Jobs Percent of Total Jobs Construction 1,429 7% Professional and Business Services 1,354 7% Health Services 506 3% Finance Activities 456 2% Education 383 2% Transportation and Warehousing 277 1% Information 275 1% Manufacturing 154 1% Agriculture 132 1% Wholesale Trade 130 1% Management of Companies and Enterprise 31 <1% Estimated Total Jobs 19,822 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010.

The Aspen-Pitkin County Airport is the third busiest in the state, with over 240,000 annual enplaned passengers and over 40,000 take-offs and landings annually. The airport is recognized as a vital county asset, which contributes to the stability and the future of the area’s economy.

3.5. Government

As a home-rule county, Pitkin County is self-governing under the State Constitution, Colorado Revised Statutes, and the Home Rule Charter for Pitkin County. The County provides general government, public safety, road and bridge, and health and welfare services required by state statute, as well as other services such as solid waste landfill and recycling, ambulance, and open space and trails services. The city of Aspen is the county seat, and in an effort to increase efficiency, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County also provide services through several joint departments, such as information technology and dispatch communications. A five-member Board of County Commissioners is the decision making body for the County. Each Commissioner is elected at large from one of five districts and serves a four year term. The Board of County Commissioners appoints a county manager and county attorney, as well as a variety of citizen boards, such as the Planning and Zoning Commission, Open Space and Trails Board, and the Financial Advisory Board. The City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village are both home-rule municipalities. The Town of Basalt is a statutory municipality. All three municipalities have council-mayor-manager forms of government. An appointed city/town manager oversees each municipality’s day-to-day operations on behalf of the elected mayor and council members. All powers are vested in the councils, which enact local legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies and appoint the city/town managers. Aspen and Snowmass Village have five-member councils (including the mayor), while Basalt has a seven-member council (including the mayor).

3-6 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Emergency Management in Pitkin County The Pitkin County Department of Emergency Management is responsible for the planning and coordination of the local disaster services.4 Traditional guiding principles of emergency management concern planning, preparation, mitigation, and recovery from natural and human-caused emergencies and disasters. To enhance planning and coordination, the Pitkin County Public Safety Council (PSC) brings together 38 cooperating agencies, including all first response agencies (such as law enforcement and fire departments) and other supporting agencies (such as American Red Cross and Community Health) every other month to discuss public safety issues in the Roaring Fork Valley.

Table 3-4: Aspen/Pitkin County Public Safety Council

Member Agencies: Support Agencies: x Pitkin County Board of Commissioners x Pitkin County Attorney x Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office x Colorado State Patrol x Pitkin County Combined Communications x Pitkin County Environmental Health x Pitkin County Airport x Colorado Division of Emergency Management x Aspen Ambulance District x Roaring Fork Transportation Authority x City of Aspen x Transportation Security Administration x Aspen Police Department x Aspen/Pitkin GIS x Aspen Fire Protection District x Colorado Mountain College x Basalt Police Department x Community Health x Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District x Aspen Water Department x Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District x Pitkin County Road and Bridge x Mountain Rescue Aspen x Pitkin County Community Relations x Snowmass Village Police Department x Aspen Skiing Company x Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District x Snowmass Public Works x Aspen Valley Hospital x Aspen School District x Pitkin County Emergency Management x Aspen/Pitkin County Housing x Basalt BEMC x American Red Cross x City of Aspen Risk Management x Pitkin County Community Development x Town of Snowmass Village x Pitkin County Information Technology In 2001, the Pitkin County Emergency Medical and Trauma Advisory Council (EMTAC) was established to: 1. Oversee the annual inspection and licensing process for county ambulances. 2. Coordinate emergency medical and trauma services among the county ambulance services, first responder agencies, and Aspen Valley Hospital; 3. Provide direction and recommendations to our representatives on the Central Mountain Regional Emergency and Trauma Advisory Council; 4. Administer the required State Annual EMS plan and the state subsidy moneys; and 5. Implement and coordinate accident prevention programs on a countywide basis.

4 Colorado Revised Statute 24-32-2107(4).

3-7 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

The EMTAC includes appointed representatives from the following entities: x Aspen fire protection district; x Basalt fire protection district; x Carbondale fire protection district; x Snowmass-Wildcat fire protection district; x Aspen ambulance district; x Pitkin County sheriff’s office; x Aspen ski company ski patrols; x Aspen Valley hospital emergency room; x Aspen Valley hospital trauma coordinator office; x Aspen Valley hospital trauma surgeons; x Pitkin County Emergency Management Coordinator’s office.

In 2003, the Town of Basalt established an Emergency Management Committee (BEMC) to direct community input to ensure the public safety entities are meeting the needs of the community in order to protect the lives and property of citizens in the Basalt area. BEMC tasking is directed to:

x The continued development and implementation of the Town of Basalt Emergency Plan of June 2002 and prioritization of plan annexes; x Educate the community on emergency preparations and evacuation procedures; x Educate the community and Town of Basalt staff on the principles and structure of the Incident Command System (ICS); x Advise the Basalt Town Council on the development and implementation of emergency policies; x Coordinate Basalt emergency services to support professional emergency services already in place; x Coordinate with the Bureau of Reclamation the local concerns regarding Ruedi Reservoir including, but not limited to, warning systems, flood flow elevations, risk from the Roaring Fork and other tributaries, potential inundation and impacts to down valley communities, and emergency procedures.

3.6. Fire Protection Districts

Four fire protection districts serve Pitkin County and are described below. Each of the districts participated individually in this planning process. Exhibit 3-2 shows all fire districts in Pitkin County. Aspen Fire Protection District The Aspen Fire Protection District serves 87 square miles in Pitkin County. It encompasses the Town of Aspen, and several unincorporated areas such as Woody Creek, Brush Creek and Starwood. The Aspen Fire District is staffed by a combination of career and volunteer members who are state certified to handle diverse emergency calls. The district is comprised of geographically different areas ranging from

3-8 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

downtown Aspen to sparse residential and mountainous terrain with significant wildland-urban interface, each having different suppression and rescue requirements. Those requirements are met with a multi-faceted line of apparatus, equipment, and training. The department also operates active fire prevention and emergency preparedness programs which provides for fire inspections, hazardous process permitting, burn permits, fire code enforcement, community education, and business emergency planning in accordance with Colorado laws. Each year the Aspen Fire Protection District spends over 4,000 hours completing hands-on training activities, which build important practical skills and provide each firefighter with the abilities needed to quickly and correctly respond to all types of emergency situations.5 Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District provides emergency and non-emergency services for the protection of life and property in portions of Pitkin and Eagle Counties. Encompassing 492 square miles, the department is one of the largest fire districts in Colorado. The department provides 24-hour emergency response to a wide variety of critical situations, including fires, explosions, hazardous materials incidents, medical emergencies, accidents and miscellaneous public assistance requests. In addition, the department operates active fire prevention and emergency preparedness programs which provides for fire inspections, hazardous process permitting, fire code enforcement, community education and business emergency planning in accordance with Colorado laws.6 Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District was organized in 1971 as an all-volunteer department. Since that time, population demands have increased the need for prompt reliable emergency services; this has gradually transformed the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District into a professional agency with 16 fulltime employees and 11 resident firefighter emergency medical technicians (EMTs). The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District uses nine fire suppression units and three “advanced life support” ambulances that serve the community’s citizens, tourists, and day-skier population. The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District encompasses 21 square miles, which includes the Town of Snowmass Village, Snowmass Creek drainage, and Wildcat Ranch areas. Emergency services mutual aid is offered with cooperation by the Aspen, Basalt, and Carbondale Fire Departments.7 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District protects the life and property of the unincorporated town of Redstone in Pitkin County, as well as the town of Carbondale in Garfield County and Marble in Gunnison County. This response area covers a 320-square-mile area of central Colorado and protects approximately 15,000 residents and 20,000 commuters. Founded in 1953, the department has 19 career personnel and 68 volunteer personnel who respond from five fire stations to provide fire and medical services to the community. A full service, “all-hazards” organization, CRFPD provides fire prevention/inspection services, fire suppression (structural, wildland, and vehicle), advanced life support

5 Aspen Fire Protection District, http://www.aspenfire.com

6 Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, http://www.basaltfire.org

7 Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan, 2010

3-9 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

emergency medical services (paramedic ambulance transportation), public and risk reduction education, hazardous materials response, and technical rescue (high angle and swift water rescue) services. In 2008, the Fire Department responded to 1201 calls for service, and the staff and volunteers logged approximately 6000 hours of training.8

8 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, http://www.carbondalefire.org

3-10 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 3-2: Pitkin County Fire Protection Districts

3-11 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

This page intentionally left blank.

3-12 This chapter profiles the natural hazards that affect Pitkin County and assesses vulnerability to FEMA Requirements: those hazards. The risk assessment allows the §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a participating jurisdictions to better understand its description of the types of all natural hazards that can risks and provides a framework for developing and affect the jurisdiction. prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future natural hazard events. §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall 4.1. Hazard Identification include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and the probability of future hazard events. This section identifies the hazards that are likely to §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment shall include a affect Pitkin County. The planning workshop description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the participants considered the hazards identified in hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. the State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation This description shall include an overall summary of Plan (2007), the hazards recommended by the each hazard and its impact on the community. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA publication 386-2, Understanding Your Risks: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (2002), existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical and the hazards identified in the previous Pitkin facilities located in the identified hazard area. and Eagle Counties All-Hazards PDM Plan (2005). §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): The plan should describe 4.1.1. Federal Disaster Declarations vulnerability in terms of an estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in The planning workshop participants also reviewed paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section. events that triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations. Disaster declarations are typically §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe made at the county level and may be granted vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description when the severity and magnitude of an event of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered surpasses the ability of the local government to in future land use decisions. respond and recover. The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S.

4-1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Department of Agriculture (USDA), and/or the Small Business Administration. FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and do not warrant the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. Table 4-1 lists federal disaster declarations which included a designation for Pitkin County. These declarations were for drought, severe storms/mudslides/landslides/flooding, and wildfires.

Table 4-1: Federal Disaster Declaration History in Pitkin County, 1953-2009 Type of Year Event Type Description Declaration 1977 Drought Presidential Emergency May Severe Storms, Mudslides, Town of Basalt: flooding with moderate property damage; no Presidential 1984 Landslides, Flooding loss of life. Disaster June Wildfires Pinion/Juniper regions of the county: widespread wildland Presidential 2002 impact with structural damage to mountain homes; no loss of Disaster life. March Severe Storms Pitkin County included as a contiguous county to the primary USDA Secretarial 2009 natural disaster area of Chaffee County: excessive crop Disaster losses occurred due to an early fall 2008 front, below-normal suffer temperatures, and excessive spring 2009 snowfall. Sources: Pitkin and Eagle Counties All-Hazards PDM Plan, 2005; State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, 2008; Office of Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, Jr., Press Release from USDA Secretary of Agriculture, March 5, 2009; Public Entity Risk Institute Presidential Disaster Declaration Site, www.peripresdecusa.org/mainframe.htm, accessed May 18, 2011.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Disasters 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 drought. All counties neighboring those receiving disaster declarations are named as contiguous disaster counties and are eligible for the same assistance in accordance with the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. As shown in the following table, from 2005 to 2010, the Farm Service Agency of the USDA issued eight disaster declarations affecting Pitkin County. Most of these declarations resulted from periods of drought, high winds/excessive heat, below normal temperatures, or winter storms.

4-2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 4-2: USDA Farm Service Agency Disaster Designations, Pitkin County 2002-2010 Below Disaster Excessive Normal Winter Excessive Year Number Drought Insects Wildfires High Winds Heat Temp. Storms Moisture 2002 9 2006 S2327 9 9 9 9 2006 S2329 9 9 9 9 9 2006 S2351 9 9 9 2006 S2382 9 2008 9 9 2009 S2970 9 2010 9 Sources: State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, 2011; USDA Farm Service Agency, www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/2005_2007eligible_county.xls and http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=sure; State of Colorado Press Release, http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite%3Fc%3DPage&cid%3D1236342363072&pagename%3DGovRitter%252FGOVRLayout; FSA News Release, http://www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA/printapp?fileName=ed_20100609_rel_0047.html&newsType=ednewsrel; accessed May 18, 2010.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center Records The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported 37 climatic events in Pitkin County between 1950 and 2010. While most were not to the level for disaster declarations by the federal government, these nevertheless included events such as hail, tornado, lightning, flash flood, thunderstorm wind, and heavy rain. Pitkin County’s record of these list little to no property damage in that 60-year period. In the last 10 years, a flash flood in Snowmass caused $40,000 in property damage, where any other flash flood or heavy rain reports in that period were no more than $5,000.9

4.1.2. Planning Continuity The 2005 Pitkin and Eagle Counties All-Hazards PDM Plan identified wildfire, winter storms, avalanche, landslide (including rockslide and rock fall), seasonal/flash flooding, and transported hazardous material as posing the most risk to Pitkin County. This 2011 plan profiles the same hazards identified in the 2005 plan, with the removal of transported hazardous material and the addition of drought, lightning, windstorms/tornados, and earthquake.

9 National Climatic Data Center, http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms

4-3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 4-3: Hazards Identified in the 2005 All-Hazards PDM Plan and 2011 PDMP Update 2005 All-Hazards PDM Plan 2011 PDMP Update Wildfire Wildfire Winter storm Winter Storm Avalanche Avalanche Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Seasonal/Flash Flooding Seasonal/Flash Flooding Transported Hazardous Material Drought Lightning Windstorm/Tornado Earthquake

Other hazards that are not profiled in the plan, due to the low likelihood of occurrence or low probability that property or populations would be significantly affected, are listed in Table 4-4 along with an explanation.

Table 4-4: Hazards Not Profiled in this Plan

Hazard Explanation for Omission Dam / Levee Failure Although there are 19 dams whose failure would potentially impact the County, each dam with either a significant or high hazard potential is required to have an Emergency Action Plan. The Emergency Action Plan includes measures to reduce the potential for property damage and loss of life in an area affected by a dam failure. All dams in Colorado fall under the regulatory authority of the Colorado Division of Water Resources Dam Safety Branch. Expansive Soils / Although some underlying swelling clays may exist in Pitkin County, the overall impacts are negligible Subsidence and are mitigated through existing development policies and practices. Extreme Heat This hazard has not created problems in the past that are unrelated to drought. High temperatures affecting human health are rare due to the County’s high, alpine geography. Hailstorm Large-sized, damaging hail is rare due to Pitkin County’s high, alpine geography. Volcano Colorado’s only volcano of concern, Dotsero, is located approximately 20 miles north of Basalt, near the confluence of the Colorado and Eagle Rivers. However, Dotsero has not erupted in approximately 4,200 years. A 2005 study by the US Geological Survey rated Dotsero as a moderate threat for its potential to spew volcanic ash into the air at such altitudes that it could disrupt airplane traffic.

Human-Caused Hazards The primary focus of this PDMP update is to assess and provide mitigation strategies for natural hazards. However, the following human-caused hazards are also of special concern for Pitkin County: x Special Events, x Aviation, x Pandemics, x Terrorism, x Traffic Casualties, x Infrastructure (Power Outage, Water Contamination), and

4-4 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

x Transported Hazardous Material. A robust Incident Command System (ICS), as taught by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), is Pitkin County’s primary means of anticipating and responding to both human-caused and natural hazards. The Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office began implementing ICS in 1987. By 1990 the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office policy and experience had influenced the adoption of ICS by all 16 agencies of the Pitkin County Public Safety Council as standard operating procedure for an all hazard, all risk system. Today ICS is utilized in Pitkin County on nearly a daily basis, with the accepted definition of an emergency incident being any incident requiring three or more first responders or two or more agencies. The Pitkin County Public Safety Council’s overwhelming success is based on sincere mutual aid agreements using the Incident Command System as the common language between the diverse agencies and emergency response disciplines.

4.2. Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability

The is vulnerable to a wide variety of natural hazards that threaten life and property. Damage to critical facilities and disruption of vital services caused by natural hazards has a significant impact on our communities. Additionally, recent local and national events further establish that risks exist from human-caused hazards. These may be caused accidentally, as with disasters caused by transport of hazardous materials or dam failures, or intentionally, as with domestic and international terrorism.

Some natural hazards have significant loss potential for Pitkin County, and these hazards are identified separately as Prioritized Hazards. Other hazards with less potential impact or with less effective mitigation action possibilities are also discussed later in this section and are referred to as ‘Other Hazards.’

In this plan, the determination of the Prioritized Hazards was made through a multi-step risk assessment process combining statistical modeling with more qualitative assessment activities. These qualitative risk tasks consisted of numerous interviews and surveys of emergency response and planning professionals, online and written surveys of county residents and independent historical research, which drew information from many sources. Through this process, certain hazards were determined to pose the greatest threats to the planning area and were prioritized as discussed in the following section.

Prioritized Hazards Based on the risk assessment discussed in this Plan, the planning workshop participants prioritized these hazards for further analysis and mitigation planning: x Wildfire, x Winter Storm, x Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall, and x Seasonal and Flash Flooding. The planning team recognized that other hazards such as drought occur periodically and have impact on the county. The planning team determined that the prioritized hazards posed a greater risk on life,

4-5 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

safety, critical infrastructure and vital services. Future iterations of the PDMP will possibly include mitigation actions for hazards other than those prioritized by this Plan.

Pitkin County has experienced Disaster Declarations in the past 25 years, including the Presidential Disaster Declarations in 1984 and 2002 for Flooding and Wildfires, and the USDA Disaster Declarations in 2000 and 2002 for drought. Comparatively speaking, the volume of disaster declarations of any type experienced by Pitkin County is low compared to other Colorado counties.

Risk assessment activities conducted during this project provided the planning team adequate information to establish risk from each hazard for the jurisdictions covered by the PDMP. The research methodology and elements of each hazard profile are defined here along with their relative impact on the jurisdictions participating in this plan. Research Methodology The sources used to collect information for the hazard profiles include, but are not limited to the following:

x State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, 2011; x Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Pre-disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties, 2005; x Information gathered from the Pitkin County website; x Information on past hazard events from the Spatial Hazard Event and Loss Database; (SHELDUS), a component of the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab, that compiles county- level hazard data for 18 natural hazard event types; x Information on past extreme weather and climate events from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); x Disaster declaration history from FEMA, the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency; x Information on Natural Hazards gathered from the United States Geological Survey (USGS); x Information on Natural Hazards gathered from the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS); x Information on mitigation and previous events from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB); x Information on drought occurrences from the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC); x Geographic information systems (GIS) data from Pitkin County; x Existing plans and reports; and x Meetings and data collected from the planning workshops. Detailed profiles and vulnerability assessments include the following characteristics of each identified hazard:

HAZARD DESCRIPTION provides a general description of the hazard and considers the relationship between hazards. Descriptions of the hazards are more in-depth than what was provided in the 2005 PDMP.

4-6 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION describes the geographic extent or location of the hazard in the planning area and determines which participating jurisdictions are affected by each hazard.

PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES includes information on the known hazard incidents and includes information related to the impact of those events, if known. Information from the 2005 PDMP was used in addition to numerous other resources to build upon the event history for this Plan update.

It is important to note that SHELDUS data provides information on a county-average basis. The number of injuries, fatalities, and property damages associated with a particular event are equally distributed amongst the affected counties for that hazard event. For example, if 5 deaths were attributed to a blizzard that affected 20 counties, then each county would show 0.25 deaths for that event.

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCE uses the frequency of past events to estimate the likelihood of future occurrence. Probability is described more quantitatively in this Plan update than the 2005 PDMP. The 2005 PDMP more generally described probability in terms of whether or not the city expects the event to occur often or not. For this update, the probability, or chance of occurrence, was calculated based on existing data. The probability was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years and multiplying by 100. This provides the percent chance of the event happening in any given year. For example, three droughts occurring over a 30-year period suggests a 10 percent chance of a drought occurring in any given year.

Based on historical data, the probability of future occurrences is categorized as follows:

• Highly Likely: Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it happens every year.

• Likely: 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.

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

• Unlikely: Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in the next 100 years or it has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.

MAGNITUDE/SEVERITY summarizes the extent or potential extent of a hazard event in terms of deaths, injuries, property damage, and interruption of essential facilities and services.

Magnitude and severity is categorized as follows:

• Catastrophic: extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, and/or government functions which includes sustained city and regional impacts; overwhelms the existing response strategies and state and local resources; and requires significant out-of-state and Federal resources.

• 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.

4-7 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

• 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 services.

The planning workshop participants used discretion to modify some of the probabilities and magnitudes when necessary.

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT describes the county’s overall vulnerability to each hazard; identifies existing and future structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure in identified hazard areas; and estimates potential losses to vulnerable structures, where data is available. This Plan update utilized FEMA’s HAZUS software for estimating losses attributed to flooding. The 2005 PDMP used the available data at the time to estimate losses, identify assets, and analyze development trends. This Plan update built upon that process by utilizing new County data as well as a myriad of other sources that may not have otherwise been available during the development of the 2005 PDMP.

DATA LIMITATIONS makes note of where the consultant and planning workshop participants encountered data limitations when completing the hazard profile.

4.3. Wildfire – Prioritized Hazard

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. 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 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. Manmade structures, such as homes and associated combustibles, are also considered a fuel source. The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Light fuels such as grasses burn quickly and serve as a catalyst for the spread of fire. In addition, “ladder fuels” can spread a ground fire up through brush into trees, leading to a devastating crown fire that burns in the upper canopy and cannot be controlled. In general, fires are more likely at lower elevations because of higher temperatures and drier conditions in the mountain shrub and pinyon-juniper fuel types. Examples of nearby fires that burned in these fuel types in neighboring counties include: Battlement Creek 1976 (1,047 acres, three firefighters killed), South Canyon 1994 (1821 acres, 14 firefighters killed), Coal Seam 2002 (11,694 acres, 38 buildings lost), and Panorama (1,590 acres, north of Basalt, six buildings lost). Topography, or an area’s terrain and land slopes, affects its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection, both fire intensity and rate of spread increases as

4-8 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

slope increases. The arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes. 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; often 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. Human-caused fires result from activities such as campfires, smoking, equipment use and arson. Geographic Location The potential for wildfire is fairly uniform across the planning area. Residential and commercial properties are concentrated on the Roaring Fork and Crystal River valley floors and the edges of each valley are covered with dense coniferous forests which have become popular locations for mountain homes. The current State of Colorado mitigation plan ranks 130,464.21 of Pitkin County’s 621,026.9 acres as falling within the moderate- to high-risk range, or 21% of total State acreage. The County recently updated the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and is eligible for several grant programs for fuels mitigation. In this plan, the wildland urban interface (WUI) is defined as the part of the county where people and development intermingle with wildland fuels and topography. Many individual homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses, and industries are located within the WUI. Increasing recreational demands in popular and attractive areas such as Pitkin County place more people in wild lands during holidays, weekends, and vacation periods. Residents and visitors to these areas are often inadequately educated or prepared for the inferno that can sweep through the brush and timber, affecting safety and destroying property in minutes. Risks associated with each of the fire protection districts in Pitkin County do not vary from those identified for Pitkin County. Aspen Fire Protection District, Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District, Carbondale Fire Protection District, and Snowmass Fire Protection District collaborated with Pitkin County and other agencies to prepare the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan addresses wildfires in fire hazard areas countywide. Therefore, in keeping with the structure of that recently-adopted plan, this PDMP update defines the wildfire risk (probability and magnitude) at the county-level and fire protection district-level as one and the same. Similarly, mitigation strategies outlined in this plan are defined at the county-level rather than the individual fire protection district-level.

4-9 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 4-1: Pitkin County Wildland Urban Interface Hazards Map

4-10 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Previous Occurrences The 2002 wildfire season was the worst in United States history, with some 2.3 million acres burned. In Colorado, 4,612 wildfires burned over 619,000 acres that year and cost approximately $152 million in suppression costs. Approximately 81,400 people were evacuated and about 1,000 structures burned. In addition, nine lives were lost. Based on a 10-year average, Colorado typically experiences 3,119 wildfires with a loss of 70,000 acres per year. According to the Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan 2011, history shows that in most areas in Colorado, the majority of fires started are from human-caused (including equipment) ignitions. Likewise, only a few of the fires in the County end up accounting for the majority of acreages burned. Many of Colorado’s wildfires are caused by lightning strikes from the many thunderstorms that pass through the state on a regular basis during the summer months. The Pitkin area is, unfortunately, not exempt from these weather conditions. Given the semi-arid climate of Pitkin County, many of the storms fail to produce rain, and the lightning strikes sometimes create hotspots of fire that have the potential to grow into larger full-fledged fires. The hotspots can spread over a large area and are very challenging for fire crews to locate and control. They also place a strain on fire suppression equipment and supplies, and many times the hotspots occur deep within the forest and go unnoticed until a larger fire erupts. Additionally, it should be noted that the evolving Forest Service healthy forest management policy acknowledges that fire plays a natural role in the ecology of a wildland, and significantly contributes to ensuring wildlife habitat and forest diversity. Not all fires should, nor will be, extinguished. Sample Event 1: Snowmass Creek - October 30, 2003 This fire burned 48 acres and some structures were lost. Sample Event 2: Hwy 82/Weller Lake - July 17, 1980 This fire from an escaped campfire burned 1,211 acres and cut off travel East on Highway 82. Sample Event 3: Below Starwood - Approximately 1974 A wildfire burned a few acres and threatened a number of homes both in Starwood and McClain Flats.

4-11 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 4-2: Pitkin County Historic Wildfire Occurrence Map

4-12 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Pitkin County experiences many wildfires on an annual basis, most of which are relatively small and/or contained quickly. As shown in Exhibit 4-2, between 1984 and 2006 the entire county has had a history of fire occurrences to varying degrees from dozens in size that are under an acre to approximately five that are larger than 75 acres. With 5 large-scale (75 acres+) wildland fires over a 22-year period, Pitkin County has experienced one event every 4.4 years on average, and has a 23% chance of a large-scale fire occurring in any given year. Therefore, the probability of the County experiencing a large-scale fire every year is “likely.” Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) Catastrophic: Extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, and/or government functions which includes sustained city and regional impacts; overwhelms the existing response strategies and state and local resources; and requires significant out-of-state and Federal resources. Should a major wildfire occur in Pitkin County, particularly within the Wildland Urban Interface, the results would be devastating. Depending on the size of the wildfire and its location, the loss of life and amount of damage could be catastrophic. Potential losses from wildfire include human life; structures and other improvements; natural and cultural resources; the quality and quantity of the water supply; range and crop lands, and economic losses (tourism, fire expenditures, etc.). Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. Other secondary impacts include future flooding and erosion during heavy rains. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Due to many reasons including climate, vegetation, and increasing populations, it is likely that large-scale fires will occur within Colorado and have devastating impacts. Pitkin County is taking great leadership in mitigation and prevention of wildfires, yet the possibility of a fire that quickly burns out of control is still present. The relationship of the natural and built environment defines the risk of wildfires to life and property. Throughout Pitkin County, there are 10,913 structures within the WUI, with a combined estimated actual value of nearly $14.6 billion. Structures located within the WUI account for approximately 58% of all structures within the County. Further, more than 77% of structures within the WUI are located within Category 3 or higher wildfire hazard areas. The following table summarizes the aggregate vulnerability.

