Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 2015-02-04Town Board Briefing August 20, 2014 Please note that members of the Town Board will have dinner together starting at 5:30pm. The Board will be in Workshop between 6:00pm and 7:00pm for an overview of the Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan that is pending adoption. Nowell Curran, with the Grand County Office of Emergency Management will be attending to provide background. The Resolution adopting the Plan is on Consent Agenda, but can be moved to discussion items or tabled to a pending meeting if additional discussion or information is desired by the Board. Additionally, we hope to provide some general information and discussion regarding emergency preparedness. We are planning to schedule an informational session regarding the National Incident Management System (NIMS) which helps elected officials understand their roles in emergency situations. Please bring your calendars to assist with scheduling this session. Many of our local emergency service professionals are assisting with the 2015 World Ski Championships, look forward to hearing more about this! Additional briefings and materials related to the other agenda items are included in the packet. As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Jeff Durbin Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com FRASER BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 MEETING: Board of Trustees Regular Meeting PLACE: Fraser Town Hall Board Room PRESENT Board: Mayor Peggy Smith; Mayor Pro -Tem Philip Naill; Trustees; Eileen Waldow, Katie Soles, Cody Clayton Taylor, Andy Miller and Jane Mather Staff: Town Manager Jeff Durbin; Town Clerk, Lu Berger; Public Works Director Allen Nordin; Town Planner, Catherine Trotter; Plant Supervisor Joe Fuqua, Police Chief, Glen Trainor, Town Manager Intern Bektur Sakiev Others: See attached list Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Workshop: 2015 Work Plan Discussion 2. Regular Meeting: Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda: Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to approve the Agenda. Motion carried: 7-0. 4. Consent Agenda: a) Minutes — January 7, 2015 per Trustee Mather's request; Item # 5 Open Forum revised to; Jessica Foley and Ron Bowen outlined the Grand Roots Project and wanted to discuss the possibility of planting heirloom vegetables in town gardens. Staff will bring back to the Town Board for further discussion. Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried: 7-0. 5. Open Forum: a) Business not on the agenda — none. b) 8th Grade Service Project Presentation — A fundraising effort to benefit the Rocky Mountain Warriors Project. The 8th graders will be hosting a casino and spaghetti night Thursday March 5th to raise funds for this organization 6. Public Hearings: Page 2 of 3 7. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding: a) Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amendments Chapter 14 of the Fraser Town Code provides design and construction standards for various public and private infrastructure and staff is proposing amendments. Staff reviews the standards annually after each construction season and periodically proposes amendments and/or updates as a result of changes to products, industry standard practices, changing regulations, processes that may not have worked as initially proposed, and input from the consulting, utility and development communities. Staff has provided drafts of the proposed amendments to stakeholders in the development and utility communities. This is a legislative process, accordingly in addition to Board discussion, staff would encourage public comment. WWC made the following recommendation to the Board to accept the changes as proposed with the exception of item 6, regarding dead-end lines. Dead-end lines are discouraged and will only be allowed with prior approval from the Town. In mountainous areas dead -ends shall be minimized by making appropriate tie-ins (looped lines) whenever practical, in order to provide increased reliability of service, reduction of head loss and maximization of residual chlorine levels within the system. The maximum length of any dead-end line shall not exceed five hundred (500) feet in length. Any dead-end line approved shall have a blow -off device installed at the end of the line; as a minimum this device shall be a fire hydrant assembly. The Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amendments will be on the Planning Commission's agenda on January 28, 2015, then will be brought back to the Board for further action. b) MPHS Drivers Education Funding Request TM Durbin outlined the funding request from MPHS for Drivers Education Funding Request. Trustee Naill moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to approve the MPHS Drivers Education Funding Request to be split between the funding partners. Motion carried: 7-0. 8. Other Business: 9. Executive Session; Town Manager Evaluation and Employment Agreement: For discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(f)(1) and not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session. Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to enter executive session. Motion carried: 7-0. Enter: 8:40 p.m. Page 3 of 3 Exit: 9:35 p.m. Trustee Miller moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to exit executive session. Motion carried: 7-0. Trustee Miller moved, and Trustee Mather seconded the motion to authorize the mayor to execute the Town Manager's Employment Agreement. Motion carried: 7-0. 10. Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Taylor seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion carried: 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Lu Berger, Town Clerk 0 R O CL 0 CL �0 00 a0 v �C� c •-• 40 N � N +O 0 c •X L � O N .3 L c V N L ,� O 0 c V 0 C9 E o 0 cam CM - m E O0E� 'K�= 0 M N= N d- >IM Rf C E L aiCL 'L L 'a Q d t!i :a `H 0 0 m e•� Rf N 0 N i O L 60 • Ada c �-C � z � to U) O G) N Q. N 2 N N �0.TC •E dd Ec ==m z 0) W N E=°=0 E Sm -0 ' 0 0 E N L0 3 00 E -' .0 o o �V o U) 2 O J y oma r d 0.2 CL +u+ C C 4- 3 O L o ��0 -Wv�, o•� c co � a� d L '.0 3 �° o d a M C d O o ami T W O 4. 0 O N 0 U- N +r r + O amvd� mao =L i C R .aCd to O L01 CO 0 .� h a O N 0 p p> L N 4. O C1 W C O y= O O Eo d N N yw L' >+ o 'a Oo Q' = >+ Rf 0 + - Q N _ += L U) tOC d F•- C *� m zii L U) c E v `o E 7� QNd��- C00 -u)> mN 03��NE c� �m oW.-- 0 N 3 CM N U== N 5 .0 3a 0 •- C (D L L M ai $ �_ m 'a i!%.0 �+ O U. C'4W r� N C y0, C 4�O O V m 'a O t0 •- 0 (Ds C R E C o c tM �a % CL0=�3 �eaG 00 m �ca«,0 0 >,0 N .c 0 0 t- .rim c402 c > v SOS} to � — J �-C � z z 0) W N 0Q 'O W �V U) 2 O J y oma r y � v E w U) W D CL. ((� 1� 3 Q Z �- ANNEX B: TOWN OF FRASER 13.1 Community Profile Geography Fraser is located in Middle Park in the valley of the Fraser River along U.S. Highway 40. The Town is at an elevation of 8,550 feet and was established in 1871. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Town has a total area of 1.9 square miles, with 0.04 square miles being water. Fraser is the coldest incorporated town in the contiguous U.S, based on an annual mean temperature of 32.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Average annual precipitation is roughly 19 inches, with an average annual snowfall of over 142 inches. Figure B.1 shows a map of the Town of Fraser and its location within Grand County. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Figure B.I. Map of Fraser 11 L---••—••------- —e--••—•-- - ......................... .................. Fraser AWinter Park OL5 ameO 0 1 Miles I I I I Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT Grand County (Fraser) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 LEGEND Streams Railroads Local Roads Major Roads Highways Cities Elevation (ft) 6,614 - 8,566 8,567 - 9,649 9,650 - 10,912 10,913 - 14,275 N A Annex B.2 Population The permanent population is the number of people who reside in the town on a year-round basis and was estimated at 1,216 in 2011 and at 1,224 in 2010. Select American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 and 2010 US Census demographic and social characteristics for Fraser's "permanent" population are shown in Table B.1. Table 13.1. Fraser—Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Gender/Age Male (%) 56.5 49.6 Female (%) 43.5 50.4 Under 5 Years (%) 7.2 5.4 65 Years and Over (%) 3.7 10.6 Race/Ethnicity (one race) White (%) 89.5 98.0 Black or African American (%) 0.4 0.0 American Indian and Alaska Native (%) 0.3 0.0 Asian (%) 0.9 0.0 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (%) 0 0.0 Other (%) 7.4 2.0 Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race) (%) 13.6 13.1 Other Average Household Size 2.26 2.59 High School Graduate or Higher (%) 97.8 97.8 Source: ACS 2011, 2010 US Census, factfinder2.census. gov History George Eastom owned an Ohio lumber business consisting of a small sawmill and a barrel stave factory. He read in 1902 of David Moffat's plan to build a railroad due west from Denver to Salt Lake City to help open up the natural resource rich Northwest region of Colorado to development. With his business in Ohio waning he decided to investigate business opportunities along the proposed new railroad line. After a short visit to the Fraser Valley, Eastom formed the Middle Park Lumber Company on December 22, 1902. He began acquiring forested property in the Fraser Valley in 1903 and started a small sawmill in the Crooked Creek drainage, while he waited to learn the final railroad alignment through the valley. On February 20, 1904, Eastom acquired the SE 1/4, NE 1/4 and Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Section 19, 1S, 75W, 6th PM from R.W. Jenkins for a price of $1,500. Upon this property, Eastom built a new lumber sawmill eventually, with an expansion completed in 1906, capable of processing 65,000 board feet of lumber a day. On December 6, 1904, Eastom bought the NE 1/4 of Section 19, 1S, 75W, 6th PM from Harry and Addie Armfield, for $1000. On January 1, 1905, Eastom deeded a 200'x 2700' right of way through this property to the Denver, Northwest Pacific Railway Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Company for a price of $1.00. On June 19, 1905, Eastom filed a town plat dated June 18, 1905 for the Town of Eastom, that straddled the railroad right of way with Blocks 1, 2 and 3 on the West side of the just laid tracks and blocks 4, 5, and 6 on the East side. By October 23, Eastom formed the Eastom Townsite Company to sell the newly created lots. One of the first sales was to William Cozens III, and Evan D. Lemmon, who purchased Lots 37 & 38 Block 6 that was deeded on June 1, 1906. Upon this site the Cozens/Lemmon Mercantile was built. The Mercantile fronted on St. Louis Avenue. A railroad depot was built just south of the Mercantile in the railroad right of way, and a track crossing was built on St. Louis Avenue. St. Louis Avenue would be renamed Eisenhower Drive in 1957. A 1 st Addition to Eastom was platted in 1909 to the north of the original plat, adding Blocks 7, 8, 9, and 10. The Lake Site was platted and added by the Trout Lake Mining & Health Resort Company, O. H. Baker, president, in 1912. In 1876, the first post office was established in the Fraser Valley, the Fraser Post Office, on a route from Georgetown to Hot Sulphur Springs. It was located on the William Zane Cozens II ranch. Cozens was named Postmaster. He had bought the squatters' rights to the Hay Stacks Ranch in 1872 from George Grimshaw for a price of $519.72. In 1875, Cozens moved his family to his ranch from Central City where he was city marshal and collector, to become the first family to live full time in the Fraser Valley. Cozens remained the Postmaster for nearly 28 years until his death in January 1904. In February of 1904 the Fraser Post Office was moved to the L.D.C. Gaskill Ranch which adjoined both the Cozens Ranch and the Armfield property. Gaskill and his family had lived on their ranch in the Fraser Valley since 1885. They had moved from their home and toll house at the summit of Berthoud Pass, where they had lived for 9 years. Gaskill had been the construction foreman, maintainer, and toll keeper of the Georgetown, Empire, and Middle Park Toll Road constructed in 1874. The Fraser Post Office was moved to the Cozens/Lemmon Mercantile in 1906 and Evan Lemmon became the Postmaster. The Denver, Northwest Pacific Railway Company named their station at Eastom, the Fraser Depot, and made the town the railroad division point (Fraser would lose this designation to Tabernash in 1913). The Post Office kept the name Fraser. In a short time the town of Eastom was known as Fraser. Most deeds would bear the inscription Eastom also known as Fraser. It wasn't until 1953 that the town incorporated as Fraser and made it official. The original incorporation survey plat of 1953 contained the three previously platted subdivisions. Economy According to the ACS 2011 estimates, the industries that employed the highest percentage of Fraser's labor force were arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (28.4%); retail trade (15.2%); construction (12.4%); and finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (10.2%). Select economic characteristics for Fraser from the 2011 ACS estimates and 2010 US Census are shown in Table B.2. Grand County (Fraser) Annex BA Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Table 13.2. Fraser—Economic Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Families below Poverty Level (%) 8,9 9,3 Individuals below Poverty Level (%) 16.3 16.7 Median Home Value $237,300 $258,200 Median Household Income $44,453 $45,481 Per Capita Income $22,978 $23,730 Population in Labor Force* 886 771 Source: ACS 2011, 2010 US Census, factfinder2.census.gov *Age 16 years and over 13.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Fraser's planning team identified the hazards that affect the community and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to the Town (see Table 13.3). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Fraser. Table 13.3. Fraser—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Small Occasional Limited Low Dam Failure Small Unlikely Limited Medium Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Unlikely Critical Low Earthquake Large Likely Critical Medium Flood Small Likely Limited Medium Hazardous Materials Transportation Large Highly Likely Critical High Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Small Unlikely Limited Low Lightning Small Highly Likely Limited Medium Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildfire Medium Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Medium Windstorm Large Highly Likely Limited Medium *See Section 3.2 for definitions of these factors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 13.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Fraser's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. The following vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that may vary from other parts of the planning area. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. Community Asset Inventory Table 13.4 shows the number of structures, land value, and assessed value of improvements to parcels in Fraser. Land values have been purposely excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table B.4. Fraser—Building Exposure Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improvement Value Estimated Content Value Total Value* Agricultural 186 2 $903,260 $28,000 $28,000 $56,000 Commercial Improved 52 44 $6,571,390 $19,152,320 $19,152,320 $38,304,640 Commercial Vacant 57 0 $1,448,140 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 1 0 $1,170 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 2 2 $44,490 $475,680 $475,680 $951,360 Residential Improved 883 882 $36,509,980 $220,472,780 $110,236,390 $330,709,170 Residential Vacant 110 4 $10,069,000 $371,290 $185,645 $556,935 Tax Exempt 68 20 $5,001,560 $12,029,870 $12,029,870 $24,059,740 Unknown 161 0 $1,390 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 7 0 $758,370 $0 $0 $0 Total 1,527 954 $61,308,750 $252,529,940 $142,107,905 $394,637,845 Source: Grand County Assessor 2013 *Includes value of improvements and estimated content value Table B.5 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by Fraser's planning team as extremely important to protect in the event of a disaster. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Table 13.5. Fraser—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Name of Asset Type* Replacement Value ($) Hazard Specific Info/Comments East Grand Fire Dept EF 10,000,000 Fire Fraser Domestic Water System EF 5,000,000. Fire/ Flood Upper Fraser Valley Wastewater treatment facility EF 9,000,000 Fire/ Flood Elementary School EA 2,000,000 Fire Safeway EA 2,000,000 Fire/Flood Fraser River -Cozens Ranch Open Space HCNA Drought /Flood/Fire Fraser Valley Library HCNA 1,000,000 Fire EMS Station 2 EF 500,000 Fire Fraser Town Hall** EF Visitors Center** EF Grand County Road and Bridge — Fraser** EF Sources: HMPC *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities, LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset **Identified separately by Grand County OEM The Town also needs to further evaluate the seasonal workforce to better understand their impact on the community and what needs to be done to protect them. Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. These hazards include flood, hazmat, landslide, and wildfire. Flood The Town of Fraser has flood hazard mapping for the Fraser River and Leland Creek, as well as the tributaries St. Louis Creek and Elk Creek. Flooding along the Fraser River and its tributaries occurs primarily in June and is largely due to snowmelt. Fraser is subject to flooding from the Fraser River. Localized stormwater flooding can also cause minor problems. Existing Development The effective DFIRM for Fraser, dated January 2, 2008, was the best available flood hazard data. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon. Only parcels with improvement values greater than zero were used in the analysis, which assumes that improved parcels have a structure of some type. The DFIRM flood zones were overlaid in GIS on the parcel centroid data to identify structures that would likely be inundated during a 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance flood event. Building improvement values for the points were based on the assessor's data and summed for the unincorporated county and for the municipalities. Property exposure located in flood hazard zones by land use type is shown in Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Table B.6. Flood zones A and AE are variations of the 1% annual chance event. The "Shaded Zone X" represents the 0.2% annual chance hazard zone on the DFIRM. Building and estimated content values were totaled. The Town's A Zone has an exposure value of over $8 million. To estimate losses a 25% loss factor was applied to the total exposure, based on FEMA depth damage functions associated with a two foot deep flood. Flood loss from the 1% annual chance event based on this assessment would be in the magnitude of $2 million. There are six parcels in the AE zone, but these are undeveloped. Flooded structures for the DFIRM flood zones are depicted in Figure B.2. More information on the methodology used for this loss estimation can be found in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. There is one critical facility, the Visitors Center, located in the floodplain in Fraser. Table 13.6. Fraser—Flood Risk by Flood Zone and Property Type Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Loss Estimate Zone A Agricultural 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Vacant 10 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential Improved 34 34 $5,417,250 $2,708,625 $8,125,875 $2,031,469 Residential Vacant 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 8 2 $90,070 $90,070 $180,140 $45,035 Unknown 4 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 59 36 $5,507,320 $2,798,695 $8,306,015 $2,076,504 Zone AE Agricultural 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 5 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 6 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grand Total 65 36 $5,507,320 $2,798,695 $8,306,015 $2,076,504 Source: AMEC analysis of DFIRM Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Figure 13.2. DFIRM Flood Zones and Floodprone Properties in Fraser ..L-AJ \,' i Wrote l' Park I -------------- i 4u I I • 1%Flooded Structures 0 0.2% Flooded Structures I' I I f FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones i Wrote l' Park I -------------- i 4u LEGEND • 1%Flooded Structures 0 0.2% Flooded Structures _ FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones o O ..1 1%Annual Chance Zone A ---. — - Zone AE 0.2% Annual Chance Zone X * Zone 0 Streams Railroads Local Roads — Major Roads — Highways r—' -I —: Cities amec 0 0.5 1 Miles I I I I I I I F I Map compiled 4/2013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, FEMA DIFRM 112/2008 Grand County (Fraser) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 A Annex B.9 National Flood Insurance Program Fraser joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on January 2, 2008. NFIP insurance data indicates that as of March 25, 2013, there were 15 flood insurance policies in force in Fraser with $3,359,800 of coverage. Eleven of the policies are in Fraser's A zone, and four are located outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area. There have been zero historical claims for flood losses. There were no repetitive or severe repetitive loss structures. Future Development The Town of Fraser addresses floodplain management policies in its Town Code (see Regulatory Capabilities section below). Hazardous Materials The Town of Fraser is exposed to transported hazardous materials by being in proximity to Highway 40 and the railroad. U.S. Highway 40 is the alternate route to Salt Lake City and primary detour route for closures of the I-70 corridor; trucks and tankers transporting hazardous materials may often use this route. Grand County OEM also identified three reporting Tier II facilities (for 2012 and 2013) in Fraser, so the potential also exists for fixed hazmat incidents in the Town. Data from the National Response Center (NRC) between 2008 and 2012 did not show any reported incidents in Fraser, but it is more likely a matter of "when" rather than "if' given that hazmat events have happened in every other town in the County. Landslide, Mud Flow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Possible landslide areas are identified on steep slopes with unstable soil conditions. Landslide deposits were identified in the western half of Fraser. Existing Development Potential losses for landslide areas were estimated using Grand County GIS and assessor's data and were examined in terms of values and critical facilities at risk. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon, which was overlaid on the landslide hazard polygons. The assessor's land and improved values for each parcel are linked to the parcel centroids. For the purposes of this analysis, if the parcel's centroid intersects the landslide hazard polygon, that parcel is assumed to be at risk to the landslide. Values were summed and sorted by landslide hazard zone. Additional landslide hazard analysis was completed using the more comprehensive USGS landslide deposits layer during the 2013 update. The results of the overlay analysis for the Town of Fraser are presented in Table B.7. No critical facilities were identified in landslide zones in Fraser. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Table 13.7. Fraser—Landslide Exposure by Land Use Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Total Improved Estimated Land Use Parcel Parcel Land Value Improved Value Content Value Total Value Count Count Agricultural 1 0 $240 $0 $0 $0 Residential Vacant 6 0 $108,500 $0 $0 $0 Unknown 3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 10 0 $108,740 $0 $0 $0 Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Figure 13.3. Landslide Areas in Fraser 40 •'r 'r r i 4 x I_.._..—..---____ l I I Fraser r j ` I I t"y ! I 1 40 Winter Park ..I j {l1lll �/• � •L. L____________ �I LEGEND ``.•'' `~ *. ®Landslide Deposits Streams i`/ /• �I} ``i,�\`�� '�\—a-- ''\•, Railroads .!—.._.._------------- I._..—. ...� '- ^-- Local Roads — Major Roads —Highways Other Cities / r r—•ry Fraser meO I 0.5 1 Miles aI. !IJ i i � I i i i Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Colton/USGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Future Development The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition and avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas or by corrective engineering. The mountainous topography of the County presents considerable constraints to development, most commonly in the form of steep sloped areas. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and can become unstable. Fraser's Town Code encourages development in or near the existing towns and away from environmentally sensitive areas such as those with steep slopes. This policy can help protect future development from being built in unstable areas. Wildfire Existing Development The Grand County CWPP (2006) evaluated the wildfire hazards to each of the incorporated and unincorporated towns in the County. Fraser received a hazard rating of medium to high. Fraser is also covered by the Upper Fraser Valley/East Grand Fire Protection District's CWPP, which rated the wildfire hazard in 28 distinct communities. Refer to Table 3.36 in Chapter 3 for details on the community wildfire hazard ratings in the Upper Fraser Valley/East Grand Fire Protection District CWPP. Based on the methodology described for wildfire in Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard using the SILVIS threat zones, the property values in Fraser were aggregated by wildfire threat zones. The breakdown of property values in Fraser by wildfire threat zone is shown in Table B.8. The majority of risk to wildfire is to residential structures, but some commercial areas are at risk as well. The Colorado State Forest Service in partnership with the Town and local residents have done or planned several forest health treatments in and around Fraser. These areas are depicted on the map in Figure B.4. See Figure HA in Annex H Fire Protection Districts for wildfire intensity in the Fraser area. Table 13.8. Fraser—Property Values in Wildfire Threat Zones Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Improved Threat Parcel Improved Estimated Zone Land Use Count Land Value Value Content Value Total Value Moderate Agricultural 0 $289,490 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 21 $3,998,660 $10,881,320 $10,881,320 $21,762,640 Commercial Vacant 0 $871,110 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 0 $1,170 $0 $0 $0 Residential Improved 181 $9,214,120 $57,197,050 $28,598,525 $85,795,575 Residential Vacant 4 $5,861,270 $371,290 $185,645 $556,935 Tax Exempt 6 $3,422,740 $6,948,500 $6,948,500 $13,897,000 Unknown 0 $1,360 $0 $0 $0 Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Vacant Land 0 $651,530 $0 $0 $0 Total 212 $24,311,450 $75,398,160 $46,613,990 $122,012,150 High Agricultural 0 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 17 $1,909,570 $7,553,410 $7,553,410 $15,106,820 Commercial Vacant 0 $577,030 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 2 $44,490 $475,680 $475,680 $951,360 Residential Improved 703 $27,370,860 $163,873,530 $81,936,765 $245,810,295 Residential Vacant 0 $4,928,410 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 10 $993,500 $6,274,700 $6,274,700 $12,549,400 Unknown 0 $30 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 0 $98,810 $0 $0 $0 Total 732 $35,926,700 $178,177,320 $96,240,555 $274,417,875 Grand Total 944 $60,238,150 $253,575,480 $142,854,545 $396,430,025 Source: AMEC analysis with SILVIS data Two critical facilities were identified in moderate and low -moderate wildfire zones in Fraser. The Fraser Valley Library is located in Fraser's high -moderate wildfire zone. The East Grand FPD fire station is located in the Town's low -moderate wildfire zone. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Figure 13.4. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Fraser LEGEND 40 �;� 1�� 1 r`aL � �,� CSFS Treatments Vegetation Management Units nJ i USFS Treatment Types Fuels I Timber Sale Streams Railroads Ir. Local Roads i•� ;` - Major Roads. Highways Fraser Other Cities Q Fraser I ! — j I i i ameO 0 0.5 1 Miles Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Fraser) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 - -----•---- i i L..... ._.._.._I A Annex B.15 i i i i� i Q Fraser I ! — j I i i ameO 0 0.5 1 Miles Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Fraser) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 - -----•---- i i L..... ._.._.._I A Annex B.15 The East Grand Fire Protection District, which provides fire protection services to Fraser and surrounding area, is considered an initial attack center for wildland fires on all private land and takes a joint responsibility with the U.S. Forest Service for fires on federal land. Future Development The Fraser Town Code requires that development meet fire mitigation standards before it can be approved for occupancy. East Grand FPD enforces the 2006 International Fire Code. All buildings in the District's service area are required to adhere to the International Fire Code. East Grand FPD also reviews all plats, construction plans, and site plans against the District's Development and Review Standards. These standards are designed to help protect life safety and property from wildfire. Growth and Development Trends Table B.9 illustrates how Fraser has grown in terms of population and number of housing units between 2000 and 2011. Table 13.9. Fraser—Change in Population and Housing Units, 2000-2011 2011 Estimated 2011 Estimated Estimated 2000 Population Percent Change 2000 # of # of Housing Percent Change Population Estimate 2000-2011 Housing Units Units 2000-2011 910 1,216 +33.6 622 950 +52.7 Source: ACS 2011 and US Census 2000, factfinder2.census. gov Fraser's location northwest of Winter Park provided growth circa 2008 with new condominium and other real estate developments. This trend may persist as Winter Park continues to grow. Most development and growth concerns are related to wildfire vulnerability. There has been subdivision development in the WUI in the east and west part of Fraser that has not yet been mitigated. The Town does have plans to perform wildfire mitigation around these new subdivisions. 13.4 Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table B.10 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Fraser. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Table 13.10. Fraser—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (Ordinances, Codes, Plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan Yes Zoning ordinance Yes Subdivision ordinance Yes Growth management ordinance No Floodplain ordinance Yes Other special purpose ordinance stormwater, steep slope, wildfire Yes Water Supply Protection District Building code Yes Fire department ISO rating Yes Rating unknown Erosion or sediment control program Yes Stormwater management program Yes Site plan review requirements Yes Capital improvements plan Yes Economic development plan No Expected completion in 2014 Local emergency operations plan No Pending Completion in 2014 Other special plans Yes Trail Plan EOP; Water and Sewer plan completed 2012 Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams Yes Elevation certificates (for floodplain development Yes Other Town of Fraser Comprehensive Plan, 2010 • Land Use and Development – Land uses must also be carefully planned to provide for critical wildlife habitat areas and sensitive environmental areas, including but not limited to wetland and riparian areas, alpine meadows and tundra, steep slopes, floodplains, unstable soils, high value wildlife habitat, unique natural vegetation, and view corridors. – Development review and permitting should provide for water quality protection through effective erosion control, stormwater management, and revegetation measures. Town of Fraser Subdivision Regulations • Section 17-1-30 Policy – (b) Land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril from fire, flood or other menace. Land shall not be subdivided until adequate public facilities and improvements exist and proper provisions have been made for water, sewer, stormwater drainage, schools, parks, open space, trails, recreation, transportation facilities and other improvements necessary to serve the proposed subdivision. (Ord. 322 §12-1-3, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 17-7-110 Natural Hazards and Conditions Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 — Based on a finding by a qualified engineer, engineering geologist or other professional, no land which is held by the Planning Commission to be unsuitable for development by reason of one -hundred -year flooding frequency, high water table, mudflow, rockslide or other potential natural hazard, feature or condition likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the Town, its residents or future residents in the proposed subdivision shall be subdivided unless the natural hazards are mitigated in a manner acceptable to the Town. (Ord. 322 § 12-6-3, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 17-7-120 Floodplains — Development is discouraged within the one -hundred -year floodplain. All subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least fifty (50) lots or five (5) acres (whichever is less) shall provide the Town with base flood elevation data per the Town's regulations pertaining to the prevention of flood damage. Technical data and other information requested by the Town shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer. This and other information is necessary to determine applicability to and evaluation of developments on lands subject to flooding or located in a natural drainage area. A permit shall be obtained before construction begins within any area of special flood hazard as set forth in Chapter 18, Article 4 of this Code. (Ord. 322 § 12-6-3, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1.1, 2012) • Section 17-7-160 Steep Slopes — In general, development shall not occur on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) or on land with inadequate drainage unless a part of each lot or tract, sufficient to accommodate a building permit, is deemed buildable by a qualified engineer and all mitigation measures necessary to prevent lateral movement and/or slippage of improvements have been approved by the Town Engineer. (Ord. 322 § 12-6-3, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 17-7-610 Water Supply — (c) Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be required in all subdivisions and shall be located in conformity with the adopted Fire Code. Generally, fire hydrants shall be located no more than five hundred (500) feet apart. Hydrant locations and fire flow demands shall be approved by the Town and the Fire District. Fire hydrant spacing along streets where hydrants are not needed for protection of structures and/or water system operations shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet. (Ord. 322 §12-6-13, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 17-7-700 Landscaping Requirements and Natural Features — (g) Wildfire defensible space. Creating a defensible space around a home and on property is an important step to take in order to protect your home and property from wildfire. Defensible space is an area around a structure where fuels and vegetation are treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire towards the structure. It also creates an area where fire suppression operations can occur. Town of Fraser Zoning Regulations • Section 16-4-270 Floodplains Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 – For any developments located within the one -hundred -year floodplain, a plan of on-site flood prevention, control and hazard mitigation shall be prepared and implemented according to the provisions of the Town. (Ord. 392 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 16-4-280 Geological Hazards – Developments proposed for suspected geological hazard areas should be designed or reviewed by a qualified professional geologist, and all negative impacts should be mitigated. (Ord. 392 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 16-4-340 Snow Management – (a) Snow management is critical in the Town's mountain climate. Roofs should be designed to either hold snow or shed snow in appropriate areas. Buildings must be set back from the property line to accommodate snow shedding, or a snow storage easement from the adjacent property owner must be provided. Use of snow guards and protected entries in high risk areas may be required. Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table B.11 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Fraser. Table 13.11. Fraser—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of Yes Planning land development/land management practices Engineer/professional trained in Yes Town Engineer construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Planner/engineer/scientist with an Yes Town Engineer understanding of natural hazards Personnel skilled in GIS Yes Town Staff Full time building official Yes Building Official Floodplain manager Yes Town Planner Emergency manager Yes County Grant writer No Other personnel Yes GIS Data Resources Yes (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land use, building footprints, etc.) Warning Systems/Services Yes County (Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals) Other Yes Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table B.12 identifies financial tools or resources that Fraser could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. Table 13.12. Fraser—Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Financial Resources Accessible/Eligible to Use (Yes/No) Comments Community Development Block Grants Y Capital Improvements Project Funding Y Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Services Y Impact Fees for New Development Y Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y Incur Debt through Private Activities Y Withhold Spending in Hazard Prone Areas Y Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships • The news media in Fraser has distributed information on water conservation and sewer infiltration. • The Library District holds public education Firewise awareness workshops. • The Town distributes a household preparedness "Get Ready for Winter" newsletter. Past Mitigation Efforts • The Town participates in the NFIP. • Water system improvements • Fuel reduction/treatment projects 13.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Fraser had adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. 13.6 Mitigation Actions The planning team for Fraser identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Fraser will continue participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Specific activities that the Town will undertake to continue compliance include the following: • Working with FEMA and the Colorado Water Conservation Board in the review and adoption of new digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) as part of the map modernization (now RiskMAP) program • Periodically reviewing the flood damage prevention ordinance and identifying opportunities to strengthen requirements and enforcement. The Town has reviewed and updated their ordinance to be compliant with the update State Floodplain Rule (required by January 2014). • Promote and disperse information on the benefits of flood insurance, with assistance from partners such as the Colorado Water Conservation Board. • Continuing strong enforcement of the floodplain ordinance and working with developers and property owners to understand the program Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Mitigation Action: Fraser -1 Bank Stabilization Jurisdiction: Fire Protection Districts Hazard Addressed Flood Project Description, Fraser/ St. Louis Creek Bank Stabilization Issue & Background This project is necessary to keep the Fraser River and St Louis Creek within banks during high water events. Lead Agency and Title Town of Fraser of Lead Person Partners: None Priority: High Cost Estimate: $40,000 Benefits: Keep waters from running through streets and neighborhoods (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Funded by Town of Fraser Timeline: 2011-2014 Status: Ongoing Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Mitigation Action: Fraser -2 Forest Mitigation Jurisdiction: Town of Fraser Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Pine Beetle, Windstorm Project Description, Rendezvous and Grand Park have completed extensive hazard tree removal Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Private of Lead Person Partners: None Priority: High Cost Estimate: Private funds/effort Benefits: Protection of property and life safety enhancement (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Timeline: Ongoing Status: Ongoing Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT September 2013 Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 1002 Walnut Street, Suite 200 ameO Boulder, CO 80302 Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Developed by Grand County with professional planning assistance from AMEC Environment and Infrastructure Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Management Program Boulder, Colorado Grand County, Colorado Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Grand County, Colorado Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary................................................................................. vi Chapters 1 Introduction and Planning Area Profile.............................................1.1 1.1 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................1.1 3.1.1 Disaster Declaration History....................................................................................................... 1.2 Background and Scope.....................................................................................................................1.1 3.2 Hazard Profiles...................................................................................................................................3.7 1.3 Jurisdictional Annexes......................................................................................................................1.3 3.2.1 Avalanche................................................................................................................................... 1.4 Plan Organization...............................................................................................................................1.3 3.2.2 Dam Failure.............................................................................................................................. 1.5 Planning Area Profile........................................................................................................................1.4 3.2.3 Disease Outbreak..................................................................................................................... 1.5.1 Geography and Climate.............................................................................................................. 1.6 1.5.2 Population................................................................................................................................... 1.7 1.5.3 History......................................................................................................................................... 1.8 1.5.4 Economy..................................................................................................................................... 1.8 2 Planning Process................................................................................2.1 2.1 Background on Mitigation Planning in Grand County...................................................................2.1 2.2 Plan Section Review and Analysis - 2013 Update......................................................................... 2.2 2.3 Multi -Jurisdictional Participation.....................................................................................................2.2 2.4 The 10 -Step Planning Process......................................................................................................... 2.3 3 Risk Assessment................................................................................ 3.1 3.1 Hazard Identification..........................................................................................................................3.2 3.1.1 Disaster Declaration History....................................................................................................... 3.5 3.2 Hazard Profiles...................................................................................................................................3.7 3.2.1 Avalanche................................................................................................................................... 3.9 3.2.2 Dam Failure.............................................................................................................................. 3.13 3.2.3 Disease Outbreak..................................................................................................................... 3.17 3.2.4 Drought.....................................................................................................................................3.20 3.2.5 Earthquake............................................................................................................................... 3.29 3.2.6 Flood.........................................................................................................................................3.37 3.2.7 Hazardous Materials Release.................................................................................................. 3.44 3.2.8 Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall.............................................................................. 3.48 3.2.9 Lightning................................................................................................................................... 3.52 3.2.10 Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation............................................................................................ 3.55 3.2.11 Severe Winter Weather..........................................................................................................3.63 3.2.12 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................... 3.71 3.2.13 Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions....................................................................................................... 3.83 3.2.14 Windstorm............................................................................................................................... 3.84 3.2.15 Hazard Profiles Summary ....................................................................................................... 3.87 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment............................................................................................................... 3.91 3.3.1 Methodology............................................................................................................................. 3.91 3.3.2 Community Asset Inventory...................................................................................................... 3.92 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard........................................................................................................... 3.101 3.3.4 Development and Land Use Trends....................................................................................... 3.130 3.4 Risk Assessment Summary..........................................................................................................3.135 Grand County, Colorado iii Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 4 Mitigation Strategy..............................................................................4.1 4.1 Mitigation Strategy Overview............................................................................................................4.1 4.2 Goals and Objectives.........................................................................................................................4.1 4.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions...........................................................................4.3 4.3.1 Prioritization Process..................................................................................................................4.4 4.4 Mitigation Action Plan.......................................................................................................................4.5 4.4.1 Progress on Previous Mitigation Actions....................................................................................4.6 4.4.2 Continued Compliance with NFIP..............................................................................................4.7 4.4.3 Updated Mitigation Action Plan..................................................................................................4.7 5 Plan Implementation and Maintenance ............................................. 5.1 5.1 Implementation................................................................................................................................... 5.1 5.2 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan.............................................................................. 5.2 5.2.1 Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Monitoring and Maintenance .......................5.2 5.2.2 Plan Maintenance Schedule....................................................................................................... 5.3 5.2.3 Plan Maintenance Process.........................................................................................................5.3 5.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms........................................................................ 5.4 5.4 Continued Public Involvement......................................................................................................... 5.5 Annexes Annex A: Unincorporated Grand County Annex B: Town of Fraser Annex C: Town of Granby Annex D: Town of Grand Lake Annex E: Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Annex F: Town of Kremmling Annex G: Town of Winter Park Annex H: Fire Protection Districts Annex I: Denver Water Annex J: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Grand County, Colorado iv Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Appendices Appendix A: References Appendix B: Planning Process Materials Appendix C: Mitigation Alternatives and Prioritization Appendix D: Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Appendix E: Plan Adoption Grand County, Colorado Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of natural hazards mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards. Grand County and participating jurisdictions first developed this multi -hazard mitigation plan in 2008 to reduce future losses to the County and its communities resulting from natural hazards. The plan was updated in 2013 in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and to maintain eligibility for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance, Pre -Disaster Mitigation, Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. Since the original development of this plan, FEMA guidance for local hazard mitigation plans has been refined and updated. This plan was updated to be consistent with the new FEMA guidance and with Grand County's current hazard mitigation priorities and risks. The Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is a multi jurisdictional plan that covers the following local governments that participated in the planning process: • Grand County • Town of Fraser • Town of Granby • Town of Grand Lake • Town of Hot Sulphur Springs • Town of Kremmling • Town of Winter Park • Fire Protection Districts* • Denver Water* • Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (hereafter referred to as Northern Water)* `New participant in 2013 The County's planning process followed a methodology prescribed by FEMA, which began with the reconvening of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) comprised of key stakeholders from Grand County, participating jurisdictions, neighboring counties and stakeholders, and state and federal agencies. The HMPC conducted an updated risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to Grand County, assessed the County's vulnerability to these hazards, and examined the capabilities in place to mitigate them. New methodologies were used where possible to provide a more thorough risk and vulnerability assessment. The County is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Wildfires, severe winter weather, and avalanche are among the hazards that can have a significant impact on the County. Based upon the risk assessment, the HMPC revisited the goals and objectives identified in 2008 for reducing risk to hazards. The goals and objectives of this multi -hazard mitigation plan are to: Grand County, Colorado vi Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Goal 1: Reduce the loss of life and personal injuries from hazard events • Enhance life safety for residents and responders • Improve public education and awareness of all hazards • Improve emergency response and early notification capabilities for all hazards within the County • Reduce the potential for impact from transported hazardous materials to the public, the County, and participating jurisdictions • Identify and characterize facilities and companies that regularly receive or transport hazardous materials • Reduce disease outbreak occurrences and severity • Minimize the impact of winter storm on Grand County and participating jurisdictions within the County • Enhance community policies and procedures to reduce wildfire impact • Reduce rockslide occurrences and impact potential on human life Goal 2: Reduce the impacts of hazards on property and the environment • Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to reduce property impacts • Continue to support development and implantation of Community Wildfire Protection Planning • Develop and implement fuel -reduction projects • Mitigate undesirable fire outcomes to residential and commercial property • Mitigate undesirable fire outcomes to the environment, watersheds, and quality of life • Improve identification and characterization of landslide hazards Goal 3: Protect critical facilities and infrastructure from the impacts of hazards • Minimize disruption to critical services from hazard events • Identify and reduce the wildfire threat to critical infrastructure • Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk landslide hazard areas Goal 4: Minimize economic losses • Reduce financial exposure and disaster expenditures of county and municipal governments and special districts • Strengthen disaster resistance and resiliency of businesses and employers • Speed recovery and redevelopment following future disaster events • Support future grant requests for pre- and post -disaster initiatives To meet identified goals and objectives, the plan recommends the mitigation actions summarized in Chapter 4 of this plan and in the jurisdictional annexes. The list of actions from 2008 was reviewed by the HMPC. Committee members noted which actions were completed, deleted, deferred, or ongoing and provided reasons why these decisions were made. The Committee also Grand County, Colorado vii Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 developed new actions which are included in Chapter 4 and the jurisdictional annexes. The HMPC also developed an implementation plan for each action, which identifies priority level, background information, ideas for implementation, responsible agency, timeline, cost estimate, and potential funding sources. The multi -hazard mitigation plan has been formally adopted by the Grand County Board of County Commissioners and the governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction and will be updated within a five-year timeframe. Grand County, Colorado viii Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 1 INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING AREA PROFILE 1.1 Purpose Grand County and several participating jurisdictions prepared this local hazard mitigation plan to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the County from the effects of hazard events. This plan demonstrates the communities' commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. The plan is intended to be a living document through ongoing implementation and regular updates every five years. The original plan was developed in 2008 and underwent a comprehensive update in 2013. The four goals of the Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan are the following: • Goal 1: Reduce the loss of life and personal injuries from hazard events • Goal 2: Reduce the impacts of hazards on property and the environment • Goal 3: Protect critical facilities and infrastructure from the impacts of hazards • Goal 4: Minimize economic losses This plan was also developed to make Grand County and participating jurisdictions eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically the Federal Emergency Management Agency's pre and post disaster mitigation grants, as well as to make the County more disaster resistant. 1.2 Background and Scope Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated. Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as "any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event." The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Multi -Hazard Mitigation Council 2005). Grand County, Colorado 1.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts of those hazards are determined, mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies to lessen impacts are determined, prioritized, and implemented. This plan documents Grand County's hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the County and participating jurisdictions will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in Grand County. The Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi jurisdictional plan that geographically covers everything within Grand County's jurisdictional boundaries (hereinafter referred to as the planning area). Unincorporated Grand County and the following communities and special districts participated in the planning process: • Grand County • Town of Fraser • Town of Granby • Town of Grand Lake • Town of Kremmling • Town of Hot Sulphur Springs • Town of Winter Park • Fire Protection Districts* • Northern Water* • Denver Water* " New participating jurisdiction in 2013 The fire protection districts provided hazard identification and analysis support to the Towns during the 2008 plan. They are counted as new participating districts in the 2013 plan update. This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. The 2007 amendments also incorporate mitigation planning requirements of the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. While the Disaster Mitigation Act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288). Information in this plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for local land use policy in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to communities and their residents by protecting critical community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community Grand County, Colorado 1.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 impacts and disruptions. The Grand County planning area has been affected by hazards in the past and is thus committed to reducing future impacts from hazard events and becoming eligible for mitigation -related federal funding. This plan addresses natural hazards and one manmade hazard—hazardous materials release. Although the members of the Grand County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) recognize that FEMA encourages communities to integrate manmade hazards into the mitigation planning process, the scope of this effort did not address other manmade hazards for several reasons. First, many of the planning activities for the mitigation of these hazards are either underway or complete and are addressed in the emergency operations plan for Grand County. Second, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires extensive public information and input, and this is in direct conflict with the confidentiality necessary in planning for chemical, biological, and radiological terrorism. Thus the HMPC determined it was not in the planning area's best interests to publicly share specific information about its vulnerability to manmade hazards. 1.3 Jurisdictional Annexes Each jurisdiction participating in this plan developed its own annex, which provides a more detailed assessment of the jurisdiction's unique risks as well as their mitigation strategy to reduce long-term losses. Each jurisdictional annex contains the following: • Community profile summarizing geography and climate, history, economy, and population • Hazard information on location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity for geographically specific hazards • Hazard map(s) at an appropriate scale for the jurisdiction, if available • Number and value of buildings, critical facilities, and other community assets located in hazard areas, if available • Vulnerability information in terms of future growth and development in hazard areas • A capability assessment describing existing regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal resources and tools as well as outreach efforts and partnerships and past mitigation projects • Mitigation actions specific to the jurisdiction 1.4 Plan Organization The Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized as follows: • Executive Summary • Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Area Profile • Chapter 2: Planning Process • Chapter 3: Risk Assessment • Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategy • Chapter 5: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Grand County, Colorado 1.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 • Jurisdictional Annexes • Appendix A References • Appendix B Planning Process Materials • Appendix C Mitigation Action Alternatives and Priorities • Appendix D Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee • Appendix E Plan Adoption 1.5 Planning Area Profile Figure 1.1 shows a map of the Grand County planning area. Grand County, Colorado 1.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 1.1. Grand County JACKSON 9 = ' t I E i,1f ,tt1 .1 fwrnrttttli �' r 'o 1"a Fd - Kremmling r � EAGLE SUMMIT LARIMER 4� t 125 ' C Grand Lake ��SYr�rdcr,r• � ���� ,1&rrun��rrr LuFe -� I LaL Hot Sulphur Springs f Granlay" LEGEND Streams Elevation (ft) Lakes - 61614 - 8,566 —+� Railroads 8,567 - 9,649 Highways 9,650 - 10,912 t.. Towns 10,913 - 14,275 L- - Counties LARIMER 4� t 125 ' C Grand Lake ��SYr�rdcr,r• � ���� ,1&rrun��rrr LuFe -� I LaL Hot Sulphur Springs f Granlay" Sao 7-' �� II rllr,rntc f r,rk � �` RL }i'7'1'OW BOULDER Fraser r _ r A '- Wintery �. GILPIN Park I CLEAR CREEK ame& 0 7.5 15 Miles N 111111111 Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT Grand County, Colorado 1.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 1.5.1 Geography and Climate Grand County is located high in the Colorado Rockies along the west side of the Continental Divide. Its land area encompasses approximately 1,846 square miles and is located northwest of the geographic center of Colorado. Major transportation corridors include Highways 40, 9, 14, 34, 125, and 134. The County is bounded by Jackson (north), Larimer (northeast), Boulder and Gilpin (east), Clear Creek (southeast), Summit (south), Eagle (southwest), and Routt counties (west). The County is known for its scenery and outdoor recreation opportunities. The western section of Rocky Mountain National Park is located in Grand County. Other important natural resources in the County include Arapaho National Recreation Area, national forests (Arapaho and Routt), national wilderness areas (Byers Peak, Indian Peaks, Never Summer, Ptarmigan Peak, Sarvis Creek, and Vasquez Peak), the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and national scenic byways (Colorado River Headwaters and Trail Ridge Road/Beaver Meadow). The County's topography includes broad mountain valleys flanked by high peaks. Several mountain ranges converge in the County, including portions of the Gore Range, Williams Fork Mountains, Rabbit Ears Range, Front Range, and the entirety of the Never Summer Range. Elevations range from 7,300 feet along the Colorado River in the Gore Canyon to 13,553 feet at the summit of Pettingell Peak on the Continental Divide (Grand County CWPP, 2006). Vegetation varies based on elevation. The lowest elevation areas are composed primarily of sagebrush shrubland. At around 9,000 feet and above, coniferous forest predominates. Timberline is located at approximately 11,500 feet, with areas above that elevation comprised of snow, rock, and alpine tundra. The County has one major drainage basin, that of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The specific portion that lies in Grand County is the Middle Park basin. The Colorado River flows south from its headwaters in the northeast County and traverses to the southwest corner of the County. There are several reservoirs in the County, including Shadow Mountain Lake, Lake Granby, Wolford Mountain Reservoir, and Williams Fork Reservoir. These reservoirs impound the Colorado River, Muddy Creek, and Williams Fork River. Mean summer temperatures typically range from the mid- to high -50s, with summer high temperatures reaching the 70s. Individual days with temperatures in the 80s and 90s have occurred during hotter summers. Winter lows have dropped below -45°F, though average winter temperatures are typically in the teens and low winter temperatures are in the single digits (Western Regional Climate Center, 2013). Grand County is known for its extreme cold temperatures, though residents are accustomed to the cold. The relative humidity is quite low throughout the year. Much of the annual precipitation comes in the form of winter snow, but afternoon summer thunderstorms are common. Snow is possible at any time of year in the highest elevations. The average rainfall and snowfall is approximately 12 inches and 128 inches a year respectively. In addition, Winter Park Resort boasts an average 365 inches of precipitation a year, mostly in snowfall (Grand County CWPP, 2006). Grand County, Colorado 1.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 1.5.2 Population Grand County had the 32nd largest population of the 64 counties in Colorado as of the 2010 U.S. Census. Grand County grew by 19.3 percent between 2000 and 2010. The estimated County population in 2010 was 14,843, up from 12,442 as of the 2000 U.S. Census. 2012 estimates place the population at 14,195. The majority of the County's population is in unincorporated areas. Population estimates for the years 2000, 2010 and 2011 for each of the incorporated towns and the unincorporated County are provided in Table 1.1. 2012 estimates were not yet available for the towns as of the writing of this plan update. It is important to note that the 2011 numbers are only estimates, which may account for the drastic changes in population in some jurisdictions between 2010 and 2011. Table 1.1. Grand County Population Jurisdiction April 2000 April 2010 July 2011'` Town of Fraser 910 1,224 1,216 Town of Granby 1,525 1,864 2,389 Town of Grand Lake 447 471 357 Town of Hot Sulphur Springs 521 663 1,055 Town of Kremmling 1,578 1,444 2,039 Town of Winter Park 662 999 536 Unincorporated Grand County 6,799 8,178 7,042 Total Grand County 12,442 14,843 14,634 Source: 2U1U Ub Census, 2011 American Community burvey, tacttinder2.census.gov "Estimate Select 2010 U.S. Census demographic and social characteristics for Grand County are shown in Table 1.2. Characteristics for Grand County are for the entire County. Table 1.2. Grand County Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic Grand County Fraser Granby Grand Lake Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling Winter Park Gender/Age Male % 53.4 56.5 51.3 53.3 50.8 51.2 58.7 Female % 46.6 43.5 48.7 46.7 49.2 48.8 41.3 Under 5 Years % 5.6 7.2 6.7 3.2 8.1 7.5 4.7 65 Years and Over % 10.2 3.7 7.4 14.6 6 8.4 8.6 Race/Ethnicity (one race) White % 93.5 90.8 91.2 93.2 96.8 92.6 93.8 Black % 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 American Indian and Alaska Native % 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.3 Asian % 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.7 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander % 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 Other % 3.1 7.8 5.0 2.1 1.2 4.3 2.1 Hispanic/Latino (Any 7.5 13.6 9.8 7.4 7.7 11.9 5.9 Grand County, Colorado 1.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Characteristic Grand County Fraser Granby Grand Lake Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling Winter Park Race) (%) Other Average Household Size 2.26 2.26 2.40 1.96 2.49 2.35 2.05 High School Grad or Higher % 94.9 97.8 96.0 99.2 96.3 81.1 100 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, tacttinder2.census.goW 1.5.3 History Grand County was created on February 2, 1874 from a portion of Summit County. It contained land to the western and northern borders of the State, which is now in present day Moffat County and Routt County. On January 29, 1877, Routt County was created and Grand County was reduced to its current western boundary. When valuable minerals were found in North Park, Grand County claimed the area as part of its county, a claim Larimer County also held. It took a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1886 to declare North Park a part of Larimer County, and thus Grand County's northern boundary was set. 1.5.4 Economy The largest industry in Grand County is tourism and accompanying services provided. It is estimated that two million visitors come to Grand County each year to enjoy a diverse vacation and recreational experience. Tourism activities include but are not limited to: skiing, snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, golf, camping, mountain biking, sightseeing, dining, lodging, and shopping. These tourism activities depend on a healthy forest, beautiful scenery, water quality, air quality, and public safety. Property development and construction of commercial, recreational, and residential sites has seen a dramatic rise in the last decade. The logging and timber industries have an increased presence due to the mountain pine beetle epidemic that impacted Grand County. The Climax Molybdenum Company, and Henderson Mine and Mill continue to be important contributors to the County's economy. Remaining production agriculture entities, found mostly in the western portion of Grand County, continue to be a vital component of the County's heritage, history, and economy. However, production agriculture is in decline due to land values, commodity market prices, rising operational costs, and development pressures (Grand County CWPP, 2006). According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the industries that employed the highest percentages of Grand County's labor force were construction (19.0%); arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (17.2%); retail trade (12.9%); finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (9.3%); and educational services, and health care and social assistance (8.0%). Select economic characteristics for Grand County from the 2010 Census are shown in Table 1.3. Characteristics for Grand County are for the entire County. Grand County, Colorado 1.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 1.3. Grand County Economic Characteristics Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010), factfinder2.census.gov/ *Population 16 years and over Grand County, Colorado 1.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hot Grand Grand Sulphur Winter Characteristic County Fraser Granby Lake Springs Kremmling Park Families below Poverty Level % 5.1 8.9 9.0 26.9 0.0 4.6 0.0 Individuals below Poveq Level % 6.6 16.3 11.0 48.3 0.0 7.9 3.5 Median Home Value ($) 269,100 237,300 222,900 169,600 225,000 202,300 520,200 Median Household Income $ 60,433 44,453 54,663 50,391 68,250 42,337 59,943 Per Capita Income $ 30,055 22,978 29,358 21,285 25,298 19,226 34,124 Population in Labor Force* 8,930 886 1247 174 547 898 516 Unemployment (%) 3.9 4.9 6.5 51.7 1.5 2.4 2.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010), factfinder2.census.gov/ *Population 16 years and over Grand County, Colorado 1.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 2 PLANNING PROCESS 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. 2.1 Background on Mitigation Planning in Grand County The Grand County Office of Emergency Management recognized the need and importance of this plan and was responsible for initiating the plan's original development in 2008 and the 2013 update process, which included securing funding. The first version of this plan was approved by FEMA in 2008. Since the original development of the plan, FEMA guidance for local hazard mitigation plans has been refined and updated. The County received grant funding from the State including Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) A portion of the update was funded with National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) funds to further analyze the earthquake risk and consider mitigation actions related to earthquakes. The County contracted with AMEC Environment and Infrastructure (AMEC) in 2013 to facilitate the update of a multi jurisdictional, multi -hazard mitigation plan. AMEC's role was to: Assist in convening a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) for the County that incorporates key stakeholders and representatives from each participating jurisdiction Identify and invite new stakeholders to participate in the plan update process Meet all of the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) and the Flood Mitigation Assistance program as established by federal regulations and following FEMA's planning guidance Facilitate the planning process Identify the data requirements that the HMPC can provide and conduct the research and documentation necessary to augment that data Develop and facilitate the public input process Produce the draft and final plan documents Coordinate the Colorado Office of Emergency Management, Colorado Water Conservation Board, and FEMA Region VIII reviews of the plan and its formal adoption by the Grand County Board of County Commissioners and the governing bodies of each of the participating jurisdictions The remainder of this chapter provides a narrative description of the steps taken to prepare and update the hazard mitigation plan. 2.2 Plan Section Review and Analysis — 2013 Update During the 2013 update process, the HMPC updated each section of the previously approved plan to include new information and improve the organization and formatting of the plan's contents. The HMPC and AMEC analyzed each section using FEMA's local plan update guidance (July 2008 and 2011 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool) to ensure that the plan met Grand County, Colorado 2.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 the latest requirements. Upon review the HMPC and AMEC determined that nearly every section of the plan would need revision or reorganization to align with the latest FEMA planning guidance and requirements. Thus, the 2013 plan has been significantly revised from the 2008 version with relevant information carried over to the updated document. Revisions included combining several chapters of the 2008 plan and reorganizing the document in a format that more closely follows the FEMA local mitigation plan review crosswalk. The 2013 update revised the list of profiled hazards, eliminating several that fell outside of the scope of hazard mitigation planning. Other hazards were profiled in greater detail and overall vulnerability was analyzed more thoroughly. New GIS maps and methods were used to substantially improve the plan and quantify the loss potential to various hazards where feasible. The 2013 plan update analyzed how risk varied across the participating jurisdictions, including the fire protection districts and other special districts. The planning process section of the 2013 plan update enhanced the original planning process discussion in the 2008 plan. The step-by-step process used in the 2013 plan update is similar to that of the 2008 plan, though the 2013 process is organized to be more closely aligned with FEMA guidance. Notes of how various sections of the 2008 plan were improved or altered during the update are noted where appropriate in the narrative of the planning process that follows. 2.3 Multi -Jurisdictional Participation 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi -jurisdictional plans may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan. Grand County invited every incorporated town and special district in the County to participate in the multi jurisdictional Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Outreach expanded to include the fire protection districts and other special districts during the 2013 update. Two water districts recognized the linkage between watershed health and hazard mitigation and participated in the effort. The Disaster Mitigation Act requires that each jurisdiction participate in the planning process and officially adopt the multi jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. Each jurisdiction that chose to participate in the planning process and development of the plan or its update was required to meet strict plan participation requirements defined at the beginning of the process, which included the following: Designate a representative to serve on the HMPC Participate in HMPC meetings Complete and return the AMEC Data Collection Guide Identify mitigation actions for the plan Review and comment on plan drafts Inform the public, local officials, and other interested parties about the planning process and provide opportunity for them to comment on the plan Grand County, Colorado 2.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Formally adopt the mitigation plan and re -adopt every 5 years An effort was made during the 2013 update to increase the multi jurisdictional participation. Seven special districts were added to the plan in 2013 and are indicated in the table below. In most cases, the representative for each jurisdiction brought together a planning team to help collect data, identify mitigation actions and implementation strategies, and review annex drafts. Table 2.1 shows the attendance of representatives at each HMPC meeting; sign -in sheets are included in Appendix B: Planning Process Documentation. Jurisdictions that could not attend meetings communicated with the planning team via email and/or phone during the update process to submit materials needed for the update. Communities also participated via a Sharepoint project website and reviewed draft versions of the plan. The Kremmling FPD worked directly with the Town of Kremmling on their sections of the 2013 plan update. The Kremmling FPD was represented by the Kremmling Town Manager at planning meetings. Fire chiefs also discussed the plan update at fire protection district meetings. Table 2.1. Jurisdictional Participation in 2013 HMPC Meetings Jurisdiction Kickoff Meeting Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Grand County ✓ ✓ ✓ Town of Fraser ✓ ✓ Town of Granby ✓ Town of Grand Lake ✓ ✓ ✓ Town of Hot Sulphur Springs ✓ Town of Kremmling ✓ ✓ Town of Winter Park ✓ ✓ East Grand Fire Protection District (FPD)* ✓ ✓ ✓ Grand FPD* Grand Lake FPD* ✓ ✓ Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall FPD* Kremmling FPD* Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District* ✓ ✓ Denver Water* ✓ *New participating jurisdiction in 2013 2.4 The 10 -Step Planning Process AMEC and the Grand County Office of Emergency Management worked together to establish the framework and process for this planning effort using FEMA's Local Multi -Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (2008) and the State and Local Mitigation Planning How -To Guides (2001), which include Multi -Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (2006). The guidance and this plan are structured around a four-phase process: 1) Organize resources 2) Assess risks Grand County, Colorado 2.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3) Develop the mitigation plan 4) Implement the plan and monitor progress Into this four-phase process, AMEC integrated a more detailed 10 -step planning process used for FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs. Thus, the modified 10 -step process used for this plan meets the funding eligibility requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants (including Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre -Disaster Mitigation program, Flood Mitigation Assistance, Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss grants), Community Rating System, , and the flood control projects authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Table 2.2 shows how the modified 10 -step process fits into FEMA's four-phase process. Table 2.2. Mitigation Planning Process Used to Develop the Plan DMA Process Modified CRS Process 1) Organize Resources 201.6(c)(1) 1) Organize the Planning Effort 201.6(b)(1) 2) Involve the Public 201.6(b)(2) and (3) 3) Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies 2) Assess Risks 201.6(c)(2)(i) 4) Identify the Hazards 201.6(c)(2)(ii) 5) Assess the Risks 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i) 6) Set Goals 201.6(c)(3)(ii) 7) Review Possible Activities 201.6(c)(3)(iii) 8) Draft an Action Plan 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress 201.6(c)(5) 9) Adopt the Plan 201.6(c)(4) 10) Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan Phase I Organize Resources Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort AMEC worked with the Grand County Office of Emergency Management to establish the framework and organization for the development of this plan and its update. The description of the planning process emphasizes the effort undertaken in the 2013 update. The original planning process effort can be referenced in the 2008 version of this plan. The Grand County Emergency Manager took the lead on coordinating and reconvening the HMPC with the guidance of a professional planner with AMEC during the plan update in 2013. AMEC and the Emergency Manager identified the key county, municipal, and other local government and initial stakeholder representatives. Letters of invitation were mailed to invite them to participate as a member of the HMPC and to attend a kickoff meeting. Representatives from the following County and municipal departments and special districts participated on the HMPC and the development of the plan: Grand County, Colorado 2.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Grand County Office of Emergency Management Grand County Public Health Grand County Search and Rescue Grand County Emergency Medical Services Grand County Department of Natural Resources Grand County Road and Bridge Grand County Planning Grand County Sheriff's Office Participating Jurisdictions Town of Fraser Town of Granby Town of Grand Lake Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Town of Kremmling Town of Winter Park East Grand Fire Protection District Grand Fire Protection District Grand Lake Fire Protection District Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Fire Protection District Kremmling Fire Protection District Northern Water Denver Water Other Government and Stakeholder Representatives Granby/Silvercreek Water and Wastewater Authority Winter Park Ranch Water and Sanitation District Colorado Office of Emergency Management Colorado Water Conservation Board Colorado Geological Survey Colorado State Forest Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Land Management Senator Bennet's Office FEMA Region VIII Winter Park Resort Grand County, Colorado 2.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 The plan update process officially began with a kickoff meeting in Fraser, Colorado, on February 11, 2013. The Grand County Office of Emergency Management mailed letters of invitation to the kickoff meeting to county, municipal, district, state, and other stakeholder representatives. The invite letter is included in Appendix B. The Disaster Mitigation Act requires that each jurisdiction participate in the planning process and officially adopt the multi jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan and re -adopt during the update. A planning committee was created that includes representatives from each participating jurisdiction, departments of the County, and other local, state, and federal organizations responsible for making decisions in the plan and agreeing upon the final contents. Kickoff meeting attendees discussed potential participants and made decisions about additional stakeholders to invite to participate on the HMPC. The HMPC contributed to this planning process by: providing facilities for meetings, attending meetings, collecting data, managing administrative details, making decisions on plan process and content, submitting mitigation action implementation worksheets, reviewing and editing drafts, and coordinating and assisting with public involvement and plan adoptions. The HMPC communicated during the planning process with a combination of face-to-face meetings, phone interviews, email correspondence, an FTP (file transfer protocol) site, and a Microsoft SharePoint site hosted by AMEC. SharePoint was utilized to host documents related to the planning process, post information and meeting materials, and share drafts of the plan and its annexes for jurisdictional review and input. Draft documents were typically posted on the SharePoint site so that HMPC members could access and review them. The HMPC met three times during the planning period (February 11, 2013 to May 23, 2013). The meeting schedule and topics are listed in Table 2.3. The sign -in sheets and agendas for each of the meetings are included in Appendix B. The plan was also discussed at other ongoing meetings, including an LEPC meeting held on July 18th, 2013 in Fraser. Table 2.3. Schedule of HMPC Meetings Meeting Topic Date Kickoff Introduction to DMA and the planning process; February 11, 2013 Meeting Identification of hazards impacting Grand County HMPC #2 Review of updated risk assessment; April 18, 2013 Review of goals and objectives HMPC #3 Identification, prioritization, and status update of mitigation actions; May 23, 2013 Discussion of process to monitor, evaluate, and update plan Grand County, Colorado 2.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 During the kickoff meeting, AMEC presented information on the scope and purpose of the plan update, participation requirements of HMPC members, and the proposed project work plan and schedule. Plans for public involvement (Step 2) and coordination with other agencies and departments (Step 3) were discussed. AMEC also introduced hazard identification requirements and data. The HMPC discussed past events and impacts and future probability for each of the hazards required by FEMA for consideration in a local hazard mitigation plan. The HMPC made several revisions to the hazards list from the 2008 plan, including deleting several hazards that fell outside of the scope of hazard mitigation planning. Participants were given the AMEC Data Collection Guide to facilitate the collection of information needed to support the plan update, such as data on historic hazard events, values at risk, and current capabilities. New participating jurisdictions and former participants completed and returned the worksheets in the data collection guide to AMEC, or provided information for AMEC to incorporate. Step 2: Involve the Public 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval. At the kickoff meeting, the HMPC discussed options for soliciting public input on the mitigation plan and developed an outreach strategy by consensus. During the plan update's drafting stage, the HMPC provided links to a public survey. The survey provided an opportunity for public input during the planning process, prior to finalization of the plan update. Eighty-eight people filled out the survey online. Results showed that the public perceives the most significant hazards to be wildfire, severe winter storm, avalanche, lightning, and drought. When asked if there were specific issues that the HMPC should consider, several respondents suggested emergency evacuation route development. Other suggestions included mitigation of wildfire, avalanche, and rockfall. Forest health and watershed protection also received high scores for priority mitigation actions. Suggested pre -disaster strategies included sheltering, testing emergency alert systems, formation of a Fire Safe Council, and increasing hazard/disaster awareness. A screenshot of the results of the public survey is provided in Appendix B. The public was also given an opportunity to provide input on a draft of the complete plan prior to its submittal to the State and FEMA. Grand County provided the plan draft for review and comment on the Office of Emergency Management website at http://www.co.Grand.co.us/oem.html and in hard copy in the County building, libraries, and in all of the town halls. The plan was available at these locations from September 20, 2013 to October 4, 2013. The jurisdictions announced the availability of the draft plan and the public comment period in local newspapers. A copy of the press release is provided in Appendix B. Grand County, Colorado 2.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process. (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. There are numerous organizations whose goals and interests interface with hazard mitigation in Grand County. Coordination with these organizations and other community planning efforts is vital to the success of this plan update. The Grand County Office of Emergency Management invited other local, state, and federal departments and agencies to the kickoff meeting to learn about the hazard mitigation planning initiative. Many of the agencies participated throughout the planning process on the HMPC and were listed previously in Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort. As part of the coordination with other agencies, the HMPC collected and reviewed existing technical data, reports, and plans. State and federal agency data sources, including National Weather Service web pages and FEMA Flood Insurance Studies, were used to collect information. Grand County and its communities use a variety of comprehensive planning mechanisms, such as land use and general plans, emergency operations plans, and municipal ordinances and building codes, to manage community growth and development. This information was used in the development and update of the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment and in the formation of goals, objectives, and mitigation actions. These sources are documented throughout the plan, in the capability assessment sections of each jurisdictional annex, and in Appendix A References. Other planning mechanisms that were used in the development of the Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update include (but are not limited to): Community Wildfire Protection Plans for each of the fire protection districts Fraser Comprehensive Plan Grand County Master Plan Grand County Emergency Operations Plan Grand Lake Comprehensive Land Use Plan Kremmling Comprehensive Plan Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment Sources are named throughout the plan update wherever these and other documents were used. Grand County, Colorado 2.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Phase 2 Assess Risk Step 4: Identify the Hazards AMEC assisted the HMPC in a process to identify the natural hazards that have impacted or could impact communities in Grand County. During the 2008 planning process, the HMPC discussed past events and impacts and future probability for each of the hazards required by FEMA for consideration in a local hazard mitigation plan. The HMPC refined the list of hazards to make it relevant to Grand County. The profile of each of these hazards was then developed and updated in 2013 with information from the HMPC and additional sources. Web resources, existing reports and plans, and existing GIS layers were used to compile information about past hazard events and determine the location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity of each hazard. The Grand County Data Collection Guide distributed at the kickoff meeting helped identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to the participating jurisdictions. Information on the methodology and resources used to identify and profile hazards is provided in Sections 3.1-3.2. Step 5: Assess the Risks After profiling the hazards that could affect Grand County, the HMPC collected information to describe the likely impacts of future hazard events on the participating jurisdictions. This step included two parts: a vulnerability assessment and a capability assessment. Vulnerability Assessment—Participating jurisdictions inventoried their assets at risk to natural hazards—overall and in identified hazard areas. These assets included total number and value of structures; critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, historic, and cultural assets; and economic assets. The HMPC also analyzed development trends in hazard areas. The DFIRM was used to refine the estimate flood losses during the update, where available for the NFIP participating communities. Capability Assessment—This assessment consisted of identifying the existing mitigation capabilities of participating jurisdictions. This involved collecting information about existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and plans that mitigate or could be used to mitigate risk to disasters. Participating jurisdictions collected information on their regulatory, personnel, fiscal, and technical capabilities, as well as ongoing initiatives related to interagency coordination and public outreach. This information is included in the jurisdictional annexes. AMEC provided the draft risk assessment to the HMPC in June 2013 for review and comment. Results of the risk assessment were presented and comments discussed at the second meeting of the HMPC. Grand County, Colorado 2.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Phase 3 Develop the Mitigation Plan Step 6: Set Goals AMEC facilitated a brainstorming and discussion session with the HMPC during their second meeting to identify goals and objectives for the overall multi jurisdictional mitigation plan update. The HMPC discussed definitions and examples of goals, objectives, and actions and considered the goals of the state hazard mitigation plan and other relevant local plans when forming their own goals and objectives. The goals in the 2008 plan were hazard -specific. They were reworded to be more general for the 2013 plan update and align more with the Colorado Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan's goals. The final goals and objectives are further discussed in Chapter 4. Step 7: Review Possible Activities The HMPC identified and prioritized mitigation actions at their third meeting. The group was presented with six different categories of mitigation actions and example actions for each identified hazard. The HMPC then participated in a brainstorming process, in which committee members identified actions to address each of the plan's four goals. The HMPC then reviewed potential mitigation alternatives and identified new actions by hazard and jurisdiction to ensure that all of the plan's profiled hazards were addressed and that all participating jurisdictions had at least one mitigation action. The HMPC discussed criteria for narrowing down and prioritizing the identified actions. The group approved the STAPLEE criteria, which assesses the social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental implications of each action. Each member used these criteria to vote for their highest priority projects. Projects were then sorted into high, medium, or low priority based upon the number of votes they received. This process is described in more detail in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. The HMPC also identified the responsible agency for implementing each action. The identified agencies then completed a mitigation action implementation worksheet for each action. The purpose of these worksheets is to document background information, ideas for implementation, alternatives, responsible agency, partners, potential funding, cost estimates, benefits, and timeline for each identified action. Each jurisdiction was responsible for completing mitigation action implementation worksheets for each action identified by the HMPC that they would need to implement on the jurisdictional level. The jurisdictions were also responsible for working with their local staff to submit additional mitigation actions unique to their jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction provided input on the progress made on relevant actions identified in the 2008 plan. Grand County, Colorado 2.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Step 8: Draft the Plan The first complete draft of the plan update, including annexes for new and past participating jurisdictions, were developed and submitted to the HMPC for review in August 2013. Once the committee's comments were incorporated, a complete draft of the plan was made available online and in hard copy for review and comment by the public and other agencies and interested stakeholders. This review period was from September 20- October 4, 2013. 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. Comments were integrated into a final draft for submittal to the Colorado Office of Emergency Management, Colorado Water Conservation Board, and FEMA Region VIII. Phase 4 Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress Step 9: Adopt the Plan To secure buy -in and officially implement the plan, the governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction adopted the plan and their jurisdictional annex. Scanned copies of resolutions of adoption are included in the Appendix E — Plan Adoption. Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan The HMPC developed and agreed upon an overall strategy for plan implementation and for monitoring and maintaining the plan over time during Meeting #3. This strategy is described in Chapter 5 and was updated in 2013. Grand County, Colorado 2.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3 RISK ASSESSMENT Requirement §201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include] A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. As defined by FEMA, risk is a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. "It is the impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community and refers to the likelihood of a hazard event resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage." This chapter will examine hazards and vulnerability. Jurisdictional annexes to the plan discuss the capabilities for each of the participating jurisdictions as well as the hazards and vulnerability particular to their area. The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of lives, property, and infrastructure to these hazards. The goal of the risk assessment is to estimate the potential loss in Grand County, including loss of life, personal injury, property damage, and economic loss, from a hazard event. The risk assessment process allows communities in Grand County to better understand their potential risk to natural hazards and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce risk from future hazard events. The risk assessment for Grand County and its jurisdictions followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication 386-2, Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (2002), which includes a four -step process: 1) Identify Hazards 2) Profile Hazard Events 3) Inventory Assets 4) Estimate Losses This chapter is divided into three parts: hazard identification, hazard profiles, and vulnerability assessment: Section 3.1 Hazard Identification identifies the hazards that threaten the planning area and describes why some hazards have been omitted from further consideration. Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles discusses the geographic location, past events, future probability, magnitude/severity, and overall vulnerability of the planning area to each hazard. Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment assesses the County's total exposure to natural hazards and considers assets at risk, including critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, historic, and cultural resources; and economic assets. This section also describes vulnerability and estimates potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas and addresses development and land use trends. Grand County, Colorado 3.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3.1 Hazard Identification 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. Using existing hazards data, plans from participating jurisdictions, and input gained through planning and public meetings, the HMPC agreed upon a list of hazards that could affect the Grand County planning area. The hazards evaluated in this plan include those that have occurred historically or have the potential to cause significant human and/or monetary losses in the future. The following natural hazards, listed alphabetically, were identified and investigated for the Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Avalanche Dam/Levee Failure Disease Outbreak Drought Earthquake Flood Hazardous Materials Landslide, debris flows, mudflow, rockfall Lightning Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Severe Winter Storm Wildfire Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Windstorm The HMPC eliminated some hazards from further profiling because they do not occur in the planning area, their impacts were not considered significant in relation to other hazards, or they are not within the scope of this plan. Table 3.1 lists these hazards and provides a brief explanation for their elimination. Table 3.1. Hazards Not Profiled in the Plan Hazard Explanation for Omission Coastal Storm Planning area is not near coastal areas. Expansive Soils Expansive soils are not a common soil type in the planning area. Extreme Extreme heat has not created problems in the past. Due to the high altitude and alpine Temperatures environment of Grand County temperatures are rarely hot enough to affect human health. Extreme cold is a common occurrence in Grand County, but the residents deal with it in stride. However, the impacts of extreme cold temperatures are mentioned in the winter storm profile. Hailstorm Hailstorms occur, but large-sized damaging hail similar to that occurring on the Front Range of Colorado is very rare. Past damage has been negligible. Hurricane Planning area is not near coastal areas. Land Subsidence Hazard is primarily related to coal mining in Colorado. The HMPC did not identify this as an area of concern. Tsunami Planning area is not near coastal areas. Volcano Dotsero, near Glenwood Canyon, is the only volcano of concern in Colorado. It has not erupted in 4,000 years. Grand County, Colorado 3.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 The HMPC identified 14 hazards that significantly affect the planning area and organized these hazards to be consistent with the State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2011). Several hazards were deleted from the 2008 hazard mitigation plan, including volcanic eruption, asteroid/comet impact, terrorism (international and domestic), airplane crashes, jail/prison escape, civil disturbance, military accident, arson, urban fire, extreme acts of violence, vehicle crashes (not related to wildlife). Most of these hazards were judged to be outside the scope of or not appropriate for the hazard mitigation plan update, or were addressed in other planning mechanisms such as the County Emergency Operations Plan. Two new hazards were added in 2013: beetle infestation and wildlife -vehicle collisions. Mountain pine beetle kill affects the lodgepole pine tree population in the County and exacerbates wildfire risk. Prolonged power outages are also discussed as a consequence of several hazards profiled in the plan update. The 14 hazards identified for this plan update are profiled in further detail in the next section and are listed in Table 3.2 along with a checkmark indicating the jurisdictions impacted by the hazard. Although not required by the Disaster Mitigation Act, the HMPC decided to address one manmade hazard—hazardous materials release. The risk from this hazard is related primarily to the transportation of hazardous materials through the County, and the HMPC believed this was an important issue to incorporate into this hazard planning process. Grand County, Colorado 3.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 3.2. Hazards Identified for Each Participating Jurisdiction Source: Grand County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, 2013 *FPD=Fire Protection District Grand County, Colorado 3.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Grand Hot Sulphur Winter Denver Northern Hazard County Fraser Granby Lake Springs Kremmling Park Water Water FPDs Avalanche ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Dam Failure ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Disease ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Outbreak Drought ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Earthquake ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Flood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Hazardous Materials ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Release (Transportation) ✓ Landslide, Mudflow/Debris ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Flow, Rock Fall ✓ Lightning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Beetle Infestation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Severe Winter ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Weather ✓ Wildfire ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Wildlife Hazards ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Windstorm ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Source: Grand County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, 2013 *FPD=Fire Protection District Grand County, Colorado 3.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Data on the past impacts and future probability of these hazards was collected from the following sources: Grand County HMPC FEMA Region VIII Colorado Geological Survey State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2011) Grand County Master Plan (2011) Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2006) Colorado Flood Decision Support System Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data from Grand County Data collection guides filled out by each participating jurisdiction Personal communications with HMPC members and other stakeholders Information on past hazard events from the Spatial Hazard Event and Loss Database (SHELDUS), a component of the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab, that compiles county -level hazard data for 18 different natural hazard event types Information on past extreme weather and climate events from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center Disaster declaration history from FEMA, the Public Entity Risk Institute, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency 3.1.1 Disaster Declaration History One method used by the HMPC to identify hazards was to examine events that triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations. Federal and/or state declarations may be granted when the severity and magnitude of an event surpasses the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental and sequential. When the local government's capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state governments' capacities are exceeded; a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued allowing for the provision of federal assistance. The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the USDA, and/or the Small Business Administration (SBA). FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors. A USDA disaster declaration certifies that the affected county has suffered at least a 30 percent loss in one or more crop or livestock areas and provides affected producers with access to low- interest loans and other programs to help mitigate the impact of the disaster. In accordance with the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, all counties neighboring those receiving disaster declarations are named as contiguous disaster counties and, as such, are eligible for the same assistance. Grand County, Colorado 3.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 3.3 lists state and federal disaster declarations received by Grand County. Many of the disaster events were regional or statewide; therefore, reported costs are not accurate reflections of losses to Grand County. Table 3.3. Disaster Declaration History in Grand County, 1953 -Present Date Disaster Name Declaration Type Disaster Cost ($) Declared Number 7/3/2012 Drought, high winds, excessive heat USDA (contiguous) S3260 Presidential Emergency 9/5/2005 Hurricane Katrina Evacuation 3224 15,279,405 Declaration 4/9/2003 Snow Presidential Emergency 3185 9,786,3621 Declaration 6/19/2002 Wildfires Presidential Major 1421 7,589,180' Disaster Declaration 2002 Drought USDA 2000 Drought USDA 1995 Flooding State 1/29/1977 Drought Presidential Emergency 3025 4,873,8381 Declaration Source: State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 2011; Public Entity Risk Institute Presidential Disaster Declaration Site, www.peripresdecusa.org/mainframe.htm; USDA Farm Service Agency, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=landing 'Costs are in 2009 dollars and are statewide *The Public Entity Risk Institute's extent of record is 2009, which is why the damage estimate is in 2009 dollars. Half of the declarations were for, or included, drought. These declarations, which were USDA declarations with the exception of one, were in 1977, 2000, 2002, and 2012. Grand County was included in the Presidential Major Disaster Declaration for wildfire in 2002; however; major fires or losses were not sustained in the County itself. The County provided aid to affected areas but no reimbursement was involved. It is important to be aware that hazard events that happen outside of the County boundaries also can have direct and indirect impacts to Grand County. For instance, transportation routes or power supply could be interrupted by severe winter storms, flooding, rockslides, or wildfire hazards outside of the County. Grand County, Colorado 3.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3.2 Hazard Profiles 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. 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. The hazards identified in Section 3.1 Hazard Identification are profiled individually in this section. The section will conclude by summarizing the probability of future occurrence and potential magnitude of each hazard for each jurisdiction, as well as assigning an overall vulnerability, or planning significance, rating of high, moderate, or low for each hazard. The sources used to collect information for these profiles include the following: Disaster declaration history from FEMA, the Public Entity Risk Institute, and the USDA Farm Service Agency State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2011) Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2006) Grand County Master Plan (2011) Internet resources on past hazard events, such as the SHELDUS database created by the University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab and the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database Geographic information systems (GIS) data from the Grand County GIS Department Statewide GIS datasets compiled by state and federal agencies Other existing plans and reports Personal interviews with HMPC members and other stakeholders Grand County Data Collection Guide completed by each participating jurisdiction Detailed profiles for each of the identified hazards include information on the following characteristics of the hazard: Hazard Description This section consists of a general description of the hazard and the general impacts it may have on a community. Geographic Location This section describes the geographic extent or location of the hazard in the planning area and assesses the affected areas as isolated, small, medium, or large. Grand County, Colorado 3.