4-13 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 4-5: Potential Wildfire Losses, by Jurisdiction

Low Wildfire Hazard Area Medium Wildfire Hazard Area Severe Wildfire Hazard Area (Categories 1 and 2) (Category 3 and 4) (Category 5) Jurisdiction Number of Number of Value of Number of Number of Value of Number of Number of Value of Parcels in Structures Structures Parcels in Structures Structures Parcels in Structures Structures Hazard in Hazard in Hazard Hazard in Hazard in Hazard Hazard in Hazard in Hazard Area Area* Area** Area Area* Area** Area Area* Area** (Millions) (Millions) (Millions) City of Aspen 2,868 868 $3,175 2,820 1,860 $3,463 34 41 $74 Town of 166 22 $112 2,677 1,398 $2,516 103 80 $119 Snowmass Village Town of Basalt 84 58 $52 401 277 $232 16 17 $17 Unincorporated 648 1142 $576 2,748 4,893 $3,924 242 332 $325 Pitkin County *Includes only parcels with structures. ** Value of structures was calculated by subtracting Assessed Land Value from Actual Improved Land Value (as estimated by the County Assessor).

Future Development: For all new construction or redevelopment applications in the County, the land owner/applicant must complete a Wildfire Hazard Analysis. This analysis includes a wildfire hazard assessment for the home site. Based on fuels, slope, aspect and access, construction sites are rated as a Low, Medium or High Hazard areas. All new or additional permitted construction is required to have supplemental fuels mitigation (thinning) as defined by a qualified wildfire professional for Low, Medium and High Hazard sites. Homes within a High Hazard area have more stringent building materials and construction requirements that must be incorporated into the building design prior to permit approval.10 Data Limitations: Wildfire risk maps are not wholly accurate to the parcel level. Regionally, these maps identify larger areas of concern based on slope, aspect, and fuels, however each individual parcel may contain more or less fuel, may be implementing defensible space, or may have structures made with considerably stronger materials.

4.4. Winter Storms – Prioritized Hazard

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

10 Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011

4-14 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

and impacting safety for vulnerable elements of the population such as the elderly and physically impaired. The weather of Pitkin County is typical of Colorado’s mountain areas. Sunny days and clear blue skies often give way to severe conditions and significant snowfall accumulations, as might be expected from areas that boast some of the best skiing in the world. Average December and January highs are a relatively temperate 35 degrees Fahrenheit, while lows during those coldest months average about 8 degrees Fahrenheit. High winds and ice accumulation often accompany the area’s winter storms. These winds can produce sizable snowdrifts that can cause residents and travelers to be stranded for hours, potentially causing life threatening conditions. The problem is sometimes made worse because of spotty cell phone coverage in some of the mountainous areas of Pitkin and surrounding counties, and hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning becomes a clear threat to many, especially those stranded travelers unfamiliar with the area and unprepared for the conditions. Geographic Location Ice accumulation poses a real hazard in Pitkin County and adjacent counties during many winter storms, particularly when it impacts Highway 82, the most important corridor for the transport of people and the provisions needed for the continuity of normal life. A disruption or blockage due to accidents on these roads can cause a major disruption to the county and beyond. Previous Occurrences Pitkin County’s emergency experts provided information for the PDMP update about winter storms that extended back over 20 years. Based on their collective experiences, it was estimated that winter storms, characterized in the county by “Accident Alert” designations, generally close Highway 82 approximately twice each season. Highway 82 is the major transportation artery running through Pitkin County, but despite its occasional closure during severe winter storms, county officials characterize the community as adequately prepared. Additionally, winter and spring storms and below normal ‘suffer’ temperatures can contribute to excessive crop losses, as declared by the Secretary of U.S. Department of Agriculture in March 2009. This USDA Secretarial Disaster declaration was given to Chaffee County that year and extended to adjacent Pitkin County and several other counties that suffered crop loss. In recent history, there have been 44 severe winter storms recorded in Pitkin County. The following table shows the results from the SHELDUS database for storms from 1960 to 2007. It is important to note that SHELDUS data provides information on a county average basis. The number of injuries, fatalities, and property damages associated with a particular event are equally distributed amongst the affected counties for that hazard event. For example, if 5 deaths were attributed to a blizzard that affected 20 counties, then each county would show 0.25 deaths for that event.

Table 4-6: Significant Winter Storms in Pitkin County Date Injuries** Fatalities** Property Damages ($)** Storm Characteristics 4/30/1960 0 0 $0 Freeze 9/2/1961 0 0 $1,315 Snow 9/20/1961 0 0 $312 Heavy Snow

4-15 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Date Injuries** Fatalities** Property Damages ($)** Storm Characteristics 1/8/1962 0 0.16 $7,936 Cold, snow, and wind 1/10/1963 0 0 $79 Cold 4/18/1966 0 0 $79 Snow and Cold 4/20/1967 0 0 $0 Freezing Temperatures 1/25/1969 0.06 0 $27 Snow 10/11/1969 0.03 0 $793 Snow, Cold, Wind 10/13/1969 0 0 $0 Cold 10/29/1969 0 0 $0 Snow 3/1/1970 0 0 $312 Heavy Snow 9/16/1971 0 0 $793 Snow, Cold 5/20/1974 0 0 $0 Freeze 11/24/1975 0 0 $21 Heavy Snow, Wind 2/19/1976 0 0.02 $0 Winter storm 4/18/1978 0 0 $0 Freeze 12/5/1978 0 0.02 $0 Heavy Snow, Cold 12/17/1978 0 0.14 $0 Ice, Heavy Snow 5/7/1979 0 0 $12 Snow 11/19/1979 0.02 0 $793 Blizzard 2/1/1982 0 0 $79 Snow, Cold 12/23/1982 0 0.1 $793,651 Blizzard 3/14/1983 0 0 $793 Heavy Snow 11/26/1983 0 0 $7,936 Snow, Wind 4/19/1984 0 0 $793 Snow/Wind 6/6/1984 0 0 $4,166 Snow 1/30/1985 0 0.08 $793 Extreme Cold 1/31/1985 0 0 $793 Extreme Cold 10/10/1986 0 0 $847 Snow 1/17/1988 0 0 $125 Heavy Snow, Wind 2/1/1989 0.32 0 $79,365 Cold 2/1/1989 0.05 0 $793 Snow 3/2/1992 0.02 0 $1,063 Heavy Snow 1/10/1993 0 0 $2,777 Heavy Snow 2/8/1995 0 1 $40,697 Heavy Snow 2/20/1996 0.1 0.05 $0 Heavy Snow 2/22/1996 0.36 0 $0 Winter Storm 12/8/1998 0 0 $15,000 Winter Storm 10/18/2005 0 0 $384 Winter Weather/Mix 11/14/2005 0 0 $166 Winter Weather/Mix 10/20/2007 0 0 $625 Winter Storm 10/20/2007 0 0 $333 Winter Weather * Data from SHELDUS are by county, therefore exact location is unknown. Some records may not be applicable to Colorado Springs specifically. **Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database.

Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Highly Likely: Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it happens every year. The data suggest that there have been 44 severe winter storm events since 1960, or nearly one per year. It is expected that a severe winter storm will occur every year in Pitkin County.

4-16 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) 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. Heavy snow can immobilize a region by stranding commuters, stopping the flow of supplies, and disrupting emergency and medical services. Accumulations of snow can collapse roofs and tear down trees and power lines. Loss of power affects homes, businesses, and water, sewer, and other services operated by electric pumps. The cost of snow removal, damage repair, and business losses can be significant. Heavy accumulations of ice and or strong winds can bring down trees, power lines, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers, causing communication disruptions that can last for days or weeks. Blowing snow can severely reduce visibility. Serious vehicle accidents can result with injuries and deaths. Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and can become life-threatening; infants and the elderly are most at risk. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Winter storms in Pitkin County cause widespread impacts. The greatest threat is to public safety on major roads and highways. Power outages caused snow, ice, and wind accompanied by cold temperatures creates additional need for shelter. Other issues caused by winter storms can be related to school closures, business closures, road closures, snow removal, and maintaining critical services like emergency services, food providers, and banks. Further, the world-class recreational areas of Pitkin County are among the most popular in the nation, and are also impacted by severe winter storms. Skiers, hikers, snowmobilers and snowshoers are sometimes trapped deep in the wilderness by sudden climate changes. When these victims are stranded in remote areas, rescue personnel can be endangered and costly supplies and specialized equipment are sometimes needed for response. Estimating Potential Losses: Winter storms affect the entire planning area, including all above-ground structures and infrastructure. Although losses to structures are typically minimal and covered by insurance, there can be other costs associated with lost time, maintenance costs, and contents within structures. Future Development: New structures built in Pitkin County should be able to withstand significant snow loads when constructed to current building codes. Development on the fringe may be more susceptible to access issues for emergency services and road crews. Data Limitations: Weather data is limited by the observations reported; many events are never reported or recorded with the National Weather Service or other archiving agencies.

4-17 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

4.5. Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall – Prioritized Hazard

Hazard Description Landslides, including rock fall and other debris flow, as a natural hazard exist in almost every state in the US, and are a serious geologic hazard. They sometimes present a threat to human life, but most often result in a disruption of everyday services, including emergency response capabilities. Landslides can and do block transportation routes, dam creeks and drainages and contaminate water supplies. When these hazards affect transportation routes they are frequently expensive to clean-up and can have significant economic impacts to the county. FEMA describes debris flows, sometimes referred to as mudslides, mudflows, lahars, or debris avalanches, as common types of fast-moving landslides. These flows most frequently occur during or after periods of intense rainfall or rapid snow melt. They typically start on steep hillsides as shallow flows that liquefy and accelerate to speeds that of about 10 miles per hour, but that can exceed 35 miles per hour. Debris flows have a consistency ranging from watery mud to thick, rocky mud that can carry large items such as boulders, trees, and cars and can damage road surfaces. Flows from many different sources can combine in channels, and can increase in destructive power. These flows continue and grow in volume with the addition of water, sand, mud, boulders, trees, and other materials. When the flows reach flatter ground, the debris spreads over a broad area, sometimes accumulating in thick deposits that can wreak havoc and cause significant destruction in developed areas. Wildfires sometimes lead to destructive debris-flow activity. In July 1994, the notorious wildfire on Storm King Mountain, west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, stripped the slopes of vegetation and killed many firefighters. Heavy rains on the mountain during the following September resulted in numerous debris flows, one of which blocked Interstate 70 and threatened to dam the Colorado River. Rockfalls, sinkholes, subsidence, swelling or expansive soils and debris flows are geologic hazards related to landslides. Geographic Location Pitkin County faces its share of landslide-related problems; despite conscientious land use planning, concerns remain in many areas of the county, including but not limited to Aspen Mountain, Snowmass Village, Independence Pass and Redstone. Furthermore, there have been significant rock fall/debris flow events almost every year along Coal Creek Road.

4-18 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Previous Occurrences

Table 4-7: Landslides/Rockslides/Rock Fall in Pitkin County Property Date Type Location Injuries Fatalities Source Damages 1970s- Landslide Residential areas near ski slopes Unknown $ 1980s 1984 Mudslide Woody Creek Rd, 7 mi from River Rd several 1993 Mudslide Castle Creek Unknown$ 1994 Mudslide Shale Bluffs, west of Pitkin County Airport 1996 Landslide Aspen Mountain, west side 1997 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 1997 Landslide Aspen Country Day School Unknown $ 1998 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 1999 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 2001 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 11/25/2004 Landslide 0 0 $466,666 SHELDUS* 1/1/2006 Landslide 0 0 $23,333 SHELDUS* 2/20/2007 Rockslide 0 1 $0 SHELDUS* 2007 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 7/21/2008 Landslide 0 0 $333 SHELDUS* 2009 Mudslide Along SH 133 near Redstone; SH 82 near Basalt; and in the Maroon Creek area 5/11/2009 Landslide Buttermilk Base Area 0 0 $33,333 SHELDUS* 8/2010 Landslide Redstone 5/2011 Mudslide 450 Tiehack Rd Unknown $ 2011 Mudslide Independence Pass 0 0 2011 Mudslide Redstone: Hwy 133, Redstone Blvd, 0 0 Redstone Campground *Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database.

4-19 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Sample Event 1: Redstone in 2011 In July 2011, following a significant rain event, multiple mud flows/debris flows occurred along Hwy. 133, Redstone Blvd and through the Redstone campground. Both the Boulevard and Hwy 133 were closed for a period of time while crews cleared the areas. Sample Event 2: Independence Pass in 2011 A mudslide closed Independence Pass southeast of Aspen for approximately three hours on the evening of June 6, 2011. The May 2011, 450 Tiehack Rd slide occurred approximately 100 yards below the of Independence and motorists were stranded on either side of the blockage, but no one was injured. Sample Event 3: Landslide at Aspen Country Day School in 1997 In the spring of 1997, a landslide developed in a tributary drainage to Castle Creek. The volume of the landslide was estimated to be approximately 50,000 cubic meters and the flow inundated the parking lot of the Aspen Country Day August 2010, Redstone School, damaging six cars and impacting school buildings and grounds. No injuries were reported and classes were relocated for the remainder of the year.11 Sample Event 4: Aspen Mountain, west side in 1996 In May, 1996, two destructive debris flows occurred on the west side of Aspen Mountain, despite mitigation measures that had been put in place. The area remains capable of additional debris flows, and facilities and residents are at risk each spring. Essentially the entire Aspen Mountain area is fraught with potential landslide-related conditions and the state’s hazard plan cautions residents, local officials and resort facility owners and developers to bear this in mind for future development and operating plans and decisions.

Sample Event 5: Shale Bluffs Mudslide, 1994 During President Clinton’s visit to the area in 1994, a major May 2009, Buttermilk Base Area mudslide occurred in the area known as Shale Bluffs, west of the Pitkin County Airport.

11 US Geological Survey, http://landslides.usgs.gov/recent/archives/1997aspen.php

4-20 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Sample Event 6: Castle Creek Mudslide, 1993 In 1993, a large mudslide occurred on Castle Creek and damaged the Aspen Music School. Sample Event 7: Mudslide on Woody Creek Road, 1984 In 1984 a mudslide washed out Woody Creek Road seven miles from its intersection with River Road causing evacuations for personal injuries.

Sample Event 8: Residential areas in close proximity to ski Summer 2007, Top of Maroon Creek Rd areas in the 1970s and 1980s In the 1970s and 1980s, Pitkin County experienced landslide problems in developing residential areas on certain ski slopes, and undertook remedial action that seems to have significantly reduced the problem. No major events in the area have been reported since 1988. Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.

As pointed out in the debris flow description that occurred on the west side of Aspen Mountain (Sample Event 4), mitigation measures have been shown to fail. In that area alone, additional debris flows are possible each spring because the entire Aspen Mountain is fraught with potential landslide-related conditions. In other areas, remedial actions in landslide areas have proven to be effective. Even with these measures in place, the fact that at least 22 events have been recorded in the 25 years between 1984 and 2009 indicates the probability of future occurrence is about 88 percent, which falls in the ‘likely’ category of recurring at intervals of 10 years or less. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) 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. Landslides and slope failures in the past have caused major structural damages to homes and businesses. A significant landslide could not only demolish the above ground structures, but also wreak havoc on underlying utilities (gas, electric, water, etc.), and cause personal harm and/or death should these events occur quickly without warning. Damage from subsidence can range from hairline cracks in plaster or wall board, to damaged foundations, to major road failure with injury and/or death in the case of abrupt failure. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: The general assessment for where landslides may occur within the Pitkin County is somewhat predictable based on slope, aspect, vegetation, moisture content, and angle of bedrock amongst other variables. At the individual parcel level however, the threat of landslides typically requires further study. Individual soil properties, the type of human activity on the lot, and understanding previous failures in the specific area all influence the probability of a future event occurring.

4-21 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: The ability to identify structures and estimate potential losses is limited by the availability of geologic hazard data in the County. Hard copy regional assessment/1041 maps of geologic hazard areas are maintained by Pitkin County, but are over 30 years old and this information is not accurate to the individual parcel. Future Development: Pitkin County, and its incorporated cities and towns, have been extremely aggressive in limiting future development in geologically hazardous areas, including steep slopes and areas prone to landslides. The City of Aspen has adopted development regulations that include heightened review standards for development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), which include areas within the 8040 Greenline (located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level) and the Hallam Lake Bluff area in order to, among other things, protect against slope erosion and landslide. The Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan includes a policy to “[discourage] construction on slopes greater than 30 percent grade.” Data Limitations: The prediction of slope failures is difficult to achieve. Often slopes that were considered stable may fail under ideal conditions including but not limited to prolonged periods of rain and/or extensive cut and fill. Hard copy regional assessment/1041 maps of geologic hazard areas are maintained by Pitkin County, but are over 30 years old and this information is not accurate to the individual parcel. Geotechnical studies must be prepared in order to determine a particular lot’s vulnerability to slope failure.

4.6. Seasonal/Flash Flooding – Prioritized Hazard

Hazard Description According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), flash floods in the United States are responsible for more deaths than any other thunderstorm phenomena. Year to year in Colorado, only lightning is more deadly. Flash flooding usually is the byproduct of very heavy rains in a short period of time over a small geographic area, all of which combine to cause small streams to turn violent. Flooding as a natural hazard is a long-recognized problem for Pitkin County, and the extreme terrain in the area increases the potential for severe flooding. Seasonal flooding occurs in the county during the spring when the mountain snowpack starts its melting process and heavy rainfall sometimes combines with the runoff and causes some rivers and streams to swell out of their banks. Geographic Location Pitkin County is located within the Roaring Fork Watershed. The Roaring Fork River is the major waterway within the watershed, and its start near Independence Pass, east of the City of Aspen, and flow west from the Continental Divide. The Roaring Fork continues to the northwest through the City of Aspen and Towns of Snowmass and Basalt and joins the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs. The Frying Pan River is a main tributary of the Roaring Fork River and flows into the Ruedi Reservoir, runs through Basalt, and into the Roaring Fork River. Located at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan Rivers, the Town of Basalt is particularly vulnerable to flood events along the Roaring Fork River. Likewise, Redstone, located at the confluence

4-22 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

of the Coal Creek and Crystal River, is susceptible to flood events. Specifically, in Basalt, the Pan-Fork Mobile Home Park, the Roaring Fork Mobile Home Park and the Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park are areas prone to flooding, as well as Elk Park in Redstone. Jurisdictions with Planning and Zoning responsibilities in the Pitkin County area are participants of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a condition to participating in the NFIP, each agency has committed to constrain the building of structures in the flood-hazard areas delineated by FEMA FIRM (Flood-Insurance-Rate Map) panels. This approach limits the vulnerability to flooding to structures built in the Flood Hazard Areas prior the respective NFIP commitments for each governing body. In Pitkin County, the unincorporated areas (including Redstone), the City of Aspen and the Towns of Snowmass Village and Basalt participate in NFIP. Previous Occurrences The Roaring Fork River has a significant flood history, particularly at the confluence of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers. Flood events (defined as events above the mean peak flow) have been recorded in 26 years since 1900, including eleven years since the construction of Ruedi Dam in 1968, which reduced annual peak flows in the Fryingpan. Flooding in 1995 was estimated to be a 50-year event in Aspen and a 25-year event in Basalt.12 A 50-year event also occurred in 1957 at the confluence of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers. Sample events, many of which are the result of seasonal runoff, are provided below. Sample Event 1: Flash Floods in the Upper Castle Creek Valley in 2008 Heavy runoff in upper Castle Creek Valley washed out Pearl Pass Road just below the intersection with Montezuma Road Backcountry at a bridge. Backcountry enthusiasts piled rocks as a temporary measure to continue to use bridge. The bridge was rebuilt in 2010. Sample Event 2: Flash Floods across SH 133 in 1999 In 1999, heavy rains caused two flash floods that were estimated at up to six feet deep across SH 133, and caused approximately $150,000 in damages. Sample Event 3: Flash Flood West of Snowmass in 1997 A flash flood four miles west of Snowmass in 1997 produced a mudslide that buried a 30 foot stretch of Highway 82 near Basalt with mud two to four feet deep, and took road crews seven hours to clear. Sample Event 4: Floods of 1995 According the Basalt River Master Plan, [flooding] in 1995 was estimated to be a 50-year event in Aspen and a 25-year event in Basalt. In June and July 1995, the Roaring Fork River valley experienced snowmelt flooding. At Aspen, the 1995 peak flow of 2,230 cubic feet per second (cfs) was the greatest experienced since 1918. Downstream at Glenwood Springs, the 1995 peak flow of 12,000 cfs was the highest peak flow since 1957. Extensive problems with bank erosion and channel migration were experienced throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, leading to damage to property, infrastructure and river corridor habitat. Sample Event 5: Floods of 1984

12 Roaring Fork River Stewardship Master Plan for the Town of Basalt, 2003; http://www.basaltriverinfo.net/index.htm, accessed 25 August 2011.

4-23 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

A Presidential Disaster was declared in Pitkin County due to the flooding of 1984. Following a winter of above-average snowpack, resulting mudslides and water floods in Aspen and Snowmass Village caused damages to roadways, bridges, recreational facilities and public property. According to Tom Grady, “That was the year the Chateau Eau Claire and Chateau Roaring Fork condominium complexes had flooding up to the balconies. That year the Roaring Fork River also flooded into the Aspen Art Museum.”

Table 4-8: Flood History for Pitkin County Year Description of Event Data Source

6/17/1965 Flood description not provided. $3,846,000 in damages. SHELDUS 6/7/1979 Flood description not provided. SHELDUS 5/1/1984 Flood description not provided. $172,000 in damages. SHELDUS 7/11/1995 Rapid snowmelt resulted in flooding along the Roaring Fork River. In Basalt, a 25-year event flooded NCDC, Town of a mobile home park and . A levee was eroded and a section of old Highway 82 was Basalt washed out. At Aspen, the peak flow of 2,230 cubic feet per second (cfs) was considered a 50-year event and the greatest experienced since 1918. 7/22/1997 Heavy rains from a thunderstorm resulted in five mudslides across a five-mile stretch of Colorado NCDC Highway 133 near Redstone. 1 to 3 feet of mud and debris closed both lanes of the highway for about an hour, before state maintenance crews were able to open one lane. It took another six hours to clear the remaining debris before both lanes were open. 7/22/1997 Heavy rains resulted in a mudslide across Colorado Highway 133, 3 miles south of Redstone, closing NCDC the road for about an hour. The mud and debris was 4 to 5 feet deep along a 30 foot stretch of the highway. 9/4/1997 Heavy rains resulted in a mud slide which blocked a road in a subdivision located one mile south of NCDC/ Redstone. $5,000 in damages. SHELDUS 9/4/1997 A flash flood produced a mud slide which completely buried a 30 foot stretch of high 82 near Basalt NCDC with mud 2 to 4 feet deep. It took state road crews nearly seven hours to clear the highway. 7/21/1998 Heavy rainfall resulted in a flow of mud and debris several feet deep across a 25 foot stretch of NCDC Maroon Creek Road. 7/27/1998 Heavy rainfall over a two to three hour period caused a flow of mud and rock several feet deep to NCDC cover a 50 foot stretch of Castle Creek Road. 7/31/1998 A four foot wall of water came roaring down Avalanche Creek and washed out a section of a trail near NCDC a campground. 7/28/1999 Heavy rain resulted in two flash floods up to 6 feet deep across State Highway 133. It took road NCDC/ crews about three hours to remove the rocks and mud off the road. SHELDUS 7/28/1999 A photographer was out of his vehicle taking pictures on the flanks of and became NCDC/ trapped by a flash flood which inundated his van with water and mud. The flash flood also washed out SHELDUS the road. The initial wall of water was 10 feet high, while the crest of the flash flood was about 15 feet high. The water and debris crashed into several culverts, causing them to explode; eight-inch steel I- beams were twisted like straws. The incident occurred six miles northeast of Redstone. $180,000 in damages. 8/6/2001 Heavy rain from a strong thunderstorm resulted in water up to a foot deep along Highway 133 south NCDC of Redstone, along with mud and rock slides across portions of the highway. 8/6/2001 Heavy rainfall from a strong thunderstorm produced a torrent of water across portions of the Maroon NCDC Creek Road. The flash flood also brought down debris which left up to a foot of mud and rocks on the road. 7/3/2006 Flood description not provided. $40,000 in damages. SHELDUS

4-24 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Year Description of Event Data Source

7/18/2007 Heavy rain caused water and debris to flow down a normally dry drainage running through the NCDC/ Maroon Creek Day Use Area provided by the USFS. The water and debris average depth was 5 feet SHELDUS with a width of 30 feet. The flash flood hit the Maroon Creek Road and a trailhead parking lot where it spread out about 100 feet wide, clogging culverts and burying the road and day-use area under 1 to 2 feet of debris. Improved trails were destroyed and tons of debris had to be removed from the road and day-use area. Additionally, hailstones up to 1/2 inch diameter accompanied the heavy rain. There were people camping nearby in tents when the event occurred. Heavy rain producing thunderstorms caused flash flooding southwest of Aspen in a recreational day-use area. 7/18-19/ Heavy rain producing thunderstorms caused flash flooding across a forest service road between NCDC 2007 Highway 133 and the Avalanche Creek Campground. About 3 feet of debris was deposited on the road in the wake of the flash flood. Dozens of campers were stranded in the campground until the next day. An influx of monsoonal moisture resulted in an outbreak of heavy rain producing thunderstorms. $7,000 in damages. 7/26/2009 Heavy rainfall resulted in a flash flood with a large amount of mud that flowed across Highway 133. NCDC When the flooding stopped, it left a deposit of mud on the Highway up to 4 feet deep. The highway was opened to traffic within two hours after the flash flooding ended. Dams Pitkin County has two Class I (Ruedi and Wildcat) and four Class II dams located in the county. Class I and Class II dams are defined as follows: Class I: A dam shall be placed in Class I when failure would result in probable loss of human life. Class II: Significant damage is expected, but not loss of human life. The phrase “Significant damage” refers to structural damage where humans live, work or recreate, or to public or private facilities exclusive of unpaved roads and picnic areas. “Damage” refers to rendering these structures uninhabitable or inoperable. National Flood Insurance Program The following table details the NFIP status and claims for Pitkin County and its municipalities.

Table 4-9: NFIP Status for Pitkin County Effective Policies in Insurance in Number of Jurisdiction Date Joined Claims Total FIRM Date Force Force Claims

Pitkin County 06/04/87 10/19/04 148 $41,243,300 14 $41,929.54

City of Aspen 12/24/76 10/19/04 127 $19,544,900 9 $168,270.56

Town of Snowmass 06/04/87 10/19/04 15 $4,452,800 $0 2 Village Town of Basalt 03/18/80 12/04/07 93 $29,416,700 1 $3,815.81

Source: National Flood Insurance Program BureauNet, http://www.fema.gov/cis/CO.pdf, http://bsa.nfipstat.com/reports/1011.htm#COT, and http://bsa.nfipstat.com/reports/1040.htm, all on August 24, 2011.

4-25 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

The NFIP also tracks repetitive loss properties throughout the United States. According to its database, there is one repetitive loss property (single family residential) in Pitkin County as of 2010.13 Community Rating System Pitkin County participates in the Community Rating System Program of the NFIP. This program is an incentive program developed by the NFIP to raise awareness of flood insurance, promote accurate insurance ratings, and ultimately reduce flood losses. Pitkin County holds a current class rating of 8 as of October 1, 2010.14 This means that properties within Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) are eligible for a 10% discount on flood insurance policies. The highest achievable rating is a 1, where SFHA properties are eligible for a 45% discount on flood insurance policies. The lowest rating is a 10, where the community is not participating. There are 18 credible activities within four categories to increase a jurisdiction’s rating. The categories include: Public Information, Mapping and Regulations, Flood Damage Reduction, and Flood Preparedness. Probability of Future Occurrence For the purposes of this Plan, flooding events have been broken out into two distinct categories: frequent floods that are typical of the area, flooding streets, overtopping curbs, and causing minimal damages; and significant flooding defined by an event that causes significant damages to properties, involves streams overflowing their banks, and can include the 100- and 500-year flood interval. The probability of the two categories is as follows: Typical Flood (All Jurisdictions) Likely: 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Based on historical data for previous occurrences in Pitkin County, there were 19 flooding events that occurred within a 45-year period. This equates to a probability of 42% that a flood will occur in any given year, or that a flood will occur approximately once every 2.4 years. Typical flooding events in Pitkin County flood streets, cause stream bank erosion, wash out bridges, and cause limited damages to property. Significant Flood (All Jurisdictions) Occasional: 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or it has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. When taken literally, the 500-year flood event should occur once every 500 years, or have a 0.2% chance of occurring in any given year. The 100-year flood event should occur once every 100 years, or have a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. The likelihood of a more significant flood such as a 50- or 100- year flood is far less than the typical flood. Magnitude/Severity As with probability, this Plan breaks out flooding events into two distinct categories for measuring magnitude: frequent floods that are typical of the area, flooding streets, overtopping curbs, and causing

13 Colorado Water Conservation Board, Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for Colorado, September 2010, http://cwcb.state.co.us/water- management/flood/Documents/FloodMitPlanFinalDraft2010.pdf

14 FEMA Community Rating System website, http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/crs.shtm, accessed on June 15, 2011.

4-26 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

minimal damages; and significant flooding defined by an event that causes significant damages to properties, involves streams overflowing their banks, and can include the 100- and 500-year flood interval. The magnitude of the two categories is as follows: Typical Flood (All Jurisdictions) 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. Significant Flood (Pitkin County/Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, Town of Snowmass Village/Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District) 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. Most of the flooding events in Pitkin County have caused property damages and flooded roadways. These damages are fairly limited in magnitude, as services are interrupted for brief periods, and there are few if any injuries. Significant flooding events within the unincorporated County and Snowmass Village would likely result in isolated injuries and/or deaths, property damage and short-term disruption of essential services.

Significant Flood (City of Aspen/Aspen Fire Protection District, Town of Basalt/Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District) Catastrophic: Extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, and/or government functions which includes sustained city and regional impacts; overwhelms the existing response strategies and state and local resources; and requires significant out-of-state and Federal resources. Workshop participants agreed that should a significant flood occur within the City of Aspen or Town of Basalt, residents and businesses in these areas could face catastrophic conditions. Significant flooding events can be devastating and multiple lives can be lost due to flash floods and/or slope failures. Multiple homes and businesses could be destroyed, and essential services could be compromised for long periods of time. The Aspen fire stations, at 43 Sage Way and at Hopkins and Galena, are well south of the 500-year floodplain. Similarly, the fire station in Basalt is east of 2 Rivers Road and outside the 500-year floodplain. However, emergency response by Aspen Fire Protection District and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District could be severely hampered by bridge failures or flooding of major thoroughfares. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Some flooding can be predicted by weather reports, but many times smaller flash floods are a result of a microburst system, which simply overwhelms both natural and man- made drainage systems. Such failures sometimes cause excessive damage to towns, industry and farms in the floodplain areas. Emergency services, transportation, power, water and wastewater services, business and hazardous materials storage may be substantially disrupted and can affect the population located in or near the flooded area. With 19 flood occurrences recorded in the 44 years between 1965 and 2009, the probability of future occurrence is about 43 percent in any given year, or a likelihood of one flood event every 2.3 years. Therefore, flood events fall in the ‘likely’ category for recurring in intervals of 10 years or less.

4-27 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

The following is an excerpt from the 2005 PDMP: Although the operation of reservoirs and water diversions for the East Slope can reduce the risk of devastating floods, the extent to which the risk is reduced is in question. To date, experts have not yet shown a statistical difference in hydrology as a result of these reservoirs and diversions. According to the Annual Operations Plan of the Fryingpan Arkansas Project for the Water Year of 1995-1996, the inflow for Ruedi Reservoir was 130 percent of average and was due, in part, to waters left in the Fryingpan River Basin that normally would have been diverted to the East Slope but were not because the reservoirs on the East Slope had already filled during the spring runoff. It is also clearly stated by the agencies that manage the reservoirs and the tunnel diversions that neither was constructed for flood control purposes. More importantly, the Town of Basalt is at greater risk of flooding than other areas in this region as a result of the tendency for cobble and debris to “fall out” in this wide section of the valley creating a highly unstable channel.

Many of the streams and creeks in the region are also diverted into irrigation ditches, which direct the water to ranches and farms in the area. This action also limits the amount of runoff available to cause a damaging seasonal flood.

Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: A new digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for Pitkin County was in development as part of FEMA’s Risk MAP program during the time that this plan was being developed and was not available for analysis. When the DFIRM becomes effective, it will be the most accurate data and the official regulatory floodplain map. For mitigation planning purposes, HAZUS-MH, FEMA’s loss-estimation software program, was used to calculate potential losses from flooding in Pitkin County and to generate a map of the 100-year floodplain, or the flood that has one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. HAZUS-MH models streams draining a 10-square mile minimum drainage area and uses 30-meter digital elevation models (DEM). Hydrology and hydraulic processes use the DEMs, along with flows from USGS regional regression equations and stream gauge data, to determine reach discharges and to model the floodplain. For this plan, the HAZUS-MH model was customized with the latest available FEMA FIS studies because the pre-packaged HAZUS data set tended to underestimate flows for both the 100-year and 500-year flood events. The customized model yielded deeper floodwaters and a slightly larger floodplain extent. HAZUS-MH calculated potential losses by using default national databases (buildings and population) at the census block level. The HAZUS-MH generated damage estimates are directly related to depth of flooding and are based on FEMA’s depth-damage functions. The HAZUS modeling may contain errors, both in the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and in the loss estimates, and it is being used for planning level applications only.

4-28 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 4-3: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Aspen

4-29 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 4-4: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Aspen

4-30 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 4-5: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village

4-31 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 4-6: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village

4-32 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 4-7: HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Basalt

4-33 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 4-8: HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Basalt

4-34 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

HAZUS provides reports on the number of buildings impacted, building repair costs, and the associated loss of building contents and business inventory. Building damage can also cause functional losses to a community, which relate to the opportunity loss of being able to use a building. Income loss data accounts for business interruption and rental income losses as well as the resources associated with damage repair and job and housing losses. These losses are calculated by HAZUS using a methodology based on the building damage estimates. Flood damage is directly related to the depth of flooding. For example, a two-foot flood results in approximately 20 percent of the structure being damaged (which translates to 20 percent of the structure’s replacement value). For Table 4-10 to Table 4-13, the results are for comparative analysis only. The results in these tables assume that a flood event occurred throughout the entire modeled region, rather than as localized events.

Table 4-10: Damage Summary by Building Occupancy (% of Total Estimated Damages) Percentage of Total Estimated Damages (Building Value) Occupancy Type 100-year flood 500-year flood Agriculture 0.66 % 0.67 % Commercial 19.76 % 19.80 % Industrial 2.92 % 2.97 % Residential 73.04 % 72.97 % Religion 2.59 % 2.56 % Education 0.62 % 0.62 % Government 0.41 % 0.40 % TOTAL % 100.00 % 100.00 % Total Estimated Exposure Value $1,160,142,000 $1,174,308,000

Table 4-11: Structures Damaged During Modeled Flood Events Event Total Structures in Modeled Number of Structures % of Total Structures in Region Damaged Modeled Region 100-year 9,671 56 0.58 % 500-year 9,671 70 0.72 %

Table 4-12: Expected Damages (number of buildings), 100-year event Percent damaged (US$) Occupancy 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% Substantially Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 3 9 0 0 0 0 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Religion 1 1 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 2 25 5 8 6 TOTAL 4 12 25 5 8 6

4-35 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 4-13: Expected Damages (number of buildings), 500-year event Percent damaged (US$) Occupancy 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% Substantially Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 1 12 0 0 0 0 Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Religion 1 1 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 2 24 6 17 8 TOTAL 1 15 24 6 17 8

The following table shows that HAZUS estimates total damages and economic losses of over $71 million for a 100-year flood event in Pitkin County. Damages and losses for a 500-year event are estimated to be nearly $78 million. In addition, HAZUS estimates that the number of households displaced by a 100-year flood event to be 305 and the number of people requiring short-term sheltering to be 528. For a 500- year event, 331 households would be displaced and 583 people would seek short-term shelters.

Table 4-14: Damage Estimates and Economic Losses for Modeled Flood Events

Damage Type 100-year 500-year Building Damage $24.32M $27.59M Contents Damage $45.59M $48.61M Inventory Loss $950,000 $990,000 Income Loss $290,000 $300,000 Relocation Loss $60,000 $60,000 Rental Income Loss $60,000 $60,000 Wage Losses $320,000 $330,000 TOTAL LOSSES $71.59M $77.94M

Future Development: Pitkin County, and its incorporated cities and towns, have very stringent floodplain policies and regulations limiting development in flood prone areas and requiring permitting. Pitkin County requires an extensive permit for any work within the designated 100-year flood plain, including bank stabilization, bridges, dredging, installation of irrigation equipment, and revegetation. The Town of Snowmass Village requires all new development to be located outside the 100-year floodplain. And, according the City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management Plan, the City regulates jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional floodplains to control the alteration of the natural floodplains; prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; restrict or prohibit uses which may result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; protect and preserve the natural riparian corridor; and to control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damages. Specifically, the City requires that all proposed development and/or redevelopment in the 100-year floodplain, not just construction of buildings, be reviewed and permitted in compliance with floodplain regulations.

4-36 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

The Town of Basalt is also proactive in limiting new development in flooding hazards as well as limiting development that would add to existing flood hazards. According to the Basalt River Master Plan, In September 2000, the Town adopted Ordinance 25 which addressed criteria for development in the floodplain. This Ordinance prohibits development which would result in any rise in flood elevations and puts the burden of proof on developers and landowners to verify that their proposals would not add to existing flood hazards. The ordinance also prohibits development that would negatively impact the ability of the Town to implement the River Master Plan.

Data Limitations: HAZUS is limited in its capabilities to census block data. This modeling software provides a less accurate estimate of the floodplain than Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) maps will, once approved by FEMA and made effective. Pitkin County and its municipalities will be able to revise the estimations of structures and values once the DFIRMs become effective (estimated Fall 2011).

4.7. Avalanche – Other Hazard

Hazard Description Avalanches are a type of slope failure that sometimes occurs on slopes steeper than about 20 to 30 degrees. Avalanches can reach speeds of 200 miles per hour and can exert enough force to destroy buildings and uproot large and healthy trees. Avalanche-prone areas can be determined with some accuracy, since under normal circumstances avalanches tend to run down the same paths year after year. However, exceptional weather conditions sometimes produce avalanches that overrun normal path boundaries or create new paths. Unlike other forms of slope failure, snow avalanches can build up and be triggered on more than one occasion during a single winter season.

Geographic Location The Aspen and Independence Pass areas of Pitkin County are considered especially susceptible to avalanche activity. Specifically, the Aspen Highlands ski area has seen a number of previous occurrences. Previous Occurrences As reported in the 2005 Plan, Colorado typically experiences more than double the number of avalanche-related fatalities as the next most dangerous state. Pitkin County led the state with 39 fatalities (1950/51 to 2009/10), according to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC). Also per CAIC, 61 deaths occurred in Colorado in the decade between 1999/00 and 2009/10, compared to the next highest, Montana, with 48 deaths in that time period. Sample Event 1: East Snowmass Creek Valley, Sand's Chute, Pitkin County, 2011 On February 22, 2011, a group of three skiers encountered an avalanche in the East Snowmass Creek valley. Members of the group were very familiar with the area and had visited many times this season and during the previous four or five winters. Skiing Sand’s Chute one at a time, the second skier triggered the avalanche and was caught, carried, and fully buried. With the assistance of an avalanche beacon, the other members of the group were able to uncover the victim within minutes; however, they were unsuccessful in their resuscitation attempts.

4-37 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Sample Event 2: Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County, 2005 On March 6, 2005, a 32-year-old man was buried and killed in a sizable avalanche in the backcountry near the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. At the time of the avalanche the man was participating in a Level II avalanche-awareness class in Five Fingers Bowl (Five Fingers Bowl is a popular out-of-area ski tour adjacent to the Aspen Highlands ski area. Access is gained either from the top of Highlands Peak via a US Forest Service backcountry access gate or by climbing from the bottom starting at Conundrum Creek.) He was the only person caught in the avalanche. Sample Event 3: Out of Bounds, Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County, 2002 On February 1, 2002, at Aspen Highlands ski area in Pitkin County, a 67-year-old man skiing alone fell victim to a very small loose-snow avalanche about 4 to 6 feet wide which he triggered after sliding off the boundary of the trail. The avalanche only traveled about 130 feet and was just over two feet deep, but the victim’s fall incapacitated him and he was found buried under 18 inches of snow. This avalanche is considered one the smallest fatal avalanches in Colorado history, and demonstrates that even small avalanches can be deadly. Sample Event 3: Hurricane Gulch, Pitkin County, 2000 On January 25, 2000, one person died in an Avalanche in Hurricane Gulch near Aspen. Sample Event 4: Aspen Highlands Ski Area, Pitkin County, 1999 On January 23, 1999, also at Aspen Highlands ski area, two skiers triggered an Avalanche that resulted in one death and one injury. Sample Event 5: Castle Creek Road, Pitkin County, late 1980s In the late 1980s, an avalanche occurred approximately four miles up Castle Creek Road from the intersection with SH 82. This event caused residents to be stranded for two days.

4-38 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Figure 4-1: Colorado Avalanche Fatalities by County, 1950-2010

Source: http://avalanche.state.co.us/acc/acc_images/Slide12.JPG, accessed on June 20, 2011.

Table 4-15: Pitkin County Avalanche Occurrences, 1997-2011

Date Location Description March 1997 Castle Creek, Aspen 1 out-of-area snowboarder caught, partly buried and injured March 1998 Aspen Mountain – Elk Range 1 out-of-bounds skier caught, partly buried and killed January 1999 Aspen Highlands 2 out-of-area skiers caught, 1 buried and killed January 2000 Backside of Aspen Mountain 1 backcountry skier buried and killed March 2000 Aspen Highlands 2 out-of-area skiers caught, buried and killed February 2002 Aspen Highlands 1 skier caught, buried, and killed March 2002 Aspen Mountain 1 out-of-area skier caught, buried and killed March 2002 Maroon Bowl 1 backcountry snowboarder (or skier) caught March 2005 Five Fingers Bowl, Aspen 1 backcountry skier caught, buried, and killed December 2006 Rayburn Area of Snowmass Ski Resort 1 skier caught, completely buried and killed December 2008 Aspen Backcountry 1 skier caught, buried, and killed February 2010 South of Aspen Mountain, West Side 1 skier triggered, not caught near Annies February 2010 Ophir Gulch, Aspen Mountain Side 2 skiers caught, 1 fully buried and injured Country January 2011 Maroon Bowl, Highlands Ridge 1 skier caught and partially buried January 2011 West Willow drainage, Snowmass Solo skier caught, fully buried, self-rescued sidecountry February 2011 East Snowmass Creek Valley, Sand's 1 skier caught, fully buried, and killed Chute April 2011 Green Mountain, west side of 1 skier caught, carried, and partially buried Independence Pass

4-39 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Date Location Description April 2011 Highlands Ridge, Desolation Row, Aspen 1 skier caught and killed zone April 2011 Headwall, Snowmass (closed for season) 1 skier caught, partly buried Source: http://avalanche.state.co.us/acc/accidents_co.php, accessed on June 20, 2011.

Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.

Threats from avalanche in Pitkin County have the potential to significantly impact safety for residents and visitors, as well as critical infrastructure and vital services. In fact, with 39 deaths occurring over a 60-year period,15 the probability of it continuing to occur at that rate is 63 percent, which falls in the ‘likely’ category at a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) 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. Avalanches in Pitkin County have the potential to kill and injure multiple people, damage property and cause road closures. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Avalanches are a very significant threat as development and recreation increase in mountain areas. Data show the incidence of avalanches has increased, as has the number of people affected by avalanche events. Information from avalanche accidents shows that this activity occurs in about one-third of the states and is a significant hazard in much of the West, where avalanches are the most frequently occurring lethal form of mass movement. Mortality due to snow avalanches exceeds the average mortality due to earthquakes and all other forms of slope failure combined on an annual basis. Sometimes, avalanches pose hazards that affect a significant sector of the public, involve a number of private organizations, and require cooperation and action by government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. The avalanche hazard causes economic loss to residents, businesses, transportation systems, and government agencies and can have a negative impact on the local economy of many mountain regions. Many of the annual visitors to these areas head into the backcountry ill-equipped and without an adequate appreciation for the dangers that avalanches pose. Many times in the recent past people have been caught in these avalanches and been hurt or have died. The rescue and recovery of these people is a labor-intensive and dangerous task for the emergency personnel involved. In general, the amount of personnel in the rescue efforts can far exceed the number of people who are caught in the avalanche. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: Pitkin County does not have any comprehensive digital mapping of avalanche hazard areas, so there is not data available to identify specific structures at risk or estimate potential losses to structures.

15 Colorado Avalanche Information Center: http://avalanche.state.co.us/acc/acc_images/Slide12.JPG

4-40 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Future Development: Each jurisdiction within Pitkin County prohibits or severely limits building on steep slopes. In 1974 Colorado State University performed an Environmental Resources Analysis for Pitkin County and produced a series of maps identifying Potential Geologic Hazards and Snow Avalanche Areas for the Frying Pan River Valley, Lower Roaring Fork Valley, Upper Roaring Fork and High Valleys, Crystal River Valley. These maps are consulted by the Community Development Department during the development review process, however, they are not accurate to the parcel level. Data Limitations: The Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC), a program of the Colorado Geological Survey, produces avalanche observation reports submitted by individuals on the CAIC web site. Avalanche data is limited to best available data submitted and smaller avalanche activity, or avalanches that do not result in injuries or fatalities, may go unreported.

4.8. Drought – Other Hazard

Hazard Description Drought is a shortage of water associated with a deficiency of precipitation, and occurs when a normal amount of moisture is unavailable to satisfy an area’s usual water consumption. Drought can be defined regionally based on its effects in the following categories: x Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average water supply. x Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of the state’s crops and other agricultural operations such as livestock. x 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. x 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 is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or wildfires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends. Drought is a familiar and natural part of Colorado’s history. It is one of the most destructive, but least understood of all natural hazards. Its onset is slow and silent and its effects can last for years. Geographically, drought can occur locally, regionally or statewide. The impacts from drought are non- structural and generally affect the economy and environment of the host area. A drought event can be short-term or it can be a multi-year event, much like the current drought affecting Colorado for the past several years. From a historical perspective, scientific studies have shown that Colorado has experienced drought periods lasting ten years and longer. Research suggests that multi-year droughts typically have one peak year that is more dramatic and more devastating than all of the others. A look at recorded information suggested that 2002 was the peak year of the current drought event. Geographic Location

4-41 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Drought is a regional phenomenon and affects all areas of Pitkin County with similar frequency and severity. Annual precipitation is fairly consistent across the region with variations occurring as the topography changes from mountain to valley floors. Overall the Counties receive an average of 11 to 15 inches of moisture a year. With such a small amount of annual precipitation, any decrease in moisture over a single year or for a multiyear period can greatly affect the region. The tourism and recreation economy, as well as individuals, can be disrupted by a drought at a parcel level. A large portion of Pitkin County relies on individual ground wells and constructed water retention structures for their water resources. Ground wells service a large portion of the population while local ranchers rely upon ponds and ditches for livestock and crops. Previous Occurrences The U.S. Drought Monitor provides online maps of the current drought status nationwide, updated weekly. Following are examples of Colorado drought conditions; one from August 2002 (Figure 4-2) and the other from August 2009 (Figure 4-3). In 2002, Colorado saw one of the driest years on record, whereas 2009 was somewhat of a wet year for the region.

Figure 4-2: Colorado Drought Conditions August 27, 2002 – Extreme Drought

Source: National Drought Mitigation Center’s Drought Monitor, http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/index.html, accessed November 19, 2009.

4-42 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Figure 4-3: Colorado Drought Conditions August 25, 2009 – No Drought Conditions

Source: National Drought Mitigation Center’s Drought Monitor, http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/index.html, accessed November 19, 2009.

In 2000 and 2002, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), declared Pitkin County a disaster area due to drought. There have been several documented periods of drought throughout Colorado history. The following table outlines known periods of drought in Pitkin County. Sample Event 1: The Drought of 2007 In 2007, late frosts and drought decreased the number of berries available for bears to eat. Therefore, bears moved closer to populated areas within the county and confrontations with humans increased. It also caused the Colorado Division of Wildlife to trap bears searching for food in garbage cans left out by Aspen residents. Sample Event 2: The Drought of 2002 From the 2005 PDMP: The drought of 2002 began early that year with a general lack of snow statewide. By April 2002, statewide snow pack was 52% of average and general precipitation was well below the 70% average that is commonly used to define a severe drought. This continued the pattern of the previous 4 years in Colorado which was also below normal precipitation amounts. The highly anticipated spring precipitation never occurred and warming temperatures caused the remaining snow pack to quickly diminish. The extreme drought had a devastating effect on the state and local economies. The State economy suffered an estimated $1.1 billion impact on agriculture, tourism and recreation. For example, ranchers in southern Colorado sold 80% of their herds due to lack of water. Outfitters estimated recreational visitation was down 40%, and fishing licenses sales were down by 93,000 with a $1.8 million impact to the Division of Wildlife. Within Pitkin County, drought effects were easily discerned. Snowfall in the high country was well below normal and this negatively affected the local ski industry and tourism. Ski resorts saw declines in general

4-43 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

lift tickets sold, and even the visits by season tickets holders experienced a drop off. When summer arrived, the lack of snow pack caused the rivers in the area to run well below normal water levels. The low water, in addition to the nationally publicized drought, caused the cancellation of many pre-planned river trips and tourism to the region. Rafting trips in the county fell significantly. The numerous summertime visitors to the area come for camping, hiking, fishing and biking activities. Many of the visitors are in-state residents of Colorado, and they enjoy a variety of campgrounds for brief getaways. The drought of 2002 caused the region to go into a full fire ban and many campgrounds and forest tracts were closed to the public. These measures predictably deterred many would-be tourists and visitors from visiting the region and their tourist dollars were spent elsewhere.

Table 4-16: Known Drought periods in Pitkin County

Years Description of Event Data Source 1931-1941 Widespread, severe, and long lasting drought in Colorado. State Drought Plan 1950-1956 Statewide, worse than the 1930s in the . $40 million in Federal aid made NDMC available for 13 drought stricken states and used to defer cost of transporting hay. 1989 Estimated crop damages nearly $1,000,000. SHELDUS 2000-2003 Significant multi-year statewide drought, with many areas experiencing most severe CWCB conditions in Colorado in instrumented history. 2002 was the driest year on record for 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. Estimated 1.1 billion in losses to Colorado’s agricultural, tourism, and recreational industries. Sources: Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Drought and Water Supply Assessment, 2004, http://cwcb.state.co.us/Conservation/Drought/Drought_Water/index_DWSA.html; National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) Drought Impact Reporter, http://droughtreporter.unl.edu/, accessed on August 29, 2011.

Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Occasional: 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or it has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. When known previous occurrences are examined, there were four known periods of drought affecting Pitkin since 1931, an 81-year period. Based on this we can estimate a probability of less than one percent that a drought will occur in a given year, or that a drought will occur once every 20 years. Using historical dry periods, Colorado experiences a dry period every 15 to 20 years. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) 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. Although no injuries or property damages are typically associated with drought, the loss of farmland, diminishing domestic water supply and tourism impacts can stress Pitkin County’s local economy. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: The most significant impacts from drought are related to water- intensive activities, such as municipal usage, agriculture (both crops and livestock), wildfire protection, commerce, recreation, and wildlife preservation (through maintained wetlands), as well as a reduction

4-44 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

of electric power generation and water quality deterioration. Secondary impacts of drought are wildfires, wind erosion, and soil compaction that can make an area more susceptible to flooding. The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) identifies impacts of drought by county through their Drought Impact Reporter. This is a collection of disaster declarations, online newspaper articles and scientific publications, and other information pertaining to drought that identifies a particular impact to drought including environmental, social, agricultural, water use/energy, fire, and others. This database includes 105 drought impacts specific to Pitkin County since 1960. The most prominent impact listed is agricultural, followed by fire and social. Social impacts are those associated with the public or recreation/tourism, loss of human life, loss of aesthetic values, etc. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: Drought normally does not impact structures. Although water and sewer infrastructure may be affected by drought, other critical facilities are generally not. Data is not available to estimate potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas. The greatest risk to people from drought is the loss of drinking water supply through water systems or individual wells. Future Development: One of the most significant impacts of drought is the decreased supply of water for the county’s inhabitants. As growth continues, so does the vulnerability for residents and business owners to drought impacts. Careful monitoring of the area’s water supply will help drive conservation efforts and potential land use regulations aimed at minimizing drought impacts amongst other growth- related impacts. The City of Aspen's Energy Efficiency Division is one example of public outreach regarding water conservation efforts. The City provides residents with do-it-yourself (DIY) tutorials to assist homeowners in completing simple home improvement measures aimed at water conservation, such as soaker hoses and drip irrigation, mulching and low-flow showerheads. Data Limitations: Total event-specific losses are difficult to assess due to the inability to determine the exact beginning and ending of a drought period.

4.9. Lightning – Other Hazard

Hazard Description Lightning is an electrical discharge between positive and negative regions of a thunderstorm. It is sudden, extremely destructive and potentially deadly. 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 from the outside of the cloud looks like a diffuse brightening that flickers. 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.

4-45 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Geographic Location Lightning can occur anywhere in Pitkin County, and poses a similar risk to all areas within the county. Previous Occurrences The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and SHELDUS listed eight major lightning events as occurring in Pitkin County since 1960. Sample events are described below.