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Large—More than 50 percent of the planning area affected Medium -25-50 percent of the planning area affected Small -10-25 percent of the planning area affected Isolated—Less than 10 percent of the planning area affected Previous Occurrences This section includes information on historic incidents, including impacts and costs, if known. A historic incident worksheet was used to capture information from participating jurisdictions on past occurrences. Information from the HMPC was combined with other data sources, including those previously mentioned. Probability of Future Occurrence The frequency of past events is used to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Based on historical data, the Probability of Future Occurrence is categorized as follows: Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or happens every year Likely -10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less Occasional -1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years The probability, or chance of occurrence, was calculated where possible based on existing data. Probability was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years and multiplying by 100. This gives the percent chance of the event happening in any given year. An example would be three droughts occurring over a 30 -year period, which suggests a 10 percent chance of a drought occurring in any given year. Magnitude/Severity This section summarizes the magnitude/severity or extent of a hazard event in terms of deaths, injuries, property damage, and interruption of essential facilities and services. Magnitude and severity is classified in the following manner: Catastrophic—Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; and/or interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours CriticalIsolated 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 Grand County, Colorado 3.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 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 3.2.1 Avalanche Hazard Description Avalanche hazards occur predominantly in the mountainous regions of Colorado above 8,000 feet. The vast majority of avalanches occur during and shortly after winter storms. Avalanches occur when loading of new snow increases stress at a rate faster than strength develops, and the slope fails. Critical stresses develop more quickly on steeper slopes and where deposition of wind -transported snow is common. While most avalanches are caused simply by the weight of accumulated snow, other triggers can be a human (e.g., skier, snowshoer, snowmobiler), animal, or a sonic boom. The combination of steep slopes, abundant snow, weather, snowpack, and an impetus to cause movement create an avalanching episode. According to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC), about 90 percent of all avalanches start on slopes of 30-45 degrees; about 98 percent of all avalanches occur on slopes of 25-50 degrees. Avalanches release most often on slopes above timberline that face away from prevailing winds (leeward slopes collect snow blowing from the windward sides of ridges). Avalanches can run, however, on small slopes well below timberline, such as gullies, road cuts, and small openings in the trees. Very dense trees can anchor the snow to steep slopes and prevent avalanches from starting; however, avalanches can release and travel through a moderately dense forest. An average -sized avalanche travels around 80 miles mph; the typical range of impact pressure from an avalanche is from 0.5 to 5.0 tons per foot. Historically in Colorado, avalanches have occurred during the winter and spring months between November and April. The avalanche danger increases with major snowstorms and periods of thaw. About 2,300 avalanches are reported to the CAIC in an average winter. More than 80 percent of these fall during or just after large snowstorms. The most avalanche -prone months are, in order, February, March, and January. Avalanches caused by thaw occur most often in April. An increase in backcountry recreation (skiers and snowmobilers) in recent years has led to more people being in avalanche -prone areas. A trend among some backcountry skiers and snowboarders is traveling into steeper and more "extreme" terrain, which tends to be more avalanche -prone. Grand County is known for its outdoor recreation opportunities, such as skiing at Winter Park and abundant backcountry skiing, snowboarding, and snowmobiling options. Thus avalanches pose a risk to people in the Grand County planning area, particularly backcountry enthusiasts. Grand County, Colorado 3.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 This hazard generally affects a small number of people, such as the participants in backcountry recreation discussed above. Motorists traveling along steep mountain highways are also at risk of injury and death due to avalanches. Road and highway closures, damaged structures, and destruction of forests are a direct result of avalanches. Road closures can last several days until crews can clear debris safely. Recognizing areas prone to avalanches is critical in determining the nature and type of development allowed in a given area. Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is isolated—less than 10 percent of the planning area affected. Many areas of Grand County are considered especially susceptible to avalanche activity. The Colorado Avalanche Information Center primarily forecasts avalanche danger in the eastern part of the County, which falls under the Front Range avalanche forecast zone. Granby, Winter Park, and Berthoud Pass are within the Front Range forecast zone. The HMPC named Chicken Hill and Gravel Mountain as particular areas of concerns for avalanche events. The most severe avalanche terrain in Grand County is on federally owned lands in the vicinity of Berthoud Pass. Some of these avalanche runout zones affect US Highway 40, with the most hazardous areas on the Clear Creek County side of the pass. Unincorporated Grand County is the jurisdiction with the most avalanche risk. However, highway closures due to an event can affect all participating jurisdictions. Previous Occurrences According to SHELDUS, seven avalanches caused injuries and two caused fatalities between 2005 and 2010. Note that SHELDUS damage and casualty estimates are based on averages of events that occurred over multiple counties. This is why some injury and fatality records are shown as decimal points. Grand County avalanche events from the SHELDUS database are shown below in Table 3.4. Table 3.4. Grand County Avalanche History: 2005 — 2010* Date Injuries Fatalities Property Damage ($)** 3/27/2005 0.29 0 0 11/6/2005 0 1 0 1/6/2007 0.14 0 0 12/31/2007 1 0 0 12/5/2008 0.14 0 0 12/26/2008 0 0.5 0 12/5/2010 0.14 0 0 12/12/2010 0.14 0 0 Grand County, Colorado 3.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Date Injuries Fatalities Property Damage ($)** 11/16/2010 0.14 0 0 TOTAL 1.99 1.5 0 Sources: SHELDUS *Extent of Record **Dollar value based on year of event According to information from a History of Colorado Avalanche Accidents, 1859-2006, there were 20 avalanche -related deaths in Grand County between 1859 and 2006. The National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database and the CAIC have information on 12 notable avalanches (e.g., avalanches that involved people) that occurred in Grand County between 2008 and 2013. Details of these and other events from the 2008 Grand County Hazard Mitigation Plan are summarized below. February 7, 2013-2 skiers were caught, with 1 partially buried near Current Creek/Postage Stamp near Berthoud Pass. The avalanche was triggered after both skiers had crossed the path and were ascending along the south flank about mid -track. Neither skier was seriously injured. Both individuals were able to ski out to Highway 40 and back to their car without further incident. February 3, 2013—A party of 8 students and instructors in an Introduction to Avalanches class left the Pumphouse trailhead to inspect two avalanches from the day prior on the southeast face of Russell Peak. Several group members were able to reach shelter when the avalanche triggered, but 2 skiers were caught with one becoming partially buried and another being fully buried. Both skiers were extracted with help from the other group members. No one sustained serious injuries. January 22, 2012—This was a small avalanche but resulted in a fatality. A backcountry skier was caught and fully buried. Rescuers were not able to reach him in time. January 1, 2012—Two experienced backcountry skiers left the Current Creek trailhead north of Berthoud Pass. While descending from a ridge, one skier was caught in an avalanche and partially buried. The skier sustained a broken arm. The second skier was able to extract the first, and the two began to walk back to the main trailhead together. Witnesses had called 911 which dispatched Flight for Life. Flight for Life completed the medical evacuation. January 17, 2011—A pair of snowboarders and one dog left Berthoud Pass and headed northeast. The group triggered an avalanche near the northeast edge of the High Trail Cliffs. The first snowboarder was able to outrun the avalanche, but unfortunately the second snowboarder and his dog were caught and fully buried. Rescuers were not able to reach them in time. November 16, 2010—Two snowboarders and a dog were near the Nitro Chute near Berthoud Pass. One snowboarder was caught by an avalanche and transported over a cliff band. He sustained a back injury and was taken by ambulance to Denver for medical care. Grand County, Colorado 3.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 March 3, 2010—Two Alpine Search and Rescue members were on Berthoud Pass looking for a lost hiker. The two were caught in an avalanche and were able to self - rescue. Neither one sustained serious injuries. March 2, 2010—Two snowboarders were riding in the Floral Park area of Berthoud Pass. After the avalanche triggered, one snowboarder was caught and partially buried. The second snowboarder was able to locate the first with avalanche beacons. The first rider sustained four fractured ribs and a bruised lung. February 14, 2010—Two skiers were in the Zero Creek area north of Berthoud Pass. One skier was caught and partially buried. The second skier was able to locate him using his avalanche beacon. The second skier dug the first out in roughly 10 minutes. Neither sustained any serious injuries. January 11, 2010—Three skiers were in the No Name Peak area of Berthoud Pass. One was caught but not buried. He did not sustain any serious injuries. December 27, 2008-4 snowmobilers were riding in the bowl between Gravel Mountain and Little Gravel Mountain. An avalanche triggered, partially burying one snowmobiler and fully burying and killing two others. December 31, 2007—In Grand County, a snowmobiler on Gravel Mountain was injured when he triggered an avalanche. He was knocked unconscious and buried under 3 feet of snow. Fortunately, he suffered only a separated shoulder. January 6, 2006—The Stanley slide path near Berthoud Pass avalanched, putting debris on Highway 40. The Stanley slide path crosses two switchbacks of Highway 40. The avalanche debris pushed two vehicles off the upper section of the roadway and partially buried them between the two switchbacks. Five people were riding in one vehicle and three in the other. Witnesses initiated a rescue of the vehicle occupants. CAIC and CDOT staff members initiated an organized rescue effort. All of the vehicle occupants sustained at least minor injuries, with one sustaining broken ribs. November 6, 2005—A backcountry snowboarder, a Denver man and a long-time rider in the Berthoud Pass area, and his dog were buried and killed in a sizable hard slab avalanche on the north side of Mines Peak, just northeast of the summit of Berthoud Pass. This was the first Colorado and U.S. avalanche fatality of the season. April 19, 1998—Two snowshoers were injured, one critically, on Berthoud Pass. It is unclear at this time if the critically injured woman was actually caught in the slide or fell down the steep slope trying to get to her partner who had an injured shoulder. Also, one rescuer triggered a small slide trying to get to them. Two skiers triggered a slide on the Stanley avalanche path that stopped just short of Highway 40 on the east side of Berthoud Pass. Later that day, a skier triggered an avalanche near the Loveland Ski Area. A few natural events were also spotted along the I-70 corridor. These slides ranged from 6 inches to 3 to 6 feet deep and were on east-southeast aspects near and above timberline. Avalanche control on the east side of the 10 -Mile Range near Breckenridge also produced shallow slabs from recent drifting above treeline. The recent new snow and windloading were the main reasons for these slides. A thin, weak layer of dry snow that Grand County, Colorado 3.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 was overlaid with a shallow wind slab appeared to be the main ingredient for the instability. March 1, 1998—A day of outdoor recreation turned to tragedy when a 20 year old backcountry snowboarder was buried and killed in a sizable slab avalanche on the south and east side of Berthoud Pass in Colorado. The victim and a skier friend triggered the avalanche as they skied down a steep backcountry area above treeline known as the Russell Face. The two men used snowshoes to hike westward from the summit of Berthoud Pass toward the Continental Divide. They were only 3 to 4 turns down the slope when it fractured. The victim was swept down and buried under about two feet of snow. His partner had his skis knocked off his feet which likely allowed him to stay on the surface. When the avalanche stopped, he briefly searched for his buried friend. But since they carried no avalanche rescue gear, he started hiking out to the highway where he flagged down a motorist. The Berthoud Pass Ski Patrol responded with support from the Alpine Rescue Team and the Loveland Ski Areas ski patrol. The victim was quickly found and CPR was started, but the almost 2 hour burial was too long for him to survive. Probability of Future Occurrence Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or happens every year Between 2008 and 2013, there were 12 notable avalanches in Grand County (e.g., avalanches that involved people). This suggests that at least one notable avalanche occurs each year in Grand County. Magnitude/Severity CriticalIsolated 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 Grand County can injure and kill multiple people, damage property and infrastructure, and cause road closures. The HMPC provided additional details on avalanche hazards in the County. Seven people died in avalanches in Grand County between 2005 and 2010. The County also noted that several individuals were caught by avalanches on Berthoud Pass in April 2009. The Town of Winter Park' economy is impacted whenever Highway 40 is closed due to avalanche, losing roughly $100,000 for each 24 hour period the road is closed. Road closures due to avalanches on Berthoud Pass and Highway 40 occur an estimated 4 times a year according to the Town of Winter Park. 3.2.2 Dam Failure Hazard Description Dams are manmade structures built for a variety of uses, including flood protection, power, agriculture, water supply, and recreation. Dams typically are constructed of earth, rock, concrete, Grand County, Colorado 3.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 or mine tailings. Two factors that influence the potential severity of a full or partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded and the density, type, and value of development and infrastructure located downstream. Dam failures can result from any one or a combination of the following causes: Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding, which result in overtopping (overtopping is the primary cause of earthen dam failure) Earthquake Inadequate spillway capacity resulting in excess overtopping flows Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping or rodent activity Improper design Improper maintenance Negligent operation Failure of upstream dams on the same waterway Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is large— more than 50 percent of the planning area affected. HAZUS-MH contains a database of dams based on the National Inventory of Dams. This database lists nine dams in the County and classifies dams based on the potential hazard to the downstream area resulting from failure or misoperation of the dam or facilities: High Hazard Potential—Probable loss of life (one or more) Significant Hazard Potential—No probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environment damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact other concerns; often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas with population and significant infrastructure Low Hazard Potential—No probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental losses; losses are principally limited to the owner's property Based on these classifications, there are ten high hazard dams and sixteen significant hazard dams in Grand County. These dams are listed in Table 3.5 and illustrated in Figure 3.1. The high and significant hazard dams all have emergency action plans in place with the exception of Granby Dike 1-4, Griggs, Scholl, and Sinkovits & Linke. Grand County, Colorado 3.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 3.5. Grand County Dams Name Granby Granby Dike 1 Granby Dike 2 Granby Dike 3 Granby Dike 4 Meadow Creek Ritschard Sylvan Williams Fork Willow Creek Binco East Branch Griggs Jones Jones #1 Little King Ranch Matheson McMahon #2 Musgrave Scholl Shadow Mountain Shadow Mountain Sinkovits & Linke Whitely Peak Williams Fork West Dike Windy Gap River Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Meadow Creek Muddy Creek Little Muddy Creek -Tr Williams Fork River Willow Creek Albert Creek Ute Creek -Tr Citizen S Irrigation - Os Henry Creek Sheep Creek -Tr Buffalo Creek Troublesome Creek Red Dirt Creek Rock Creek -Tr Corral Creek Colorado River Colorado River West Fork Ninemile Creek Diamond Cr Williams Fork River Colorado River Source: HSIP Freedom 2012 Near City Granby Granby Granby Granby Granby Tabernash Kremmling Parshall Parshall Hot Sulphur Springs Parshall Bayfield State Bridge Kremmling Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling Kremmling Parshall Kremmling Granby Granby Kremmling Kremmling Hot Sulphur Springs Maximum Storage (cubic feet) 465,568 539,760 539,760 539,760 539,760 7,850 84,639 1,238 101,600 11,177 312 2,986 4 105 295 1,570 1,570 4,570 650 549 18,369 18,369 0 1,095 96,800 1,633 Hazard Class EAP? High High High High High High High High High High Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NR Y Y Y Y Y Y NR Y Y NR Y Y Y Risk to dam failure is greatest to the Town of Granby downstream of the Granby dam and Granby dikes 1-4. The Ritschard dam (a.k.a Wolford Mountain Reservoir) upstream of Kremmling and the Williams Fork dam upstream of Parshall have the next highest storage capacities at 84,639 cubic feet and 101,600 cubic feet respectively. Grand County, Colorado 3.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.1. Grand County Dams A w- 4 A ♦ f�1 d 14 f 4 LAKIMER • 4 ` 34 40 JACKSON 2 { +, CWHITELY PEAK MATHESON BINCO �d - ♦ (`- � 1 Grand Lake J )•-�—,LITTLE PCPNG Ilr„r,rr,rrr f ,k �t -e RANCH F_ I r '` , _ - SHADOW MOUNTAIN O J f t � WILLOW L rkc of I �:,.1 _G(L4AAHON ��, 76'olJorrPbfourttarr, � �� � • ^-� CREEK �r,aueh} - • ^Reserrorr SCHOLL J� GRANBY & y RITSC HARD j��, GRANBY0KES 1-4� A GRAVE WINDY GAI� �i Granb � ' 134 ♦ f Kremmling40 ,,`^ - r -P I JONES #1 �' _ ; WILL•IAMS Hot Sulphur r�.+,• WILLIAMS;FORK FORK Springs r MEADOW �' A� G Yt� VVESTi l I Fr911ra w, I nrl, SINKOOT'_ f CREEK --� �- ] J\ r GRIGGSQ A,` Rmcr,, ,r c I INKS LBOULDER C A_ SYLVAN A Fraser - JONES ---------� .- `GREEN---Jrt- MOUNTAIN Wintery %-- GILPIN '\ `\ Park I ._ HOAGLAND #1 A f;I'vo llnruuntira ` Q EAST - - H,r'rnr,\�+ BRANCH ti—r a } BLACK 9 REEK Q 46 LEGEND 'A CLEAR CREEK Dams (Hazard Class) `r SUMMIT , A High EAGLE ' '.' .r — •-�} Significant Low Streams Lakes +� Railroads Highways L ----I Towns Counties DCLON fhll,u, Nrer,rrur Q 4 REYNOLDS �, GOOSE i a ILL PASTURE TARN �,I G A,Q n - PARK 0 7.5 15 Miles N ame& l r, r L r r i l Map compiled 512013', intended for planning purposes only. Data Source- Grand County, CDOT, HSIP Freedome 2012 Grand County, Colorado 3.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Previous Occurrences There was no information available indicating that dam failures had occurred in Grand County in the past. Probability of Future Occurrence Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years Using the methodology adopted for natural hazards in this plan, no past events represent an unlikely probability of future occurrence. However, because dam failure is a manmade hazard, the methodology for calculating probability based on past occurrences does not necessarily reflect the actual risk of future occurrence. Further information on this risk is unknown. There is potential for future issues with the Ritschard Dam (a.k.a. Wolford Mountain Reservoir), an earthen dam that is settling twice as fast as the expected rate. In the summer of 2012 water levels in the dam were low due to the drought and water demands along the Western Slope. This afforded the Colorado River District, who owns and operates Wolford Reservoir, to study why the dam was settling so much faster than expected. The chief engineer for the River District stated, "There is no reason for concern over dam failure. There are no leaks; the dam is solid." (http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2012/au /g 23/engineers-study-dam-settling-wolford- mountain-rese/) The Colorado River District will continue to monitor the dam to determine the cause of the increased settling. Magnitude/Severity Catastrophic—Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; and/or interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours Water released by a failed dam generates tremendous energy and can cause a flood that is catastrophic to life and property located in the inundation area. A failure of the Dillon Dam or Green Mountain dam in Summit County would have catastrophic, cascading impacts that could reach Grand County. Failure of the Dillon Dam could cause other dams downstream, such as Green Mountain, to fail, essentially creating a domino effect. 3.2.3 Disease Outbreak Hazard Description Grand County has a higher susceptibility to disease outbreaks due to the number of national and international guests that visit the County every year. In the past five years Grand County Public Health investigated seven outbreaks ranging from hepatitis A to the H1N1 outbreak. The County's healthcare system doesn't have the depth of staff and services as the larger counties and cities in the State. As a result, an outbreak with several sick or dying people would quickly Grand County, Colorado 3.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 overwhelm the County's healthcare facilities as well as Emergency Medical Services. Pertussis and pandemic influenza were identified as diseases of particular concern to the County in the 2008 hazard mitigation plan. Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is large—more than 50 percent of the planning area affected. All persons who reside in the area (or who are temporarily present during an outbreak event) are theoretically at some risk of developing a disease in the event that an outbreak occurs. Previous Occurrences In 2010 a Hepatitis A outbreak occurred across Colorado, including Grand County. County Public Health held a mass immunization clinic for 1,000 people. The source of the outbreak was traced to two highly frequented restaurants in Grand Lake. The County was impacted by the H1N1 flu strain between April 2009 and February 2010, including a few hospitalizations. School administrators discussed closing schools during the pandemic, but ultimately the schools were kept open. The incidence of pertussis (a.k.a. whooping cough) in the County fluctuates but is an ongoing area of concern. The County also experienced a tuberculosis outbreak in 2003 at the YMCA of the Rockies. Public Health tested approximately 400 people. Table 3.6 summarizes the disease occurrences in the County that were reported to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment between 2006 and 2012. Table 3.6. Grand County Disease Occurrences: 2006-2012 Disease 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Animal Bites 6 2 1 3 3 1 Campylobacter 1 1 1 2 Chicken Pox (varicella) 4 5 6 4 1 2 Cryptosporiasis 1 Giardiasis 2 4 2 3 1 4 Haemophilus influenza Hepatitis A 1 1 Hepatitis B, chronic 1 1 Hepatitis C, acute 1 Hepatitis C, chronic 9 7 7 7 3 3 Influenza, hospitalized 3 3 Meningitis aseptic/viral 1 2 Pertussis 18 1 6 Salmonellosis 1 1 4 Shiga toxin producing E.coli 1 1 Streptococcus pneumonia invasive 2 1 1 Tularemia 1 TOTAL 8 43 21 23 19 21 13 Source: Loioraao uepartment of ruouc heann ana Environment Grand County, Colorado 3.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Probability of Future Occurrence Likely -10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Contagious diseases will occur to some degree in the planning area every year. More severe outbreaks that rapidly overwhelm the County will probably occur with less frequency. Magnitude/Severity Variable— The rating system used in the plan update does not necessarily lend itself well to this hazard given the variability of severity depending on the specific outbreak. Nevertheless the potential for a highly significant disease outbreak event in the County should be acknowledged in this plan update. One of the main issues with any type of disease outbreak in the County is the limited staff resources. Public Health staff can quickly become overwhelmed in a widespread outbreak. The logistics of immunization clinics are highly demanding, and Public Health staff must also manage public information during outbreaks. This can be especially trying when public anxiety is high, as was the case across the U.S. during the H1N1 pandemic in 2009-2010. Several illnesses and possibly deaths could occur. Primary damages or losses associated with an outbreak or outbreaks could include economic losses associated with work absences or a decrease in productivity due to disease, human losses associated with disease and fatalities in the community, adverse impacts on hospitals and other health care facilities and staff, and the fear and anxiety associated with a severe outbreak. High public anxiety can cause behaviors such as panic buying at grocery stores, which is especially serious in more remote areas such as Grand County where food and medicine deliveries may not happen as quickly and frequently as other places. The severity of a disease outbreak could also increase if the disease primarily affects more vulnerable populations such as the very young and the elderly. The 2008 hazard mitigation plan identified several assumptions that can impact the severity of a disease outbreak. These assumptions were related specifically to pandemic influenza but can theoretically be applied to other disease outbreaks. Localities must be prepared to rely on their own resources to respond. The effect of influenza on individual communities will be relatively prolonged (weeks to months) in comparison to other types of disasters. Health care workers and other first responders may be at higher risk of exposure and illness than the general population, further straining the health care system. Outbreaks can be expected to occur simultaneously throughout much of the U.S., preventing shifts in human and material resources that usually occur in response to other disasters. Of those who become ill with influenza, 50% will seek outpatient medical care. The typical incubation period (interval between infection and onset of symptoms) for influenza is two days. Infected individuals may be contagious before symptoms present. Grand County, Colorado 3.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Persons who become ill may "shed" the virus and can transmit infection for up to one day before the onset of illness. Viral shedding and the risk of transmission will be greatest during the first two days of illness. Children usually shed the greatest amount of virus and therefore are likely to pose the greatest risk for transmission. On average, infected persons will transmit the infection to approximately two other people. In an infected community, a pandemic outbreak will last about six to eight weeks. Multiple waves (periods during which community outbreaks occur across the country) of illness could occur with each wave lasting 2-3 months. Historically, the largest waves have occurred in the fall and winter, but the seasonality of a pandemic cannot be predicted with certainty. Effective prevention and therapeutic measures, including vaccine and antiviral agents, will be delayed and in short supply. Widespread illness in the community could increase the likelihood of sudden and potentially significant shortages of personnel in other sectors that provide critical public safety services. 3.2.4 Drought Hazard Description Drought is a condition of climatic dryness that is severe enough to reduce soil moisture and water below the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and human life systems. Lack of annual precipitation and poor water conservation practices can result in drought conditions. Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends. Due to Colorado's semiarid conditions, drought is a natural but unpredictable occurrence in the state. Single season droughts over some portion of the state are quite common. The onset of drought in western Colorado mountain counties is usually signaled by a lack of significant winter snowfall. Hot and dry conditions that persist from spring into summer and fall can aggravate drought conditions, making the effects of drought more pronounced as water demands increase during the growing season and summer months. Drought is a complex issue involving many factors—it occurs when a normal amount of moisture is not available to satisfy an area's usual water -consuming activities. Drought can often be defined regionally based on its effects: Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average water supply. Grand County, Colorado 3.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet the needs of crops and other agricultural operations such as livestock. Hydrological drought is defined as deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is generally measured as streamflow, snowpack, and as lake, reservoir, and groundwater levels. Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and quality of life or when a drought starts to have an adverse economic impact on a region. Drought affects the water supply of communities and water districts in the County, as well as the ski and recreation industries that drive the County's economy. Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is large—more than 50 percent of the planning area affected. The Western Regional Climate Center reports precipitation data from weather stations in and around Grand County. The data reported here are from three of the stations: Kremmling, Grand Lake, and Winter Park. These stations were selected due to their locations in the County and extent of their data (number of years with recorded data). Precipitation is greatest in Winter Park, where the month with the most average precipitation is April. Precipitation is least in Kremmling, where July is the month with the most average precipitation. Table 3.7 contains precipitation summaries for the three stations, and Figure 3.2 through Figure 3.4 show monthly average total precipitation. These summaries include rainfall only. Drought in Colorado and Grand County is largely contingent upon winter snowpack. Snowfall summaries can be found in Section 3.2. 11 Severe Winter Weather. Table 3.7. Grand County Precipitation Summaries' Source: Western Regional (;timate (;enter, www.wrcc.on.edu/. 'All totals are reported in inches; 2Period of Record: 1/1/1908-9/30/2012; 3Period of Record: 8/1/1948-9/30/2012; 4Period of Record: 3/1/1942-9/30/2012 Grand County, Colorado 3.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Average Annual Month with Most Highest Highest Annual Station Precipitation Precipitation/Average Monthly Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Kremmling2 11.88 July/1.44 4.32/June 1969 16.86/1985 Grand Lake 13.96 Aug./1.66 5.30/Sept. 1961 22.32/1951 Winter Park 26.53 April/3.02 7.14/Sept. 1961 38.64/1957 Source: Western Regional (;timate (;enter, www.wrcc.on.edu/. 'All totals are reported in inches; 2Period of Record: 1/1/1908-9/30/2012; 3Period of Record: 8/1/1948-9/30/2012; 4Period of Record: 3/1/1942-9/30/2012 Grand County, Colorado 3.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.2. Kremmling Station Monthly Average Total Precipitation BRECENRIDGE, COLORADO (050909) Period of Record : 1/ 1/1893 to 3/39/2913 3.2 3; 2.8 — I 2.6 2.4 ; 2.2 2i rI 1.8 ; �r 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0 6 0.2 Y' T � Jan I Mar I May I Jul I Sep I Nov I Dec 31 Feb I Apr I Jun I Rug I Oct I Dec I Day of Year Western Regional Extreme Average climate Center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Figure 3.3. Grand Lake Station Monthly Average Total Precipitation DILLON 1 E, COLORADO (052281) Period of Record : 1/ 1/1893 to 3/31/2913 2.4 i 2.2 2i� I I 1.4 III I 1.2 i — i 00.6 . 0.4 0.22 I I 0 Jan I Mar I May I Jul I Sep I Nov I Dec 31 Feb I Apr I Jun I Aug I Oct J. Dec I Day of Year Western Regional Extreme Average :D climate Center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Grand County, Colorado 3.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.4. Winter Park Station Monthly Average Total Precipitation GREEN MOUNTAIN DAM, COLORADO (053592) Period of Record : 7/ 1/1939 to 3/25/2913 2.4 2.2 21� �r 1.8 I 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 I_ 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.¢ Jan 1 Mar 1 May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 39 Feb 1 Apr 1 Jun 1 Rug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1 Day of Year Extreme Average Western Reqional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Previous Occurrences Western Regional Climate Center Colorado has experienced multiple severe droughts. Colorado has experienced drought in 2013- 2012, 2004-2000, 1996, 1994, 1990, 1989, 1979-1975, 1965-1963, 1957-1951, 1941-1931, and 1905-1893 (source: Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, 2010). The most significant of the instrumented period (which began in the late 1800s) are listed in Table 3.8. Although drought conditions can vary across the state, it is likely that Grand County suffered during these dry periods. Table 3.8. Historical Dry and Wet Periods in Colorado Date Dry Wet Duration (years) 1893-1905 X 12 1905-1931 X 26 1931-1941 X 10 1941-1951 X 10 1951-1957 X 6 1957-1959 X 2 1963-1965 X 2 1965-1975 X 10 1975-1978 X 3 1979-1999* X 20 2000-2006* X 6 2012-2013 X Ongoing Source: McKee, et al. *Modified for the Colorado State Drought Plan in 2010 and Grand County Mitigation Plan 2013 based on input from the Colorado Climate Center Grand County, Colorado 3.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 The following droughts were significant to Grand County: 2006—The U.S. Agriculture Secretary designated Grand among 59 counties in Colorado as disaster area due to the ongoing drought, high winds, insect pests, and a late freeze (Grand received its designation as a contiguous county). 2002—This year was the driest year on record for the Denver region and much of the state. For the first time in state history, the Colorado governor asked the federal government to declare all of Colorado a drought disaster area. With an average temperature of 52 degrees, 2001 was the warmest year since 1986. The drought started in late 1999 and was compounded by scarce snowfall in 2001. Total precipitation for 2002 was 7.48 inches; the average is 15.81 inches (National Weather Service, Denver Office). 2000—Strong La Nina conditions created below average precipitation and above average temperatures for most months in 2000. Statewide, snowpack started out well below average but recovered to near average in March. However, an early snowmelt resulted in low stream flows, and by June, drought conditions began to affect most of the state. By fall, weather patterns returned to near normal with average precipitation and below average temperatures. 1989—In March 1989, the State Drought Water Availability Task Force met to access drought conditions within Colorado. Warm dry conditions during April of 1989 reduced snowpack to 50 percent of average. 1980-1981—This drought, beginning in the fall of 1980 and lasting until the summer of 1981, had costly impacts to the ski industry. 