Table 4-17: Lightning Events in Pitkin County Date Injuries Fatalities Property Damages Source 8/1/1960 0 0 $161 SHELDUS 8/5/1964 0.1 0 $0 SHELDUS 7/26/1988 0 1 $0 SHELDUS 4/23/1994 2 1 0 SHELDUS/NCDC 7/24/1997 0 1 $0 SHELDUS/NCDC 7/15/2000 1 0 $0 SHELDUS/NCDC 7/29/2006 0 0 $2,000 SHELDUS/NCDC 7/6/2008 2 0 $0 SHELDUS/NCDC

Sample Event 1: American Lake Trail in 2008: On July 6, 2008, a family of five from Idaho was struck by lightning while hiking on the American Lake Trail, approximately 10 miles south of Aspen. A 15-year-old girl was revived after being administered CPR and a 17-year-old boy was burned on the soles of his feet. The other three family members did not receive any significant injuries. Sample Event 2: Aspen Mountain in 2006: On July 29, 2006, lightning struck and damaged aviation navigational equipment on Aspen Mountain. The equipment failure resulted in many cancelled flights. It took 14 hours to repair the damaged equipment. Sample Event 3: Conundrum Hot Springs in 2000: On July 15, 2000, a hiker near Conundrum Hot Springs was struck by lightning and injured. The victim's clothing was shredded and her boots were blown off. The lightning victim also was bleeding from the ears and nose and had burns on her chest and feet. Sample Event 4: Capitol Creek in 1997: On July 24, 1997, a man was struck by lightning and fell off a cliff while hiking up a ridge above Capitol Creek. The county coroner determined the cause of death was the lightning and not the subsequent fall. Sample Event 5: in 1994: April 23, 1994, lightning struck three climbers near the summit of Capitol Peak, located in the Elk Mountains west of Aspen. One male climber was killed and the two other male climbers were injured. Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. A significant lightning event in Pitkin County has a likely probability of occurring every year. Based on historical data, a significant lightning event in Pitkin County has an occasional probability of occurring every year. There were 8 recorded significant lightning events in the past 50 years in Pitkin County,

4-46 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

which equals one event every 6.3 years on average, or a 16% chance of a significant lightning event occurring in any given year. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) 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. Although the frequency of lightning events is relatively high, the magnitude is limited. Generally damages are limited to single buildings and in most cases, personal hazard insurance covers any losses. 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. According to the National Weather Service, the State of Colorado ranks second nationally, behind Wyoming, with a death rate of 0.55 per one million people.16 The following figure illustrates the number of lightning related fatalities by state from 2001-2010. Colorado (26 fatalities) was second only to Florida, which had 62 lightning deaths.

Figure 4-4: Lightning Fatalities by State, 2001-2010

Source: NOAA’s lightning safety site, http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/stats/01-10_deaths_by_state.pdf, accessed on July 6, 2011.

Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Lightning is the leading summer weather-related killer in Colorado, and as noted in the description of past events, hikers and climbers in the mountains of Pitkin County who are caught in lightning storms are in particular danger. However, children at play in open areas are also at risk. While lightning frequently accompanies thunderstorms, the occasion of a thunderstorm is not necessary for lightning to occur. Lightning may strike as far away as 10 miles from any precipitation. Many of the tourists who travel to the region are unaware of the speed with which a thunderstorm can build in the mountains, and they can easily be caught in a storm while traveling in the high country. The

16 National Weather Service, “Lightning Deaths by State and Deaths Population Weighted: 1959-2010,” http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/stats/59- 10_fatalities_rates.pdf, accessed July 6, 2011.

4-47 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

vast recreation opportunities in Pitkin County place hikers, bikers, campers, amongst others at risk during major electrical storms. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: Lightning affects the entire planning area, including all above-ground structures and utilities. Structure damage due to lightning is usually covered under private insurance. Personal injury can also occur as a result of lightning if individuals are outdoors during an event. Many damages and injuries caused by lightning are the result of ensuing fires. Future Development: Building standards can offer only limited protection from lightning damage. Lightning rod/grounding systems can improve the performance of a building during such an event. Fire codes in place result in fewer structure damages caused by lightning-sparked fires. Increasing population growth and development increases vulnerability to lightning. Data Limitations: Although national weather centers keep excellent records of previous events, it should be noted that many lightning events often go unreported to the National Weather Service.

4.10. Windstorms/Tornados – Other Hazard

Hazard Description Windstorms represent the most common type of severe weather. Often accompanying severe thunderstorms (convective windstorms), they can cause significant property and crop damage, threaten public safety and disrupt utilities and communications. Straight-line winds are generally any wind not associated with rotation and in rare cases can exceed 100 miles per hour (mph). The National Weather Service defines high winds as sustained wind speeds of 40 mph or greater lasting for one hour or longer, or winds of 58 mph or greater for any duration. Windstorms are often produced by super-cell thunderstorms or a line of thunderstorms that typically develop on hot and humid days. The National Weather Service defines a tornado as a “violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground.” Tornadoes are the most violent of all atmospheric storms. Wind speeds can exceed 250 miles per hour, and damage paths can be more than one mile wide and 50 miles long. Geographic Location Windstorms can occur virtually anywhere in Pitkin County with equal probability and magnitude. Previous Occurrences Thirty-one major wind events were reported in Pitkin County between 1960 and 2010, as shown in Table 4-17. The only tornado to hit Pitkin County in recent history was in 1975 and it rated a F2 on the Fujita Scale, a scale used to measure tornado intensity. A F2 tornado is classified as a significant tornado with winds between 113 and 157 miles per hour that causes considerable damage, such as roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; and light object missiles generated.

4-48 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 4-18: List of Windstorms/Tornado in Pitkin County Date Injuries* Fatalities* Property Damages* Storm Characteristics 4/16/1960 0.08 0 $793 Wind 4/7/1962 0.02 0 $781 Wind 4/4/1963 0 0 $454 Wind 6/17/1964 0 0 $79 Wind 1/7/1969 0.96 0.08 $19,230 Wind 4/6/1969 0.02 0 $79 Wind 4/14/1970 0 0 $79 Damaging Wind 11/30/1970 0 0 $793 Wind 3/17/1971 0 0 $79 Wind 5/19/1974 0 0 $294 Wind 6/20/1975 0 0 $5,000 Tornado 11/30/1975 0 0 $2,173 Wind 2/17/1976 0 0 $1,785 High Winds 4/18/1978 0 0 $17.86 High Winds 9/24/1986 0.02 0 $7,936 Wind 1/23/1988 0.12 0 $19,230 Wind 5/6/1988 0 0 $7,936 Wind 2/1/1989 0 0 $793 High Winds 3/14/1989 0.03 0 $12,820 High Winds 4/7/1989 0 0 $2,941 High Winds 5/2/1991 0 0 $1,923 High Winds 6/2/1999 0 0 $33,333 High Winds 4/18/2000 0 0 $78,947 High Winds 2/13/2001 0.33 0 $8,333 - 4/20/2001 0 0 $2,055 - 5/21/2002 0 0 $3333 - 11/1/2003 0 0 $1,000 - 5/11/2004 0 0 $222 - 2/15/2006 0 0 $2,000 Strong Wind 4/17/2006 0 0 $2,000 Strong Wind 6/6/2007 0 0 $181 Strong Wind * Data from Tornado History Project, http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornado/19750620.8.17 accessed on July 5, 2011 and SHELDUS. *Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database.

Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Based on the data available, a windstorm occurring in Pitkin County has an occasional probability of occurring every year. There were 31 recorded wind events in the past 50 years in Pitkin County which equals one wind event every 1.6 years on average, or a 62% chance of a windstorm occurrence in any given year. Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) 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.

4-49 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Any structures and above ground utilities in Pitkin County are vulnerable to damages caused by major wind events. Major wind events can cause downed trees and power lines, damages to structures and fences, and send dangerous debris into the air which can threaten public safety but rarely threaten lives. Given that past losses have not been significant, the overall magnitude of this hazard is limited. Vulnerability Assessment Overall Summary and Impacts: Predicting a major wind storm is nearly impossible, however it is expected that major wind events will occur in Pitkin County every year. Damages from winds are primarily to structures, trees, and utilities. Streets lined with older, unstable trees present specific hazard to passersby, structures, and automobiles. According to the 2005 PDMP, Pitkin County is subject to frequent and often intense gusts of high winds. Although they are not usually life-threatening, high winds can disrupt daily activities, cause damage to building and structures and increase the potential of other hazards. Some areas with little or no ground cover experience blinding gusts of dust and road debris, which becomes a hazard for travelers and an occasional disruption for local services. High winds in the winter sometimes cause complete whiteouts and create significant snowdrifts and transportation disruptions. Wildfires can be accelerated and made unpredictable by high winds, which can cause grave danger to firefighters, emergency response personnel and residences or other structures which happen to be in their path. Damage to structures happens regularly due to high winds but it is usually minimal and goes unreported. Effects of the high winds may be seen in roof damage, cracked windows and damage to trees and landscaping. Identifying Structures and Estimating Potential Losses: Data is not currently available that identifies specific costs for an individual event within Pitkin County. Future Development: Building codes help to diminish potential damages to future structures during a major wind event. However, as development continues, the overall vulnerability to windstorms will increase. Data Limitations: Major wind storms are often secondary effects of other severe weather events. Therefore, many major windstorms are not classified as such. Also, major wind events often go unreported to the National Weather Service or other archiving agencies.

4.11. Earthquake – Other Hazard

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. The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs using the Richter scale. Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is used to describe the effects of the earthquake at a particular place. Intensity differs throughout an affected area and 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.

4-50 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

According to the Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado is comprised of areas with low to moderate potential for damaging earthquakes. There are about 100 potentially active faults that have been identified in Colorado, with documented movement within the last 1.6 million years. However, there are several thousand other faults that have been mapped in Colorado that are believed to have little or no potential for producing future earthquakes.

Table 4-19: Magnitude and Intensity Scales for Earthquakes

Magnitude and Intensity Comparison Richter Scale Maximum Modified Mercalli Intensity 1.0 to 3.0 I 3.0 to 3.9 II to III 4.0 to 4.9 IV to V 5.0 to 5.9 VI to VII 6.0 to 6.9 VII to IX 7.0 and Higher VIII or Higher Defined Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Rating I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. III Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make IV cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable VII damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage VIII great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in IX substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Source: USGS, online at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=2, accessed on February 6, 2010.

Geographic Location Many of Colorado’s historic earthquakes have occurred in mountainous regions of the state and all of Pitkin County is at risk for a potential earthquake. According to the Colorado State Earthquake Evaluation Report,17 Basalt Mountain Fault and Sawatch Range Faults are the known faults in the county. However, other faults outside the county were of most concern for the state; those analyzed for their potential impact on the Pitkin County include: Chase Gulch, Cimarron, Frontal, Mosquito, N. Sangre, N. Sawatch, S. Sawatch, and Williams Fork. Some of these faults are illustrated in Figure 4-5.

17 Colorado State Earthquake Evaluation Report, Annex to the State Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, January 2011.

4-51 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Figure 4-5: Pitkin County Excerpt from Colorado’s Earthquake and Fault Map

Source: Colorado’s Earthquake and Fault Map, Colorado Geological Survey, 2006–2007, http://geosurvey.state.co.us/hazards/Earthquakes/Documents/Earthquake_Map_2008.pdf, accessed 29 August 2001.

Previous Occurrences The Colorado State Earthquake Evaluation Report and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) together report 15 earthquakes in Pitkin County since 1880. Sample Event 1: Carbondale Area Earthquakes, April-May, 1984 In April and May of 1984, a series of earthquakes occurred about five miles south of Carbondale. The first quake, at 1:17 p.m. MST on April 12, had with a magnitude 2.4. The largest quake occurred on May

4-52 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

14 at 4:14 a.m. MDT and had a magnitude of 3.2, which was felt in the Carbondale and Glenwood Springs area. Of the hundreds of earthquakes that in the two-month period, 12 were reported as felt.18 Sample Event 2: Basalt Earthquake, September 8, 1944 An earthquake in Basalt on September 8, 1944 quake had a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI. During the tremor bricks fell from chimneys and walls and chimneys cracked in Basalt.19

Table 4-20: Known Historical Earthquakes, Pitkin County

Date Location 09/17/1880 Aspen 04/08/1940 Aspen 02/1941 Aspen 09/08/1944 Basalt 10/17/1960 Aspen 03/05/1962 Aspen 06/23/1968 SW of Carbondale 09/24/1977 SW of Carbondale 05/29/1978 SW of Carbondale 04-05/1984 Carbondale 04/21/1991 Aspen 07/07-08/1993 Aspen 10/13/2002 Aspen 01/01/2003 Aspen 11/06/2003 Aspen Sources: Colorado State Earthquake Evaluation Report; USGS, “Colorado Earthquake History,” http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/colorado/history.php, accessed 29 August 2011.

Probability of Future Occurrence (All Jurisdictions) Likely: 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Earthquakes have occurred regularly in Pitkin County over the past 130 years. However, the earthquake hazard in Colorado is thought to be not well understood and the potential for unknown active faults exists. The USGS offers an online mapping system for earthquake probability as part of the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. The following figure illustrates the probability of a 5.0 or greater magnitude earthquake occurring in the Pitkin County area in the next 150 years. This map shows a 25-35% probability of an earthquake of that magnitude in and around Pitkin County in the next 150 years.

18 USGS, “Colorado Earthquake History,” http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/colorado/history.php, accessed 29 August 2011.

19 USGS, “Colorado Earthquake History,” http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/colorado/history.php, accessed 29 August 2011.

4-53 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Figure 4-6: Probability of 5.0 or Greater Earthquake in the Next 150 Years

Source: http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eqprob/2002/index.php, accessed on 29 August 2011.

Magnitude/Severity (All Jurisdictions) 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. As shown in the next figure, in Pitkin County, the shaking level with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded over a period of 50 years is 9 percent peak acceleration or less. Western Pitkin County lies in the range of 9 percent peak acceleration and eastern Pitkin County lies in the range of 6 percent peak acceleration. Thus, western Pitkin County has a slightly greater earthquake risk. Significant earthquake damage typically does not occur until peak accelerations are greater than 30 percent. Secondary impacts of earthquakes may include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, fires, and dam failure.

Figure 4-7: Colorado Seismic Hazard Map—10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years

4-54 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

4-55 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

unreinforced masonry. Pitkin County has 37 listings in the National Register of Historic Places and the City of Aspen has over 200 historic landmark sites and structures, many of which are located in the downtown core. The City of Aspen is particularly vulnerable to a seismic event due to its historic buildings and population center. Other critical facilities or infrastructure at risk are unknown; their construction determines their ability to withstand seismic shaking. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) ran a series of deterministic scenarios for selected Colorado faults using HAZUS-MH to assess potential economic and social losses due to earthquake activity in Colorado. The earthquake magnitudes used for each fault were the “maximum credible earthquake” as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey. There were three faults analyzed for Pitkin County: Chase Gulch, Cimarron, Frontal, Mosquito, N. Sangre, N. Sawatch, S. Sawatch, and Williams Fork. Table 4-21 summarizes the results for estimated potential losses for Pitkin County. The loss ratio is the percentage of the total building stock value damaged. The higher this ratio, the more difficult it is to restore a community to viability (loss ratios of 10 percent or greater are considered critical by FEMA). The greatest losses to Pitkin County would likely result from a magnitude 7.25 earthquake or greater on the S. Sawatch fault, which is predicted to cause some fatalities and more than $77 million in economic loss.

Table 4-21: Potential Earthquake Losses in Pitkin County Fault Magnitude Fatalities Total Economic Loss ($) Loss Ratio (%) Chase Gulch M6.75 0 1.0 million -0.04 Cimarron M6.75 0 2.3 million -0.09 Frontal M7.0 0 5.2 million -0.22 Mosquito M7.0 0 10.4 million -0.44 N. Sangre M7.5 0 2.6 million -0.10 N. Sawatch M7.0 2 77.0 million -3.30 N. Sawatch M6.0 0 5.3 million -0.20 S. Sawatch M7.25 0 31.7 million -1.30 Williams Fork M6.75 0 2.1 million -0.09 Source: Earthquake Evaluation Report, www.dola.colorado.gov/dem/mitigation/earthquakerpt.pdf

Future Development: All Pitkin County jurisdictions have adopted building codes; therefore, the potential cost of damages to future structures from earthquakes is significantly reduced. The magnitude and intensity of any earthquake will be the key determinant as to total damages. Data Limitations: It is not possible to accurately estimate the timing or location of future dangerous earthquakes in Colorado. The lack of an adequate network of seismometers in Colorado makes it difficult to detect and locate earthquakes. The historical record also is quite short – about 140 years. 20

20 Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado’s Earthquake and Fault Map, 2008.

4-56 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

4.12. Hazard Profile Summary

Table 4-22, below, is a summary of the risk assessment probabilities and magnitudes, and the overall hazard risk rankings for the Pitkin County jurisdictions based on research for this PDMP update and discussions with workshop participants. The risk rankings reflect slight geographic differences in the jurisdictions’ vulnerabilities to specific hazards, particularly flooding. The probabilities/ Magnitudes/ Risk Rankings for individual fire districts are the same as those identified for the main municipality within their respective service areas. These rankings will be reviewed regularly by the Office of Emergency Management to ensure that hazards are prioritized in a way that focuses resources where they are most needed.

Table 4-22: Overall Risk Ranking of Hazards by Jurisdiction Pitkin County and Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Critical 2 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Catastrophic 1 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Significant Occasional Critical 2 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4

4-57 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked Town of Basalt and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking* Flood - Significant Occasional Catastrophic 1 Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1 Flood - Typical Likely Limited 2 Landslide/Rockslide/Rock Fall Highly Likely Critical 3 Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4 Avalanche Likely Critical Not ranked Drought Occasional Limited Not ranked Lightning Likely Limited Not ranked Windstorm/Tornados Likely Limited Not ranked Earthquake Likely Limited Not ranked * Based on input at planning workshops, perceived threat of natural hazards – number 1 being the largest perceived threat.

4-58 The following sections provide details on community assets, social vulnerability, and land use and development trends. The Capability Summary that follows includes a general description and analysis of the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities.

5.1. Community Asset Inventory

This section identifies the assets within Pitkin County that could potentially be impacted by natural hazards. By identifying these assets, the Pitkin County gains a better understanding of how a particular natural hazard event may impact the community. Pitkin County is the 28th largest county in the state; the 2010 census estimated the population at 17,148, with most of those people living within incorporated areas. 2010 population estimates were 6,658 people in the City of Aspen, 2,826 people in the Town of Snowmass Village and 3,857 people in the Town of Basalt. The rate of increase in population from 2000 to 2010 was 15.3% for Pitkin County. The State Demographers Office projects a Pitkin County population of 30,432 in the year 2040. Table 5-1 below, illustrates the downward trend, beginning in 2007, in residential building permits issued in Pitkin County. This can be largely attributed to the latest national economic recession.

Table 5-1: Building Permits Issued for Pitkin County, 2000-2010

Non-Residential Construction Residential Construction Year Number of Permits Value Number of Permits Value 2000 8 $991,201 278 $175,728,967 2001 22 $7,704,771 285 $70,855,772 2002 13 $9,441,400 164 $114,432,226 2003 9 $2,667,000 132 $74,656,802 2004 9 $4,797,556 145 $87,482,396 2005 13 $6,208,750 207 $126,365,666 2006 33 $5,777,650 181 $115,438,374 2007 44 $7,133,000 187 $120,985,744 2008 32 $11,989,400 137 $130,387,911 2009 36 $4,453,700 93 $71,949,751 2010 24 $4,018,000 102 $76,295,044 *Source: Pitkin County Building Department, 2010. Includes permits issued for new construction, additions, and remodels.

5-1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

5.1.1. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical (or essential) facilities can be described as services, places, or key infrastructure and resources that are integral for day-to-day operations for the function of the county. These facilities are especially important to the county during and after a hazard event. Critical facilities include hospitals, schools, fire stations, and more. Critical facilities typically fall within the Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) categories defined by the Department of Homeland Security (listed in Table 5-2).

Table 5-2: Critical Facilities by Category Category / Sector Examples Water Reservoirs, stormwater system, wastewater facilities Emergency Services Fire stations, police stations, etc. Communications Telephone lines, radio towers, cellular service Gas/Electric Natural gas lines, power lines, gasoline stations Healthcare and Public Health Hospitals, urgent care facilities, doctor’s offices Food/Grocery Restaurants, grocery stores, markets Transportation Major roads, bridges, bus stations, airports Banking Banks and other financial institutions Government Facilities City hall, jails, military installations Nearby Dams Dams (private and public) Computer Driven Technology Fiber-optic and cable Nuclear Materials/Waste Nuclear power plant, waste storage facility Chemical Facilities Propane storage, other chemical storage Defense Industry Contractors Staff support services to military installation Postal or Shipping USPS offices, FedEx, UPS, others Critical Manufacturing Manufacturing critical to local economy Monuments and Icons Historical buildings, natural features, local icons Places of Assembly Churches, public squares

Table 5-3 summarizes the number and type of critical facilities for Pitkin County according to local GIS data. Exhibit 5-1 is a map showing the locations of the critical facilities.

Table 5-3: Critical Facilities in Pitkin County Type of Facility Total Number of Facilities Town of Unincorporated City of Aspen Snowmass Town of Basalt Pitkin County Village Police Stations 0 1 0 1 Fire Stations 4 1 2 1 Hospitals 0 1 0 0 Schools 3 4 0 2 Dams 16 0 1 0 Major Bridges 25 10 3 4 Government Buildings 2 6 2 0 Post Offices 1 1 1 1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 3 1 1 0 Public Airports 1 0 0 0 Source: Pitkin County, GIS data

5-2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Exhibit 5-1: Pitkin County Critical Facilities Map

5-3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

In addition to these critical facilities, there are hundreds of miles of roads, overhead transmission lines, and water and sewer lines, minor bridges, and other facilities that are critical to the functionality of Pitkin County and its municipalities.

5.1.2. Natural, Historic, and Cultural Assets Assessing the vulnerability of Pitkin County to disaster also involves inventorying the natural, historic, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons: x 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. x If these resources are impacted by a disaster, knowing this ahead of time allows for more prudent care in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts are higher. x The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for these types of designated resources. x 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. Natural Resources: Wetlands and Endangered Species Natural resources are important to include in a benefit-cost analyses for future projects. They may be used to leverage additional funding for projects that contribute to other community goals as well. A number of natural resources exist in Pitkin County. The discussion below comes from data regarding wetlands and endangered species in Pitkin County. Wetlands are a valuable natural resource for communities, due to their ability to improve 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. Wetlands also provide drought relief in water-scarce areas where the relationship between water storage and streamflow regulation are vital. 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 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. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as of July 2010, there were ten Federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species in Pitkin County. These species are listed in the following table.

5-4 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 5-4: List of Rare Species in Pitkin County Common Name Scientific Name Type of Species Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Threatened Humpback chub* Gila cypha Endangered Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Razorback sucker* Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema Endangered Ute ladies’-tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate Source: Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Colorado Counties (July 2010), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie Region, www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/.

Historical and Cultural Resources National and state historic inventories were reviewed to identify historic and cultural assets in Pitkin County. The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The Colorado State Register of Historic Properties is a listing of the state’s significant cultural resources worthy of preservation for the future education and enjoyment of Colorado’s residents and visitors. Table 5-5 lists the properties in Pitkin County that are on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties and the National Register of Historic Places.

Table 5-5: Pitkin County Historic Properties/Districts in National Register Property Name Jurisdiction Location Date Listed Ashcroft, Colorado Ashcroft White River National Forest 5/12/1975 Armory Hall / Fraternal Hall Aspen 130 S. Galena St. 6/5/1975 Aspen 200 N. Aspen St. 5/12/1975 Boat Tow Aspen 700 S. Aspen St. (Willoughby Park) 6/22/1990 Bowles-Cooley House Aspen 201 W. Francis St. 3/6/1987 Matthew Callahan Aspen 205 S. 3rd St. 3/6/1987 -Aspen Lumber & Supply Aspen 204 S. Mill 3/6/1987 Dixon-Markle House Aspen 135 E. Cooper Ave. 3/6/1987 D.E. Frantz House Aspen 333 W. Bleeker St. 3/6/1987 Samuel L. Hallett House Aspen 432 W. Francis St. 3/6/1987 Holden Mining & Smelting Co Aspen 1000 Block W. Colo. Hwy. 82 6/22/1990 Aspen 330 E. Main St. 3/20/1986 Hyman- Aspen 203 S. Galena St. 1/18/1985 Aspen 303 E. Main St. 3/6/1987 La Fave Block Aspen 405 S. Hunter St. 3/6/1987 Maroon Creek Bridge Aspen Colo. Hwy. 82, Aspen vicinity 2/4/1985 New Brick / The Brick Saloon / Red Onion Aspen 420 E. Cooper Ave. 3/6/1987 Aspen 506 E. Main St. 5/12/1975 Riede’s City Bakery Aspen 413 E. Hyman Ave. 3/6/1987 Judge Shaw House / Aspen 206 Lake Ave. 3/6/1987

5-5 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Property Name Jurisdiction Location Date Listed Sheely Bridge Aspen Mill Street Park 2/4/1985 Shilling-Lamb House Aspen 525 N. 2nd St. 3/6/1987 Smith-Elisha House Aspen 320 W. Main St. 1/19/1989 Smuggler Mine Aspen Smuggler Mountain 5/18/1987 Aspen Ute Ave. 4/1/2002 Davis Waite House Aspen 234 W. Francis St. 3/6/1987 Henry Webber House / Pioneer Park Aspen 442 W. Bleeker 3/6/1987 Aspen 330 E. Hyman Ave. 8/21/1972 Wheeler-Stallard House Aspen 620 W. Bleeker St. 5/30/1975 Independence & Independence Mill Site Independence Colo. Hwy. 82, White River National 4/11/1973 Forest Osgood Castle / Cleveholm Redstone Redstone vicinity 6/28/1971 Osgood Gamekeeper’s Lodge Redstone 18679 Colo. Hwy. 133 7/19/1989 Osgood-Kuhnhausen House Redstone 642 Redstone Blvd. 8/18/1983 Redstone Coke Oven Historic District Redstone Colo. Hwy. 133 & Chair Mountain 2/7/1990 Stables Rd., Redstone vicinity Redstone Historic District Redstone Along Crystal River, Hawk Creek to 7/19/1989 226 Redstone Blvd. Redstone Inn Redstone 82 Redstone Blvd. 3/27/1980 Source: Directory of Colorado State Register Properties, http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/pitkin-county

5.1.3. Economic Assets Economic assets at risk may include major employers or primary economic sectors, such as retail trade or health care, 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 5-6 lists major employers in Pitkin County and their estimated number of employees. This data was extracted from the Pitkin County Annual Financial Report for 2009 and may not reflect current employee counts.

Table 5-6: Principal Employers in Pitkin County

Employers Number of Employees Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Hotel 3,600 Aspen Valley Hospital 389 City of Aspen 354 St. Regis Aspen Resort 268 Pitkin County 256 Roaring Fork Transit Agency 250 Aspen School District 238 Silvertree Hotel of Snowmass 218 Ritz Carlton 188 Viceroy Snowmass Resort 150 Source: Pitkin County, Colorado Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Year ended December 31, 2009

5-6 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 5-7 below, describes the labor force, employment and unemployment information for Pitkin County from April 2011 data.

Table 5-7: Labor Force Statistics for Pitkin County Area Civilian Labor Force Number Employed Number Unemployment Unemployed Rate Pitkin County 11,175 10,225 950 8.5% Colorado 2,670,161 2,448,531 221,630 8.3% Source: State of Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, http://lmigateway.coworkforce.com/lmigateway/vosnet/lmi/area/areasummary.aspx?session=areadetail&geo=0804000097§ion=empunempinddata&item= accessed on June 2, 2011.

5.2. Social Vulnerability

Certain demographic and housing characteristics affect overall vulnerability to hazards. These characteristics, such as age, race/ethnicity, income levels, gender, building quality, public infrastructure, all contribute to social vulnerability. A Social Vulnerability Index compiled by the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute in the Department of Geography at the University of South Carolina measures the social vulnerability of U.S. counties to environmental hazards for the purpose of examining the differences in social vulnerability among counties. Based on national data sources, primarily the 2000 Census, it synthesizes 32 socioeconomic and built environment variables that research literature suggests contribute to reduction in a community’s ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazards. Nine composite factors were identified that differentiate counties according to their relative level of social vulnerability: socioeconomic status, elderly and children, rural agriculture, housing density, black female-headed households, gender, service industry employment, unemployed Native Americans, and infrastructure employment. Figure 5-1 below, illustrates Colorado counties compared to the national average.

5-7 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Figure 5-1: Social Vulnerability by County Compared with the Nation

Source: The Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sovi.aspx, accessed on June 2, 2011.

Compared to other counties in the nation and in Colorado, Pitkin County’s social vulnerability is low, meaning that compared to other counties in the nation, Pitkin County is considered to be less socially vulnerable than most, or within the 20 percent least vulnerable. To better understand the characteristics behind this ranking, the workshop participants reviewed information from the 2000 Census on four factors of social vulnerability: gender, age, language spoken in home, and poverty. One characteristic of social vulnerability is differential access to resources and greater susceptibility to hazards. All factors considered here are related to this characteristic. Figure 5-1 displays these variables and compares them to the same variables for Colorado and the United States. These factors of social vulnerability hold many implications for disaster response and recovery and are important considerations when identifying and prioritizing mitigation actions and overall goals of the Plan.

5.3. Land Use and Development Trends

This section provides a general description of land uses and development trends within Pitkin County and includes data on growth in population and housing units. The 2005 PDMP stated the following: Based on land use and population growth projections, over the next 20 years the [County anticipates] continued rapid population growth, particularly along the wildland–urban interface and adjacent to

5-8 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

major transportation corridors. In the absence of effective mitigation measures, these projections indicate increasing loss potential from the prioritized hazards identified in this plan. Demographic projections predict continued population growth of part time residents, including those inexperienced with the challenges posed by the county’s environment and natural hazards. Part time residents include senior citizens who can be more at risk from these hazards and less capable of dealing with emergency response requirements. These at-risk populations may impose increased demands on the Counties’ emergency services. The primary source of development in the City of Aspen will be redevelopment. Due to strong growth management systems, most new development occurs by demolishing and replacing existing structures. One exception to this is the West of Castle Creek Corridor, which provides a gradual transition from rural Pitkin County to the more developed neighborhoods of the West End and downtown Aspen areas. According to the County, because this corridor provides a relatively less expensive alternative to Aspen, it has also been a growing area for workforce housing. In respect to development trends in and around the Town of Basalt, the 2007 Town of Basalt Master Plan stated the following: Until the mid-1990s the Town of Basalt had grown in a relatively typical manner for small rural communities, concentrically out from the historic downtown core. This trend changed when the Town annexed 355.9 acres of land including already approved and developed projects such as River Oaks, Aspen Junction, Sagewood, Pineridge, and Silverado along with the Sopris Meadows property. These developments were incorporated into the Town by annexing across public land as allowed in the State Statutes governing annexation (§ 31-12-104, C.R.S.). This created a town with two distinct areas separated by approximately one and a half miles of unincorporated land (see Figure 1). In 1996 the Town also conducted a serial annexation which included the Roaring Fork Club property along with remaining portions of the Kittle and Waterman properties. These two annexation actions created a town that stretches along Highway 82 for nearly five and a half miles (including the unincorporated area between West Basalt and East Basalt). Table 5-8, Table 5-9, and Table 5-10 provide information on growth in population and housing units for Pitkin County and its municipalities. Table 5-11 provides population projections for Pitkin County in 5- year increments to the year 2040.

Table 5-8: Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2000-2010

Jurisdiction 2000 2010 Percent Change (%) City of Aspen 5,914 6,658 12.6% Town of Snowmass Village 1,822 2,826 55.1% Town of Basalt 2,681 3,857 43.9% Pitkin County 14,872 17,148 15.3% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/2010censusdata.html

Table 5-9: Growth in Housing Units in Pitkin County, 2000-2010 Jurisdiction 2000 2010 Percent Change (%) City of Aspen 4,354 5,929 36.2% Town of Snowmass Village 1,734 2,355 35.8%

5-9 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Jurisdiction 2000 2010 Percent Change (%) Town of Basalt 1,218 1,912 57.0% Pitkin County 10,096 12,953 28.3% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/2010censusdata.html

Table 5-10: Population and Housing Unit Density in Pitkin County, 2000-2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Housing Unit Housing Unit Area in Square Density* Density* Density* Density* Jurisdiction Miles (per sq. mile) (per sq. mile) (per sq. mile) (per sq. mile) City of Aspen 3.8 1,556 1,752 1,146 1,560 Town of Snowmass Village 27.1 67 104 64 87 Town of Basalt 2.0 1,341 1,929 609 956 Pitkin County 979 15 18 10 13 *Densities rounded to the nearest integer. Sources: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/2010censusdata.html

Table 5-11: Population Projections for Pitkin County, 2010-2040 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population 17,176 19,009 21,260 23,569 25,898 28,205 30,432 Percent Change (%) 2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, www.dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/, June 2011.

As indicated in the tables above, population growth rates from 2000 to 2010 in the Towns of Snowmass Village and Basalt were greater than within the City of Aspen or Pitkin County. However, the population density within the City of Aspen and Town of Basalt (1,556 and 1,341 persons per square mile respectively) is considerably greater than the density in Pitkin County, which is estimated to be 15 persons per square mile. It can be generally stated that should major natural hazards hit the area, the impacted population would typically be greater in Aspen, Snowmass Village and Basalt than unincorporated Pitkin County. The State Demographers Office projects that the Pitkin County population will rise to nearly over 30,000 by the year 2040.

5.4. Capability Summary

A community’s regulatory, administrative and technical, and financial capabilities are directly related to the ability of that community to mitigate natural hazards prior to a major event taking place. For instance, a county with a full professional staff of geologic engineers will be well-equipped to provide protection and advice for landslide-prone properties. Conversely, for example, a municipality or fire protection district without enforceable WUI building and wildfire protection codes may not have the leverage necessary to protect lives and properties during a major wildfire event.21 Following is a list of Pitkin County’s capabilities that foster hazard mitigation in one way or another.

21 In Pitkin County there are no regulatory provisions for continued monitoring of properties for wildfire protection following development nor application of standards to existing properties. Consequently, significant at-risk areas within the county lack a dynamic correction action plan and pre-disaster mitigation avenues are sorely lacking.

5-10 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

5.4.1. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities

Table 5-12: Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Town of Capability Pitkin County City of Aspen Town of Basalt Snowmass Village Master or Comprehensive Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Emergency Operations Plan Yes Not current No No Economic Development Plan In process Yes No Yes Capital Improvements Plan Expected in 2012 Yes Yes Unkown Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes No Yes No Building Code Yes Yes Yes Yes Building Code Year IBC 2003 (updating 2009 2009 2003 to 2009) Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes No No Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes No Yes Stormwater Ordinance No Yes No Yes Growth Management Ordinance Yes Yes No No Site Plan Review Requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes Erosion/Sediment Control Program Yes Yes Yes No Stormwater Management Program Yes Yes Yes No National Flood Insurance Program Yes Yes No Unknown Participant Community Rating System Participant Yes No No Unknown

Several policies and procedures from Pitkin County’s existing regulations, plans, and studies are related to natural hazard mitigation. Strong growth management systems are one of the most important natural hazard mitigation tools available to the County and its incorporated cities and towns. In 2000, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly adopted an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) which identifies the land surrounding the City as either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is appropriate for urban development and is expected to become part of the City’s urbanized area, at some point, while land outside the UGB is not appropriate for urban development and should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban character of lands surrounding the City of Aspen.22 The UGB includes Red Mountain, East of Aspen neighborhoods, the Airport Business Center, the Airport, Buttermilk Base area, and portions of the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek valleys. By limiting urban sprawl, the UGB deters urban development patterns in rural areas that are more susceptible to risks from natural hazards, such as land within the wildland-urban interface.

22 City of Aspen/Pitkin County: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/county/Com%20Dev/Planning/tdrsummary.pdf, accessed 29 August 2011.

5-11 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Figure 5-2: City of Aspen/Pitkin County Urban Growth Boundary

Complementing the Urban Growth Boundary is the County’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, which has proven to be another effective growth management tool. The County’s TDR program was originally adopted to encourage the relocation of development from the backcountry to areas closer to existing services and infrastructure. However, the program has since been expanded to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and to discourage development in environmentally hazardous areas.23

Table 5-13: Pitkin County Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation

Chapter 7-20: Development Standards - Rural Character, Environmental Protection, and Natural Hazards Subsection 7-20-10: Site Preparation and Grading Standards in this section apply to grading and filling on a site that can take place only within a defined Activity Envelope. Applicable standards include: x Clearing, Grubbing, and Vegetation Removal x Tree Removal and Mitigation x Protection of Natural Terrain Section 7-20-20: Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes

23 Pitkin County: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/county/Com%20Dev/Planning/tdrsummary.pdf, accessed 29 August 2011.

5-12 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

The provisions in this section apply whenever steep slopes or potentially unstable slopes occur within an approved Activity Envelope, but do not apply when an Activity Envelope have been defined to avoid such areas. Section 7-20-30: Water Courses and Drainage The water resources standards are applicable to all development and include the maintenance of historical flow patterns and runoff amounts to reasonably preserve the natural character of an area and prevent property damage attributable to runoff rate and velocity. Section 7-20-40: Floodplain Hazards The standards in this section apply to mapped floodplain hazard areas as depicted in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, National Flood Insurance Program (June 4, 1987, and including any subsequent amendments to that map) and areas determined by the County Floodplain Administrator to be in flood hazard areas. Section 7-20-50: Geologic Hazards This section identifies development standards applicable to specific geologic hazard areas. Major geologic hazards are identified on the Geologic Hazards Map maintained in the Community Development Department. Applicable standards include: x Avalanche Areas x Landslide Areas x Rockfall Areas x Alluvial Fans x Talus Slope x Mancos Shale x Faults x Expansive Soil and Rock x Ground Subsidence Section 7-20-60: Wildfire Hazards This section establishes the standards for development in wildfire hazard areas. The level of hazard is determined primarily by grade or slope and continuity of fuels. As a general guideline, low hazard is located on slopes of zero to twenty (0-20) percent with discontinuous fuels; moderate hazard is located on slopes of ten to twenty (10-20) percent with continuous fuels, or on slopes greater than twenty (20) percent with discontinuous fuels; and severe hazard is located on slopes of greater than twenty (20) percent with continuous fuels. Standards applicable to all Wildfire Hazard Areas include: x Defensible Space x Access x Water Supply for Fire Safety x Roofing Materials, Roofing Vents and Projections at and Below Roof Line x Maintenance and Miscellaneous Requirements

Table 5-14: City of Aspen Land Use Policy Guidelines related to Natural Hazard Mitigation

City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.435 Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Certain land areas within the City are of particular ecological, environmental, architectural or scenic significance and all development within such areas shall be subject to heightened review procedures and standards as set forth in this Chapter. These areas shall be known as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and shall include the following: A. 8040 Greenline. Areas located at or above 8040 feet mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and including that area extending one hundred fifty (150) feet below, measured horizontally, the 8040 Greenline. Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mudslide and aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review shall further ensure the availability of utilities and access to any development and that disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to a minimum. B. Stream margins. Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within the one-hundred-year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within a Flood Hazard Area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features. D. Hallam Lake Bluff. That bluff area running approximately on a north-south axis bordering and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for

5-13 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Environmental Studies Nature Preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there terminating and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street. Development in this area shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve and ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve. Sec. 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA) In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: [Whether] the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Chapter 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD), Sec. 26.445.040. General provisions The following provisions shall apply to all property designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map unless otherwise provided pursuant to an adopted final PUD development plan for the property. B. Density: Unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan, the maximum aggregate density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district, considering the inclusions and exclusions of Lot Area, as defined and the mandatory density reduction for steep slopes as described below. Mandatory reduction in density for steep slopes: In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) according to the following schedule: Slope classification. (Slope percentage) Maximum density allowed. (Percentage of that allowed in the underlying zone district): 0 — 20 %: 100% 21 — 30 %: 50% 31 — 40 %: 25% slope > 40 %: 0% Chapter 26.480 Subdivision, Sec. 26.480.050, Suitability of land for subdivision. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.

City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Chapter 6 - Floodplains 6.2 Floodplain Development Regulations The purpose of these regulations is to control the alteration of the natural floodplains; prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; restrict or prohibit uses which may result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; protect and preserve the natural riparian corridor; and to control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damages. The City of Aspen requires that all proposed development and/or redevelopment in the 100-year floodplain, not just construction of buildings, be reviewed and permitted in compliance with this Manual and Chapter 8.50 of the City Code. The Development Engineer administers the ordinance through the issuance of permits, inspection of construction, and collection and maintenance of FEMA Elevation Certificates to show the final elevation of new and substantially improved construction. Note that garages, sheds, additions, athletic courts, driveways, and fill all require permits from City of Aspen Engineering Department. 6.3 Requirements for Development in Floodplains A Floodplain Development Permit is required for any development, redevelopment or construction that will occur within jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional floodplains. Those activities include, but are not limited to, building or enlarging a structure, remodeling or improving a structure, the placement of a manufactured home, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavating, and drilling. 6.3.4.3 Critical Facilities Flooding does occur above and beyond the 100-year floodplain. For that reason, new critical facilities and substantial changes to critical facilities shall be regulated to the 500-year flood event. New critical facilities should be located outside of the 500-year floodplain and have continuous non-inundated access during a 500-year flood event. Substantial changes to critical facilities should meet these requirements to the maximum extent possible. Critical facilities that cannot be located outside of the 500-year floodplain will require protection to the 500-year level. “Critical facilities” for floodplain purposes means a facility (structure, infrastructure, equipment, service, etc.) that if flooded may result in severe consequences to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during, or after a flood. Examples of critical facilities include police, fire, emergency management or responders, hospitals, urgent care, communications facilities, public utilities, primary access routes or evacuation routes, hazardous materials facilities, gas stations, schools, day cares, senior centers, community centers, etc.

5-14 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Chapter 7 – Mudflow Analysis Mudflow analysis requirements may be applicable to all development and redevelopment within the City of Aspen jurisdiction and that is developing slopes greater than 15%, that lie within the mudflow plain, or as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. For development projects in a mudflow hazard area that will modify existing grades, create additional obstructions (such as buildings, roads, etc.), or change the orientation of obstructions, the applicant must conduct analyses to demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely affect nearby properties. In addition, development activities within the mudflow hazard area must be designed to withstand the hydrostatic and shear forces of the mudflow event.

Table 5-15: Town of Snowmass Village Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation

Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Subdivision Regulations Sec. 16A-4-240. Fire Protection Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards. Purpose. There are certain types of lands within the Town that have the potential to pose hazards to human life and safety and to property due to wildfire. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that development avoids these wildfire hazard areas whenever possible. Where it is not possible for development to avoid these areas, standards are provided to reduce or minimize the potential impacts of these hazards on the occupants of the property and, as applicable, the occupants of adjacent properties. Includes required mitigation techniques recommended by the Colorado Forest Service that can include: locations, manipulate vegetation, structural design, water supply, access, maintenance and compliance. Sec. 16A-4-250. Storm Drainage General Standard. The integrity of existing and natural drainage patterns shall be preserved in order that the aggregate of future public and private development activities will not cause storm drainage and flood water patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed drainage ways, will not subject other areas to increased potential for damage by flood erosion or sedimentation and will not pollute natural streams. Sec. 16A-4-50. Geologic Hazard Areas, Steep Slopes and Ridgeline Protection Areas Purpose. Steep slopes prone to erosion and soil instability, are difficult to revegetate and may also be subject to geologic hazards. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that development does not occur on slopes that are excessively steep, unstable or hazardous. Requirements can include: development prohibited in geologic hazard areas and development prohibited on slopes greater than 30%. Sec. 16A-4-40. Flood Plains and Wetland Areas Flood Plains. All development proposed in an application for PUD, subdivision or special review shall be located outside of the limites of the one-hundred-year flood plain, as depicted on the most recent edition of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for areas within Town. (Or independent study, if no FIRM maps exist).

Table 5-16: Town of Basalt Land Use / Subdivision Regulations related to Natural Hazard Mitigation

Town of Basalt Land Use and Subdivision Regulations Sec. 17-32. Natural hazards. These standards are intended to assure that new development will not be permitted in areas where the environmental characteristics of the area may create hazardous conditions for new residents or for adjoining property owners. (1) Building development is generally discouraged on slopes that exceed thirty percent (30%). In special cases, development may be permitted, provided that approved mitigation techniques are employed. As per Section 16-187 of the Zoning Ordinance, all development proposed for sites with slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%) must be reviewed under the special review application procedures of Article III, Chapter 16. In such cases, analyses must be approved by independent professional geologists and engineers. (2) Hazards shall include subsidence, unstable soils, rockfall hazards and flooding. (3) All development shall be subject to the provisions of the floodplain regulations of the Town. (4) Mitigation techniques may include but are not limited to: a. Slope stabilization by landscaping, revegetation or other means. b. Elevation of structures or approved floodproofing.

5-15 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

c. Catchment walls for rockfall hazards. d. Control of potential debris; diversion structures. e. Reinforcement of uphill building walls, windows and doors. (Prior code 57-21) Sec. 17-63. Preliminary plat Subdivision preliminary plates require the following: Drainage plan. When the plat of a proposed subdivision includes a stream course, a mudflow course or dry wash subject to flood crest or heavy runoff generated by precipitation or rapid spring-thaw runoff, a drainage plan, based on an engineering analysis of the catchment and the tributary area and detailed drainage easements and structures necessary to accommodate a design one-hundred-year storm, mudflow or flooding, shall be provided by an engineer registered in the State. Sec. 16-354. Methods of reducing flood losses In order to accomplish its purposes, this Article includes methods and provisions for: (1) 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 or in flood heights or velocities. (2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction. (3) Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters. (4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood damage. (5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. (Prior code 33-3)

Table 5-17: Regional Policy Guidelines related to Natural Hazard Mitigation Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, Draft March 2011 Urgent Actions: Riparian and Instream Areas Plan and Implement Key Riparian/Instream Protection and Restoration Projects RI B1a. Working with landowners, resource experts, and other interested parties, plan and implement riparian/ instream protection and restoration projects. Provide Adequate Stream Setbacks Throughout the Watershed RI C1c. Develop and enforce stream setbacks that protect riparian areas throughout the watershed. Increase Awareness of the Importance of Riparian Areas RI D1a. Provide education to the public about the important functions of riparian areas, development and other threats to riparian areas, what can be done to protect and restore riparian areas, and potential sources of funding for riparian projects. RWM C. Objective: Ensure coordination of local land use actions to prevent or mitigate water resource impacts throughout the watershed. Land use planning and development in the Roaring Fork Valley should adopt a “watershed perspective” whenever possible…. The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan provides an ideal opportunity to improve cooperation and information sharing among local planning and engineering departments, state water commissioners, local fire protection districts and other interested entities. RWM C2. Improve communication between local entities and state water commissioners on projects of common interest (e.g., local land use and development approvals for microhydro facilities and ornamental ponds). RWM C2a. Modify local land use regulations to require referrals to state water commissioners and local fire protection districts during the land use application review phase. RWM C2b. Request that local land use planning departments adopt a policy of offering state water commissioners and local fire protection districts an opportunity to participate on any technical advisory/working groups developing amendments to land use regulations and/or forms addressing water resource matters of common interest. RWM C2c. Conduct a bi-annual meeting of local land use planners, local fire protection district personnel, and state water commissioners to provide a forum for discussing land use and water resource matters of common interest. SW E. Objective: Reduce the negative impacts of drought and floods. Water conservation and drought are topics of continuing interest, given the arid climate and landscapes of the Roaring Fork Watershed and the Upper Colorado River Basin…

5-16 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

High flows are desirable to support numerous ecosystem services within river systems. A functioning flood plain attenuates flood flows and contributes to base flows. However, development in flood plains and controlled flows related to operation of dams and diversions, in combination with large storm events, can lead to flooding issues. Climate-driven changes to the hydrological system will likely increase the frequency, magnitude, and financial costs of extreme weather events. Snowmelt-driven basins like the Roaring Fork Watershed are at especially high risk. High flows associated with spring melt of the snowpack, particularly if it is above average, is tied to spring temperature fluctuations. A rapid spring warm-up and sustained high temperatures pose a serious risk of flooding. Other important considerations are dust and rain on snow events that may contribute to flooding by accelerating snowpack melting. SW E1. Plan for drought to reduce its impacts. SW E1a. Utilize the CWCB’s 2010 Drought Mitigation and Response Plan and Drought Planning Toolbox. SW E1b. Work with the CWCB’s Office of Water Conservation and Drought Planning to obtain technical assistance and grants to help develop local drought mitigation plans. SW E1c. Create “shovel-ready” drought-mitigation projects that can be quickly implemented. SW E1d. Investigate the potential benefits and disadvantages of acquiring small storage water rights that can be delivered for municipal uses in times of need and used to mitigate low stream flows. Pursue a streamlined approval process for landowners, if warranted. SW E1e. Investigate opportunities to temporarily loan water to streams using C.R.S. § 37-83-105. Discuss triggering criteria, such as low snowpack levels on specific spring dates, and draft agreements with critical water rights holders, the CDWR Division Engineer and CWCB that can be quickly implemented when needed. SW E2. Develop plans that address the public health and safety issues associated with high flows while recognizing and retaining their environmental benefits. SW E2a. Ensure that county and municipal emergency management plans minimize the potential for harmful flooding in developed floodplains. SW E2b. Where feasible, restore the natural function of floodplains. SW E2c. Ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps for the watershed used by local jurisdictions are up to date and available digitally for public access. SW E2d. Develop and enforce local regulations that minimize development in the flood plain. SW E2e. Identify and pursue opportunities to maintain decision makers’ and the public’s interest in flooding issues after flood events have passed, such as by creating “shovel-ready” flood mitigation projects that can be quickly implemented. RI B. Objective: Enhance and preserve native riparian and instream flora and fauna including wild, naturally reproducing fish communities. RI B1. Maintain/increase the extent and continuity of native riparian plant communities so that riparian and aquatic systems are functionally connected. RI B1a. Working with landowners, resource experts, and other interested parties, plan and implement riparian/instream protection and restoration projects, including: • Working with landowners on conservation easements or acquisitions; • Identifying and revitalizing historic wetlands and reconnecting stream channels to the historic floodplain; • Working with the USFS and BLM to protect or restore high quality and priority riparian areas; • Introducing beavers to create dams and wetland areas in appropriate stream reaches; and • Working on ways to manage the timing of available streamflows (high and low), their duration, rise and fall rate, and inter-annual variation to maintain or restore riparian/instream health. Pursue opportunities for riparian/instream protection and restoration where: • Small changes in land management or small projects will yield significant riparian/instream improvements; • Significant ecological benefit will be derived from changes in land management or a project; • Program support exists and access to the riparian/instream area is relatively uncomplicated; • Partnerships can be developed (e.g., using the Wyden Amendment for USFS involvement); and • An in-lieu fee program can be developed with a regulatory agency. RI B1b. On an ongoing basis, reassess the Colorado Natural Heritage Program’s Potential Conservation Areas for changes in resource conditions or management needs. RI B1c. Assess greenbelts/greenways as effective tools for protecting riparian areas in the watershed and pursue, as appropriate. RI B1d. Research wetland mitigation banks and work to expand such a program, if warranted. RI B1e. Investigate regional planning mechanisms available for protection of riparian areas (e.g., a special district crossing local governments’ jurisdictional boundaries) and funding available to support such a regional effort. Pursue suitable opportunities, if warranted. RI B1f. Support state and federal tax credits for donations of conservation easements. Investigate additional tax incentives for such donations; work with interested parties on adoption of new incentives.

5-17 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

5.4.2. Administrative and Technical Capabilities

Table 5-18: Administrative and Technical Capabilities Town of Snowmass Administrative/ Technical Resources Pitkin County City of Aspen Village Town of Basalt Planner/ Engineer with knowledge of land Yes Yes Yes Yes development practices Engineer/ Professional trained in construction Yes Yes Yes No practices related to buildings/ infrastructure Planner/ Engineer/ Scientists with understanding Yes Yes Yes Yes of natural hazards GIS capabilities Yes Yes No – use County’s Yes GIS Full-time building official Yes Yes Yes Yes Floodplain administrator Yes Yes No No Emergency manager Yes No No No Grant writer No No No No Warning Systems/ Services Some Yes No No

5.4.3. Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities

Table 5-19: Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Town of Snowmass Financial Resources Pitkin County City of Aspen Village Town of Basalt Community Development Block Grants No Unsure No Unknown Capital improvements project funding Yes Yes Yes Unknown Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Voter approval Yes Yes No Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services No Yes Yes Yes Impact fees for new development Yes Yes Yes Yes Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes Yes Yes Yes Incur debt through special tax bonds N/A Yes Yes Yes

5.4.4. Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships Pitkin County and local jurisdictions are currently providing several public and private outreach programs aimed at natural hazard mitigation and risk reduction. Programs include the following: Pitkin County Wildland Fire Plan, 2011: The intent of the Plan is to “aid in the implementation of a seamless, coordinated effort among all relevant agencies in determining appropriate combinations of wildland fire management actions and programs in the county.” It outlines six interagency management objectives necessary to effectively implement wildland fire management programs, including Prevention, Preparedness, Mitigation, Suppression, Reclamation/Rehabilitation, and Fiscal objectives. Basalt River Master Plan, 2002: This Plan was developed through a collaborative process that included local business owners, property owners, interested citizens, technical consultants and federal, state and local governments and agencies. It addresses flood hazards and recommend actions aimed at minimizing those hazards and addresses other aspects of the Town's relationship with the Roaring Fork River,

5-18 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

including social and cultural interaction, recreational access and use, riparian habitat, fishery health, development and public infrastructure. Roaring Fork Watershed Plan Draft, 2011: This Plan is the product of a four-year collaboration between dozens of agencies, governments and interests throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. The Plan is intended to be meaningful and useful to both water managers and the general public. One of the Plan's key objectives is to “provide a reference to enable laymen, students, activists and recreationists to get involved in watershed management by providing a menu of programs, studies, projects and initiatives aimed at enhancing or protecting some aspect of local water resources.” Water-topic sections include Regional Water Management, Surface Water Management, Ground Water Management, Water Quality, and Riparian and Instream Areas. The Plan specifically addresses the need for intergovernmental cooperation to mitigate for flooding. For instance, one objective calls for “[developing] plans that address the public health and safety issues associated with high flows while recognizing and retaining their environmental benefits.” Pitkin County Guide to Rural Living, 2006: This document is intended to help prospective Pitkin County homebuyers make an informed decision about moving to the area. The guide focuses on providing realistic expectations for those who are interested in moving from an urban to a mountainous rural area. It addresses a number of natural hazard considerations, including wildfire hazards, drought conditions, variable weather, variable road conditions and development adjacent to rivers or streams. For example, the guide prepares potential buyers for required land use reviews such as the “Environmental Protection and Natural Hazards Review that is meant to identify any areas on a site that could prove hazardous for development (e.g., unstable slopes, avalanche areas, the 100-year floodplain) and measures that might be taken to avoid or mitigate for the natural hazard.” Pitkin Alert: This program is a community notification system managed by the Aspen-Pitkin County Communications Center that allows officials to immediately contact residents during a major crisis or emergency, such as a severe weather incident. It delivers important emergency alerts, notifications and updates to residents on a number of devices, including email, wireless devices, and landline telephones. Pitkin Alert provides real-time updates, instructions on where to go, what to do, or what not to do, and who to contact during an emergency. Pitkin County Flood Safe Flier: This flier is available online and outlines how to prepare for a flood and what to do in case of a flood. It includes information about sandbags, including local vendors, a link to a You Tube video with instructional information about sandbagging and a “how to” guide to filling sandbags. The flier also recommends signing-up for Pitkin Alert, flood preparation steps such as a Kit Checklist and safety measure such as not camping or parking vehicles along streams or washes.