1976-1977—This drought was characterized as a winter event, limited in duration. It was the driest winter in recorded history for much of Colorado's high country and western slope, severely impacting the ski industry. Colorado agriculture producers and municipalities received over $110 million in federal drought disaster aid. The National Drought Mitigation Center developed the Drought Impact Reporter in response to the need for a national drought impact database for the United States. Information comes from a variety of sources: online drought -related news stories and scientific publications, members of the public who visit the website and submit a drought -related impact for their region, members of the media, and members of relevant government agencies. The database is being populated beginning with the most recent impacts and working backward in time. The Drought Impact Reporter contains information on 185 drought impacts from droughts that affected Grand County between 1990 and 2013. The list is not comprehensive. Most of the impacts, 87, were classified as "agricultural." Other impacts include "business and industry" (11), "energy" (1), "fire" (19), "plants and wildlife" (15), "relief, response, and restrictions" (54), "society and public health" (27), "tourism and recreation" (11), and "water supply and quality" (13). These categories are described as follows: Agriculture—Drought effects associated with agriculture, farming, aquaculture, horticulture, forestry, or ranching. Examples of drought -induced agricultural impacts Grand County, Colorado 3.24 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 include damage to crop quality; income loss for farmers due to reduced crop yields; reduced productivity of cropland; insect infestation; plant disease; increased irrigation costs; cost of new or supplemental water resource development (wells, dams, pipelines) for agriculture; reduced productivity of rangeland; forced reduction of foundation stock; closure/limitation of public lands to grazing; high cost or unavailability of water for livestock, Christmas tree farms, forestry, raising domesticated horses, bees, fish, shellfish or horticulture. Business & Industry—This category tracks drought's effects on non -agriculture and non -tourism businesses, such as lawn care, recreational vehicles or gear dealers, and plant nurseries. Typical impacts include reduction or loss of demand for goods or services, reduction in employment, variation in number of calls for service, late opening or early closure for the season, bankruptcy, permanent store closure, and other economic impacts. Energy—This category concerns drought's effects on power production, rates, and revenue. Examples include production changes for both hydropower and non - hydropower providers, changes in electricity rates, revenue shortfalls and/or windfall profits, and purchase of electricity when hydropower generation is down. Fire—Drought often contributes to forest, range, rural, or urban fires, fire danger, and burning restrictions. Specific impacts include enacting or easing burning restrictions, fireworks bans, increased fire risk, occurrence of fire (number of acres burned, number of wildland fires compared to average, people displaced, etc.), state of emergency during periods of high fire danger, closure of roads or land due to fire occurrence or risk, and expenses to state and county governments of paying firefighters overtime and paying equipment (helicopter) costs. Plants & Wildlife—Drought effects associated with unmanaged plants and wildlife, both aquatic and terrestrial, include loss of biodiversity of plants or wildlife; loss of trees from rural or urban landscapes, shelterbelts, or wooded conservation areas; reduction and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat; lack of feed and drinking water; greater mortality due to increased contact with agricultural producers, as animals seek food from farms and producers are less tolerant of the intrusion; disease; increased vulnerability to predation (from species concentrated near water); migration and concentration (loss of wildlife in some areas and too much wildlife in others); increased stress on endangered species; salinity levels affecting wildlife; wildlife encroaching into urban areas; and loss of wetlands. Relief, Response & Restrictions—This category refers to drought effects associated with disaster declarations, aid programs, requests for disaster declaration or aid, water restrictions, or fire restrictions. Examples include disaster declarations, aid programs, USDA Secretarial disaster declarations, Small Business Association disaster declarations, government relief and response programs, state -level water shortage of water emergency declarations, county -level declarations, a declared "state of emergency," requests for declarations or aid, non-profit organization -based relief, water restrictions, fire restrictions, NWS Red Flag warnings, and declaration of drought watches or warnings. Grand County, Colorado 3.25 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Society & Public Health—Drought effects associated with human, public and social health include health-related problems related to reduced water quantity and/or quality, such as increased concentration of contaminants; loss of human life (e.g. from heat stress, suicide); increased respiratory ailments; increased disease caused by wildland fire concentrations; increased human disease caused by changes in insect carrier populations; population migration (rural to urban areas, migrants into the United States); loss of aesthetic values; change in daily activities (non -recreational, like putting a bucket in the shower to catch water); elevated stress levels; meetings to discuss drought; communities creating drought plans; lawmakers altering penalties for violation of water restrictions; demand for higher water rates; cultural/historical discoveries form low water levels; prayer meetings; cancellations of fundraising events; cancellation/alteration of festivals or holiday traditions; stockpiling water; public service announcements and drought information websites; protests; and conflicts within the community due to competition for water. Tourism & Recreation—Drought effects associated with recreational activities and tourism include closure of state hiking trails and hunting areas due to fire danger; water access or navigation problems for recreation; bans on recreational activities; reduced license, permit, or ticket sales (e.g. hunting, fishing, ski lifts, etc.); losses related to curtailed activities (e.g. bird watching, hunting and fishing, boating, etc.); reduced park visitation; and cancellation or postponement of sporting events. Water Supply & Quality—Drought effects associated with water supply and water quality include dry wells, voluntary and mandatory water restrictions, changes in water rates, easing of water restrictions, increases in requests for new well permits, changes in water use due to water restrictions, greater water demand, decreases in water allocation or allotments, installation or alteration of water pumps or water intakes, changes to allowable water contaminants, water line damage or repairs due to drought stress, drinking water turbidity, change in water color or odor, declaration of drought watches or warnings, and mitigation activities. General Awareness—General Awareness applies only to media reports and usually indicates that people are concerned about drought, but no specific impact has occurred yet or the information is too general to use for an impact. Other—Drought impacts that do not easily fit into any of the above categories. Figure 3.5 compares the severity of the drought in Colorado in July of 2002 with the severity of the drought in late July 2012, as well as current conditions as of early April 2013. The maps illustrate returning drought conditions in Colorado as a whole, including extreme drought conditions in Grand County in 2012 and severe drought conditions in 2013. 2012 was a severe fire year for Colorado, resulting in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for the Waldo Canyon and High Park wildfires. The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook (Figure 3.6) from the NWS Climate Prediction Center indicates that drought conditions in Grand County will persist or intensify through June 30, 2013. Grand County, Colorado 3.26 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.5. U.S. Drought Monitor for Colorado, July 23, 2002 (top left) vs. July 24, 2012 (top right) and April 2, 2013 (bottom left) State drought conditions (percent area) Week None DO -D4 D1 -D4 132-D4 07/23/2002 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 07/24/2012 0.00 100.00 100.00 99.70 F03/19/13- 00 0 100.00 100.00 88.97 Intensity: DO Abnormally Dry D I Drought -Moderate D2 Drought - Severe . D3 Drought -Extreme . D4 Drought -Exceptional Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, www.drought.unl.edu/ Grand County, Colorado 3.27 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.6. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook: April 4, 2013 – June 30, 2013 Some U.S. Seasonal Drougeht Outlook Improvement Drought Tendency During Valid Period y Valid for April 4 - June 30, 2013 Developme Persistence KE Y -Drought to pars. �.... intensify z4� No Droughto PostedlPred icted ® Drought ongoing, some Improvement Depicts large-scale trends based on subjectively derived probabilities guided by short- and long-range statistical and dynamical forecasts. Short-term events - Drought likely to improve, — such as individual storms -- cannot be accurately forecast more than a few days in advance. Impacts ease Use caution for applications -- such as crops -- that can be affected by such events. "Ongoing" drought areas are approximated from the Drought Monitor (D1 to D4 intensity). Drought development For weekly drought updates, see the latest U.S. Drought Monitor. NOTE: the green improvement likely areas imply at least a 1 -category improvement in the Drought Monitor intensity levels, but do not necessarily imply drought elimination. Source: National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.htmi Probability of Future Occurrence Likely -10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less According to information from the Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, including recent drought conditions, Colorado was in drought for 50 of the past 120 years (1893-2013). Thus, there is a 41.7 percent chance that a drought will happen in Colorado in any given year, and a drought can be expected somewhere in the state every 2.4 years. Grand County has had significant impacts in six droughts in the last 35 years. It is unknown how long the current drought may persist. Magnitude/Severity Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours Grand County, Colorado 3.28 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Drought impacts in Grand County can be wide -reaching: economic, environmental, and societal. The most significant impacts associated with drought are those related to water intensive activities such as wildfire protection, commerce, tourism, recreation, municipal usage, and wildlife preservation. Drought during the winter season impacts the ski industry and economy of Grand County. The Fraser River flows north about 28 miles from the headwaters near the continental Divide, through the towns of Winter Park, Fraser, Tabemash, and Granby, and is one of the major tributaries to the Upper Colorado River. Increasing urban development, as well as the seasonal influx of tourists, places more demands on the water resources in the Fraser River watershed. According to the State's Economic Impact Task Force Report on the Economic Impact of Drought (April 30, 2002), Grand County is part of the region which includes Summit, Grand, Pitkin, and Jackson counties, and is highly dependent upon tourism. These counties receive 76% of their income and 51% of their jobs from tourism, and the effects of drought can severely diminish tourism revenues in these areas. Drought in the summer increases problems with dust and erosion and can cause deterioration in water quality. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding. It also increases the wildfire hazard. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline. A portion of Grand County relies on individual ground wells and constructed water retention structures for their water resources. Ground wells service a significant portion of the population, while local ranchers rely upon ponds and ditches for livestock and crops. The County does not own rights to most of the water in its borders, and much of the water is allocated elsewhere. Winter Park and Granby are primarily dependent on streamflow as the primary water source. Wastewater treatment plants are also dependent on streamflows; if streamflows are inadequate, this can become a public health and sanitation concern. The incidence of blue algae increases during periods of extreme heat, which often accompanies drought, and zebra mussels are also a potential issue. 3.2.5 Earthquake Hazard Description An earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth's outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up and the rocks slip suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth's crust and cause the shaking that is felt during an earthquake. Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury, and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks, such as water, power, communication, and transportation lines. Other damage -causing effects of earthquakes include surface rupture, fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground. Secondary impacts can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, fires, and dam failure. Grand County, Colorado 3.29 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a Richter magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. Another measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking, typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes, at any given location on the surface as felt by humans and defined in the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Table 3.9 features abbreviated descriptions of the 12 levels of intensity. Table 3.9. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale MMI Felt Intensity I Not felt except by a very few people under special conditions. Detected mostly by instruments. II Felt by a few people, especially those on upper floors of buildings. Suspended objects may swing. III Felt noticeably indoors. Standing automobiles may rock slightly. IV Felt by many people indoors, by a few outdoors. At night, some people are awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle. V Felt by nearly everyone. Many people are awakened. Some dishes and windows are broken. Unstable objects are overturned. VI Felt by everyone. Many people become frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture is moved. Some plaster falls. VII Most people are alarmed and run outside. Damage is negligible in buildings of good construction, considerable in buildings of poor construction. VIII Damage is slight in specially designed structures, considerable in ordinary buildings, great in poorly built structures. Heavy furniture is overturned. IX Damage is considerable in specially designed buildings. Buildings shift from their foundations and partly collapse. Underground pipes are broken. X Some well-built wooden structures are destroyed. Most masonry structures are destroyed. The ground is badly cracked. Considerable landslides occur on steep slopes. XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Rails are bent. Broad fissures appear in the ground. Al Virtually total destruction. Waves are seen on the ground surface. Objects are thrown in the air. Source: Multi -Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, FEMA 1997 According to the Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado is comprised of areas with low to moderate potential for damaging earthquakes. There are about 90 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. Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is large—more than 50 percent of the planning area affected. According to the Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado is has areas with low to moderate potential for damaging earthquakes. The presence of potentially active faults is an indicator of potential earthquake risk. There are about 90 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. Colorado's Earthquake and Fault Map developed by CGS in 2008 depicts the location of historic epicenters and potentially active Grand County, Colorado 3.30 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 faults. An excerpt of this map displaying Grand County and vicinity is shown in Figure 3.7. Another map produced by the CGS shows these potentially active faults with maximum credible earthquake determinations, illustrated in Figure 3.8. Faults are classified based on the geologic time frame of their latest suspected movement (in order of activity occurrence, the most recent is listed first): H—Holocene (within past 15,000 years) LQ—Late Quaternary (15,000-130,000 years) MLQ—Middle to Late Quaternary (130,000 - 750,000 years) Q—Quaternary (approximately past 2 million years) LC- Late Cenozoic (approximately past 23.7 million years) According to the Colorado Geological Survey, there are at least 11 northwest -striking late Cenozoic faults in the Granby Basin Fault area. The faults lie between the Town of Granby and Lake Granby and extend across Granby Mesa and the Colorado River. The term "Granby Basin" is used by experts to describe the late Tertiary structural basin in the vicinity of the Town of Granby. The faults are well defined by topographic, vegetation, and tonal lineaments and it has been concluded that fault activity occurred prior to middle to early Pleistocene time. One suspected fault structure is known as "Granby Faults West -unnamed." This north -south - striking unnamed fault lies west of the Town of Granby on the western margin of the late Cenozoic Granby Basin and extends from Trail Creek southward to east of Cottonwood Pass. Several other faults in this basin have documented movement. Another fault structure lacks a name, but lies in the Gore Range west of Kremmling. Recent data suggests this fault has had major movement on the east flank and minor movement on its west flank. The Parshall fault trends northwest on its west end and east -west on its east end. It extends southeastward from the East Fork of Troublesome Creek north of State Highway 40 to Blue Ridge near the Town of Parshall. The fault lies in Middle Park. The Grand County HMPC identified the Williams Fork fault as another potential source of seismic activity in the planning area. According to a study by GEO-HAZ consulting, "the Williams Fork normal fault was discovered in 2002 in a dense pine forest at the foot of the Williams Fork Mountains in central Colorado. This fault is now the northernmost known Quaternary fault associated with the Rio Grande rift zone, where scarps are clearly late Quaternary in age, and trenches show displacement of late Quaternary strata." Seismic hazard zone maps and earthquake fault zone maps are used to identify where such hazards are most likely to occur based on analyses of faults, soils, topography, groundwater, and the potential for earthquake shaking that can trigger landslide and liquefaction. Grand County, Colorado 3.31 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.7. Statewide Earthquake Hazard Map Excerpt Showing Grand County k C yF y I e+• :-.3- 4D'S•,. .fit R Grand County, Colorado 3.32 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS I nstrurnentally located epicenters (•s 1962 to 2007 Size of do' i r6cates magnitude - 0 S-S.S 0 44.g 46 3-3.0 Approximate Iccation of pre-instrumenta I earthquake epicenters 1-1867 to 19611. Square size indicates the taxi mu m Modified Mercal li intensity fcr the earthquake tisee back caf map for intensity wale). E V11 ■ FV 0 V1 ■ plll ■ V IIB82 Earthquake: magnitude estimated at 6.6 +/- 0.6 (Spence and others, 19W QUATERNARY FAULTS Gedogically young faultsthat displace sediments ar rocks de posited Buri ng the Qua.ernaryr Perioc (approximately past i million years?. Known or suspected fau It with displacement ;of late Quaternary depc.si s ilapprrximazely past 13C�1'DOO years) Known or suspected fau It with di splacement of middle to early Quaternary deposits ;apprcximat* past: 130.OU0 to 2 mill ion years oldl Source: Excerpt from Colorado Geological Survey; Note: legend may not match map scale. Earthquakes shown on map are in the 3-3.9 and 4-4.9 M range Grand County, Colorado 3.33 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.8. Potentially Active Faults in Colorado with Maximum Credible Earthquake Determinations from the Colorado Geological Survey 3 - r 1 — i Red oval is approximate location of Grand County (Source: CGS RockTalk Pub Volume 5, No. 2 April 2002) Previous Occurrences No significant earthquake events have occurred to date in Grand County based on CGS records. However, historical earthquakes in other parts of the State may have impacted Grand County. The largest earthquake recorded in Colorado occurred on November 7, 1882 and was likely felt in Grand County. The epicenter is thought to have been located in the Front Range near Rocky Mountain National Park; the magnitude was estimated to be about 6.2 on the Richter scale. This was the first earthquake to cause damage in Denver and was felt as far away as Salina, Kansas, and Salt Lake City, Utah. Probability of Future Occurrence Occasional -1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years It is difficult to accurately forecast the timing or location of future damaging earthquake activity. Over the years, seismic activity has been detected as close to Grand County as Pitkin and Eagle Grand County, Colorado 3.34 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 counties. No significant events have been recorded to date in Grand County, however, and it is largely for that reason that this potentially destructive hazard is considered a relatively minor threat to the planning area. However, the County is growing and is located over several faults. Seismic activity could potentially cause significant damage in the future as the County continues to grow. Figure 3.9 is a probabilistic seismic hazard map of Colorado from the U.S. Geological Survey that depicts the probability that ground motion will reach a certain level during an earthquake. It shows the shaking level that has a 10 percent chance of being exceeded over a period of 50 years (as well as earthquakes in Colorado between 1568 and 2009). Grand County, Colorado 3.35 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.9. Colorado Seismic Hazard Map-10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Banner Arthur Laramie Gagg Kimball Cheyenne I Keith ' Oeuel Moffat Jacks n Sedgwick Perkins Routt Larimer Logan U' ah Weld Phillips R Chase Blanco Grad Morgan Z Boulder Gundy BI arc. 'r Yuma Gilpin I 'te h er ams Washington Garti Id agle {{�Jefferson Go �ee� Ge V Sumrcyt 1 44 Arapahoe flJr las Pitkin Lake Elbert Kit Sherman Mesa P k Carson ' Gelta Teller Gunnison Chaffee Paso Lincoln Wallace Montro�e I Y� � y / Fre on 4 I1 `l` Ki owa Greeley WM h ga� Gu�dY y Crowley:.. igu y Saguache r\ y Custer Pu to Gol ores �7t�nssd-1e \\\ uan Bent Provers Hamilto Kea Mineral Otero Grande Hu ano Montezumaa� Alamos a StarRon Gra chul eta Las Conejos Co a imas Baca. Morton Ste, tional Atl soithe Wited States r Miles 20 40 BO Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedanoe in 50 Years A/ Peak Horizontal Acceleration (%g) - > '100 - go- 100 50-80 0 40-80 0 30-40 25- 30 0 20- 25 15-20 10 - 15 9-10 ® 8-9 0 7-S 0 5.7 5-Ci 0 4-5 0 3-4 2-3 1-2 0-1 Source: USGS, www.nationalatlas.gov Grand County, Colorado 3.36 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Magnitude/Severity Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. As shown in Figure 3.9, the shaking level that has a 10 percent chance of being exceeded over a period of 50 years is in the range of 3 to 5 percent peak acceleration in Grand County. Significant earthquake damage typically does not occur until peak accelerations are greater than 30 percent. 3.2.6 Flood Hazard Description Riverine flooding is defined as when a watercourse exceeds its "bank -full" capacity and is usually the most common type of flood event. Riverine flooding generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with soils already saturated from previous rain events. It also occurs as a result from snowmelt, in which case the extent of flooding depends on the depth of winter snowpack and spring weather patterns. The area adjacent to a river channel is its floodplain. In its common usage, "floodplain" most often refers to that area that is inundated by the 100 -year flood, the flood that has a 1 percent chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. Other types of floods include general rain floods, thunderstorm generated flash floods, alluvial fan floods, dam failure floods (see Section 3.2.2), and local drainage floods. The 100 -year flood is the national standard to which communities regulate their floodplains through the National Flood Insurance Program. The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land surface. A change in environment can create localized flooding problems inside and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining watersheds or natural drainage channels. These changes are commonly created by human activities. These changes can also be created by other events such as wildfires. Wildfires create hydrophobic soils, a hardening or "glazing" of the earth's surface that prevents rainfall from being absorbed into the ground, thereby increasing runoff, erosion, and downstream sedimentation of channels. Flooding as a natural hazard is a problem for Grand County and the rugged terrain in the area increases the potential for flash flooding in some areas of the County. Major stream flooding on Grand County streams is caused by snowmelt, which increases as temperatures rise. The total duration of snowmelt floods is usually over a period of weeks rather than days. Snowmelt runoff generally reaches its peak in June and recedes to a normal flow by mid-July or August. Flooding concerns in the Rockies are usually associated with snow water equivalents (SWE) in the range of 120-140% or higher according to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Rains that occur prior to mid-June do not increase the streamflows appreciably. However, after peak snowmelt Grand County, Colorado 3.37 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 runoff has occurred, rainfall usually increases the runoff. Heavy rains that occur in July and August have potential to cause flash flooding, but rarely result in major flooding. Stream gage records show almost all of the annual peak flows in Grand County occur between April and July as the result of melting winter snow accumulations. Spring runoff usually begins the first week in April, increases to a peak by mid-June, and then returns to a normal flow by early August. Ice jam flooding generally occurs when warm weather and rain break up frozen rivers or any time there is a rapid cycle of freezing and thawing. The broken ice floats down rivers until it is blocked by an obstruction such as a bridge or a shallow area. An ice dam forms, blocking the channel and causing flooding upstream (FEMA, 2005). Ice jam flooding can occur in Grand County, but is rare due to the steeper gradient of rivers and streams. Windy Gap Reservoir has helped mitigate ice jams on the Colorado River according to the HMPC. Flooding due to debris blockage at bridges tends to be an issue in the County. Other sources of flooding include localized stormwater drainage problems that may not be represented on a flood hazard map. Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is small10-25% of the planning area affected. The following is a discussion of the primary streams and rivers in the County that are potential sources for flooding. The Colorado River (originally called the Grand River, hence, Grand County) begins its journey in Rocky Mountain National Park. Soon after leaving Rocky Mountain National Park the Colorado enters Colorado's largest natural lake, Grand Lake. From Grand Lake, it makes its way through Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoir. The Town of Grand Lake has flood hazard mapping along Little Columbine Creek, which drains into Shadow Mountain Reservoir, and along the North Inlet, which drains into Grand Lake. The Town of Hot Sulphur Springs has flood hazard mapping for the Colorado River. Specific flood concerns are for the town's water treatment plant. The first major tributary to the Colorado is the Fraser River, which joins the Colorado River near Granby. From Granby the Colorado heads through Hot Sulphur Springs, Byers Canyon and Kremmling. The Fraser River is a tributary of the Colorado River, approximately 32.5 miles in length. It drains a large portion of the Middle Park basin in Grand County. The river beings just below the continental divide on the north side of Berthoud Pass in the Arapaho National Forest. It flows north-northwest past Winter Park, Fraser, and Tabernash, and joins the Colorado from the south Grand County, Colorado 3.38 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 two miles west of Granby. Its drainage area, from the Continental Divide at Berthoud Pass to Leland Creek, is approximately 61 square miles. Its major tributary is Vasquez Creek, whose confluence with the Fraser River is located in Winter Park. Vasquez Creek has a drainage area of approximately 28 square miles. Along the Fraser River, the towns of Winter Park, Fraser and Granby are subject to flooding. Winter Park has flood hazard mapping along the Fraser and its tributaries, Leland Creek, Vasquez Creek, and Jim Creek. North of Winter Park, insufficient capacity of the culvert under US Highway 40 restricts flood flows from Leland Creek, on the west side of the highway, from entering the Fraser River. Just downstream is the Town of Fraser with flood hazard mapping on the Fraser River and Leland Creek, as well as the tributaries St. Louis Creek and Elk Creek. The Town of Granby, near the confluence of the Fraser River and the Colorado River has flood hazard mapping for both the Fraser River and its tributary Tenmile Creek. Flooding along the Fraser River and its tributaries occurs primarily in June and is largely due to snowmelt. Willow Creek is a tributary of the Colorado River, approximately 35 miles long. It begins in northwestern Grand County, in the Arapaho National Forest south of Willow Creek Pass at the continental divide. It flows southeast, through Willow Creek Reservoir and joins the Colorado three miles northeast of Granby. No flood hazard mapping is available for Willow Creek, but it does have a history of flooding. Muddy Creek is a tributary of the Colorado River, approximately 60.5 miles long. It drains northwestern Grand County, in the Routt National Forest west of Rabbit Ears Pass at the continental divide. It flows south, east, then southwest, and joins the Colorado near Kremmling. According to the Grand County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) of 2008, there are no significant flood hazards in the Town of Kremmling and no special flood hazards are mapped. However, there is a history of flooding in the western part of town. Wolford Reservoir may provide some flood protection. The railroad currently serves as a natural dam for the town's wastewater treatment plant. Every community in Grand County is at risk to riverine flooding. Localized stormwater flooding can cause minor problems. According to the January 2, 2008 FIS, Kremmling does not have any Special Flood Hazard areas identified. The effective flood insurance rate map (FIRM) for the County was adopted in 2008. The digital FIRM (DFIRM) was used during the 2013 update to refine the flood loss estimation. The DFIRM extent does not include the unincorporated County and is limited to the incorporated areas, with the exception of Kremmling. A 100 -year floodplain generated with HAZUS by FEMA was used to represent the flood hazard in the unincorporated areas. Figure 3.10 is a map of Grand County's DFIRM and HAZUS 100 -year floodplain. Grand County, Colorado 3.39 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.10. Grand County DFIRM and HAZUS 100 -Year Flood Zones JACKSON t eV � Hfbif, n d.lh:rrurl;ri r k� �rrr��rr Kremmling L Hot Sulphur Springs 40 • Z II r7rrum� I « . 3��r r,ic EAGLE 1 SUMMIT l 1 LEGEND - Hazus 100yr Flood Zones Streams FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Lakes 1%Annual Chance Railroads - Zone A Highways - Zone AE L _ I Towns 0.2% Annual Chance Counties Zone X Zone D LARIMER r•: J �w� l 1 , 34 J—� Jr _ f �•..� l rand Lake 1114rrr, rr+rli.,rl' •�� `.. Granby ,BOULDER Fraser S nr`' GILPIN -� CLEAR CREEK amen 0 7 15 Miles I i I i Ii r V Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only.. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 1/2/2008 Grand County, Colorado 3.40 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Flood Protection Measures The major flood protection measures along the Colorado River are Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoir. Though these reservoirs are not designated as flood control, controlled releases do provide some flood protection downstream. Ritschard Dam (a.k.a Wolford Mountain Reservoir) is along Muddy Creek and though not designated as a flood control dam, does provide some protection for the Town of Kremmling. There is some concern that this earthen dam, completed in 1995, is settling twice as fast as the expected rate (see Section 3.2.2 Dam Failure). According to the County Flood Insurance Study, there are no structures in the Fraser River basin specifically designed for flood protection. There are, however, several diversion structures and railroad and road embankments that affect flooding. Water is diverted from the Fraser River, Jim Creek, Vasquez Creek and Little Vasquez Creek by the Denver Water Board. Total capacity of the diversion system is 750 cfs (Grand County FIS, January 2, 2008). Highway US 40 traverses Grand County in a general northwest to southeast direction. Hydraulic structures under the highway have sufficient capacity so that floodflows are generally unaffected. However, north of Winter Park, insufficient capacity of the culvert under US 40 restricts flow from Leland Creek, on the west side of the highway, from entering the Fraser River (Grand County FIS). The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad also traverses the County in a generally east -west direction. Some minor ponding at crossings is expected, although most of the culverts do not now full. No other structures such as dams, levees, canals, or other flood control devices were found to provide protection from the 1 % annual chance flood event. Previous Occurrences According to the flood insurance studies and NCDC, there is some evidence of significant flooding in Grand County in recent years. Events of note from the studies, NCDC, and the HMPC include the following: July 5-6, 2011— A combination of heavy rain and spring runoff caused flash flooding along St. Louis Creek. As a result, some of the streets in the town of Fraser were flooded. Streamflow peaked at 353 cfs compared to the average streamflow for this time of year of 83 cfs. There was a washout on County Road 731. Property damage was estimated to be $5,000. June, 2011 – With a river basin snowpack at 277 percent of average for early June, warmer temperatures in the high country at the start of the month intensified runoff in mountain valleys. Water was running near or at bank levels along most rivers and Grand County, Colorado 3.41 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 streams, with some flooding in low-lying areas from Parshall to Kremmling. A few culverts were replaced, according to the Grand County Office of Emergency Management. Muddy and Troublesome creeks were flooding and water levels at Willow Creek were rising by a foot per day, according to the Bureau of Reclamation. Property owners along Willow Creek reported widespread flooding. The C Lazy U Ranch dealt with massive flooding in hay fields. The flows maxed -out the gauge at 1,200 cfs. A flow of 1,500 cfs is considered a 500 -year flood event on Willow Creek. On the Fraser River, portions of the Fraser River Trail in town were damaged and river banks eroded. Repairs were made in 2012. June 7-8, 2010— Two days of high temperatures rapidly melted high -elevation snows and created rampant runoff and flooding on the Fraser River. Peak river flows washed out a culvert and driveway that accessed a home near Old Town Winter Park. Voluntary evacuations were announced with concern for residents being unable to access emergency services if the nearby bridges were to wash out. May 18-24, 2008 – Floods resulted on Muddy Creek near Kremmling from rapid melt of above average snowpack in the contributing watershed. Damages consisted of roadways being overtopped or damaged, debris accumulation, land erosion, and isolated cases of structure inundation. Peak discharge was 902 cfs. Flooding on Troublesome Creek, Tenmile Creek, Eightmile Creek, and the Fraser River caused minor damage to fields and barns. No damage estimates were available (CWCB Flood Decision Support System and 2008 State of Colorado Flood Documentation Reports). May 30, 2003 - Grand River Ditch Failure - The Grand River Ditch is owned by the Water Supply and Storage Company. In May 2003 a 100 foot section of the ditch breached about 2.4 miles south of La Poudre Pass, causing the water to cascade down the slopes and into the Colorado River. Approximately 105 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the Grand River Ditch spilled into the park for several hours at a location where a natural water drainage was not already present, causing a large amount of rock, soil, sediment and trees to be removed and transported downstream. The flood left a visible scar on the mountainside, causing significant damage to a lodgepole pine and an old growth riparian spruce/fir forest, Lulu Creek, the Colorado River and associated wetlands and park visitor infrastructure. The breach occurred at a time when the Colorado River was experiencing typical high water levels adding additional stress to downstream road and foot bridges. The bridges were closed to the public for safety concerns. The Water Supply and Storage Company was ordered to pay $9 million in damages to Rocky Mountain National Park. June 20, 2000— Heavy rain, up to 3.5 inches in an hour, deluged the streets, drains, homes, and businesses in Granby. In many places, water was gushing out of the storm drains because the drainage system could not handle the high volume of water. Some hillsides were washed out and many yards had surface soil stripped clean. Water up to 2 feet in depth covered some of the city streets. Several offices and businesses were also flooded. The Granby Library, in the basement of Granby Town Hall, was also flooded. Grand County, Colorado 3.42 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Numerous books and computers were damaged, forcing the closure of the library for a week. FEMA flood -related statistics show the town of Winter Park suffered a loss of nearly $6 million in a flood -related event sometime after 1978. The precise date and circumstances of this event are not known (Grand County PDHMP, 2008). The USACE Ice Jam Information Clearinghouse shows no recorded ice jam events in Grand County between 1955 and 2013. Probability of Future Occurrence Likely -10-100% chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Based on the data, significant riverine and flash floods occur, on average, once every 5 years (six noted events over 30 years) in Grand County. The HMPC suggests that some level of flooding is almost an annual occurrence in Grand County. Zone A floodplains on FEMA FIRMS are often called the '100 -year' flood zone, but really have a 1% annual chance of flooding any given year. The various FEMA zones are defined in Table 3.10. The blue shading on flood map figures in this plan represents different flood zones as defined by FEMA. Table 3.10. FEMA Flood Zone Definitions and Probabilities Zone Definitions Areas with a 1 % annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the lift A of a 30 -year mortgage. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas; no depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. Areas with a 1 % annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the lift AE of a 30 -year mortgage. The `E" stands for Engineering Study and represents areas where base flood elevations have been determined. AE zones are now used on new format FIRMs instead of Al -A30 Zones. River or stream flood hazard areas and areas with a 1 % or greater chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth ranging AO from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30 - year mortgage. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are shown within these flood zones. Areas with a 1 % annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, AH with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30 -year mortgage. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. Shaded Zone X or Areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding; also referred to as the 500 year 0.2% floodplain. Source:https://msc.tema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/into?storeld=10001 &catalogld=10001 Wang Id= - 1 &content=floodZones&title=FEMA%2520Flood%252OZone%252ODesignations Grand County, Colorado 3.43 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Magnitude/Severity Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. In Grand County, floods can cause minor injuries. Flood water, as well as debris from steep tributary channels, can damage property and infrastructure and close roads. However, past flood damages have been limited. While the overall severity for the County is limited, the severity for certain jurisdictions within the County may be higher. 3.2.7 Hazardous Materials Release Hazard Description Grand County is susceptible to accidents involving the transport of hazardous materials on County roads and highways. A hazardous material is any item or agent (biological, chemical, physical, radiological) that has the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment, either by itself or through interaction with other factors. An accident could occur at any time or as a result of a natural disaster. The release of hazardous materials can threaten people and natural resources in the immediate vicinity of the accident, including residences, resorts, and businesses along transportation routes. The HMPC provided a commodity flow study, which examined the type and number of vehicles that transport hazardous materials through the County, the type of material transported, and the hazard class of the vehicles. Semi tractors/trailers, box trucks, and pick-up trucks are the most frequently occurring type of vehicle transporting hazardous materials through Grand County. Most trailer types are dump trucks, mixed cargo on flatbed trailers, mixed cargo in box trailers, and MC -306 non -pressure trailers that usually contain fuel. Class 3 flammable liquids is the most frequently occurring hazard class. This is consistent with the finding that fuel and gasoline are two of the most frequently transported materials. Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is small10-25 percent of the planning area affected—(based on historical experience), but depending on the type and quantity of spill and the medium affected, the geographic extent could become large. Colorado State Patrol has designated Colorado 9 from U.S. Highway 40 in Kremmling to I-70 in Silverthorne as a hazmat route. Closure of Colorado 9 due to a hazmat incident could impact commerce and tourism, particularly during ski season. U.S. Highway 40 crosses the County from east to west and is the alternate route to Salt Lake City and primary detour route for closures of the I-70 corridor; trucks and tankers transporting hazardous materials may often use this route. Past hazmat transportation incidents have occurred on Berthoud Pass, Byers Canyon, and Rabbit Ears Pass. The Union Pacific railroad is another potential site of hazmat incidents in the planning area. An estimated 15-30 trains use the railroad each day. Grand County, Colorado 3.44 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 There are several Tier II facilities in Grand County. The 2012-2013 reporting facilities are listed in Table 3.11. Table 3.11. Reporting Tier II Facilities in Grand County: 2012-2013 Facility Jurisdiction Reporting Year Action Gas: Independent Propane Company Granby 2012 and 2013 Century Link: Grand Lake Community Dial Office Grand Lake 2012 and 2013 Century Link: Granby Grouse Mountain Repeater Granby 2012 and 2013 Century Link: Granby Central Office Granby 2012 and 2013 Century Link: Kremmling San Toy Repeater Kremmling 2012 and 2013 Century Link: Kremmling Community Dial Office Kremmling 2012 and 2013 Centu Link: Radium Re en Radium 2012 and 2013 Century Link: Fraser Re en Fraser 2012 and 2013 Century Link: Fraser Community Dial Office Fraser 2012 and 2013 Ferrellgas-Granby Granby 2012 and 2013 First Transit, Inc. Winter Park 2012 Henderson Mill: Parshall 2012 MCI-Kremco Kremmling 2012 Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park 2012 and 2013 Tri-State Generation and Transmission Fraser and Mettler Substations Fraser 2012 and 2013 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA): Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard Granby 2012 and 2013 WAPA: Granby Substation Granby 2012 and 2013 WAPA: Kremmling Substation Kremmling 2012 and 2013 WAPA: Willow Creek Pumping Plant Switchyard Granby 2012 and 2013 Source: HMPC Previous Occurrences Hazardous materials incidents in Grand County have been relatively insignificant. Statistics from the National Response Center, which serves as the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories, indicate that between 2008 and 2012, 20 hazardous materials incidents were reported in Grand County. The majority of the incidents were related to gasoline and diesel fuel spills resulting from an accident (i.e., not from cargo). These events are summarized in Table 3.12. Table 3.12. Hazardous Materials Incidents: 2008-2012 Date Description Type Cause Nearest City Caller reported that an electrical fire started in a locomotive. While putting out the fire, 2 Railroad non- Equipment 2/19/2012 employees were exposed to smoke inhalation. release failure Granby Reporting party received a report from the field that during offloading of magnesium chloride from a tank car to a Department of Roads vehicle. The hose became disconnected resulting in the release of the entire tank car. The entire amount could have been 18,000 gallons if all of the material was released. It was unknown how much was transferred before the incident occurred. The material was not 6/28/2012 considered regulated. Railroad Unknown Kremmling A commercial truck skidded off the left side of 6/29/2012 the road and collided with the guard rail. The Mobile Operator error Grand County, Colorado 3.45 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Date Description Type Cause Nearest Cit impact damaged both vehicle saddle tanks which resulted in 150 gallons of diesel fuel spilling out. Caller reported that a 79 year old male passenger passed away from unknown causes while aboard a passenger train. Caller stated that the individual had a do not resuscitate Railroad non - 1/9/2011 document with him. release Other Winter Park Caller reported a leak from a fuel tank from someone driving off with the nozzle still in the tank. There was a release of 110 gallons of gasoline. The gas entered a drain that goes to a roadway on the property and back into a 5/15/2011 reclaim area of the facility. Fixed Operator Error Parshall Caller reported that snow was melting near Winter Park's maintenance shops. A few employees started to notice a smell of gasoline or something of that nature coming from an area where things are piled up. Some people left what appears to be hazardous waste — no more than 30 gallons but it was difficult to tell since snow was still covering the area. A sheen was visible in the water runoff from the area that smells. It ran right into a wetland meadow 6/6/2011 adjacent to the area. Fixed Unknown Winter Park Caller stated that a freight train struck and fatally injured a trespasser near a grade Railroad non - 8/17/2011 crossing. release Trespasser Cliffton Caller reported a release of raw sewage from a clogged manhole due to an unknown cause at 9/4/2011 this time. Fixed Unknown Grand Lake Caller stated that a tractor trailer rolled off of the highway, rupturing its saddle tanks. The caller stated that approximately 100 gallons spilled 9/13/2011 onto the soil. Mobile Unknown Kremmling A commercial truck drove off the right side of the road and rolled 1 '/4 times. The right fuel tank was crushed in the crash. Approximately Transport 9/13/2011 150 gallons of fuel leaked onto the ground. Mobile Accident Caller reported a spill of diesel fuel from a tanker truck due to a transportation accident. The caller stated that the tanker truck rolled over. No injuries were reported. The caller stated the truck was upright but the tanker had Transport 8/6/2010 rolled over. Mobile Accident Kremmling Caller reported a discharge of diesel fuel from a tanker truck that rolled over as the result of a Transport 8/6/2010 single vehicle accident. Mobile Accident Kremmling Caller stated that there was a release of 2,000 gallons of automatic transmission fluid from a tanker truck. The cause was due to a transportation accident. There was no waterway impact. The number of injuries was unknown. An investigation was conducted Transport 8/17/2010 following the accident. Mobile Accident Kremmling Caller reported a discharge of gasoline and motor oil from a "Bobcat" (construction vehicle) that fell into the water through ice. Caller stated the Bobcat was clogging the ice away from the 3/22/2009 pier when the ice broke, causing the Bobcat to Mobile Other Grand Lake Grand County, Colorado 3.46 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Date Description Type Cause Nearest Cit fall through. Caller stated the incident occurred between 0900 MST and 1000 MST. Caller reported a spill of unknown material from a retaining pond due to the material breaching the retaining pond's wall. Caller stated that an unknown material turned the Colorado River orange. Caller followed up stating that the water was tan. Caller stated that a few individuals got sick from the water which is used 7/8/2009 for the area water works. Fixed Unknown Granby Caller reported that diesel fuel released from a tractor trailer saddle tank due to unknown causes. The materials released onto the ground. Caller also stated that Highway 40 was Hot Sulphur 3/29/2008 closed for roughly 6 hours. Mobile Unknown Springs Caller reported a discharge of used oil from two drums that are lying on their sides with a hole in them. The snow was melting so the oil was being washed away. The caller stated that the drums may have been moved. This was 3/22/2008 discovered about a month prior to the call. Storage Tank Unknown Granby Caller reported a material release from a tanker truck due to a transport accident (rollover). Caller stated that this was a single vehicle accident. Caller did not know who exactly the truck belonged to at the time of the call. Transport Hot Sulphur 6/11/2008 Incident occurred at 2326 MST. Mobile Accident Springs Caller reported a material release from a tanker truck due to a transport accident (rollover). Transport Hot Sulphur 6/11/2008 Caller stated this was a single vehicle accident. Mobile Accident Springs Caller reported that a freight train derailed one rail car upright due to unknown causes. This incident occurred on a passenger train route. No injuries or release of materials were Railroad non - 12/1/2008 reported. release Derailment Tabernash Source: U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center Other past events include a tanker crash on Berthoud Pass in 2003, a tanker crash in Byers Canyon which spilled product into the Colorado River, three major train derailments, and accidents near Rabbit Ears Pass due to poor visibility and winding, narrow roads. Probability of Future Occurrence Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or happens every year Transportation- related hazardous materials incidents occur in Grand County every year. These are most often fuel spills that are not related to the cargo being transported. Based on previous experience, the probability of a spill of a nonfuel hazardous material or a spill with significant impact to people, the environment, or the economy is much less likely. Grand County, Colorado 3.47 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Magnitude/Severity 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 Impacts in the past have been limited but depending on the type and quantity of spill and the medium affected, an event's magnitude and severity could become catastrophic. A hazardous materials release could cause personal injury or death to humans or damage to property or the environment. Humans are affected through inhalation, ingestion, or direct contact with skin. Air releases can prompt large-scale population evacuations and spills into water or onto the ground can adversely affect public water and sewer systems. Population centers and critical facilities, including hospitals and health clinics, along the roadways are vulnerable to accidents involving hazardous materials. Damage to the environment and road closures due to accidents would negatively impact the tourism and recreation based economy. 3.2.8 Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Hazard Description A landslide is a general term for a variety of mass -movement processes that generate a downslope movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. For the purposes of this plan, the term "landslide" includes mudslides, debris flows, and rock falls. Some of the natural causes of ground instability are stream and Lakeshore erosion, heavy rainfall, and poor quality natural materials. In addition, many human activities tend to make the earth materials less stable and, thus, increase the chance of ground failure. Human activities contribute to soil instability through grading of steep slopes or overloading them with artificial fill, by extensive irrigation, construction of impermeable surfaces, excessive groundwater withdrawal, and removal of stabilizing vegetation. A mudslide is a mass of water and fine-grained earth materials that flows down a stream, ravine, canyon, arroyo, or gulch. If more than half of the solids in the mass are larger than sand grains (e.g., rocks, stones, boulders), the event is called a debris flow. Many of Colorado's older mountain communities built in major mountain valleys are located on or near debris fans. A debris fan is a conical landform produced by successive mud and debris flow deposits, and the likely spot for a future event. The mud and debris flow problem can be exacerbated by wildfires that remove vegetation that serves to stabilize soil from erosion. Heavy rains on the denuded landscape can lead to rapid development of destructive mudflows. A rock fall is the falling of a detached mass of rock from a cliff or down a very steep slope. Weathering and decomposition of geological materials produce conditions favorable to rock falls. Rock falls are caused by the loss of support from underneath through erosion or triggered by ice wedging, root growth, or ground shaking. Changes to an area or slope such as cutting and filling activities can also increase the risk of a rock fall. Rocks in a rock fall can be of any Grand County, Colorado 3.48 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 dimension, from the size of baseballs to houses. Rock fall occurs most frequently in mountains or other steep areas during the early spring when there is abundant moisture and repeated freezing and thawing. Landslides, mudslides, and rock falls occur commonly throughout Colorado, and the annual damage is estimated to exceed $3 million to buildings alone. California, Washington, and Colorado were the first three states to use federal disaster funds to acquire property in landslide hazard areas. Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is isolated—less than 10 percent of the planning area affected. In 2002 an update to Colorado's Landslide Mitigation Plan was completed. It identified several areas of vulnerability in Grand County. Colorado's plan compiled these areas into different priorities described in three distinct categories or tiers based upon the criticality of the threat. The three categories are further described as: Tier One listings are serious cases needing immediate or ongoing action or attention because of the severity of potential impacts. Tier Two listings are very significant but less severe; or where adequate information and/or some mitigation actions have taken place; or where current development pressures are less extreme. Tier Three listings are similar to Tier Two but with less severe consequences or primarily local impact. Grand County faces its share of landslide -related problems, especially in the western part of the County. Most of the County overall is rated a "medium" level landslide hazard area according to the State map. Fraser Canyon is identified as a Tier Two landslide/rockfall area. A landslide in Fraser Canyon derailed an Amtrak train in 1985. This event is discussed in further detail in "Previous Occurrences." According to the HMPC, problem areas for landslide and rockfall include Byers Canyon, Highway 125, Highway 40 at Windy Gap, the landfill on Highway 34, and CR 1 near Inspiration Point. Highway 40 and the Union Pacific railroad pass through several canyons where rockslides occur annually. A burn area on the west side of Sheep Mountain was also identified as a potential debris flow hazard. Issues also exist in avalanche chutes and in Gore Canyon where there is potential for a train derailment. Figure 3.11 illustrates significant landslide hazard areas in Grand County. Grand County, Colorado 3.49 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.11. Grand County Landslide Hazard Areas `. �rk.00 ,. i'1 Mt _v r r,r 14 ' iar�= �LARIMER •* JACKIKSON 14 q&34 Mgr � a 40 j _ �� 125 i t+ IL l� �%t1 " Eti ► � a r ti l; rand Lake ---- � r p I < * 44 14 4. �lahAr �t MW a% .. ,Hot Sulphur ti M •i Springs Granby 134 Kremmling 40 ` -I }` 0, k ' w BOULDER v r 160 • + �r r Fraser EAGLE SUMMIT g j `ti � Wintery r � (GILPI N LEGEND Park I r' - Landslide Deposits Streams Landslide Incidence Lakes ♦� �� - High +� Railroads ` +, 40 Moderate Highways �� 'r, �• 1 �' , ,� A �* r�' Low I Towns Incidence &• Susceptibility L_e=� Counties CLEARREEK Combo -High - High Susceptibility Moderate Susceptibility ` * A amee-0 0 7I 15 Miles N Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, U.S. Geological Survey, Colton/USGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County, Colorado 3.50 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Previous Occurrences Despite conscientious land use planning for rockfall and landslide, concerns still exist in Grand County. Examples of historical problems, some of which continue to this day, are summarized below: The Fraser Canyon corridor was for years a high risk area for landslides. On April 16, 1985, that area experienced a significant slide that undercut the embankment and railroad tracks. Because of the ensuing damage, a 14 -car Amtrak passenger train was derailed and two locomotives and five passenger cars were thrown into the resulting breach. There were no fatalities, but 26 people were injured and damage was estimated at $3.4 million. The landslide was extensively investigated and repairs were made by the railroad immediately following the incident. A rockfall alarm fence was installed along all potential landslide areas of the railroad in Byers Canyon, shown in Figure 3.12 and Figure 3.13. The poles alongside the railroad track carry alarm wires that stop trains in the event of a landslide or rockslide. This incident provided a vivid illustration of the serious potential consequences of even a small, but strategically located slope failure (the volume of the April 16, 1985 slide was estimated to be about 4,000 cubic yards, small by many standards of such activity). Due to the property losses and the potential for multiple fatalities, this landslide area was aggressively mitigated immediately after the incident. The Fraser Canyon site was selected for a Priority List maintained by the Colorado Geological Survey to exemplify the vulnerability of major rail transportation corridors that are constrained to the narrow floors of Colorado's many hazardous canyons. In these areas, the consequences of landslides, rockfall, or snow avalanches are so severe that mitigation and surveillance measures are a necessity. Figure 3.12. Rockfall Alarm Fence in Byers Canyon Source: HMPC Grand County, Colorado 3.51 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.13. Close-up of Rockfall Alarm Fence in Byers Canyon Probability of Future Occurrence Occasional -1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years Magnitude/Severity 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 Landslide is a serious geological hazard that can threaten human life, impact transportation corridors and communication systems, and result in other infrastructure (e.g., reservoirs) and ,•_' property damage. Actual losses can range from mere inconvenience or high maintenance costs Source: HMPC where very slow or small-scale destructive slides are involved. Rapidly moving large slides have the capacity to completely destroy buildings, roads, bridges, and other costly manmade structures. Such slides also have the potential for inflicting loss of life when they occur in developed areas. Land use planning should consider slide potential and either avoid or mitigate potential problem areas. 3.2.9 Lightning Hazard Description Lightning is an electrical discharge between positive and negative regions of a thunderstorm. Intracloud lightning is the most common type of discharge. This occurs between oppositely charged centers within the same cloud. Usually it takes place inside the cloud and looks from the outside of the cloud like a diffuse brightening that flickers. However, the flash may exit the boundary of the cloud, and a bright channel can be visible for many miles. Although not as common, cloud -to -ground lightning is the most damaging and dangerous form of lightning. Most flashes originate near the lower -negative charge center and deliver negative charge to earth. However, a large minority of flashes carry positive charge to earth. These positive flashes often occur during the dissipating stage of a thunderstorm's life. Positive flashes are also more common as a percentage of total ground strikes during the winter months. This type of lightning is particularly dangerous for several reasons. It frequently strikes away from the rain core, either ahead or behind the thunderstorm. It can strike as far as 5 or 10 miles from the Grand County, Colorado 3.52 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 storm in areas that most people do not consider to be a threat. Positive lightning also has a longer duration, so fires are more easily ignited. And, when positive lightning strikes, it usually carries a high peak electrical current, potentially resulting in greater damage. According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, lightning causes more than 26,000 fires in the United States each year. The institute estimates property damage, increased operating costs, production delays, and lost revenue from lightning and secondary effects to be in excess of $6 billion per year. Impacts can be direct or indirect. People or objects can be directly struck, or damage can occur indirectly when the current passes through or near it. Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is large. Lightning can occur anywhere in the County. Previous Occurrences Data from the National Lightning Detection Network ranks Colorado 32nd in the nation (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) with respect to the number of cloud -to -ground lightning flashes with an average number of 506,131 flashes per year (based on data collected between 1997 and 2012). Figure 3.14 shows state -by -state lightning deaths between 1959 and 2012. Colorado ranks fifth for the number of deaths at 141. Florida (468), Texas (215), Virginia (194), and Ohio (146) were ranked higher.. From 2003 to 2012, Colorado ranked second in lightning fatalities with 24 deaths. Florida again ranked first with 52 deaths. 15 lightning deaths occurred in Colorado between 2006 and May 2013. None of these were in Grand County. In an average year in Colorado, 3 people are killed and 13 are injured. Grand County, Colorado 3.53 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.14. Lightning Fatalities in the United States, 1959-2012 29 2- 31 7 74 ' O Source:5tiprm q Alaska -0 C'CP_5 Hawaii - 0 Puaeto Rim - 33 Source: National Weather Service, www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/ Fatalities 1959-2012: While lightning is a regular occurrence in Grand County, damaging lightning is not. According to the National Climatic Data Center Storm Event Database, there were two notable lightning events in Grand County between 2000 and February 2013: June 20, 2004 Nineteen people were injured by lightning at the Fourth Annual Kremmling Cliff Classic Golf Tournament. The group of people was on a bluff overlooking the Town when lightning struck. Four people had to be hospitalized, and two suffered serious injuries. July 3, 2006—A man was hit in the head by lightning while golfing at the Grand Elk Ranch and Golf Club golf course in Granby. His clothes were completely blown off by the blast and his body turned purple. His wife performed CPR immediately and was able to resuscitate him. It should be noted that this database captures only small portion of damaging lightning events; most go unreported. Probability of Future Occurrence Likely -10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less It is highly likely that lightning will occur every year in Grand County, but not all will be damaging. In the last 13 years, the County experienced two damaging lightning events. This Grand County, Colorado 3.54 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 A725 61 g0 Source: National Weather Service, www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/ Fatalities 1959-2012: While lightning is a regular occurrence in Grand County, damaging lightning is not. According to the National Climatic Data Center Storm Event Database, there were two notable lightning events in Grand County between 2000 and February 2013: June 20, 2004 Nineteen people were injured by lightning at the Fourth Annual Kremmling Cliff Classic Golf Tournament. The group of people was on a bluff overlooking the Town when lightning struck. Four people had to be hospitalized, and two suffered serious injuries. July 3, 2006—A man was hit in the head by lightning while golfing at the Grand Elk Ranch and Golf Club golf course in Granby. His clothes were completely blown off by the blast and his body turned purple. His wife performed CPR immediately and was able to resuscitate him. It should be noted that this database captures only small portion of damaging lightning events; most go unreported. Probability of Future Occurrence Likely -10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less It is highly likely that lightning will occur every year in Grand County, but not all will be damaging. In the last 13 years, the County experienced two damaging lightning events. This Grand County, Colorado 3.54 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 averages to a damaging lightning event roughly every six years, or a 46 percent chance of an event in any given year. Magnitude/Severity Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours. Lightning can cause deaths, injuries, and property damage, including damage to buildings, communications systems, power lines, and electrical systems. In Grand County it poses a risk to people recreating or working outdoors. It also is a common ignition source for forest and brush fires. 3.2.10 Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Hazard Description The lodgepole pine forests of Grand County are in the final stages of a mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic that has spread from Canada down the length of the Rocky Mountains. While the infestation may be reaching its end, the resulting mortality will be evident for decades to come. The resulting tree mortality presents a number of hazards. While wildfire is discussed in further detail in a subsequent section, it is here addressed as it relates to the changing forest conditions subsequent to this epidemic. The MPB is endemic to the ponderosa, lodgepole, and limber pine forests of western North America and is a major cause of mortality in these forests. The beetle typically attacks tress that lack vigor due to age, overstocking, damage, diseases, or drought. During an outbreak, healthy trees may fall prey to attack. A full epidemic can endanger entire forests across vast areas, as is currently the case in the Rocky Mountains. The direction and spread rate of an infestation is impossible to predict. However, attacked trees usually are adjacent to or near previously killed trees. Once the beetle infests a tree, nothing practical can be done to save it, so prevention is critical. Prevention includes forest management (e.g., creating diversity in age and structure) and treating infested trees to kill developing beetles before they emerge as adults. Discolored foliage is generally the first sign of beetle -caused mortality. Needles on infested trees begin changing color several months to one year after attack, going from green to yellowish green, then sorrel and red to rusty brown. In year two, the needles begin to drop off. In year three to four the remaining needles and smaller limbs drop. Beginning about five years post mortem, the dead stems become increasingly susceptible to rot and blow -down. The vast majority of the forests affected by the MPB epidemic in Grand County are lodgepole pine stands. Lodgepole forests lack diversity of age and species, with stands dominated by lodgepole pine of the same age. A disturbance, such as a fire followed by erosion, clears the Grand County, Colorado 3.55 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 land. This provides sunlight and site preparation required for lodgepole regeneration. A dense stand of lodgepole emerges and crowds out other species. These stands eventually become crowded, old, and ripe for a new disturbance. The fire return interval for this species is extremely variable, but is generally 25 to 75 years in stands experiencing mixed severity fire and 100 to 300 years in stand replacement fire regimes (Anderson 2003, Arno and Fielder 2005). In the absence of Ere, insect infestation may assume this perturbation role. The shallow rooted lodgepole depend on the collective shelter of the stand. Even partial mortality within a stand can leave the remaining trees susceptible to blow -down in high winds. Geographic Location While mountain pine beetle will attack a variety of pine trees, the epidemic in Grand County is largely limited to lodgepole pine in which mortality rates have exceeded 90% of mature lodgepole pine (Grand County 2008 [forest mgmt. plan]). Various studies suggest different limits to MPB activity in lodgepole pine, such as stands with basal areas below 100 square feet per acre, elevation over 10,000 feet, and stands where the average diameter at breast height is <8 inches (Amman et al. 1977). The epidemic in Grand County has challenged these preconceptions to the point that most lodgepole pine stands were impacted (Costello and Howell 2007). As of 2012 over three million acres have been infested statewide. In 2012 mountain pine beetle activity in Colorado declined for the fourth consecutive year as food sources become depleted in many areas of the state. Having reached a peak of over one million acres of active infestation in 2008, there were 264,000 acres of active infestation detected in 2012. This brings the total impacted area in Colorado 3,400,000 acres since the epidemic began in 1996 (CSFS 2013). Grand County, Colorado 3.56 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.15. Mountain Pine Beetle Kill in a Stand of Lodgepole Pine Grand County, Colorado 3.57 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.16. Mountain Pine Beetle Progression: 1998-2012 Source: Colorado State Forest Service, 2012 Report on the Health of Colorado's Forests Grand County, Colorado 3.58 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 I •,� •l LARIMiER -•ti ` Walden* .� JACKSON $teamt1 Springs 34 s ` GRANDt.,r • �Z` -: i.rr —ULDER 1 ut- r{1'InPhu X. 'A.5qL4jder All JLPIN r I[y',�,. .w i EAGLE GoIdenm Eagle -..I'_ l Sltverthcrn4 .. � .A ' • s -.x• -...-r- C� f,1,.`,r �FTI�01 CREEK M�.n.,':. ..:4. � !_.