5-19 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

This page intentionally left blank.

5-20 This chapter describes the updated mitigation FEMA Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(c)(3): strategy developed by the planning workshop participants based on the risk assessment The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the described in Chapter 4 and the capability jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses assessment described in Chapter 5. identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to Plan Update expand on and improve these existing tools. The planning workshop participants reviewed and revised the 2005 mitigation goals and strategies, formulating 2011 plan goals and actions, through a collaborative group process. The 2011 mitigation strategy consists of the overall strategy statements, goals, objectives, and mitigation actions. x Goals are general guidelines that explain what the plan means to achieve. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. They are meant to be achieved over the long term and typically consist of broad, policy statements. x Objectives are standards that can be reasonably achieved within a certain timeframe. x Mitigation Actions are specific actions designed for implementation that help achieve the goal and objectives.

6.1. Plan Strategy Statements, FEMA Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(i): Goals, and Objectives [The mitigation strategy shall include a] description of At the first Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Update Workshop (Workshop #1) on June 23, 2011, the participants evaluated the five previous plan goals and developed two new goals that provide direction for reducing the impacts of the hazards profiled in the risk assessment. The goals from the previously approved 2005 plan were specific to each of the six prioritized hazard categories and included the following: x Wildfire: Reduce wildfire severity on Pitkin County.

6-1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

x Winter Storm: Minimize the impact of Winter Storms on Pitkin County and participating jurisdictions within the county. x Hazardous Materials: Reduce the potential for impact from transported hazardous materials to the public the county participating jurisdictions. x Avalanche: Reduce the potential for impact on human life and safety and property loss from avalanche hazards within county and participating jurisdictions. x Rockslide/Landslide: Reduce the rockslide occurrences and impact potential on human life and safety and critical services within the county and participating jurisdictions. x Seasonal/Flash Flooding: Reduce seasonal / flash flooding impact in the Basalt area. The Workshop #1 attendees recommended consolidating the goals from the 2005 plan to (1) reduce repetition and (2) provide a more overarching policy statement that is more supportive of the comprehensive range of mitigation action types needed to reduce vulnerability. After reviewing goals presented by URS, the Workshop #1 attendees came to consensus on the following goals for the 2011 plan update.

GOAL 1: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by natural hazards.

GOAL 2: Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by human-caused hazards.

The Workshop #1 attendees also carefully reviewed the 2005 plan objectives and revised and updated each based on updated conditions and a renewed emphasis on goals and objectives that encompass multi-hazard categories. Based on this input, URS synthesized the results of the workshop recommendations and defined the following objectives for the 2011 plan update: x Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies.24 x Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. x Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. x Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. x Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. x Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. x Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. x Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning.

24 The Federal Emergency Management Institute supports this objective. January 2009 IEMC: EOC-IMT Interface training materials state that the role of the EOC is to “…Provide a program with which government at any level can provide interagency coordination and executive decision-making in support of incident response or maintenance of community wide services and protection.”

6-2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

6.2. Identification of Mitigation Action Alternatives

To update the mitigation actions from the 2005 plan, participating jurisdictions FEMA Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(ii): completed a status worksheet describing whether the action was completed, [The mitigation strategy shall include] a section that identifies incomplete, or ongoing. This worksheet is and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation provided in Appendix C: Mitigation Action actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing Evaluation. The planning workshop buildings and infrastructure. [The mitigation strategy] must participants used some of this information to also address the jurisdictions’ participation in the National identify and prioritize new mitigation actions, Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance but also found that many of the 2005 plan with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. action items were no longer relevant or had been completed. To begin identifying a comprehensive range of mitigation actions at their second meeting on July 21, 2011 (Workshop #2), the participants discussed the six categories of mitigation actions described below.

Table 6-1: Categories of Mitigation Actions Category Definition Prevention Administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. Property Protection Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or remove them from the hazard area. Structural Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of hazard. Natural Resource Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of Protection natural systems. Emergency Services Actions that ensure the continuity of emergency services. Public Education and Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and Awareness potential ways to mitigate them. Source: National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System.

Workshop participants then reviewed a list of potential mitigation actions for each objective based on recommended actions gathered from a “homework assignment” distributed to participants following the first workshop. The participants created a final list of mitigation actions for each objective. The list of mitigation actions is shown in Table 6-2. Participants were asked to carefully review each action and priority, and to develop a mitigation action implementation matrix identifying the following characteristics for each action or project: x Priority x Responsible Agency x Timeline x Cost Estimate25

25 It is important to note that the cost estimates do not represent budgeted amounts. The County will seek grants as appropriate, but at this time there is no expectation that Pitkin County will be appropriating funds for these projects from its General Fund.

6-3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

During Workshop #2, participants used the STAPLEE method, which assesses the social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental implications of each action, to identify and prioritize actions.

Figure 6-1: STAPLEE Criteria Used for Prioritization of Mitigation Actions

Source: FEMA, Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, 1 July 2008.

6.3. Implementation of Mitigation Actions

Table 6-2 summarizes the prioritized mitigation actions for Pitkin County and the participating jurisdictions. The worksheets used for prioritization are included in Appendix C.

6-4 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Table 6-2: Mitigation Action Matrix Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 1.1 Continue the Public Safety Council, which County provides multi-agency and jurisdictional $26K/ High All Emergency Ongoing coordination for hazard planning and incident year Management management. 1.2 Provide training and equipment to improve Training: Training: Pitkin County communications between different agencies 1 year staff time High All Communicatio and remote locations, with interoperability with Equipment: Equipmen ns the 800mhz statewide radio system. 3 years t: $400K 1.3 Establish Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Identify, train and drill EOC staff to ensure basic level of training for County staff, High All All 1 year $100K not just emergency agencies. Conduct, at minimum, annual EOC full-scale disaster exercise across jurisdictions and agencies. 1.4 Identify, train and drill EOC staff to ensure basic level of training for targeted staff (Finance, Public Works, Fleet, PIO, Administrative staff, GIS). Conduct, at a County minimum, an annual EOC tabletop exercise High All Emergency 1 year Staff time (all agency participation), continue tri-annual Management full-scale exercises at Sardy Field, and consider planning other full-scale exercises to address natural hazards. 1.5 Ensure that existing mutual aid agreements are current and establish new ones as County required. (Note that mutual aid Administration/ Medium All 1 year Staff time Intergovernmental Agreements are complete Emergency for Fire and EMS services, but are not Management complete for Law and Public Works). Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. 2.1 Designate enforcement body within policy and County regulation. Administration, City of Aspen, High All Town of 1 year $10K Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt 2.2 Establish policies and processes to ensure County governmental bodies communicate regarding Community development applications that could be Development, impacted by hazards, and provide input to City of Aspen, High All 1 year Staff time governmental bodies. Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt

6-5 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 2.3 Create or refine enforceable flood and County mudslide policies through permit restrictions. Administration, Flood/ City of Aspen, High Landslide/ Town of 2-3 years $100K Rockslide Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt 2.4 Update the Land Use Code to incorporate new County State regulations into local floodplain High Floods Community 1 year Staff time regulations. Development 2.5 Adopt new floodplain maps. County Community Summer High Floods Staff time Development/ 2012 Engineering 2.6 Strengthen regulations to require mandatory AFPD, clearing of flammable vegetation in key areas, SWFPD, High Wildfire 3-5 years $50K i.e. around houses as a prerequisite to BRFPD, land/structure modifications. CRFPD 2.7 Prioritize needed Community Wildfire County Protection Plans for subdivisions (from the Emergency Pitkin County Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). Management, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass High Wildfire 3-5 years $300K Village, Town of Basalt, CSFS, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD 2.8 Continue to conduct required and voluntary County wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate Community info to FPDs (from the Pitkin County Wildfire Development, Protection Plan, 2011). High Wildfire AFPD, Ongoing Staff time SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD 2.9 Develop, implement and maintain wildfire AFPD, codes (including brush management, weed SWFPD, abatement, building code, construction types). BRFPD, CRFPD, County $200K + 1 High Wildfire Administration, 2-3 years full time City of Aspen, employee Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas.

6-6 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 3.1 Update and maintain annual hazard High All County GIS 1 year $5K occurrences maps and critical facilities. 3.2 Develop and maintain access to ownership County GIS/ and property value information in hazard High All Ongoing Staff time Assessor areas. 3.3 Create a web map application with property High All County GIS 1 year $10K information, including hazards. 3.4 Acquire new floodplain mapping for entire County County. Community High Floods Development/ 1-3 years $10K Engineering/ GIS 3.5 Create useable mud and debris flow mapping County Public (including dry gulch and alluvial fan). Works/ Floods/ Engineering/ High 1-3 years $200K Mudslide Community Development/ GIS 3.6 Create avalanche prone area mapping and County Public historical occurrences. Works/ Engineering/ Medium Avalanche 1-2 years $50K Community Development/ GIS Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. 4.1 Continue to use and market various means of County communicating early warnings and alerts, High All Community Ongoing Staff time including multimedia. Review and improve the Relations process quarterly 4.2 (a) Identify hazard areas for each of the four prioritized hazards in this Plan and pre-build County automated emergency notification lists for High All Community 6 months Staff time these areas. (b) Develop subscription groups Relations for emergency notification on Pitkin Alert specific to identified hazards. 4.3 Continue to improve the Mud and Flood County management team and involve Emergency Floods/ Snowmass/Aspen/Carbondale. Med Management, Ongoing Staff time Mudflow Public Safety Council 4.4 Improve coordination with Bureau of County Reclamation and other water rights entities, Med Floods Ongoing Staff time Administration such as the City of Denver. Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. 5.1 Create and assign a multi-jurisdictional team County to implement physical mitigation actions and High All Ongoing Staff time Administration update actions annually.

6-7 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 5.2 Complete the Basalt levee project (currently in County final design). Engineering/ High Floods Public Works, Ongoing $1.5M Town of Basalt, CDOT 5.3 Improve levee conditions at the Roaring Fork Pitkin/Eagle Mobile Home Park and adjacent areas. Counties High Floods 1-3 years $80K Public Works, HOAs 5.4 Continue to pursue ongoing stormwater Pitkin County/ mitigation projects in the Capital Improvement Aspen Plan. High Floods Consolidated Ongoing Variable Sanitation District 5.5 Improve drainage at the Aspen Airport Pitkin County/ Business Center and Aspen Consolidated Aspen Floods and Sanitation District wastewater treatment High Consolidated 1-3 years $250K Mudflows facility. Sanitation District 5.6 Identify cross-boundary (CSFS, USFS/BLM) CSFS, Staff time fuel reduction projects within the Wildland USFS/BLM, and Urban Interface (from the Pitkin County AFPD, High Wildfire Ongoing project Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011). SWFPD, dependen BRFPD, t CRFPD 5.7 Remove/down trees with Pine Mountain Wildfire & BLM, County Med – Beetle hazards where they interface with blow down Open Space, Ongoing $50K/year High residential and public use areas. trees USFS 5.8 Design and install mitigation measures (concrete barriers) in areas along roadways Floods, that are susceptible to mud and rock slides. CDOT, IPF, Project Landslide/ Areas should include Independence Pass, Med County Public Ongoing dependen Rockslide/ Hwy. 133, Snowmass Creek, Castle, Works t Mudflows Redstone Boulevard and other county road “hot spots.” 5. Conduct a study to identify risks and potential City of Aspen, 9 damages of mudslides off Aspen Mountain. County Med Mudflows Engineering, 1-3 years $100K Aspen Skiing Company 5. Conduct a study at the base of Buttermilk ski County 10 area to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation Floods/ Engineering, Med 1-3 years $100K conditions. Mudflows Aspen Skiing Company 5. Conduct a study at the base of Ajax ski area County 11 to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation Floods/ Engineering, Med 1-3 years $100K conditions. Mudflows Aspen Skiing Company

6-8 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 5. Improve, or restore, the river alignment at the County 12 confluence of Coal Creek and the Crystal Engineering, Low Floods 3-5 years $20M+ River. CDOT, Forest Service Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. 6.1 Develop comprehensive, pro-active, on-going public and business outreach program to improve awareness and educate the public about hazards, including seasonal hazards. For example: x Hold public forums at the start of each season and discuss hazards and include seasonal populations. x Improve Emergency Management web page with links to pertinent safety information, videos, etc. with pages for each potential hazard with localized (not generic) information. x Awareness raising campaign for CGTV County Channel 11…the place where videos will Emergency be broadcast about all hazards, safety High All Mgt./ 1-3 years Staff time info. etc. Increase viewership. Community x Install river-watch web cams. Relations x Host live press conferences during emergent situations in board rooms wired for television, including Aspen City Council, Board of County Commissioners, and Town of Snowmass Village. x Produce regularly scheduled TV series on all hazards safety. x Educate the public by participating in bi- annual Safety Fairs, setting up Safety Awareness booths at farmer’s markets, Public Service Announcements, Grass Roots Spotlight programs, etc. 6.2 Improve public signage that provides warnings County and information about hazards, such as Administration/ dangerous rockfall areas, flood areas, and Public Works, areas at risk to seasonal fires. City of Aspen, High All 1-3 years $20K Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. 7.1 Identify a secondary emergency shelter and High All All 1 year Staff time intermediate care facilities. 7.2 Increase security of critical infrastructure, Med All All 3-5 years $500K including city/ county / public safety bases.

6-9 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

Responsible Hazard(s) Cost Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Jurisdiction/ Timeframe Addressed Estimate Agency 7.3 Conduct an annual threat analysis by area agencies to prioritize critical infrastructure and Med All All 1 year+ Staff time determine vulnerability points that could be strengthened. Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning 8.1 Create an all-hazard team from Public Safety Council membership (and others as PSC Public Safety High All 6 months Staff time identifies) to address planning and recovery Council needs 8.2 Create sustained funding for planning and 6 months – High All All Unknown training exercising and recovery expenses 1 year 8.3 Initiate and develop use of the Emergency Support Function #8 (ESF-8) role of disaster Medical Public Safety High 1 year Staff time recovery/ surge capacity at the local medical Disaster Council level.

Continued Compliance with National Flood Insurance Program Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village, and the Town of Basalt currently participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Pitkin County and the incorporated municipalities will continue participation in and compliance with the NFIP. Specific activities that they will undertake to continue compliance include the following: x Working with FEMA and the State in the map modernization program and adopting new DFIRMs when effective; and x Improving education and outreach efforts regarding flooding throughout the County and incorporated municipalities.

6-10 This chapter provides a formal process to ensure that the Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan will remain an active and relevant document. The plan maintenance process includes a method and schedule for all participating jurisdictions to participate in the process of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This chapter also discusses the incorporation of this plan into existing planning mechanisms and continued public involvement.

7.1. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan

Plan Monitoring and Evaluating Planning workshop participants discussed and approved the plan maintenance procedures described in this chapter. The process provides a clear monitoring process that documents progress prior FEMA Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(c)(4): to the next update. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will serve as the primary point of contact The plan maintenance process shall include a section and will coordinate all local efforts to monitor, describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluate, and update the plan. The participating evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. jurisdictions will be responsible for implementing their specific mitigation actions and reporting on the status of these actions to the Pitkin County Emergency Manager. The 2005 PDMP described the general process for monitoring and evaluating the plan. This 2011 update provides more detail as to how the plan will specifically be monitored including timing, responsibilities, and forms. After this plan update is approved, the local planning committee has agreed to meet annually to evaluate the implementation of the Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager is responsible for scheduling those meetings, or adding the plan implementation as an agenda item to one of the regularly-scheduled Public Safety Council Meetings. The purpose of the meetings will be the following: x Report on the usefulness of the plan and the progress on mitigation actions; x Report on any input received from the public; x Discuss hazard events and observations; x Report on how the plan has been incorporated into other planning mechanisms;

7-1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

x Discuss mitigation issues and ideas; x Work to secure funding and identify opportunities for cost-sharing, establishing partnerships, and satisfying multiple objectives; x Discuss how to keep the attention of community leaders and the public on hazard mitigation problems and opportunities; x Discuss new sources for data to improve future updates; and x Make recommendations on specific updates to the Plan. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will email the Mitigation Project Progress Report (included in Appendix D) to each agency responsible for actions in the plan two weeks prior to the scheduled meetings. These progress reports serve as criteria by which the mitigation strategy may be evaluated. During the meeting, the group will review and discuss their progress and how they have utilized the plan. Once a year, the Pitkin County Emergency Manager will also distribute the Mitigation Plan Annual Review Questionnaire and will summarize these reports into an annual Mitigation Plan Progress Report, which will be incorporated into an annual Emergency Management Annual Report to the Public Safety Council and the Board of County Commissioners. After considering the findings of the submitted progress reports, the Public Safety Council may request that the implementing department or agency meet to discuss project conditions. Should review of the Plan warrant changes to the PDMP prior to the five-year update cycle, a notice and revised document will be provided to the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions, the State and FEMA, following the review and update. It is a near-term goal of the Public Safety Council is to organize at the Emergency Support Function (ESF) level. In the future, it is conceivable that all the supporting tasks for the PDMP, such as mitigation action implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, could be assigned to relevant ESF groups. Plan Update Process The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will initiate a five-year plan update process within the time necessary to ensure that the current plan does not expire before the updated plan is approved. The schedule will be sufficient to allow for the contracting for technical or professional services (if necessary); State and FEMA reviews; revisions, if necessary, based on review comments; and the adoption procedures of the participating jurisdictions. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will coordinate the participation of the jurisdictions. The updated plan will meet FEMA’s requirements and do the following: x Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation; x Document areas where mitigation actions were or were not effective; x Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks; x Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities; x Incorporate growth and development-related changes to inventories; and x Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization. The Public Safety Council and mitigation planning participants will also meet after a disaster to focus on the following items:

7-2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

x Identify potential mitigation projects, particularly those eligible for mitigation grant programs if available; x Evaluate effectiveness of existing mitigation projects; and x Reassess hazard profiles and vulnerability. Updates to the plan will be accomplished through FEMA Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(c)(4)(ii): written changes and submissions incorporated by the Pitkin County Emergency Manager and as [The plan shall include a] process by which local approved by the participating jurisdictions. governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, 7.2. Incorporation into Existing when appropriate. Planning Mechanisms

The Pitkin County Emergency Manager, with support and guidance provided by the participating jurisdictions, will work with the responsible agencies to incorporate this plan into the following existing planning mechanisms (and future updates of these mechanisms) where possible: x Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans, as appropriate; x Aspen Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans, as appropriate; x Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans, as appropriate; x Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan; x Pitkin County Emergency Operations Plan; x Evacuation Plans; x Building codes; x Site plan review; x Zoning, subdivision, and floodplain ordinances; x Capital improvement plan and budgets; x Economic development plans; x Urban renewal plans; x plans; and x Other plans and policies outlined in the Capability Assessment (Section 5.4.1). Incorporation of plan elements into existing planning mechanisms will require coordination between the Emergency Manager and the department staff responsible for drafting each plan document. This FEMA Requirement 44 CFR §201.6(c)(4)(iii): will ensure that the relevant elements of this plan are taken into consideration. [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. 7.3. Continued Public Involvement

The planning workshop participants are committed to identifying additional opportunities to raise community awareness about the plan and mitigation efforts in Pitkin County. Mitigation action 6.1

7-3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

specifically addresses means to achieve this involvement. Videos of both workshops are available on the County’s website. And, the plan document will be posted online as well. The website contains an e-mail address and phone number to which people can direct their comments or concerns. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will present an update of the plan’s progress in the annual report to the Board of County Commissioners. This report will be available to the public and will include a section on local hazard mitigation planning (or similar). The Pitkin County Emergency Manager and other representatives from participating jurisdictions will also identify opportunities to raise community awareness about the plan and the hazards that affect the County and participating jurisdictions. This effort could include attendance and provision of materials at City/Town or County events, school-sponsored events, activities of the fire protection districts, through the Red Cross, events through other organizations, or by public mailings. Any public comments received about the plan will be collected by the Pitkin County Emergency Manager and included in the Annual Plan Progress Report. During the plan update process, the Emergency Manager will develop a schedule for the public to submit comments to be considered for incorporation into the plan, as appropriate. All public comments will be attached as an appendix to plans that are submitted for approval by the State and FEMA.

7-4 %TTIRHM\%4PER6IZMI['VSWW[EPO

DRAFT A-1

LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FOR REVIEW OF LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS

Attached is a Plan Review Crosswalk based on the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, published by FEMA in July, 2008. This Plan Review Crosswalk is consistent with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended by Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390), the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-264) and 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, inclusive of all amendments through October 31, 2007.

SCORING SYSTEM N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided. S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required.

Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of a requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a summary score of “Satisfactory.” A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing.

When reviewing single jurisdiction plans, reviewers may want to put an N/A in the boxes for multi-jurisdictional plan requirements. When reviewing multi- jurisdictional plans, however, all elements apply. States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. Optional matrices for assisting in the review of sections on profiling hazards, assessing vulnerability, and identifying and analyzing mitigation actions are found at the end of the Plan Review Crosswalk.

The example below illustrates how to fill in the Plan Review Crosswalk.:

Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Location in the Plan (section or SCORE Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include an Section II, pp. 4-10 The plan describes the types of assets that are located within geographically defined overall summary description of the hazard areas as well as those that would be affected by winter storms. jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard? B. Does the new or updated plan address Section II, pp. 10- The plan does not address the impact of two of the five hazards addressed in the plan. the impact of each hazard on the 20 Required Revisions: jurisdiction? x Include a description of the impact of floods and earthquakes on the assets. Recommended Revisions: This information can be presented in terms of dollar value or percentages of damage.

SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-1 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY SCORING SYSTEM The plan cannot be approved if the plan has not been formally adopted. Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of the requirement must be Please check one of the following for each requirement. rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a score of “Satisfactory.” Elements of each requirement are listed on the following pages of the N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the Plan Review Crosswalk. A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided. (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewer’s comments must be provided for requirements receiving a “Needs Improvement” S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. score. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required.

Prerequisite(s) (Check Applicable Box) NOT MET MET Mitigation Strategy N S 1. Adoption by the Local Governing Body: 13. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: §201.6(c)(3)(i) §201.6(c)(5) OR 14. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(ii) 2. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: §201.6(c)(5) 15. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation AND Actions: NFIP Compliance. §201.6(c)(3)(ii) 3. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation: §201.6(a)(3) 16. Implementation of Mitigation Actions: §201.6(c)(3)(iii) 17. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions: Planning Process N S §201.6(c)(3)(iv) 4. Documentation of the Planning Process: §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1) Plan Maintenance Process N S 18. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan: Risk Assessment N S §201.6(c)(4)(ii) 19. Incorporation into Existing Planning 5. Identifying Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) Mechanisms: §201.6(c)(4)(ii) 6. Profiling Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) 20. Continued Public Involvement: §201.6(c)(4)(iii) 7. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) 8. Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Additional State Requirements* N S Loss Properties. §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Insert State Requirement 9. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures, Infrastructure, and Critical Facilities: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Insert State Requirement 10. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses: Insert State Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) 11. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS 12. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment: §201.6(c)(2)(iii) PLAN NOT APPROVED *States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and See Reviewer’s Comments modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. PLAN APPROVED

JULY 1, 2008 A-2 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK Local Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status Jurisdiction: Title of Plan: Date of Plan: Pitkin County Pitkin County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan September 20, 2010 Update 2011 Local Point of Contact: Address: Tom Grady 506 E Main Street, Garden Level Title: Aspen, CO 81611 Pitkin County Emergency Manager Agency: Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office Phone Number: E-Mail: (970) 920-5234 [email protected]

State Reviewer: Title: Date:

FEMA Reviewer: Title: Date:

Date Received in FEMA Region [Insert #]

Plan Not Approved

Plan Approved

Date Approved

NFIP Status* CRS Y N N/A Jurisdiction: Class

Pitkin County X 8

City of Aspen X

Town of Snowmass Village X

Town of Basalt X * Notes: Y = Participating N = Not Participating N/A = Not Mapped

JULY 1, 2008 A-3 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK PREREQUISITE(S)

1. Adoption by the Local Governing Body 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 (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). Location in the SCORE Plan (section or NOT Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Has the local governing body adopted new or To be adopted, updated plan? insert in prerequisites B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, To be included in included? prerequisites SUMMARY SCORE 2. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or NOT Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Does the new or updated plan indicate the Cover Page; specific jurisdictions represented in the plan? Page 1-1 B. For each jurisdiction, has the local governing To be adopted body adopted the new or updated plan? C. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, To be included in included for each participating jurisdiction? prerequisites SUMMARY SCORE 3. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process … Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or NOT Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Does the new or updated plan describe how each Pages 2-4 to 2-8; jurisdiction participated in the plan’s development? Appendix B B. Does the updated plan identify all participating jurisdictions, including new, continuing, and the jurisdictions that no longer participate in the plan? Page 1-1

JULY 1, 2008 A-4 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

SUMMARY SCORE

PLANNING PROCESS: §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.

4. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (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; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. 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. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the Chapter 2 process followed to prepare the new or updated plan? B. Does the new or updated plan indicate who was Pages 2-1, 2-4 to involved in the current planning process? (For 2-5 example, who led the development at the staff level and were there any external contributors such as contractors? Who participated on the plan committee, provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) C. Does the new or updated plan indicate how the public Pages 2-3 to 2-4 was involved? (Was the public provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval?) D. Does the new or updated plan discuss the opportunity Pages 2-2 to 2-5 for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the planning process? E. Does the planning process describe the review and Pages 2-5 to 2-6 incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information? F. Does the updated plan document how the planning Narrative team reviewed and analyzed each section of the provided within plan and whether each section was revised as part each Chapter of the update process? SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-5 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

RISK ASSESSMENT: §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.

5. Identifying Hazards 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. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan include a description Page 4-4 of the types of all natural hazards that affect the jurisdiction?

SUMMARY SCORE

6. Profiling Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(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 probability of future hazard events. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., Chapter 4 geographic area affected) of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., Chapter 4 magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous Chapter 4 occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events Chapter 4 (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-6 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

7. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall Chapter 4 summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard? B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of Chapter 4 each hazard on the jurisdiction? SUMMARY SCORE

8. Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss Properties

Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability Page 4-26 Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local in terms of the types and numbers of repetitive loss plans approved after October 1, 2008. properties located in the identified hazard areas? SUMMARY SCORE

9. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures 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 area … . Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in Chapter 4 – Flood, Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, Wildfire not preclude the plan from passing. infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in Chapter 4 – Flood, Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, Wildfire not preclude the plan from passing. infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-7 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

10. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses 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)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate … . Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential Chapter 4 – Flood, Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will dollar losses to vulnerable structures? Wildfire not preclude the plan from passing. B. Does the new or updated plan describe the Chapter 4 – Flood, Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will methodology used to prepare the estimate? Wildfire not preclude the plan from passing. SUMMARY SCORE 11. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends 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. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe land uses and Throughout Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will development trends? Chapter 4 and not preclude the plan from passing. Pages 5-8 to 5-10 SUMMARY SCORE

12. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include a risk Pages 4-57 to 4- assessment for each participating jurisdiction as 58 needed to reflect unique or varied risks? SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-8 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

MITIGATION STRATEGY: §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.

13. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A Does the new or updated plan include a description Pages 6-1 to 6-2 of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? SUMMARY SCORE

14. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions 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. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a Pages 6-5 to 6-9 comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? B Do the identified actions and projects address Pages 6-5 to 6-9 reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and infrastructure? C. Do the identified actions and projects address Pages 6-5 to 6-9 reducing the effects of hazards on existing buildings and infrastructure? SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-9 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

15. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan describe the Pages 4-25 to 4-26 Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local jurisdiction (s) participation in the NFIP? mitigation plans approved after October 1, 2008. B. Does the mitigation strategy identify, analyze and Page 6-10 Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local prioritize actions related to continued compliance mitigation plans approved after October 1, 2008. with the NFIP? SUMMARY SCORE

16. Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(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 benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy include Page 6-4 how the actions are prioritized? (For example, is there a discussion of the process and criteria used?) B. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy address Pages 6-5 to 6-9 how the actions will be implemented and administered, including the responsible department, existing and potential resources and the timeframe to complete each action? C. Does the new or updated prioritization process include STAPLEE, Page 6- an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review to 4 maximize benefits? D. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted Appendix C, and or deferred mitigation actions as a benchmark for narrative provided progress, and if activities are unchanged (i.e., throughout Chapter deferred), does the updated plan describe why no 6 changes occurred? SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-10 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

17. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan.

Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A Does the new or updated plan include identifiable action Pages 6-5 to 6-9 items for each jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval of the plan? B. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted or Appendix C, status deferred mitigation actions as a benchmark for progress, update and if activities are unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the updated plan describe why no changes occurred? SUMMARY SCORE

PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS 18. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [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.

Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and Pages 7-1 to 7-3 schedule for monitoring the plan, including the responsible department? B. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and Pages 7-1 to 7-3 schedule for evaluating the plan, including how, when and by whom (i.e. the responsible department)? C. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and Pages 7-1 to 7-3 schedule for updating the plan within the five-year cycle? SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-11 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

19. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms 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. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan identify other local planning Page 7-3 mechanisms available for incorporating the mitigation requirements of the mitigation plan? B. Does the new or updated plan include a process by which Page 7-3 the local government will incorporate the mitigation strategy and other information contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? C. Does the updated plan explain how the local government Page 7-3 incorporated the mitigation strategy and other information contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate? SUMMARY SCORE

Continued Public Involvement Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan explain how continued Pages 7-3 to 7-4 public participation will be obtained? (For example, will there be public notices, an on-going mitigation plan committee, or annual review meetings with stakeholders?) SUMMARY SCORE

JULY 1, 2008 A-12 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

MATRIX A: PROFILING HAZARDS

This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the jurisdiction. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.

Hazards Identified To check boxes, double C. Previous D. Probability of Per Requirement A. Location B. Extent Hazard Type Occurrences Future Events click on the box and §201.6(c)(2)(i) change the default value Yes N S N S N S N S Avalanche to “checked.” Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other Legend:

§201.6(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?

JULY 1, 2008 A-13 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK

MATRIX B: ASSESSING VULNERABILITY This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that the new or updated plan addresses each requirement. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. Note: Receiving an N in the shaded columns will not preclude the plan from passing. To check boxes, double click on the box and Hazards A. Overall A. Types and Number B. Types and change the default value Identified Per Summary B. Hazard of Existing Structures Number of Future A. Loss Estimate B. Methodology to “checked.” Hazard Type Requirement Description of Impact in Hazard Area Structures in Hazard §201.6(c)(2)(i) Vulnerability (Estimate) Area (Estimate) Yes N S N S N S N S N S N S Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Wildfire Windstorm Other Structures Identifying Vulnerability: Assessing §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Other Losses Potential Estimating Vulnerability: Assessing §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Other

Legend: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of vulnerability to each hazard? future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of B. Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?

JULY 1, 2008 A-14 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK MATRIX C: IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS

This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure consideration of a range of actions for each hazard. Completing the matrix is not required.

Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.

Hazards Identified A. Comprehensive Per Requirement Range of Actions To check boxes, double Hazard Type §201.6(c)(2)(i) and Projects click on the box and Yes N S change the default value Avalanche to “checked.” Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other

Legend: §201.6(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?

JULY 1, 2008 A-15

Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation

CONTENTS: 1. Pitkin County Public Outreach Highlights 2. Public Safety Council Contact List 3. PDMP Outreach List 4. PDMP Local Planning Committee Invitation and Information Packet 5. Aspen/Pitkin Emergency Management Website, June 2011 6. Aspen/Pitkin Emergency Management Website, July 2011 7. Aspen/Pitkin Emergency Management Website, June 2011 8. Aspen/Pitkin Emergency Management Website, September 2011 9. Grassroots Government TV: Workshops 1 & 2 TV air dates 10. Public Safety Council Agenda, May 4, 2011 11. Public Safety Council Agenda, June 1, 2011 12. Public Safety Council Agenda, August 10, 2011 13. Email Announcements: Draft PDMP Public Review Period 14. Pitkin County Facebook Post, 06/15/2011: PDMP Workshop Announcement 15. PitkinSheriff Tweet: PDMP Public Review Period 16. The Aspen Times, 06/23/2011, Event Calendar: 6/23/11 PDMP Meeting 17. Aspen Daily News, 06/22/2011, News Brief: Pre-Disaster Meeting 18. Aspen Daily News, 07/11/2011, This Week in Pitkin County: Invitation to Workshop 2 19. Aspen Daily News, 07/18/2011, This Week in Pitkin County: Invitation to Workshop 2 20. Aspen Daily News, 09/12/2011, This Week in Pitkin County: Announcement of Public Review Period 21. Aspen Daily News, 09/02/2011, Community Brief: Disaster plan draft to be released 22. Aspen Daily News, 08/08/2011, Local News: City IDs need for a disaster plan

DRAFT B-1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan

23. The Aspen Times, 06/08/2011: Officials plan for disasters 24. Aspen Daily News, 07/14/2011: Second pre-disaster meeting 25. The Aspen Times, 09/15/2011: Plan pegs wildfire as county’s top disaster risk 26. Agenda: PDMP Workshop 1, 06/23/2011 27. Sign-In Sheet: PDMP Workshop 1, 06/23/2011 28. Handout: FEMA Long List of Potential Hazards 29. Handout: Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 30. Results of Workshop 1: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 31. Agenda: PDMP Workshop 2, 07/21/2011 32. Sign-In Sheet: PDMP Workshop 2, 07/21/2011 33. Handout/Homework Assignment: Description of Previous Natural Hazard Occurrences 34. Agenda: Carbondale Fire PDMP Teleconference, 08/18/2011 35. Meeting Minutes: Carbondale Fire PDMP Teleconference, 08/18/2011

B-2 DRAFT

4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER9THEXI

Pitkin County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Project Kick-Off Meeting/Workshop #1 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment June 23, 2011 Council Chambers 8:30 am to 12:30 pm

AGENDA

8:30 Welcome and Introductions

8:40 Review Workshop Agenda and Goals

8:45 Purpose and Benefits of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

9:00 Public Involvement Process and Schedule Opportunities for public involvement Schedule and workshops Participating jurisdiction/stakeholder requirements and draft list of participating jurisdictions Discussion

9:30 Risk Assessment Review and Discussion FEMA hazard list Group exercise 2005 plan hazards and proposed 2011 hazards 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER9THEXI

Critical facilities discussion Format for risk assessment and vulnerability analysis Discussion

10:30 BREAK

10:45 Mitigation Goals, Objectives & Actions 2005 goals and objectives Proposed 2011 goal and objectives Group exercise for objectives Review STAPLEE list and example Homework for participating jurisdictions – (review 2005 action items, determine status, and develop new 2011 action items (matrices to be provided)

12:15 Discussion and Next Steps Opportunities for feedback [email protected] , “PDMP” in subject line) Next workshop (July 21, 2011) Homework assignments Other

12:30 Adjournment

4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER 9THEXI

FEMA Long List of Potential Hazards

Avalanche: a mass of snow, ice, and debris; flowing and sliding rapidly down a steep slope. (also called snowslides).

Drought: an extended period of dry weather, especially one injurious to crops. Earthquake: a vibration or movement of a part of the earth’s surface, due to the faulting of rocks, to volcanic forces, etc.

Wildfire: “an open fire which spreads unconstrained through the environment. If not quickly controlled, the result can be a firestorm, often termed a ‘conflagration,’ which destroys large amounts of property and threatens lives.” (Colorado State Forest Service 1995)

Floods: Accumulation of water within a water body and the overflow of excess water onto adjacent floodplain lands (FEMA 1997).

Hailstorms: showery precipitation in the form of irregular pellets or balls of ice …, falling from a cumulonimbus cloud.

Landslides, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfalls:

landslide - downward and outward movement of slopes composed of natural rock, soils artificial fills, or combinations thereof. Common names for landslide types include slump, rockslide, debris slide, lateral spreading, debris avalanche, earth flow, and soil creep (Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)).

mud flow - a mass of water and fine-grained earth materials that flows down a stream, ravine, canyon, arroyo or gulch (CGS).

debris flow - if more than half of the solids in the mass are larger than sand grains- rocks, stones, boulders, the event is called a debris flow (CGS).

rockfall - the falling of a newly detached mass of rock from a cliff or down a very steep slope (CGS).

Lightning: a luminous, electrical discharge in the atmosphere caused by the electric-charge separation of precipitation particles within a cumulonimbus, or thunderstorm, cloud.

Subsidence: “… the sinking of the land over manmade or natural underground voids. In Colorado, the type of subsidence of greatest concern is the settling of the ground over abandoned mine workings.” (From CGS Special Publication 12, http://geosurvey.state. co.us/pubs/geo-hazards/docs/sp12.htm). Tornados: a localized, violently destructive windstorm occurring over land, especially in the mid-western U.S., and characterized by a long, funnel-shaped cloud, composed of condensation and containing debris, that extends to the ground and marks the path of greatest destruction.

Windstorms: characterized by wind gusts air in motion, as along the earth’s surface.

Winter Weather: characterized as a blizzard, which is a heavy and prolonged snowstorm covering a wide area. A blizzard combines heavy snowfall, high winds, extreme cold and ice storms. 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER9THEXI

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure

Critical (or essential) facilities can be described as services, places, or key infrastructure and resources that are integral for day-to-day operations for the function of the County and its local jurisdictions. These facilities are especially important during and after a hazard event. Critical facilities include hospitals, schools, fire stations, and more. Critical facilities typically fall within the following categories:

Police Stations Fire Facilities Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) and Command Centers Hospitals Schools (public and private) Dams Major Bridges Communication Towers City Buildings Wastewater Treatment Facilities Wastewater Storage Facilities Public Airports Others? 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

RESULTS OF WORKSHOP #1: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT

JUNE 23, 2011

1. Risk Assessment

Prioritization of Natural Hazards: Workshop participants reviewed a long-list of potential natural-hazard hazard categories, prioritized categories through a “dot” exercise, and reached consensus on prioritizing the following categories: Wildfire Winter Storms Landslides, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfalls Flood

Notes: Avalanches were a natural hazard category that was prioritized in the 2005 PDMP, but was removed from the list of prioritized hazards during the group exercise. URS will complete data collection, including previous occurrences, for the risk assessment. If the data analysis reveals a need to consider other hazard categories for prioritization, URS will confer with participating jurisdictions and revisit the recommended list of natural-hazard categories.

Prioritization of Human-Caused -Hazards: Workshop participants reviewed a long-list of potential human-caused hazard categories, prioritized categories through a “dot” exercise, and reached consensus on prioritizing the following categories: Special Events Aviation Pandemics Terrorism Traffic Casualties Infrastructure (Power Outage, Water Contamination) Transported Hazardous Material

Notes: Categories of human-caused hazards will be described in the PDMP. URS will also clarify the relationship between mitigation plans and processes for human-caused hazards and the updated PDMP, which will focus on natural hazard categories.

1 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

2. Goals and Objectives

Goals: Workshop participants reached agreement on consolidating the goals from the 2005 PDMP into two overarching goals for the updated PDMP. The updated goals include:

Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and damage to the natural environment by natural hazards.

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

Objectives: Workshop participants worked in small break-out groups to review 2005 PDMP objectives and suggest revisions. A common theme of this exercise was to broaden the relevance of each objective to include multi-hazards. The result of this exercise and the following synthesis of recommendations by URS are presented below.

2005 PDMP Objective #1: Improve emergency response capability.

Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Continue to prepare (train and equip) emergency response capability. Identify need and improve emergency response capability. Improve regional coordinated emergency response capability to include management and long-term events. Manage long-term events – provide infrastructure and management personnel. Improve emergency response capability through improved interagency cooperation (written mutual aid).

Recommended Update: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies.

Suggested mitigation considerations – improve the interoperability and communication between neighboring counties and districts; develop community-wide system for exercising all emergency plans and protocols; improve interagency communication.

2 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

2005 PDMP Objective #2: Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to reduce impact from hazards.

Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Give regulations teeth so they can be enforced. More staff for zoning. Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards with enforcement capability. Accomplished through land use codes.

Recommended Update: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards.

Suggested mitigation considerations – more zoning staff; strengthen land use codes

2005 PDMP Objective #3: Improve identification and characterization of hazards.

Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Improve to find new and better ways. Through mapping and re-evaluating as necessary.

Recommended Update: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas.

3 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

2005 PDMP Objective #4: Improve early warning and alerting systems for seasonal flooding within the hazard areas.

Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Improve early warning and alerting systems – update Pitkin Alert to fit more categories. Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to the community of affected areas. Improve early warning and alerting systems for hazard areas. Identify and improve early warning and altering systems for all hazards within hazard area. Improve early warning and alerting systems for seasonal and flash flooding within hazard areas through multimedia and interpersonal direct contact communication with public.

Recommended Update: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas.

Suggested mitigation considerations – update Pitkin Alert to fit more categories; utilize multimedia and interpersonal direct contact communication

2005 PDMP Objective #5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk landslide hazard areas.

Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Improve physical mitigation actions. Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. Improve physical mitigation actions and public awareness for high risk landslide hazard areas.

Recommended Update: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas.

4 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

2005 PDMP Objective #6: Improve training and public awareness for avalanche mitigation.

Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Improve training and public education. Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. Identify and improve training and public awareness for all hazard mitigations. Improve training and public awareness for wildfire and flood mitigation. Improve training, prevention, education and public awareness.

Recommended Update: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation.

Suggested mitigation considerations – incorporate prevention into public education campaigns.

2005 PDMP Objective #7: Reduce the threat to critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property.

Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. Reduce the threat, and improve redundancy and availability of critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property.

Recommended Update: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure.

Suggested mitigation considerations – improve redundancy of infrastructure, like roadway access.

5 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

2005 PDMP Objective #8: Implement Roaring Fork Stabilization Plan.

Suggested Revisions from Break-Out Groups: Upper Basalt Roaring Fork River Flood Control Plan Remove as objective and consider under implementation actions.

Recommended Update: Remove Objective #8 and incorporate into mitigation actions.

Suggested New Objectives from Break-Out Groups: 1. Improve regionally coordinated planning and response. See Objective #1. 2. Develop community-wide system for exercising all emergency plans and protocols. See Objective #1. 3. Improve interagency communication. See Objective #1. 4. Improve the interoperability and communication between neighboring counties and districts. See Objective #1. 5. Improve recovery capabilities.

Recommended Updates:

Incorporate Suggested New Objectives #1-4 into Updated Objective #1.

Add New Objective: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning.

6 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

Summary of Updated PDMP Objectives:

1. Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies.

2. Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards.

3. Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas.

4. Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas.

5. Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas.

6. Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation.

7. Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure.

8. Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning.

7 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER9THEXI

Pitkin County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Project Workshop #2 Mitigation Actions July 21, 2011 Aspen City Hall Council Chambers 8:30 am to 12:30 pm

AGENDA

8:30 Welcome, Introductions, and Meeting “To Do List”

8:45 Review and Confirm List and Responsibilities of Participating Jurisdictions

9:00 Planning for Natural Hazards and Human-Caused Hazards Relationship between Incident Management Planning and Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Incorporating Discussion of Human-Caused in the PDMP

9:15 Review Results of Workshop #1 Prioritized Hazards and Natural Hazards Risk Assessment Plan Objectives

9:30 Discuss Capabilities of Participating Jurisdictions Small group breakouts with worksheets 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER9THEXI

9:45 Review Status of 2005 Plan Action Items Open discussion

10:15 Break

10:30 Develop 2011 Mitigation Actions Introduction (State DEM representative) Small group breakout Small groups report to entire group

12:15 Discussion and Next Steps Opportunities for feedback [email protected] , “PDMP” in subject line) Actions to complete the PDMP Report compilation and draft Other

12:30 Adjournment

4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

*SVQ(IWGVMTXMSRSJ4VIZMSYW2EXYVEP,E^EVH3GGYVVIRGIW

&EGOKVSYRHERH4YVTSWI Participants in Workshop #1 reviewed a long-list of potential natural-hazard hazard categories, prioritized categories, and reached consensus on prioritizing the following hazards that are likely to affect Pitkin County:

• Landslides, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfalls • Flood • Wildfire • Winter Storms

An important step in estimating the likelihood of future occurrences and developing mitigation strategies for potential hazards is to understand previous occurrences. The planning team is in the process of updating the description of previous hazard occurrences in Pitkin County. We have listed hazard events that were included in the 2005 Plan and have added information from available datasets, but there's nothing like getting information from local sources - people like you who have lived through and experienced the impacts of these natural hazards first-hand.

The purpose of this “homework assignment” is to develop a more complete picture of natural hazards that have impacted Pitkin County throughout its history.

-RWXVYGXMSRW 1. Read the description of previous occurrences for each hazard on the following pages.  If you would like to add information, or a narrative about a particular sample event, or provide a new one, type your information where it is requested in red. .YWXGPMGOSRXLIWLEHIHEVIEWERH WXEVXX]TMRK 3. Return via e-mail to [email protected] by Friday, July 15th.

Thank you for your participation in this important process!

1 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

0ERHWPMHIW1YHJPS[(IFVMW*PS[ERH6SGOJEPPW4VIZMSYW3GGYVVIRGIW Pitkin County too continues to face its share of landslide-related problems and, despite conscientious land use planning, concerns remain in many areas of the county, including but not limited to Aspen Mountain, Snowmass Village and Redstone. Examples of historical problems, some of which continue to this day, are set forth below: 8EFPI<0ERHWPMHIWERH6SGOWPMHIWMR4MXOMR'SYRX] 7,)0(97 4VSTIVX] (EXI -RNYVMIW *EXEPMXMIW (EQEKIW 8]TI 11/25/2004 0 0 $466,666 Landslide 1/1/2006 0 0 $23,333 Landslide 2/20/2007 0 1 $0 Rockslide 7/21/2008 0 0 $333 Landslide 5/11/2009 0 0 $33,333 Landslide *Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database.

Sample events are described below.

0ERHWPMHI7EQTPI )ZIRX;SSH]'VIIO6SEH1YHWPMHIMR In 1984, a mudslide washed out Woody Creek Road seven miles from its intersection with River Road causing evacuations and personal injuries. 0ERHWPMHI7EQTPI)ZIRX'EWXPI'VIIO1YHWPMHIMR In 1993, a large mudslide occurred on Castle Creek and damaged the Aspen Music School. 0ERHWPMHI7EQTPI)ZIRX7LEPI&PYJJW1YHWPMHIMR During President Clinton’s visit to the area in 1994, a major mudslide occurred in the area known as Shale Bluffs, west of the Pitkin County Airport. 0ERHWPMHI7EQTPI)ZIRX0ERHWPMHIEX%WTIR'SYRXV](E]7GLSSPMR In the spring of 1997, a landslide developed in a tributary drainage to Castle Creek. The volume of the landslide was estimated to be approximately 50,000 cubic meters and the flow inundated the parking lot of the Aspen Country Day School, damaging six cars and impacting school buildings and grounds. No injuries were reported and classes were relocated for the remainder of the year. Source: http://landslides.usgs.gov/recent/archives/1997aspen.php.

2 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

0ERHWPMHI 7EQTPI)ZIRX%WTIR1SYRXEMR;IWX7MHIMR In May, 1996, two destructive debris flows occurred on the west side of Aspen Mountain, despite mitigation measures that had been put in place. The area remains capable of additional debris flows, and facilities and residents are at risk each spring. Essentially the entire Aspen Mountain area is fraught with potential landslide-related conditions and the state’s hazard plan cautions residents, local officials and resort facility owners and developers to bear this in mind for future development and operating plans and decisions. Do you have anything to add? Based on your local knowledge of the area, please describe Sample Events that provide an example of the conditions and impacts of landslides, mudflow/debris flow, and rockfalls on Pitkin County:

0ERHWPMHI7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the rockslide/landslide here:

Describe the rockslide/landslide and its impacts here:

0ERHWPMHI7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the rockslide/landslide here:

Describe the rockslide/landslide and its impacts here:

0ERHWPMHI7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the rockslide/landslide here:

Describe the rockslide/landslide and its impacts here:

3 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

7IEWSREP*PEWL*PSSHMRK4VIZMSYW3GGYVVIRGIW Flooding has occurred numerous times in the Roaring Fork Basin at the confluence of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers, with a 50-year event occurring in 1957.

8EFPI Error! No text of specified style in document.*PSSH,MWXSV]JSV4MXOMR'SYRX] (EXE =IEV (IWGVMTXMSRSJ)ZIRX 7SYVGI 6/17/1965 Flood description not provided. $3,846,000 in damages. SHELDUS 6/7/1979 Flood description not provided. SHELDUS 5/1/1984 Flood description not provided. $172,000 in damages. SHELDUS 7/11/1995 Rapid snowmelt resulted in flooding along the Roaring Fork River in Basalt. A mobile NCDC home park and basements were flooded. A levee was eroded and a section of old Highway 82 was washed out. 7/22/1997 Heavy rains from a thunderstorm resulted in five mudslides across a five-mile stretch NCDC of Colorado Highway 133 near Redstone. 1 to 3 feet of mud and debris closed both lanes of the highway for about an hour, before state maintenance crews were able to open one lane. It took another six hours to clear the remaining debris before both lanes were open. 7/22/1997 Heavy rains resulted in a mudslide across Colorado Highway 133, 3 miles south of NCDC Redstone, closing the road for about an hour. The mud and debris was 4 to 5 feet deep along a 30 foot stretch of the highway. 9/4/1997 Heavy rains resulted in a mud slide which blocked a road in a subdivision located one NCDC/ mile south of Redstone. $5,000 in damages. SHELDUS 9/4/1997 See Sample Event 2. NCDC 7/21/1998 Heavy rainfall resulted in a flow of mud and debris several feet deep across a 25 foot NCDC stretch of Maroon Creek Road. 7/27/1998 Heavy rainfall over a two to three hour period caused a flow of mud and rock several NCDC feet deep to cover a 50 foot stretch of Castle Creek Road. 7/31/1998 A four foot wall of water came roaring down Avalanche Creek and washed out a NCDC section of a trail near a campground. 7/28/1999 See Sample Event 3. NCDC/ SHELDUS 7/28/1999 A photographer was out of his vehicle taking pictures on the flanks of Mount Sopris NCDC/ and became trapped by a flash flood which inundated his van with water and mud. SHELDUS The flash flood also washed out the road. The initial wall of water was 10 feet high, while the crest of the flash flood was about 15 feet high. The water and debris crashed into several culverts, causing them to explode; eight-inch steel I-beams were twisted like straws. The incident occurred six miles northeast of Redstone. $180,000 in damages. 8/6/2001 Heavy rain from a strong thunderstorm resulted in water up to a foot deep along NCDC Highway 133 south of Redstone, along with mud and rock slides across portions of the highway.

4 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

(EXE =IEV (IWGVMTXMSRSJ)ZIRX 7SYVGI 8/6/2001 Heavy rainfall from a strong thunderstorm produced a torrent of water across portions NCDC of the Maroon Creek Road. The flash flood also brought down debris which left up to a foot of mud and rocks on the road. 7/3/2006 Flood description not provided. $40,000 in damages. SHELDUS 7/18-19/ Heavy rain producing thunderstorms caused flash flooding across a forest service NCDC 2007 road between Highway 133 and the Avalanche Creek Campground. About 3 feet of debris was deposited on the road in the wake of the flash flood. Dozens of campers were stranded in the campground until the next day. An influx of monsoonal moisture resulted in an outbreak of heavy rain producing thunderstorms. $7,000 in damages. 7/18/2007 Heavy rain caused water and debris to flow down a normally dry drainage running NCDC/ through the Maroon Creek Day Use Area provided by the USFS. The water and debris SHELDUS average depth was 5 feet with a width of 30 feet. The flash flood hit the Maroon Creek Road and a trailhead parking lot where it spread out about 100 feet wide, clogging culverts and burying the road and day-use area under 1 to 2 feet of debris. Improved trails were destroyed and tons of debris had to be removed from the road and day-use area. Additionally, hailstones up to 1/2 inch diameter accompanied the heavy rain. There were people camping nearby in tents when the event occurred. Heavy rain producing thunderstorms caused flash flooding southwest of Aspen in a recreational day-use area. 7/26/2009 Heavy rainfall resulted in a flash flood with a large amount of mud that flowed across NCDC Highway 133. When the flooding stopped, it left a deposit of mud on the Highway up to 4 feet deep. The highway was opened to traffic within two hours after the flash flooding ended.

Sample events, many of which are the result of seasonal runoff, are described below.

*PSSH7EQTPI)ZIRX*PSSHWSJ

A Presidential Disaster was declared in Pitkin County due to the flooding of 1984. Following a winter of above-average snowpack, resulting mudslides and water floods in Aspen and Snowmass Village caused damages to roadways, bridges, recreational facilities and public property. According to Tom Grady, “That was the year the Chateau Eau Claire and Chateau Roaring Fork condominium complexes had flooding up to the balconies. That year the Roaring Fork River also flooded into the Aspen Art Museum.”

*PSSH7EQTPI)ZIRX*PEWL*PSSH;IWXSJ7RS[QEWWMR

A flash flood four miles west of Snowmass in 1997 produced a mudslide that buried a 30 foot stretch of Highway 82 near Basalt with mud two to four feet deep, and took road crews seven hours to clear.

5 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

*PSSH7EQTPI)ZIRX*PEWL*PSSHWEGVSWW7,MR

In 1999, heavy rains caused two flash floods that were estimated at up to six feet deep across SH 133, and caused approximately $150,000 in damages.

Do you have anything to add? Based on your local knowledge of the area, please describe Sample Events that provide an example of the conditions and impacts of floods on Pitkin County:

*PSSH7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the flood here:

Describe the flood and its impacts here:

*PSSH7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the flood here:

Describe the flood and its impacts here:

*PSSH7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the flood here:

Describe the flood and its impacts here:

6 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

;MRXIV7XSVQW4VIZMSYW3GGYVVIRGIW In 2005, Pitkin County’s emergency experts provided information for the 2005 PDMP about winter storms that extended back 22 years. Based on their collective experiences, it was estimated that winter storms, characterized in the county by “Accident Alert” designations, generally close Highway 82 approximately twice each season. Highway 82 is the major transportation artery running through Pitkin County, but despite its occasional closure during severe winter storms, county officials characterize the community as adequately prepared.

In recent history, there have been 44 severe winter storms recorded in Pitkin County. The following table shows the results from the SHELDUS database for storms from 1960 to 2007. It is important to note that SHELDUS data provides information on a county average basis. The number of injuries, fatalities, and property damages associated with a particular event are equally distributed amongst the affected counties for that hazard event. For example, if 5 deaths were attributed to a blizzard that affected 20 counties, then each county would show 0.25 deaths for that event.

8EFPI<7MKRMJMGERX;MRXIV7XSVQWMR4MXOMR'SYRX] 7,)0(97 (EXI -RNYVMIW *EXEPMXMIW 4VSTIVX](EQEKIW 7XSVQ'LEVEGXIVMWXMGW 4/30/1960 0 0 $0 Freeze 9/2/1961 0 0 $1,315 Snow 9/20/1961 0 0 $312 Heavy Snow 1/8/1962 0 0.16 $7,936 Cold, snow, and wind 1/10/1963 0 0 $79 Cold 4/18/1966 0 0 $79 Snow and Cold 4/20/1967 0 0 $0 Freezing Temperatures 1/25/1969 0.06 0 $27 Snow 10/11/1969 0.03 0 $793 Snow, Cold, Wind 10/13/1969 0 0 $0 Cold 10/29/1969 0 0 $0 Snow 3/1/1970 0 0 $312 Heavy Snow 9/16/1971 0 0 $793 Snow, Cold 5/20/1974 0 0 $0 Freeze 11/24/1975 0 0 $21 Heavy Snow, Wind 2/19/1976 0 0.02 $0 Winter storm 4/18/1978 0 0 $0 Freeze 12/5/1978 0 0.02 $0 Heavy Snow, Cold 12/17/1978 0 0.14 $0 Ice, Heavy Snow 5/7/1979 0 0 $12 Snow 11/19/1979 0.02 0 $793 Blizzard 2/1/1982 0 0 $79 Snow, Cold 12/23/1982 0 0.1 $793,651 Blizzard 3/14/1983 0 0 $793 Heavy Snow 11/26/1983 0 0 $7,936 Snow, Wind

8 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

(EXI -RNYVMIW *EXEPMXMIW 4VSTIVX](EQEKIW 7XSVQ'LEVEGXIVMWXMGW 4/19/1984 0 0 $793 Snow/Wind 6/6/1984 0 0 $4,166 Snow 1/30/1985 0 0.08 $793 Extreme Cold 1/31/1985 0 0 $793 Extreme Cold 10/10/1986 0 0 $847 Snow 1/17/1988 0 0 $125 Heavy Snow, Wind 2/1/1989 0.32 0 $79,365 Cold 2/1/1989 0.05 0 $793 Snow 3/2/1992 0.02 0 $1,063 Heavy Snow 1/10/1993 0 0 $2,777 Heavy Snow 2/8/1995 0 1 $40,697 Heavy Snow 2/20/1996 0.1 0.05 $0 Heavy Snow 2/22/1996 0.36 0 $0 Winter Storm 12/8/1998 0 0 $15,000 Winter Storm 10/18/2005 0 0 $384 Winter Weather/Mix 11/14/2005 0 0 $166 Winter Weather/Mix 10/20/2007 0 0 $625 Winter Storm 10/20/2007 0 0 $333 Winter Weather *Damages, Injuries, and Fatalities are divided between the affected counties for any one documented disaster within the SHELDUS database.

Do you have anything to add? Based on your local knowledge of the area, please describe Sample Events that provide an example of the conditions and impacts of winter storms on Pitkin County:

;MRXIV7XSVQ7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the winter storm here:

Describe the winter storm and its impacts here:

;MRXIV7XSVQ7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the winter storm here:

Describe the winter storm and its impacts here:

;MRXIV7XSVQ7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the winter storm here:

Describe the winter storm and its impacts here:

9 08/18/11

Carbondale Fire PDMP Teleconference Agenda

Deanne Butterbaugh, Colorado Division of Emergency Management David Cooper, URS consultant Vern Holmes, Carbondale Fire Emergency Manager Darryl Grob, Pitkin Emergency Manager Consultant

Scheduled for Thursday, August 18, 2011. Call-in to Carbondale Fire 970-963-2491 Darryl Grob and Vern Holmes will be in attendance at the Carbondale Firehouse. Program documents will be reviewed prior to the call.

1. Review purpose of plan Public involvement - posted and email address for invites

Validate Carbondale Emergency Manager review and briefing

Darryl Grob

2. Review topics covered - review agendas 1 & 2 walk-through

David Cooper

3. Mitigation actions - existing and/or proposed projects

Darryl Grob

4. Additional thoughts

All

Prepared by: Darryl Grob, Consultant Pitkin County Emergency Manager Aspen, Colorado 970-379-1377 [email protected]

%TTIRHM\'1MXMKEXMSR%GXMSR)ZEPYEXMSR

CONTENTS: 1. Status of 2005 PDMP Action Items 2. Evaluation Criteria for Mitigation Actions (FEMA STAPLEE) 3. Potential Mitigation Actions 4. Action Items for Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning

DRAFT C-1

Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County – 2005 PDMP

WILDFIRE

Objective 1: Improve emergency response capability for wildfire within the planning area

Action Priority Current Status 1.1 Identify then certify all privately owned bridges with load Medium Ongoing. limits to support emergency response Municipal and County Codes ensure load-bearing minimums during land-use application and building permit processes.

1.2 Acquire 4-wheel drive pumper trucks Medium Ongoing

1.3 Have county staff certified by the National Wildfire Low Not sure what certification is referred to? Coordinating Group S130/190 red cards? ICS100, 200? ICS Position Specific? Fledgling but working, esp C'dale, Basalt. Type III IMT would be our limit.

Objective 2: Enhance community policies and procedures as preventive measures to reduce wildfire impact

Action Priority Current Status 2.1 Adoption of County-wide Wildfire regulations (Pitkin) High Incomplete. Land use application process includes a 1041 review process - but no follow-up or enforcement is enabled subsequently without a Wildfire Code adoption. 2.2 Strengthen and formalize oversight and enforcement for Medium Complete compliance to land use standards (H.B. 1041) 2.3 Develop, implement and promote subdivision wildfire Medium Ongoing with Fire Protection Districts protection protocols (Protocols are to be targeted as an alternative to laws.) 2.4 Implement code changes so that new developments shall Medium Complete given cul-de-sac or K-turn requirements. have dual ingress / egress to support emergency response and evacuation

1 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County – 2005 PDMP

Objective 3: Reduce the wildfire threat to critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property

Action Priority Current Status 3.1 Develop and implement a voluntary wildfire protection Medium Complete programs for residents within wildfire urban interface 3.2 Develop and implement fuel-reduction projects Medium Ongoing with Fire Protection Districts and Inter-Agency Cooperation programs.

WINTER STORM

Objective 1: Improve emergency response capability for winter storm response within the planning area

Action Priority Current Status 1.1 Incorporate GIS layer for Land-Ownership Parcels into Medium Not complete emergency-response procedures 1.2 Identify and improve bridges within the planning area that Low County bridges are adequate. More remote bridges, like USFS are inadequate for emergency response bridges, have not been studied.

Objective 2: Improve early notification capabilities for Winter Storm events

Action Priority Current Status 2.1 Establish Storm Ready Programs, adapted for Winter Storms, Medium Complete. Upgraded notification, evacuation routes, reverse within the Pitkin Eagle planning area 911, RAFTA and Red Cross for evacuation, 10,000+ beds, PSA’s. 2.2 Expand radio coverage within the counties to better support Low Complete the All Hazard warning / alert system (NOAA weather alert system)

2 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County – 2005 PDMP

AVALANCHE

Objective 1: Improve training and public awareness for avalanche mitigation

Action Priority Current Status 1.1 Expand current public avalanche training sessions High Complete

1.2 Implement advanced avalanche training for public High participation 1.3 Develop web-portal with near real-time localized weather / Medium avalanche hazard forecast linked to the Counties’ websites

Objective 2: Improve emergency response capability for avalanche response within hazard areas

Action Priority Current Status 2.1 Provide additional training for emergency response staff Medium Complete (Mountain Rescue) using American Avalanche Training curriculum 2.2 Organize and fund a committee to evaluate cost / benefit / Low Complete impact of RECCO technology deployment for location and recovery of victims

Objective 3: Improve identification and characterization of avalanche hazards

Action Priority Current Status 3.1 Update mapping of avalanche-prone areas within the County High Not Complete and participating jurisdictions and incorporate into GIS for public distribution 3.2 Conduct or promote studies to identify critical assets and Medium Not complete services at risk from avalanche hazards within the County and participating jurisdictions

3 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County – 2005 PDMP

ROCKSLIDE / LANDSLIDE

Objective 1: Improve emergency response capability for landslide response within hazard areas

Action Priority Current Status 1.1 Implement warning and alert systems with specific coverage High Two notification systems in place: Pitkin of the hazard areas Alert (non geo-based) and Target Notification (geo-based) in place. There are not any predefined canned notifications for high risk areas for rockslide/landslide notifications. 1.2 Implement and publicize emergency shelters for use Medium Not complete immediately following a landslide event 1.3 Prioritize wildfire mitigation in Landslide hazard areas to Medium improve secondary impact of Landslide following a wildfire 1.4 Verify, and provide as justified, dual ingress / egress in Low Not complete, or needed. landslide hazard areas to support emergency response and evacuation

Objective 2: Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to reduce impact from landslide

Action Priority Current Status 2.1 Review and implement or update as necessary Land Use Medium Regulations relevant to Rockslide / Landslide 2.2 Review and implement or update as necessary Building and Medium Grading codes in the hazard areas 2.3 Implement enhanced oversight and enforcement of HB 1041 Medium

2.4 Implement ‘overlay zoning’ provisions to minimize Medium development in high risk areas 2.5 Establish Special planning Districts for Landslide hazard areas Medium

2.6 Develop public awareness programs to notify stakeholders in Low = hazard areas of policies and regulations in the areas 2.7 Expand use of risk assessment to guide future land use and Low policy formation

4 Mitigation Actions for Natural Hazards Pitkin County – 2005 PDMP

Objective 3: Improve identification and characterization of landslide hazards

Action Priority Current Status 3.1 Improve mapping in the hazard areas and incorporate results High Not complete into GIS 3.2 Conduct a planning session with the CGS, CDOT and Dept. of Medium Not complete Natural Resources to identify and prioritize Landslide mitigation techniques relevant to the planning area 3.3 Create or update as necessary maps useful planning and Medium Not complete public, including landslide inventories, landslide-susceptibility maps and landslide hazard maps

Objective 4: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk landslide hazard areas

Action Priority Current Status 4.1 Review high and medium risk landslide hazard areas and High Aspen Skiing Company did not take any action specifically in evaluate and prioritize for physical mitigation systems. response to the 2005 Plan. We have been doing many things Specifically target mitigation actions for potential impact to over the years that help prevent damage to the St. Regis and St. Regis Hotel. that neighborhood that could result from Rockslide/Landslide. Among them: Jersey barriers placed along the Summer Rd. at the top of Strawpile ski run to catch rock fall from Trainor’s; Subsurface horizontal drains in Strawpile; Snow is pushed off Strawpile into Corkscrew Gully after the season; Some snow piles left on Strawpile to catch or slow falling rocks

5 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update

Evaluation Criteria for Mitigation Actions STAPLE/E Evaluation Discussion Considerations Category “It is important to consider…”

Social The public support for the overall mitigation strategy and x Community acceptance specific mitigation actions. x Adversely affects population Technical If the mitigation action is technically feasible and if it is the whole x Technical feasibility or partial solution. x Long-term solutions x Secondary impacts Administrative If the community has the personnel and administrative x Staffing capabilities necessary to implement the action or whether x Funding allocation outside help will be necessary. x Maintenance/operations Political What the community and its members feel about issues related x Political support to the environment, economic development, safety, and x Local champion emergency management. x Public support Legal Whether the community has the legal authority to implement the x Local, state, and federal authority action, or whether the community must pass new regulations. x Potential legal challenge Economic If the action can be funded with current or future internal and x Benefit/cost of action external sources, if the costs seem reasonable for the size of x Contributes to other economic goals the project, and if enough information is available to complete a x Outside funding required FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis. x FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis Environmental The impact on the environment because of public desire for a x Effect on local flora and fauna sustainable and environmentally healthy community. x Consistent with community environmental goals x Consistent with local, state, and federal laws 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

;MPHJMVI4VIZMSYW3GGYVVIRGIW The 2002 wildfire season was the worst in United States history, with some 2.3 million acres burned, 2.1 million more than in 2000. In Colorado, 4,612 wildfires burned over 619,000 acres that year and cost approximately $152 million in suppression costs. Approximately 81,400 people were evacuated and about 1,000 structures burned. In addition, nine lives were lost. Based on a 10-year average, Colorado typically experiences 3,119 wildfires with a loss of 70,000 acres per year.

History shows that most of Colorado’s wildfires are caused by lightning strikes from the many thunderstorms that pass through the state on a regular basis during the summer months. The Pitkin area is, unfortunately, not exempt from these weather conditions. Many of the storms fail to produce rain, and the lightning strikes sometimes create hotspots of fire that have the potential to grow into larger full-fledged fires. The hotspots can spread over a large area and are very challenging for fire crews to locate and control. They also place a strain on fire suppression equipment and supplies, and many times the hotspots occur deep within the forest and go unnoticed until a larger fire erupts.

The chances for fire are now increasing due to the epidemic infestation of the mountain pine beetle. They have impacted 1.5 million acres in Colorado to date. Pitkin County is approximately 50 percent forested, but the mix of coniferous and deciduous trees is not quantitatively tracked by the USFS or Pitkin County, and without stand-level analysis the percentage of coniferous trees susceptible to mountain pine beetle is not known. Nevertheless, the Pitkin County Wildland Fire Plan (July 2009 Draft) has made efforts to predict fire behavior and develop appropriate planning for the types of live and dead vegetation fuels found in stands of trees with mountain pine beetle.

Do you have anything to add? Based on your local knowledge of the area, please describe Sample Events that provide an example of the conditions and impacts of wildfires on Pitkin County:

;MPHJMVI7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the wildfire here:

Describe the wildfire and its impacts here:

;MPHJMVI7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the wildfire here:

Describe the wildfire and its impacts here:

;MPHJMVI7EQTPI)ZIRX

Provide the year and location of the wildfire here:

Describe the wildfire and its impacts here:

7 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS

Flood

If participating in NFIP, you are required to identify and prioritize at least one action related to NFIP compliance

“Community will continue to comply with NFIP” does not constitute an action

Update and improve floodplain regulations

Update and improve building codes and zoning ordinances

Update maps (find funding and develop maps with hydraulic/hydrologic analysis,)

Enroll communities in the NFIP or CRS that have not already done so

Work with floodplain manager to identify and pursue NFIP-approved actions to improve CRS rating

Update data/information/mapping on interface between critical facilities and the floodplain

Work with floodplain managers and public works agencies to identify potential future projects that correspond with high-risk areas

Channel stabilization

Storm drainage improvements, i.e. diversion ponds (identify specific locations where this is needed)

Replace or retrofit bridges and/or culverts to improve channel capacity and take homes, businesses, and/or critical infrastructure out of the 100 year floodplain

Conduct annual dam safety exercises for Class I and II dams

Wildfire

Develop Firewise program in vulnerable communities

Develop or update a Community Wildfire Protection Plan

Identify areas with heavy fuel loads and implement fuels reduction projects (if possible, explain what specific areas would be considered)

1 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

Conduct public education program to encourage and train property owners to manage fuel loads on their own properties and use fire-resistant building materials

Encourage use of fire resistant materials for all new developments in identified hazard risk areas

Retrofit critical facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. in the WUI with fire- resistant roofs, siding and/or windows

Address ingress/egress access issues in vulnerable subdivisions

Drought

Develop drought monitoring and response program

Can use state drought plan as reference

Identify potential actions that jurisdictions can implement during drought years

Public information/awareness programs during drought and non-drought years

Work with water supply organizations to promote conservation and efficiency initiatives (i.e. promoting federal tax credits for energy efficient appliances, tips on xeriscaping)

Water storage projects

Encourage purchase of crop insurance

Water use restrictions (during droughts)

Identify and pursue potential Federal infrastructure improvement grants to replace or improve aging water supply systems

Identify potential Federal (USDA) grants for irrigation systems improvements

Tornado/Severe Storms

Install, improve early warning systems

Identify and publicize storm shelter locations

Public education program for severe storms and tornadoes

Encourage/build safe rooms at schools, hospitals and other public buildings

2 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

Obtain StormReady designation

Encourage use of, or include high wind engineering in building codes:

Structural bracing

Straps and clips

Impact-resistant glass

Reinforced windows and doors

Hail-resistant and wind-resistant roofing

Bury power lines

Anchoring for mobile homes

Winter Storm

Identify and map winter weather shelters

Identify special needs populations and create policies and procedures to ensure their needs are met during a severe winter storm

Public information/awareness programs including promoting disaster kits and building maintenance

Inventory snow removal equipment and assess if more is needed

Inventory other resources and identify potential gaps in services

Bury utility lines

Building codes in relation to snow loads and roof slope

Install snow fences

Earthquake

Work with USGS and CGS to further explore and identify potential effects from faults in planning region

Collect/obtain information on building types (i.e. unreinforced masonry buildings, wood frame structures, etc) to identify vulnerable residences, businesses, schools, hospitals and other critical facilities

3 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI(MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

Landslide/Land Subsidence

Work with CGS, CDOT and USGS to further study and map vulnerable geologic hazard areas

Develop slope stabilization/debris flow reduction projects to protect homes and infrastructure (try to identify specific locations in need of this)

Energy dissipation

Flow control

Acquisition of structures on high risk/unstable slopes

Zoning ordinances and building codes

Open Space designations

Public Health

Conduct annual exercises for pandemic disease outbreaks

Work with CDPHE, USDHHS and CDC to develop or improve continuity of operations plans for hospitals and public health agencies

Identify gaps in resources/services

Develop and conduct public awareness and education program for pandemic diseases

Work with schools to develop or improve pandemic/public health emergency protocols

General Mitigation Actions

Evaluate and improve mutual aid agreements

Update land use plans to guide development away from identified hazard areas

Form and officially recognize Mitigation Advisory Committees/Hazard Mitigation Team to quarterly, bi-annually or annually evaluate progress of plan implementation

4 4MXOMR'SYRX]4VI (MWEWXIV1MXMKEXMSR4PER

*SVQ%GXMSR-XIQWJSV2EXYVEP,E^EVH1MXMKEXMSR4PERRMRK

&EGOKVSYRHERH4YVTSWI Participants in Workshop #1, held on June 23rd, identified the following goal for reducing risks to natural hazards in Pitkin County: 6IHYGIXLITSXIRXMEPJSVMQTEGXWSRLYQERPMJIERHWEJIX]TVSTIVX]PSWW ERHHEQEKIXSXLIREXYVEPIRZMVSRQIRXF]REXYVEPLE^EVHW Participants also developed eight objectives to support these goals. The following objectives consolidate and synthesize input received by workshop participants: 1. Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies. 2. Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards. 3. Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas. 4. Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas. 5. Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas. 6. Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation. 7. Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure. 8. Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning.

The next step in this planning process is to develop specific mitigation actions designed for implementation that help achieve these goals and objectives.

The purpose of this “homework assignment” is to develop draft mitigation actions for discussion at Workshop #2, to be held on July 21st.

-RWXVYGXMSRW 1. Read each objective (#1-8) on the following pages.  Under each objective, write corresponding mitigation action items (including Priority, Hazards Addressed and Responsible Jurisdiction/Agency) in each table. .YWXGPMGOSRXLIWLEHIHEVIEW ERHWXEVXX]TMRK 3. Consider the following questions when developing action items: Will the action have public and political support? Is it technically feasible? Does the community have the personnel and administrative capabilities to implement the action? Or, is outside help necessary? Does the community have the legal authority to implement the action? Or, are new regulations needed? Can the action be funded with current or future internal and external sources? Will the action be consistent with local environmental goals? 4. Return via e-mail to [email protected] by Friday, July 15th.

Thank you for your participation in this important process!

1 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update

Objective 1: Improve regional coordination, communication and emergency response capabilities between jurisdictions and agencies.

Hazards Addressed Responsible Action Priority (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, (High, Med, Low) Floods, Jurisdiction/Agency Landslide/Rockslide) 1.1

1.2

1.3

Objective 2: Strengthen and enhance community policies, regulations and enforcement to mitigate and reduce impacts from hazards.

Hazards Addressed Responsible Action Priority (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, (High, Med, Low) Floods, Jurisdiction/Agency Landslide/Rockslide) 2.1

2.2

2.3

2 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update

Objective 3: Improve capabilities to map, characterize and update hazard areas.

Priority Hazards Addressed Responsible Action (High, Med, (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Low) Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Jurisdiction/Agency 3.1

3.2

3.3

Objective 4: Continue to improve early warning and alerting systems to communities within hazard areas.

Priority Hazards Addressed Responsible Action (High, Med, (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Low) Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Jurisdiction/Agency 4.1

4.2

4.3

3 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update

Objective 5: Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk hazard areas.

Priority Hazards Addressed Responsible Action (High, Med, (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Low) Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Jurisdiction/Agency 5.1

5.2

5.3

Objective 6: Improve training and public awareness for disaster mitigation.

Priority Hazards Addressed Responsible Action (High, Med, (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Low) Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Jurisdiction/Agency 6.1

6.2

6.3

4 Pitkin County Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan Update

Objective 7: Improve the availability of critical infrastructure and reduce the threat to critical infrastructure.

Priority Hazards Addressed Responsible Action (High, Med, (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Low) Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Jurisdiction/Agency 7.1

7.2

7.3

Objective 8: Improve hazard recovery capabilities and planning.

Priority Hazards Addressed Responsible Action (High, Med, (All, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Low) Floods, Landslide/Rockslide) Jurisdiction/Agency 8.1

8.2

8.3

5 %TTIRHM\(4PER1EMRXIRERGI*SVQW

CONTENTS: 1. Mitigation Action Progress Worksheet 2. Mitigation Plan Annual Review Questionnaire

DRAFT D-1

Mitigation Action/Project Progress Report

Progress Report Period From (date): To (date):

Project Title:

Project Plan ID:

Responsible Agency:

Contact Name:

Contact Number/E-mail:

Project Status: Completed, Uncompleted, Ongoing?

Anticipated Completion Date:

Summary of Project Progress for this Reporting Period

1. What was accomplished for this project during this reporting period?

2. What obstacles, problems, or delays did the project encounter, if any?

3. If uncompleted, is the project still relevant? Should the project be changed or revised?

4. Other comments This page intentionally left blank. Mitigation Plan Annual Review Questionnaire

Plan Chapter Considerations Explanation

Should new jurisdictions and/or districts be invited to participate in future plan updates?

Have any internal or external agencies been invaluable to the mitigation strategy?

Can any procedures (e.g., meeting announcements, plan updates) be PLANNING done differently or more efficiently? PROCESS Has the Planning Team undertaken any public outreach activities?

How can public participation be improved?

Have there been any changes in public support and/or decision- maker priorities related to hazard mitigation?

Has a natural and/or man-made disaster occurred?

Should the list of hazards addressed in the plan be modified? RISK ASSESSMENT Are there new data sources and/or additional maps and studies available? If so, what are they and what have they revealed? Should the information be incorporated into future plan updates?

VULNERABILITY Do any new critical facilities or ANALYSIS infrastructure need to be added to the asset lists?

Have any changes in development trends occurred that could create additional risks? Mitigation Plan Annual Review Questionnaire

Plan Chapter Considerations Explanation

Are there repetitive losses and/or severe repetitive losses to document? Has NFIP participation changed in the participating jurisdictions?

Are there different or additional technical, financial, and human resources available for mitigation CAPABILITY planning? ASSESSMENT Have jurisdictions adopted new policies, plans, regulations, or reports that could be incorporated into this plan?

Is the mitigation strategy being implemented as anticipated? Were the cost and timeline estimates accurate?

Should new mitigation actions be added to the Implementation Strategy? Should existing mitigation MITIGATION actions be eliminated from the STRATEGY plan?

Are there new obstacles that were not anticipated in the plan that will need to be considered in the next plan update?

Are there new funding sources to consider?

Was the plan monitored and PLAN evaluated as anticipated? MAINTENANCE PROCESS Have elements of the plan been incorporated into other planning mechanisms? %TTIRHM\)6IJIVIRGIW

City of Aspen and Pitkin County website: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/ City of Aspen and Pitkin County Geographic Information Systems (GIS)/Mapping: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/GIS-Mapping/ Colorado Geological Survey (CGS): http://geosurvey.state.co.us/Pages/CGSHome.aspx Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB): http://cwcb.state.co.us/Pages/CWCBHome.aspx Community Rating System (CRS), FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/crs.shtm Federal Emergency Management Agency, Colorado Disaster History: http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters_state.fema?id=8 Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Pre-disaster Mitigation Plan for Pitkin and Eagle Counties, 2005 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC): http://drought.unl.edu/ National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service (NPS): http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI): http://www.riskinstitute.org/peri/ Spatial Hazard Event and Loss Database; (SHELDUS), a component of the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab: http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvriapps/sheldus_setup/sheldus_login.aspx State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, 2011 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency: www.fsa.usda.gov/ United States Geological Survey (USGS): http://www.usgs.gov/

DRAFT E-1

Emergency Management Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office