✓ � i� t . of -.. y �, �• - 7' +i `.I1"� , _ i' �. ' a,�'^ � alp I' - . Kro JEFFERSON i '� - .Y� , � i• _ _ 04 IIIIILeadville - PA FAirnlAy 1998 -2000 Od2004 - 2006 2010 - 2012 N 2001 - 2003 = 2007 -2009 0 2.5 5 10 15 USDA Forest Service Miles l Source: Colorado State Forest Service, 2012 Report on the Health of Colorado's Forests Grand County, Colorado 3.58 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.17. Lodgepole Pine Forests in Grand County JACKSON (' EAGLE � �t SUMMIT bprings 40 4i)If irnm I ru LEGEND Vegetation Types 40 =; Lakes } Railroads - Developed Areas Highways Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Towns Counties I•y y 1� f'.r Ir 0 ' _ Ilnllrnlllnpfnl.rr�t jj+ 134 I / Kremmliing r r ` (' EAGLE � �t SUMMIT bprings 40 4i)If irnm I ru LEGEND Vegetation Types Streams Other Vegetation Lakes Barren Railroads - Developed Areas Highways Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Towns Counties LARIMER r r f ` Grand Lake "Iff 47 67 - Granbyork <, — BOULDER W .. f -`m l Von et1�',,GILPIN +0'" Park t CLEAR CREEK. ameO 0 7.5 15 Miles \ l i i i l i l Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, LANDFIRE Grand County, Colorado 3.59 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Previous Occurrences While this is the second outbreak of mountain pine beetle in the past thirty years, the scale and severity of the current mountain pine beetle epidemic is unprecedented within the past several centuries. Forest ecologists are unable to say whether or not epidemics of this scale have ever occurred previously. At its peak in 2008, this epidemic impacted over a million acres of Colorado's forests. Probability of Future Occurrence Occasional— 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years. Mountain pine beetle are endemic to the area, with outbreaks occurring cyclically. Since lodgepole pine forests are subject to stand replacing fires roughly every 100 to 300 years the species is well adapted to recovering from, and in fact requires, whole scale disturbances (Kaufmann et al 2008). However, the people who visit and live in Grand County are less accustomed to such widespread changes on the landscape. Because it will require decades for mature lodgepole pine stands to become reestablished there is a low probability that an epidemic of this magnitude will occur again in the twenty-first century. Magnitude/Severity Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours The definitions for Magnitude/Severity for this planning effort are not well-suited to this hazard. Although the MPB is unlikely to cause deaths or injuries or significant damage to property and infrastructures, it is killing millions of trees each year. The forest mortality resulting from this epidemic creates a number of direct and indirect hazards: While the infestation phase of the current MPB epidemic has run its course in Grand County, the impacts will continue to be felt for years as mortality continues, forests fall to the ground, and forest regeneration begins anew. Moderate load conifer litter (fuel model TU) can be expected to transition into high load conifer litter (fuel model TL5) as dead fall begins to accumulate approximately 10 years postmortem. As the understory is released and lodgepole pine regenerates, the fuel model is likely to become a very high load of timber and shrub (fuel model TU5) (Green 2007). These changes in fuel loads will initially increase crown fire potential to some degree, as the needles dry on the trees. Once the needles and limbs begin to drop to the ground, crown fire potential diminishes, while the potential for more intense surface fire grows with the fuel load. Depending on how the new vegetation emerges on individual sites, the potential exists for very intense surface fires through brush and pine saplings until the forests mature. While it is impractical to treat the entirety of the affected area, fuels mitigation projects are being prioritized Grand County, Colorado 3.60 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 and undertaken near vulnerable areas as set forth in the Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Hazards along roadways are addressed in the Grand County Forest Management Plan for County Road Right of Ways (2008). The mountain pine beetle epidemic in the County has made firefighting operations very difficult due to the inability to approach fires because of downfall. Falling tree hazards limit escape routes and the ability to establish safety zones, placing firefighters at serious risk. Dead and even green trees fall with or without wind due to rotting bases and wind exposure to isolated and unprotected trees. Figure 3.18. Moderate Load Conifer Litter (Fuel Model TL3) Prior to Beetle Infestation r ' , 'rd 1 P F L- ,c Grand County, Colorado 3.61 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.19. High Load Conifer Litter (Fuel Model TL5) Following to Beetle Infestation r I 7 t t k V kit f, i t Figure 3.20. Very High Load Timber and Shrub (Fuel Model TU5) as a New Cohort of Pine is Released Grand County, Colorado 3.62 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3.2.11 Severe Winter Weather Hazard Description Winter weather includes snow, ice, blizzard conditions, and extreme cold. Heavy snow can immobilize a region, stranding commuters, stopping the flow of supplies, and disrupting emergency and medical services. Accumulations of snow can collapse roofs and knock down trees and power lines. The cost of snow removal, damage repair, and business losses can have a tremendous impact on cities and towns. Heavy accumulations of ice can bring down trees, electrical wires, telephone poles and lines, and communication towers. Communications and power can be disrupted for days until damage can be repaired. Even small accumulations of ice may cause extreme hazards to motorists and pedestrians. Some winter storms are accompanied by strong winds, creating blizzard conditions with blinding wind -driven snow, severe drifting, and dangerous wind chills. Strong winds with these intense storms and cold fronts can knock down trees, utility poles, and power lines. Blowing snow can reduce visibilities to only a few feet in areas where there are no trees or buildings. Serious vehicle accidents can result with injuries and deaths. Extreme cold often accompanies a winter storm or is left in its wake. Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and can become life-threatening. Infants and the elderly are most susceptible. Pipes may freeze and burst in homes or buildings that are poorly insulated or without heat. Extreme cold is most likely to occur in the winter months of December, January, and February. In 2001, the National Weather Service implemented an updated Wind Chill Temperature index, shown in Figure 3.21. This index was developed to describe the relative discomfort/danger resulting from the combination of wind and temperature. Wind chill is based on the rate of heat loss from exposed skin caused by wind and cold. As the wind increases, it draws heat from the body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the internal body temperature. The National Weather Service will issue a Wind Chill Warning for Grand County when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill values of -35°F. Grand County, Colorado 3.63 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.21. National Weather Service Wind Chill Chart 9 � 'incl Chill Chart "ra*•3 Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is large—more than 50 percent of the planning area affected. Winter weather can occur throughout Grand County. The Western Regional Climate Center reports data from weather stations in and around Grand County. The data reported here are from three of the stations: Grand Lake 6 SSW, Kremmling, and Winter Park. Table 3.13 contains winter weather summaries for the three stations and illustrates differences within the County. Figure 3.22 through Figure 3.27 show daily snowfall and temperature averages and extremes. Table 3.13. Grand County Winter Weather Summaries' Grand County, Colorado 3.64 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Snowiest Winter' # Average Month/ Highest Highest Average Average Minimum Days Station Annual Average Monthly Seasonal Snow Minimum Temp. Gil F/ Snowfall Snowfall Snowfall Snowfall Depth Temp. Year Grand Lake 6 77.1 Dec./16.2 72.3 90.7 Winter 6.0 2.7 F -46 F 73.8 SSW3 Dec. 1983 1983-84 1/10/1962 Grand County, Colorado 3.64 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ 'All snowfall and snow depths are reported in inches 2Winter: December, January, February 3Period of Record: 8/1/1948-3/31/2013 'Period of Record: 1/1/1908-3/31/2013 5Period of Record: 3/1/1942-3/31/2013 Figure 3.22. Grand Lake 6 SSW Station Snowfall Averages and Extremes GRAND LAKE 6 SSW, COLORADO (053500) Period of Record 8/ 1/1948 to 3/31/2013 20 I I I I r_ is I I I I I � 5 (I� I J�IVjII III to Jan 1 Mar 1 May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 31 Feb 1 Apr 1 Jun 1 Rug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1 Day of Year ues#ern Regional Extreme Average climate center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Grand County, Colorado 3.65 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Snowiest Winter' # Average Month/ Highest Highest Average Average Minimum Days Station Annual Average Monthly Seasonal Snow Minimum Temp. <2 F/ Snowfall Snowfall Snowfall Snowfall Depth Temp. Year 80.3 Kremmling4 51.6 Jan./10.6 Jan41996 Winter 2.0 1.1 F 2/1/1951 60.2 1995-96 Winter Parks 224.7 Jan./Mar./ 100 184.5 13.0 0.2 F -33 F 62.2 35.3 Dec. 1983 1951-52 1/7/1971 Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ 'All snowfall and snow depths are reported in inches 2Winter: December, January, February 3Period of Record: 8/1/1948-3/31/2013 'Period of Record: 1/1/1908-3/31/2013 5Period of Record: 3/1/1942-3/31/2013 Figure 3.22. Grand Lake 6 SSW Station Snowfall Averages and Extremes GRAND LAKE 6 SSW, COLORADO (053500) Period of Record 8/ 1/1948 to 3/31/2013 20 I I I I r_ is I I I I I � 5 (I� I J�IVjII III to Jan 1 Mar 1 May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 31 Feb 1 Apr 1 Jun 1 Rug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1 Day of Year ues#ern Regional Extreme Average climate center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Grand County, Colorado 3.65 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.23. Kremmling Station Snowfall Averages and Extremes c s 0 c 20 lS 10 s REMMLING, COLORADO (054664) Period of Record : 1/ 1/1998 to 3/31/2913 Jan I Mar I May I Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov I Dec 31 Feb 1 Apr I Jun I Rug I Oct I Dec I Day of Year Western Regional Extreme Average climate Center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Figure 3.24. Winter Park Station Snowfall Averages and Extremes WINTER PARK, COLORADO (059175) Period of Record 3/ 1/1942 to 3/31/2913 30 25 I I C 20 .. I lS o l0 Cn I I Jan I Mar I May I Jul I Sep I Nov I Dec 31 Feb I Apr I Jun I Aug I Oct I Dec I Day of Year Western Regional Extreme Average :D climate Center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Grand County, Colorado 3.66 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.25. Grand Lake 6 SSW Station Temperature Averages and Extremes .^1 U_ a� L 4J to L Q C6 L G] H GRAND LAKE 6 SSW, COLORADO (053500) Period of Record : 8/ 1/1948 to 3/31/2913 7 aoI - �• :.� : �'� ~'�` _ _ _� � I 3 0 io 0 _aoI I -50 I I Jan 1 Mar 1 May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 31 Feb 1 Apr 1 Jun 1 Rug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1 Day of Year Western Regional Extreme Max Ave Max — Ave Min Extreme Min climate Center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Figure 3.26. Kremmling Station Temperature Averages and Extremes U_ a� L 7 to to L Q L G] H KREMMLING, COLORADO (054664) Period of Record : 1/ 1/1998 to 3/31/2913 7 o I w rrr� ao20 I -10 -s o -a o l t -50 Jan 1 Mar 1 May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 31 Feb 1 Apr 1 Jun 1 Aug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1 Day of Year Western Regional Extreme Max Ave Max — Ave Min Extreme Min climate Center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Grand County, Colorado 3.67 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.27. Winter Park Station Temperature Averages and Extremes .. U_ L 4J to L Q C6 L G] H WINTER PARK, COLORADO (059175) Period of Record : 3/ 1/1942 to 3/31/2013 ao F__ ___1 6 o I I 50I I 40I I z o� 1¢ I I le I —10 —2 0 I I _g0 I I —40 I I Jan 1 Mar 1 May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 31 Feb 1 Apr 1 Jun 1 Rug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1 Day of Year ues#ern Regional Extreme Max Ave Max — Ave Min Extreme Min climate center Source: Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Previous Occurrences Historical data from SHELDUS and the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database was combined to determine that there were 161 recorded winter weather events in Grand County between 1960 and February 2013. Of the 161 recorded events for Grand County in the period of record, none were specifically for freeze or cold. Data limitations: Some events may have been missed due to limitations in the manner in which events that occurred over multiple forecast zones are reported. Dollar figures reported for winter weather events in both SHELDUS and the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events database are total damages for all counties associated with an event. Specific Grand County losses are not always available. Descriptions of notable events from NCDC are included below: March 17-19, 2003A very moist, intense and slow moving Pacific storm system made its way across the four corners area and into southeastern Colorado from March 17th to the 19th, allowing for a deep easterly upslope flow to form along the Front Range. The storm dumped 31.8 inches of snow at the former Stapleton International Airport, the second highest amount in the Denver weather history record book. The heavy wet snow caused roofs of homes and businesses to collapse across the Urban Corridor. The snow also downed trees, branches, and power lines. Up to 135,000 people lost power at some point during the storms and it took several days in some areas to restore power. Avalanches in the mountains and foothills closed many roadways, including Interstate 70 in both directions, stranding hundreds of skiers and travelers. In all, the estimated cost of the damage to property alone (not including large commercial buildings) was $93 Grand County, Colorado 3.68 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 million, making it easily the costliest snowstorm ever in Colorado. The second costliest snowstorm was the 1997 blizzard where damage totaled $10.5 million. The areas hardest hit by heavy snow were the northern mountains east of the Continental Divide, the Front Range Foothills and Palmer Divide, where snowfall totals ranged from 3 feet to over 7 feet. Grand County was one of 29 Colorado counties that received a Presidential Emergency declaration for this storm. 2000—The County experienced a four-day power outage. January 17, 1998—A blizzard that did not end until the next day struck Grand County, among other Colorado mountain areas. Heavy snow and high winds pounded the northern mountains as well as portions of Middle Park as a vigorous strong storm system moved through the area. Sustained winds from 30 to 50 mph were common, causing whiteout conditions. Blizzard conditions developed above 10,000 feet with winds gusting to near 100 mph, and peak wind gusts to 98 mph were recorded at the Winter Park ski area. The combination of heavy snow and high wind triggered numerous avalanches which blocked roads and highways. Berthoud Pass was closed and scores of travelers had to seek shelter overnight until roads and highways could be cleared and avalanche control operations completed the following day. Snowfall totals included 16 inches at the Eisenhower Tunnel, 12 inches 12 miles west of Walden and 11 inches at Grand Lake. Elsewhere, snowfall generally ranged from 6 to 9 inches. January 6-9, 1993—An upper level storm moved across Colorado and combined with abundant moisture to produce heavy snow for much of the state. Snow began early on the 6th over the mountains and west. The snow began falling over the eastern plains on the 8th, and continued until the early morning hours of the 9th. The snow dumped up to 3 feet over the mountains and nearly a foot over the lower elevations. Mountain snowfall totals included 19.5 inches at Mary Jane ski area and 15 inches at Winter Park. There were no fatalities or injuries reported. Property losses, if any, were not available. SHELDUS recorded 51 winter weather events in Grand County between 1960 and 2011. NCDC recorded 112 events (including blizzards, extreme cold and wind chill events, heavy snow, winter storms, and winter weather) between January 2000 and February 2013. The HMPC also described a few severe winter weather events that have occurred in the past few years. The Town of Winter Park is hit by major winter storms and extreme cold temperatures roughly twice a year. These events often result in frozen pipes in residential structures and frozen water mains. Blizzards can result in businesses not being able to open, as well as causing road closures that isolate the Town and other parts of the County. Disaster relief was provided for one severe winter storm in 2004. Grand County's emergency experts provided information about winter storms that extended back many years. Based on their collective experiences, it was estimated that winter storms, characterized in the County by "Accident Alert" designations, generally close Highway 40 and 9 approximately twice each season. Highway 40 is a major transportation artery running through Grand County, Colorado 3.69 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County. But despite its occasional closure during severe winter storms, County officials characterize the community as adequately prepared for dealing with this hazard. Probability of Future Occurrence Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less There were 161 recorded winter weather events in Grand County between 1960 and February 2013. On average, there are roughly 3 severe winter weather events in the County each year, which equals over 100 percent chance of occurrence in each year. Magnitude/Severity Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours Winter weather in Grand County, including strong winds and blizzard conditions, can result in property damage, localized power and phone outages, and closures of streets, highways, schools, businesses, and nonessential government operations. People can also become isolated from essential services in their homes and vehicles. A winter storm can escalate, creating life threatening situations when emergency response is limited by severe winter conditions. Other issues associated with severe winter weather include hypothermia and the threat of physical overexertion that may lead to heart attacks or strokes. Snow removal costs can impact budgets significantly. Heavy snowfall during winter can also lead to flooding or landslides during the spring if the area snowpack melts too quickly. High snow loads also cause damage to buildings and roofs. Grand County can be isolated on all sides by highway closures or blocked vehicles stopped on the interstate for miles. The County usually has about three days worth of commodities (food and gasoline). Though residents are used to dealing with severe winter weather, the economic impact of a large snowstorm can be significant. Ski resorts lose an estimated $100,000 an hour when Berthoud Pass is closed due to weather during ski season. The County experienced an extended power outage in 2003 and a four day power outage in 2000 due to winter weather. Snowstorms have even occurred in the summer, such as a July 4th storm one year. The County has good building codes, though buildings constructed before 1970 may be more susceptible to structural damage in a very heavy snowstorm. Extreme cold causes some issues with frozen pipes, but the County is very accustomed to dealing with low temperatures. The main issues with this hazard include getting medical supplies to home -bound residents and keeping grocery stores stocked when roads are closed. There were concerns about this during the heavy snows of 2010-2011. Grand County, Colorado 3.70 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3.2.12 Wildfire Hazard Description Wildland fire is a naturally occurring disturbance across the landscape of the western United States. While the vegetative communities in Grand County are for the most part adapted to this natural force, many human communities are not. The wildland-urban interface (WUI) is the convergence of these two communities. The Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2006) and four local Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) recognize the Health Forest Restoration Act (2002) default definition of WUI as extending 1.5 miles from the edge of a community -at -risk where warranted by topographic and fuel conditions. Each CWPP specifies in detail the WUI within each fire protection district The degree of hazard posed by wildfire is largely a function of the potential fire behavior. Fire behavior is the manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography. A low intensity, slow moving surface fire is obviously less hazardous to human communities than a rapidly moving crown fire. Fire behavior may be classified as ground fires smoldering in duff and roots, surface fire burning in the forest litter or grass and low shrubs, or crown fires. Crown fire moves through the canopy of trees or shrubs and can be further classified as active or passive. Passive crown fire, often called "torching", ignites individual or small groups of trees. Active crown fire spreads through the forest canopy as a flaming front. High intensity surface fires and crown fires pose the greatest challenge to suppression resources and the greatest threat to community values. Generally, there are three major factors that sustain wildfires and predict a given area's potential to burn. These factors are fuel, topography, and weather. Fuel—Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is a key factor in wildfire behavior. Fuel is generally classified by type and by volume and categorized as fire behavior fuel models. Fuel sources are diverse and include everything from dead tree needles and leaves, twigs, and branches to dead standing trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Also to be considered as a fuel source are manmade structures, such as homes and associated combustibles. The type of prevalent fuel directly influences the behavior of wildfire. Light fuels such as grasses burn quickly and serve as a catalyst for fire spread. In addition, "ladder fuels" can spread a ground fire up through brush and into trees, leading to a devastating crown fire that burns in the upper canopy and cannot be controlled. The volume of available fuel is described in terms of fuel loading. Topography—An area's terrain affects its susceptibility to wildfire spread. Both fire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. The distribution and types of vegetation on a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes. Weather—Weather components such as temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning also affect the potential for wildfire. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out the Grand County, Colorado 3.71 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 fuels that feed the wildfire creating a situation where fuel will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Wind is the most treacherous weather factor. The greater the wind, the faster a fire will spread and the more intense it will be. In addition to wind speed, wind shifts can occur suddenly due to temperature changes or the interaction of wind with topographical features such as slopes or steep hillsides. Lightning also ignites wildfires, which often occur in terrain that is difficult for firefighters to reach. Drought conditions contribute to concerns about wildfire vulnerability. During periods of drought, the threat of wildfire increases. Wildfires are of significant concern throughout Colorado. According to the Colorado State Forest Service, vegetation fires occur on an annual basis; most are controlled and contained early with limited damage. For those ignitions that are not readily contained and become wildfires, damage can be extensive. There are many causes of wildfire, from naturally caused lightning fires to human -caused fires linked to activities such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson. According to the State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, a century of aggressive fire suppression combined with cycles of drought and changing land management practices has left many of Colorado's forests unnaturally dense and ready to burn. Further, the threat of wildfire and potential losses are generally increasing as human development and population increases and the wildland-urban interface expands. Geographic Location Most of Grand County is in the WUI; wildfires affect a large extent of the County, meaning that over 50 % of the planning area is affected. With seventy percent of the county's approximately 1.2 million acres under public management, the majority of the county will remain in an undeveloped condition that is susceptible, and largely adapted to, periodic wildfire. Between 2000 and 2010 Grand County's population increased by nineteen percent to nearly 15,000, a slightly larger rate than the state's seventeen percent. The WUI according to the Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is shown below. The CWPP divides the county into three regions, West Grand, Three Lakes, and Fraser Valley. The University of Wisconsin's Spatial Analysis for Conservation and Sustainability SILVIS Lab has mapped the WUI throughout the United States based on housing density and proximity to wildlands. SILVIS WUI areas are composed of both interface and intermix communities. In both interface and intermix communities, housing must meet or exceed a minimum density of one structure per 40 acres. Intermix communities are places where housing and vegetation intermingle. In intermix areas wildland vegetation is continuous, with more than 50 percent vegetation and more than 1 house per 16 hectares. Interface communities are areas with housing in the vicinity of contiguous vegetation. Interface areas have more than 1 house per 40 acres, Grand County, Colorado 3.72 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 have less than 50 percent vegetation, and are within 1.5 miles of an area (made up of one or more contiguous Census blocks) over 1,325 acres that is more than 75 percent vegetated. WUI areas are delineated in Figure 3.30 from the County CWPP. The Colorado State Forest Service has modeled areas susceptible to wildfire statewide based on available fuels, terrain, and ignition sources such as proximity to roads. This data is available on the Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (CO WRAP) and displayed on the map in Figure 3.28. The Wildfire Intensity Scale map (Figure 3.29) displays areas where significant fuel hazards and dangerous fire behavior potential exist. Grand County, Colorado 3.73 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.28. Grand County Wildfire Susceptibility JACKSON t A Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling 40 EAGLE I� SUMMIT LEGEND Wildfire Susceptibility Index Streams t IM High Lakes Moderate Railroads Highways • t 4' E Granby Towns L Counties -i .l LARIMER f tr �� r } S �• S 34 1. Winter' s GILPIN Park 1 CLEAR CREEK i s r" ameO 4 7.5 15 Miles N ! i i i 1 1 1 Map compiled 4!2013; intended for planning purposes only.. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS Grand County, Colorado 3.74 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand � Lake t • t 4' E Granby (BOULDER i Fraser Winter' s GILPIN Park 1 CLEAR CREEK i s r" ameO 4 7.5 15 Miles N ! i i i 1 1 1 Map compiled 4!2013; intended for planning purposes only.. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS Grand County, Colorado 3.74 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.29. Grand County Wildfire Intensity t s t. JACKSON t� 40 125 { Q tY j Hot Sulphur Springs 134 I Kremmling r 40 LARIMER �f BOULDER I � i Fraserz,• EAGLE ,� �� t ,� ( GILPIN SUMMIT g ,' Winter rr• -,. x t Park r~ LEGEND Fire Intensity Scale Lowest Intensity Moderate Intensity _ Highest Intensity � err �'• - _ �., CLEAR CREEK @O 0 7 14 Miles amI i j i I Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source'. Grand County, CDOT, Colorado State Forest Service: CO -WRAP Grand County, Colorado 3.75 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 . - 34 F Grand�Lik67,i i Granby L i -� � ,',Ys• , rr �f BOULDER I � i Fraserz,• EAGLE ,� �� t ,� ( GILPIN SUMMIT g ,' Winter rr• -,. x t Park r~ LEGEND Fire Intensity Scale Lowest Intensity Moderate Intensity _ Highest Intensity � err �'• - _ �., CLEAR CREEK @O 0 7 14 Miles amI i j i I Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source'. Grand County, CDOT, Colorado State Forest Service: CO -WRAP Grand County, Colorado 3.75 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.30. Grand County Wildland-Urban Interface Previous Occurrences From 1980 through 2012, 303 Grand County fires were recorded in the Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data (http://wildfire.cr.usgs.gov). Though averaging only 13.7 fires per annum, fire occurrence appears to have increased significantly since the 1980s. Nineteen of the twenty-nine fires that burned more than ten acres have occurred since 2000. Grand County, Colorado 3.76 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 w t i' y i Yr Previous Occurrences From 1980 through 2012, 303 Grand County fires were recorded in the Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data (http://wildfire.cr.usgs.gov). Though averaging only 13.7 fires per annum, fire occurrence appears to have increased significantly since the 1980s. Nineteen of the twenty-nine fires that burned more than ten acres have occurred since 2000. Grand County, Colorado 3.76 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.31. Grand County Wildfire Occurrence: 1980-2012 i0 ° o o •i • N RE 00 L, • f' ° O i IC i r. I O O} 0 I 0 Ir I O o i 0 0 • i0 I• 0 134 i O O co • • ' 4 i• 0 4 .� o i 0 0 • 0 0 C � 14 V LARIMFR • JACKSON • i•i • r t4 i o 0 0 000 °i • • ci• • o ° 0 0 • 0 0 125 0 1- O O • O o O ! • 00C i� 0 • 0 • • • O ° a • CO _ 00 O O n1,ii,,,tJ.11�,riru.e�u • 0 O 00 O AL�I 0O z` u IpHot Sulphur • ° �; • a s • 0 Springs o Granby Kremmling 40 ] • 1rf 0 ameO 0 7.5 15 1 Miles N 1 1 l l 1 1 1 Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only.. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, COMaP v9, DOI, USFWS and USFS Grand County, Colorado 3.77 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 - O • Ci ' T• • �l•`` �hi+ermn �O _ • • BOULDER• 01 0 '_ o ' 0 1 ° • o •. ; 0 0 Fraser • i O 0 —� - L O• • = 0 t �F-0–d-6— ii • o o it 0 0 • •' 0 i.3 • 0 f o• EAGLE 00 106 ° M i oo •o•a 00 • SUMMIT 9 ° •Ls i t 0 ° Oa i • \ w� - rWinter � 0 O • O • Q • • • ti rr"GV^ILPIN Parko • 0 00 • LEGEND 1 rr -� 000 Fire Occurrence Locations Land Stewardship 0 0 0 0 ° 40 0 Causes PRIVATE a •� • 4 • • ° • • Human BLM •• `, 0 r' 0 o 60o Natural - CDOW o �� 1'"'�'�` r' • g • ` BLEAR UCREEK�• a • Unknown - NPS 0i • • �. STATE 0 i • cl ° O d • is -•� • USFS • • • •• 40 o o .%• a • ameO 0 7.5 15 1 Miles N 1 1 l l 1 1 1 Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only.. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, COMaP v9, DOI, USFWS and USFS Grand County, Colorado 3.77 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.32. Grand County Wildfire Occurrence Density: 1980-2012 JACKSON LARIMER 14 j ti 'A. ❑ 34 �h ✓ r rte" �. _ .P 134 I ■ 0, Kremmling 40 Springs \J r ❑ ° ti P .❑ c_ i ! ❑ ❑ Grand Lake d ■ t,BOULDER Reservoir p ■7❑ ❑ r of i ❑ ® o' ° �. C2 ■' i ■ — r J ■ eir,�� i ° ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 11o�ur;rirr l 0111 O ,I I lr�il)'orflAlaeurruittv ° 13 0 11, a' J❑p GnurJ+r ` . I ❑ R sen"oir ,_ Hot Sulphur ° ■ `�. I 134 I ■ 0, Kremmling 40 Springs Granby 7 r ❑ ° 114-9.9ac �0-0.1 ±1 ❑ ❑ `? 10-99.9 ac �❑ ■ rY�rllia»isFc,rk �0.4-0.5 ■ t,BOULDER Reservoir p ■7❑ ❑ r ° 1,000 - 4,999 ac t I ® o' ° �. C2 ■' Fraser I © ❑ ■ •ti EAGLE �.° ° ❑ i GILPIN SUMMIT g J I t a -,a �� Winter ;� �t• P -� Park 4� T 40 � t `• CLEAR CREEK I lame 0 7.5 15 Miles Map compiled 4!2013; intended for planning purposes only, Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, USFWS and USFS Grand County, Colorado 3.78 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 LEGEND Fire Size Fires per Sq Mile ° 114-9.9ac �0-0.1 ■ 10-99.9 ac 00.2-0.3 100-299 ac �0.4-0.5 ■ 300 - 999 ac - 0.6 - 1 ■ 1,000 - 4,999 ac 4� T 40 � t `• CLEAR CREEK I lame 0 7.5 15 Miles Map compiled 4!2013; intended for planning purposes only, Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, USFWS and USFS Grand County, Colorado 3.78 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.33. Federal Wildfire Occurrence in Grand County: 1980-2012 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Grand County Fires by Year Sixty-seven percent of Grand County's wildfires since 1980 have remained smaller than a quarter of an acre. Less than ten percent (28 fires) have exceeded ten acres during this period (reference Table 3.14), the largest being the Sentinel Fire (1104 acres) in 1988 near Green Mountain Reservoir. While the vast majority of fires in remain, the potential impact of wildland fires in Grand County should not be underestimated. Just over the Divide east of Grand County a twenty acre fire in June of 2012 in Estes Park destroyed twenty-one homes, illustrating the devastation that even a small fire can have in the WUI. In addition, many areas in Colorado and across the west are beginning to see fires of unprecedented size and intensity. Table 3.14. Grand County Federal Wildfires by Size Class: 1980-2012 Size Class Acres Number Percentage A 0-.25 202 67% B .25-10 73 24% C 10-100 16 5% D 100-300 6 2% E 300-1,000 5 2% F 1,000-5,000 1 0% Source: National wtlotire Uooroinating group (rittp://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/s.ritm) Grand County has a pronounced summer fire season that peaks in July. Eighty percent of the fires occur from June through September, though the majority of larger fires are human caused and occur outside of this fire season. Grand County, Colorado 3.79 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.34. Federal Wildfires in Grand County by Month: 1980-2012 100 90 Grand County Fires by Month 1980-2012 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Federal records indicate fire cause in general terms was almost evenly split between human caused (forty-eight percent) and natural fires (forty-five percent) with only seven percent of fires causes unidentified. Figure 3.35. Federal Wildfires in Grand County by Cause: 1980-2012 Grand County Fires by Cause 1980-2012 ■ Debris Burning, 1 ■ Arson, 3 ■ Equipment Use, 5 ■ Smoking, 6 ■ Miscellaneous, 29 ■ Campfire, 52 ■ Lightning, 106 ■ Undetermined, 148 Grand County, Colorado 3.80 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 There have been several recent fires worth noting: June 14, 2006 - The Brinker Fire, near the Williams Fork Reservoir, was attributed to arson and burned about 30 acres. June 26, 2007 — The Y fire, in the middle of Snow Mountain Ranch YMCA, was over 50 acres. The fire was human -caused (incendiary). No structures were lost. Figure 3.36 shows how quickly the fire grew. July 1, 2007 - The lighting sparked Buffalo Park Fire burned 16 acres just south of Rabbit Ears Pass. September 18, 2010 - The Onahu Fire burned 40 acres in Rocky Mountain National Park and forced the closure of Trail Ridge Road. It was recorded as human caused. October 3, 2010 - The human caused Churches Park fire burned 473 acres in beetle killed forest approximately 5 miles northwest of Fraser. It forced the evacuation of a youth camp. Photos from the event are shown in Figure 3.37. October 10, 2010 - Tracer rounds set off the Rifle Range Fire that burned 190 acres and was stopped just short of getting into beetle killed forest. June 10, 2013 — This fire was ignited by lightning about 5 miles north of Grand Lake. It grew rapidly after ignition due to high winds, high temperatures, low humidity, and a large amount of beetle kill. It is estimated that the fire burned roughly 617 acres. Northern Water was monitoring the impact of the fire on water supplies. The HMPC provided details for other significant wildfires in the County, including a 450 acre fire in Rocky Mountain National Park and the Breaker Gulch fire in 2009 that burned a couple hundred acres. The rifle range is a common source of smaller fires. Figure 3.36.Y Fire: June 26, 2007 Source: Todd Holzwarth, East Grand FPD Grand County, Colorado 3.81 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.37. Church's Park Fire: October 3, 2010 Source: Todd Holzwarth, East Grand FPD Probability of Future Occurrence Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or happens every year With an average of 13.7 fires per annum, Grand County will continue to experience wildfires on an annual basis. Small fires are typical with ninety percent of fires since 1980 remaining smaller than ten acres. The mature even -aged lodgepole pine stands found locally (discussed further in the Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard section) were established after heavy mining and settlement utilization from 1860 to 1940 (USDA 2004). These forests tend to experience either very small low intensity surface fires or high severity stand replacing fires. Large scale crown fires are infrequent, with fire return intervals on order of 100 to 300 years (Anderson 2003, Lotan et al 1985, Arno and Fielder 2005). The spruce -fir stands that develop on moist, cool sites also experience infrequent stand replacing fires on order of 150 to over 300 years apart. Magnitude/Severity Catastrophic—Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours Potential losses from wildfire include: human life, structures and other improvements, natural and cultural resources, the quality and quantity of the water supply, assets such as timber and range, recreational opportunities, and economic losses. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. In addition, wildfire can lead to secondary impacts such as increased susceptibility to future flooding, landslides and erosion during heavy rains due to vegetation loss and hydrophobic soil development. Grand County, Colorado 3.82 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Flammability issues have decreased as the beetle infestation has killed much of the vegetation. However, this causes concern for potential wildfires in the coming decades. Fallen trees litter the forest floor, and as vegetation comes back, available fuel increases. This creates conditions that could potentially result in a very significant wildfire. The County does not experience a high number of starts, but with the right conditions a massive wildfire could still occur. 3.2.13 Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Although traffic in the planning area is relatively low during parts of the year, wildlife -vehicle collisions are an important issue to discuss. Most wildlife -vehicle collisions (WVCs) in the County involve deer and elk. Other large wildlife in the area include bighorn sheep, mountain lions, pronghorn antelope, and black bears. Grand County is also home to one of the largest Shiras moose populations in the State. Geographic Location The geographic extent of wildlife hazards in Grand County is large. It is possible for wildlife - vehicle collisions to occur on any of the County's roadways, though perhaps more likely along well traveled routes or near wildlife migration corridors. State Highway 9 from mile marker 126.00 to 136.37, part of which falls within Grand County, is designated as a wildlife crossing zone. Previous Occurrences Wildlife -vehicle collisions are, unfortunately, an often unavoidable part of life in rural areas. As the population of the planning area has grown over the past several years, the incidence of WVCs has increased accordingly. State Highway 9 from mile marker 126.00 to 136.37, part of which falls within Grand County, is designated as a wildlife crossing zone. CDOT recorded the number of WVCs in this area between 2002 and 2006. A total of 75 WVCs occurred along this stretch of highway during that time period. Fifty-five of these (73%) happened between 5pm and lam between September and April. Table 3.15 shows the number of property damage only events (PDOs- refers to events in which no injuries or fatalities occurred), injuries, and fatalities from wildlife -vehicle collisions in Grand County between 1994 and 2006. Fortunately, no fatalities occurred in this time period. Table 3.15. Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions: 1994-2006 Year PDO Injuries Fatalities Total 1994 4 1 0 5 1995 25 0 0 25 1996 26 3 0 29 1997 35 2 0 37 1998 33 3 0 36 Grand County, Colorado 3.83 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Year PDO Injuries Fatalities Total 1999 33 4 0 37 2000 40 3 0 43 2001 95 5 0 100 2002 121 2 0 123 2003 81 0 0 81 2004 82 7 0 89 2005 81 2 0 83 2006 53 4 0 57 TOTALS 709 36 0 745 Source: Colorado Department of Transportation Probability of Future Occurrence Vehicular accidents or encounters involving wildlife are highly likely to occur in any given year in Grand County. According to the CDOT data described in Table 3.15, a total of 745 wildlife - vehicle accidents occurred between 1994 and 2006. Seven hundred forty-five events over a 12 year span of time averages out to roughly 62 events per year. This equates to a 100% probability that a wildlife -vehicle crash will occur in the planning area during any year. WVCs are most likely to occur between dusk and dawn, particularly during migration seasons (spring and fall). Additionally, traffic in Grand County increases seasonally during ski season. This increases exposure to wildlife -vehicle hazards in the County between roughly September and April. Incidentally, ski season corresponds with deer and elk migration season, potentially increasing the likelihood of WVCs. Magnitude/Severity The impacts of wildlife -human hazards in Grand County would likely be negligible. Less than 10 percent of the planning area would be affected by any single event. Generally, only a few people are affected by a wildlife hazard at any one time, although injuries or death are possible. It is unlikely that critical facilities and services would be impacted. 3.2.14 Windstorm Hazard Description High winds occur year round in Grand County. In the spring and summer, high winds often accompany severe thunderstorms. These winds are typically straight-line winds, which are generally any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation (i.e., is not a tornado). It is these winds, which can exceed 100 miles per hour (mph) that represent the most common type of severe weather and are responsible for most wind damage related to thunderstorms. In the mountains of Colorado, strong winds are also common throughout the winter months and can exceed 50 to 100 mph in exposed locations. Specifically, these winter winds can force the Grand County, Colorado 3.84 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 closure of highways (blowing snow) and induce avalanches (see Section 3.2.1 Avalanche and Section 3.2. 11 Severe Winter Weather). Geographic Location The geographic extent of this hazard in Grand County is large—more than 50 percent of the planning area affected. High winds can occur throughout Grand County and may be most severe at high elevations. Previous Occurrences Historical data from SHELDUS and the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database was combined to determine that there were roughly 47 recorded wind events in Grand County between 1955 and February 2013. (Note: These wind events were reported as wind only or thunderstorm wind events. The summary does not include winds that were part of severe winter weather (see Section 3.2. 11 Severe Winter Weather.) Data limitations: Some events may have been missed due to limitations in the manner in which events that occurred over multiple forecast zones are reported. Dollar figures reported for wind events in both SHELDUS and the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events database are total damages for all counties associated with an event. Specific Grand County losses are not always available. Notable events in NCDC include the following: May 9, 2001—Wind speeds of 53 knots were recorded 10 miles north of Kremmling. June 6, 2003—Strong thunderstorm winds damaged the roof of West Grand Elementary School. The wind lifted large sections of rolled roofing and Styrofoam insulation and blew it off the roof. April 8, 2005—A mixture of a strong gradient wind, coupled with thunderstorm outflow winds, swept across parts of North-Central and Northeast Colorado during the afternoon. The strong wind downed power lines and knocked out electricity to approximately 19,000 customers on the east side of the Denver area. Peak wind reports from around the region included 61 mph winds 11 miles north-northeast of Kremmling. June 30, 2011—Severe thunderstorms produced straight-line winds in Granby, causing extensive damage. Town officials in Granby estimated at least 30 trees were knocked down from the storm, just within the city limits. At least two roofs were separated from the buildings themselves. The damage to the high school alone was estimated to be at least $200,000. Debris from the wind blew out vehicle windows. Power was knocked out temporarily in several areas throughout Grand County. A hiker near Grand Lake was injured when a falling tree struck her and injured her ankle. Grand County, Colorado 3.85 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 SHELDUS recorded 44 high wind events not associated with winter weather in Grand County between 1960 and 2011. Probability of Future Occurrence Likely -10-100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. SHELDUS recorded 44 high wind events between 1960 and 2011. Forty-four events over a period of 51 years indicates that high wind events will occur in Grand County every 1.16 years on average, or an 86% chance of occurrence in any given year. Magnitude/Severity Limited—Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage that does not threaten structural stability; interruption of essential facilities and services for less than 24 hours Wind storms in Grand County are rarely life threatening, but do threaten public safety, disrupt daily activities, cause damage to buildings and structures, increase the potential for other hazards (e.g., wildfire), and have adverse economic impacts from business closures and power loss. Power losses may be increasing from high wind events due to the decreased forest health resulting from the pine beetle infestation. Dead trees and branches are more prone to being blown into power lines. Healthy trees are also being felled more frequently; they are no longer shielded by dead trees resulting from the mountain pine beetle infestation. An HMPC member noted an apparent increase in higher speed, sustained wind events in recent years. Although windstorms are likely to occur in the future, data indicates that past losses have not been significant, and the overall magnitude of this hazard is limited. Mountain Parks Electric, WAPA, and Tri-State have been mitigating along transmission and distribution lines to reduce the likelihood of a large power outage event from wind and tree damage. Grand County, Colorado 3.86 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3.2.15 Hazard Profiles Summary This section summarizes the results of the hazard profiles and assigns a level of overall planning significance to each hazard of low, moderate, or high. Significance was determined based on the hazard profile, focusing on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, including deaths/injuries and property, crop, and economic damage. This assessment was used by the HMPC to prioritize those hazards of greatest significance to the planning area; thus enabling the County to focus resources where they are most needed. Those hazards that occur infrequently or have little or no impact on the planning area were determined to be of low significance. Those hazards determined to be of high and moderate significance were characterized as priority hazards that required further evaluation in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. Table 3.16. Summary of Hazard Profiles Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Overall Vulnerability Avalanche Isolated Highly Likely Critical Medium Dam Failure Large Unlikely Catastrophic Low Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Likely Limited Medium Earthquake Large Occasional Limited Low Flood Small Likely Limited Medium Hazardous Materials Small Highly Likely Critical High Landslide/Mudflow/Debris Flow/Rockfall Isolated Occasional Critical High Lightning Large Likely Limited Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Limited High Wildfire Large Highly Likely Catastrophic High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Large Highly Likely Negligible Moderate Windstorm Large Likely Limited Low Source: Grand county Hazard Mitigation Manning Committee, 2U13 `See section 3.2 for definitions of these factors The following tables summarize the results of the hazard profiles for incorporated communities that are participating jurisdictions in the hazard mitigation plan. Grand County, Colorado 3.87 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 3.17. Probability of Future Occurrence of Identified Hazards by Jurisdiction 'See Section 3.2 for definitions of these factors Table 3.18. Magnitude/Severity of Identified Hazards by Jurisdiction Grand Grand Denver Northern Grand Hot Sulphur Water Water FPDs Denver Northern Limited Hazard Type County Fraser Granby Lake Springs Kremmling Winter Park Water Water FPDs Highly Highly Highly Avalanche Highly Likely Occasional Unlikely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely Likely Dam Failure Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Occasional Unlikely Occasional Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Disease Outbreak Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Highly Drought Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Highly Likely Occasional Likely Likely Likely Likely Earthquake Occasional Likely Unlikely Unlikely Occasional Unlikely Unlikely Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional/ Flood Likely Likely Likely Occasional Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Hazardous Materials Highly Highly Highly Highly Transportation Highly Likely Highly Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Occasional Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Highly Flow, and Rockfall Occasional Unlikely Likely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Likely Occasional Occasional Likely Highly Highly Highly Lightning Likely Highly Likely Likely Occasional Occasional Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Occasional Severe Winter Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Weather Highly Likely Highly Likely Likely Likely Highly Likely Likely Highly Likely Likely Likely Likely Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Wildfire Highly Likely Highly Likely Likely Likely Highly Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Wildlife Incidents Highly Likely Highly Likely Likely Likely Highly Likely Likely Highly Likely Likely Likely Likely Highly Windstorm Likely Highly Likely Likely Occasional Likely Occasional Highly Likely Likely Likely Likely 'See Section 3.2 for definitions of these factors Table 3.18. Magnitude/Severity of Identified Hazards by Jurisdiction Grand Hot Sulphur Denver Northern Hazard Type County Fraser Granby Grand Lake Springs Kremmling Winter Park Water Water FPDs Avalanche Critical Limited Negligible Limited Limited Negligible Critical Limited Critical Critical Dam Failure Limited Limited Limited Limited Critical Catastrophic Limited Critical Limited Limited Grand County, Colorado 3.88 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazard Type Grand County Fraser Granby Grand Lake Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling Winter Park Denver Water Northern Water FPDs Disease Outbreak Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Drought Limited Critical Limited Critical Critical Limited Negligible Limited Limited Limited Earthquake Limited Critical Critical Negligible Limited/ Negligible Limited Catastrophic Limited Limited Critical Flood Limited Limited Limited Limited Critical Limited Low Critical Limited Negligible Hazardous Materials (Transportation) Critical Critical Critical Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic Catastrophic Critical Critical Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Critical Limited Limited Limited Limited Negligible Limited Limited Critical Critical Lightning Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Critical Limited Limited Limited Limited Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Severe Winter Weather Limited Limited Limited Critical Critical Limited Critical Critical Limited Limited Wildfire Catastrophic Limited Limited Catastrophic Catastrophic Limited Catastrophic Critical Critical Critical Wildlife Incidents Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Windstorm Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Critical Limited Limited Limited *See Section 3.2 for definitions of these factors Table 3.19. Planning Significance of Identified Hazards by Jurisdiction Hazard Type Grand County Fraser Granby Grand Lake Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling Winter Park Denver Water Northern Water FPDs Avalanche Medium Low Low Medium Low Low High High Medium Medium Dam Failure Low Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium High Low Low Disease Outbreak High High High High High High High High High High Drought Medium Low High High Medium High Low Medium Medium Medium Earthquake Low Medium Low Low Low High Low Low Low Low Flood Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium Low Hazardous Materials (Transportation) High High High Low Low High High Medium High High Grand County, Colorado 3.89 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazard Type Grand County Fraser Granby Grand Lake Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling Winter Park Denver Water Northern Water FPDs Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall High Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium High Medium Lightning Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Severe Winter Weather High Medium Medium High High High High Medium High Medium Wildfire High Medium Medium High High Medium High High High High Wildlife Incidents Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Negligible Windstorm Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Grand County, Colorado 3.90 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3.3 Vulnerabilitv Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. 3.3.1 Methodology The vulnerability assessment further defines and quantifies populations, buildings, critical facilities and infrastructure, and other community assets at risk to natural hazards. The vulnerability assessment for this plan followed the methodology described in the FEMA publication Understanding Your Risks Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (2002). The vulnerability assessment was conducted based on the best available data and the overall planning significance of the hazard. Data to support the vulnerability assessment was collected from the same sources identified in Section 3.1 Hazard Identification and Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles and from FEMA's HAZUS-MH loss estimation software for earthquake and flood hazards (unincorporated County). The vulnerability assessment includes three sections: Community Asset Inventory—This section inventories assets exposed to hazards in Grand County, including the total exposure of people and property; critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, cultural, and historic resources; and economic assets. Vulnerability by Hazard—This section describes the County's overall vulnerability 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. Only hazards of moderate or high planning significance, or that have identified hazard areas are addressed in the vulnerability assessment. Development and Land Use Trends—The final section analyzes trends in population growth, housing demand, and land use patterns. In addition, a capability assessment was conducted for each jurisdiction as part of the risk assessment process. A capability assessment identifies the existing programs, policies, and plans that mitigate or could be used to mitigate risk to disasters. This information can be found in the annex for each jurisdiction. Grand County, Colorado 3.91 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3.3.2 Community Asset Inventory This section assesses the population, structures, critical facilities and infrastructure, and other important assets in Grand County at risk to natural hazards. Total Exposure to Hazards Table 3.20 shows the total population, number of structures, and assessed value of improvements to parcels by jurisdiction. Table 3.21 shows building exposure by property type. Building counts and values are based on county assessor's data (as of March 2013) and aggregated by town (includes building contents). According to the assessor's data, the sum of the actual value improvements in the County is $5,928,540,055 (total building exposure). Contents exposure is estimated as a percent of the improvement value (specifically, 50% of the improvement value for residential structures, 150% for industrial structures, 100% for agricultural structures, 100% for commercial, mixed use and government structures, 0% for vacant land), based on standard FEMA methodologies. Table 3.20. Population and Building Exposure by Jurisdiction Community Population 2010 Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Structure Value* Fraser 1,224 1,527 954 $61,308,750 $252,529,940 $142,107,905 $394,637,845 Granby 1,864 3,344 1,572 $82,170,360 $264,524,060 $152,053,375 $416,577,435 Grand Lake 471 1,188 878 $137,757,980 $215,322,870 $121,655,665 $336,978,535 Hot Sulphur Springs 663 510 312 $17,380,860 $45,329,700 $28,118,690 $73,448,390 Kremmling 1,444 755 584 $33,034,860 $58,995,370 $39,943,060 $98,938,430 Winter Park 999 3,249 2,497 $146,381,910 $704,092,980 $371,746,715 $1,075,839,695 Unincorporated County 8,178 20,835 8,818 $1,098,804,480 $2,207,988,460 $1,324,131,265 $3,532,119,725 Total 14,843 31,408 15,615 $1,576,839,200 $3,748,783,380 $2,179,756,675 $5,928,540,055 Source: Grand County Assessors Data, March 2013; 2010 U.S. Census *Value represents "improved structure value" and includes contents. Does not include land value. Table 3.21. Building Exposure by Property Type Grand County, Colorado 3.92 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Total Improved Parcel Parcel Improved Estimated Property Type Count Count Land Value Value Content Value Total Value Agricultural 1,550 500 $14,007,970 $165,191,910 $165,191,910 $330,383,820 Commercial Improved 536 513 $64,516,180 $139,525,670 $139,525,670 $279,051,340 Commercial Vacant 215 7 $16,769,830 $286,910 $286,910 $573,820 Conservation Easement 146 25 $4,292,810 $10,620,330 $10,620,330 $21,240,660 Industrial Improved 6 6 $816,970 $1,594,960 $2,392,440 $3,987,400 Industrial Vacant 4 0 $265,420 $0 $0 $0 Grand County, Colorado 3.92 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Property Type Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Mining 7 0 $125,940 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 77 76 $15,430,640 $32,959,030 $32,959,030 $65,918,060 Residential Improved 14,159 14,051 $756,082,470 $3,118,691,500 $1,559,345,750 $4,678,037,250 Residential Vacant 5,824 204 $312,549,070 $14,963,650 $7,481,825 $22,445,475 Tax Exempt 721 166 $90,384,770 $67,519,060 $67,519,060 $135,038,120 Unknown 7,757 40 $265,015,450 $194,433,750 $194,433,750 $388,867,500 Vacant Land 406 27 $36,581,680 $2,996,610 $0 $2,996,610 Total 31,408 15,615 $1,576,839,200 $3,748,783,380 $2,179,756,675 $5,928,540,055 Source: Grand County Assessors Data, March 2013 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure A critical facility may be defined as one that is essential in providing utility or direction either during the response to an emergency or during the recovery operation. Table 3.22 displays the inventory of critical facilities (based on available data) in Grand County as provided by the HMPC and Grand County GIS data. Specific information on facilities and their locations can be found in the jurisdictional annexes. Table 3.22. Critical Facilities in Grand County Facility Type Unincorporated Areas Fraser Granby Grand Lake Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling Winter Park Bridges 61 - 1 3 1 - 2 Communications 41 - 2 1 5 3 7 EMS - - 1 - - - - Fire Station 1 1 1 1 1 1 - Government - 2 1 - 2 - 3 Hazmat 5 - - - - - - Hospital - - - - - 1 - Natural Gas Facility 1 - - - Police Station 1 - - - 1 - - Pumphouse - - - - - - 3 School 1 1 4 1 - 3 - Waste Water Facility 4 1 - - - - - Water Facility - - - - - - 1 Total 115 5 10 6 10 8 16 Source: Grand County GIS Department Grand County also provided a list of assets which primarily included government facilities belonging to administration, law enforcement, public works, public health, communications, EMS, livestock barns, judicial centers, and more. The total fixed asset value for all of the facilities in the list was $30,902,655. A large percentage of this is insured with a total insured value of $24,556,186, or 79.5% of the total fixed asset value. The total replacement value was estimated at $45,692,495. Grand County, Colorado 3.93 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Other facilities in the County, such as ski areas or locations that hold concerts, sporting events, and other events that attract large numbers of people, may also be at higher risk due to concentrations of people. Natural, Historic, and Cultural Assets Assessing the vulnerability of Grand County to disaster also involves inventorying the natural, historic, and cultural assets of the area. This step is important for the following reasons: The community may decide that these types of resources warrant a greater degree of protection due to their unique and irreplaceable nature and contribution to the overall economy. If these resources are impacted by a disaster, knowing so ahead of time allows for more prudent care in the immediate aftermath, when the potential for additional impacts are higher. The rules for reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement are often different for these types of designated resources. Natural resources can have beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, such as wetlands and riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters. Natural Resources Natural resources are important to include in benefit -cost analyses for future projects and may be used to leverage additional funding for projects that also contribute to community goals for protecting sensitive natural resources. Awareness of natural assets can lead to opportunities for meeting multiple objectives. For instance, protecting wetlands areas protects sensitive habitat as well as attenuates and stores floodwaters. A number of natural resources exist in Grand County, including wetlands, endangered species, and imperiled plant communities. Wetlands Wetlands are a valuable natural resource for communities, due to their benefits to water quality, wildlife protection, recreation, and education, and play an important role in hazard mitigation. Wetlands reduce flood peaks and slowly release floodwaters to downstream areas. When surface runoff is dampened, the erosive powers of the water are greatly diminished. Furthermore, the reduction in the velocity of inflowing water as it passes through a wetland helps remove sediment being transported by the water. They also provide drought relief in water -scarce areas where the relationship between water storage and streamflow regulation are vital. According to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program website, the National Wetland Inventory has mapped 20,391 acres of wetland in Grand County, though a large portion of the County has not been mapped yet. Grand County, Colorado 3.94 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Endangered Species To further understand natural resources that may be particularly vulnerable to a hazard event, as well as those that need consideration when implementing mitigation activities, it is important to identify at -risk species (i.e., endangered species) in the planning area. An endangered species is any species of fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or most of its range. A threatened species is a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Both endangered and threatened species are protected by law and any future hazard mitigation projects are subject to these laws. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as of May 2013, there were 26 federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species in Grand County. These species are listed in Table 3.23 along with state listed species. State special concern is not a statutory category, but suggests a species may be in danger. Table 3.23. Select List of Rare Species Found in Grand County Common Name Scientific Name Type of Species Status Bald eagle Haliaeetus Leucocephalus Bird State Threatened Bonytail chub* Gila alegans Fish Federal Endangered Boreal toad Bufo boreas Amphibian State Endangered Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Mammal Federal Threatened, State Endangered Colorado pikeminnow* Ptychocheilus lucius Fish Federal Endangered Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Bird State Special Concern Greater sandhill crane Grus Canadensis tabida Bird State Special Concern Greenback Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki ssp. Stomias Fish Federal Threatened Humpback chub* Gila cypha Fish Federal Endangered Long -billed curlew Numenius americanus Bird State Special Concern Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Amphibian State Special Concern Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides Mammal State Special Concern Northern river otter Lutra Canadensis Mammal State Threatened Osterhout milkvetch Astragalus osterhoutii Plant Federal Endangered Penland beardtongue Penstemon penlandii Plant Federal Endangered Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Bird State Special Concern Plains sharp -tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii Bird State Endangered Razorback sucker* Xyrauchen texanus Fish Federal Endangered Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Bird State Special Concern, Federal Candidate Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Bird State Endangered, Federal Endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema Insect Federal Endangered Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Bird State Threatened Grand County, Colorado 3.95 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Source: Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Colorado Counties (May 2013), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain -Prairie Region, www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/; Natural Diversity Information Source of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ Water depletions in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basins, may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other states. Note: State status information is from the NDIS, which does not track county occurrence of fish or insects at this time. Imperiled Natural Plant Communities According to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, there are a number of natural plant communities in Grand County that have been identified as critically imperiled, imperiled, or imperiled/rare or uncommon. These communities are listed below. Alpine meadows American Mannagrass Aspen Forests Booth's Willow/Mesic Forb Bulrush Coniferous Wetland Forests Cottonwood Riparian Forests Diamondleaf Willow/Beaked Sedge Engelmann Spruce/White Marsh Marigold Geyer's Willow/Mesic Graminoid Lower Montane Willow Carrs Mixed Foothill Shrublands Mixed Mountain Shrublands Montane Grasslands Montane Riparian Forest Montane Riparian Meadow Montane Riparian Shrubland Montane Riparian Willow Carr Montane Wet Meadows Montane Wetland Montane Willow Carr Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Mixed Willows Montane Riparian Forest Riparian Willow Carr Sagebrush Bottomland Shrublands Grand County, Colorado 3.96 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Type of Common Name Scientific Name Species Status Whooping crane Grus americana Bird Federal Endangered, State Endangered Wolverine Gulo gu/o Mammal State Endangered, Federal Proposed Threatened Wood frog Rana sy/vatica Amphibian State Special Concern Yellow -billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Bird Federal Candidate Source: Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Colorado Counties (May 2013), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain -Prairie Region, www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/; Natural Diversity Information Source of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ Water depletions in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basins, may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other states. Note: State status information is from the NDIS, which does not track county occurrence of fish or insects at this time. Imperiled Natural Plant Communities According to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, there are a number of natural plant communities in Grand County that have been identified as critically imperiled, imperiled, or imperiled/rare or uncommon. These communities are listed below. Alpine meadows American Mannagrass Aspen Forests Booth's Willow/Mesic Forb Bulrush Coniferous Wetland Forests Cottonwood Riparian Forests Diamondleaf Willow/Beaked Sedge Engelmann Spruce/White Marsh Marigold Geyer's Willow/Mesic Graminoid Lower Montane Willow Carrs Mixed Foothill Shrublands Mixed Mountain Shrublands Montane Grasslands Montane Riparian Forest Montane Riparian Meadow Montane Riparian Shrubland Montane Riparian Willow Carr Montane Wet Meadows Montane Wetland Montane Willow Carr Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Mixed Willows Montane Riparian Forest Riparian Willow Carr Sagebrush Bottomland Shrublands Grand County, Colorado 3.96 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Subalpine Riparian Shrubland Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr Thinleaf Alder/Mesic Forb Riparian Shrubland Thinleaf Alder -Mixed Willow Species Thinleaf Alder -Red -osier Dogwood Riparian Shrubland Timberline Forests Western Slope Grasslands Western Slope Sagebrush Shrublands Wet Meadow Xeric Western Slope Pinyon -Juniper Woodlands Ecologically Sensitive Areas Figure 3.38 is a map of ecologically sensitive areas that displays the areas in Grand County where threatened and endangered species and imperiled natural plant communities are most likely to be found. The map shows statewide potential conservation areas identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. These are best estimates of the primary areas required to support the long-term survival of targeted species or natural communities. Each conservation area is given a biodiversity rank of B 1 (most significant) through B5 (general interest) based on observed occurrences in the area. Parts of Fraser and Granby have a biodiversity rank of B3 (high significance). The map also shows statewide network of conservation areas (NCA) identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program that are located in Grand County. An NCA may represent a landscape area that encompasses potential conservation areas that share similar species or natural communities and ecological processes. It may also represent a mostly intact, lightly fragmented landscape that supports wide-ranging species and large scale disturbances and include unoccupied or unsurveyed areas that demonstrate the connectivity of the landscape. The only currently designated NCA in Grand County is Middle Park, which includes part of Kremmling and the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. Grand County, Colorado 3.97 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.38. Grand County Ecologically Sensitive Areas LARIMER _ JACKSON 14 A ~Z 14 t t f'•.L2AEiB11 TARS PFA}<_SEidGER PEAK ETUFFA[ 0 PEAK ACK CREEK RANCH , FALL RIV�LRjPAS TR4'IL RIBGL MOUNT RICHTHOFBN � � q 34 40 tY t25 4 LAKE AGNE'VV111TELFY PEAK HYANNIS PE i{ RADI L O TAIN GRANDILAKE :CHE�N'S 'EA ' KVIEW MOUNTAIN PCJWEN MOU�A1 Grand Lake. Sha'c ow, r / alnruNui,i 1.irAe +YLEF" GUNSI(,. PASSgPRRALPEAKS CAL'�IT REE RAILr OUMA�I y�, OLATIONPEAK _ A f.RPoN RESE-V 1Fi� . OF- I kfADO,I'N�.- Ya I!'u//m. 'Ifnanrcr,n i - - ; Piddle — —SpringsSulphur Hot S Granby t3a Park L j} LYNX PASS -fA; PASS KREMMLtl �MCTIO �:I�ATE ., HALL 1 1 L GR A-E NONARCH LA F. t tl l SULPHER 5PRI GS rime a# } \ L r. f e� Ililflarrr�IFo,I, i /7 DER T b Fraser I� MCI Y' K G CREEK RATTLE,Mt UMTA1 BOTTLE PAS< FRA ':R . q J PI RTd4L -- _ SFEFPH�RN6�NTAJNr( �YL'VANRESERVOIRi / f' r+f GI PIN EAGLE SU .MIT -- Winter.r, -- LEGEND ` / Park '� Q Conservation Area UA CREEK '�'TE PEA PVERS PEAK ERTHG� U Aj.`,o� Natural Diversity Index Potential Conservation Areas 40 _ �t f Biodiversity Significance stank B1: Outstanding Biodiversity Significance B2: Very High Biodiversity Significance La�ON�•�.LOVE ANE s5 CL�AR CREEK 133: High Biodiversity Significance 134: Moderate Biodiversity Significance j p �f 135: General Biodiversity Interest 7.5 15 Miles amedy I, i r l, i r l Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Grand County, Colorado 3.98 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Historical and Cultural Resources Several national and state historic inventories were reviewed to identify historic and cultural assets in Grand County: The National Register of Historic Places is the Nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources. Properties listed include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Colorado State Register of Historic Properties is a listing of the state's significant cultural resources worthy of preservation for the future education and enjoyment of Colorado's residents and visitors. Properties listed in the Colorado State Register include individual buildings, structures, objects, districts, and historic and archaeological sites. The Colorado State Register program is administered by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation within the Colorado Historical Society. Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places are automatically placed in the Colorado State Register. Table 3.24 lists the properties and districts in Grand County that are on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. Those properties that are also on the National Register of Historic Places are indicated with an asterisk. Table 3.24. Grand County Historic Properties/Districts in State and National Registers Property Name city Location Date Listed Cozens Ranch House* Fraser State Highway 40 6/9/1988 Cross Land and Fruit Company Orchards and Ranch** Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Snowplow AX- Hot Sulphur 110 Byers Ave. 6/10/1998 044 Springs Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Depot** Dutchtown* Grand Lake Ditch Rd., Rocky Mountain 1/29/1988 National Park E.C. Yust Homestead* Kremmling Off State Highway 9, south of 10/29/1982 Kremmling East Inlet Trail* Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park, 2/28/2005 Grand Lake vicinity Grand Lake Community House Grand Lake 1025 Grand Ave. 8/11/1993 Grand Lake Lodge* Grand Lake 15500 U.S. Highway 34 7/22/1993 Grand River Ditch/Specimen Ditch* Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park, 9/29/1976 Grand Lake vicinity Greenwood Lodge* Grand Lake Grand Lake vicinity 11/29/2010 Handy Chapel** Holzwarth Historic District* Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 12/2/1977 Grand County, Colorado 3.99 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Property Name City Location Date Listed Hotel St. Regis** Kauffman House* Grand Lake Pitkin and Lake Ave. 11/21/1974 Kenjockety* Rand Rand vicinity 11/30/2011 Little Buckaroo Ranch Barn* Grand Lake 20631 Trail Ridge Rd., Grand 7/8/2009 Lake vicinity Lulu City Site* Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 9/14/1977 McElroy Barn Kremmling 204 4 St. 12/9/1992 Milner Pass Road Camp Mess Hall and House* Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 7/20/1987 Rocky Mountain National Park, North Inlet Trail* Grand Lake roughly along North Inlet and 3/5/2008 Hallett Creek to Flattop Mountain, Grand Lake vicinity Rollinsville and Middle Park Wagon Road — Denver Northwestern and Pacific Railway Hill Winter Park Rollinsville to Winter Park 9/23/1997 Route Historic District/Moffat Road* Shadow Mountain Lookout* Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 8/2/1978 Rocky Mountain National Park, Shadow Mountain Trail* Grand Lake east side of Shadow Mountain 3/5/2008 Lake, Grand Lake vicinity Smith-Eslick Cottage Camp Building Grand Lake 729 Lake Avenue 6/30/2011 The Barger Gulch Locality B* Kremmling Kremmling vicinity 3/25/2009 Timber Creek Campground Comfort Station No. Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 1/29/1988 245* Timber Creek Campground Comfort Station No. Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 1/29/1988 246* Timber Creek Campground Comfort Station No. Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 1/29/1988 247* Timber Creek Road Camp Barn* Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 7/20/1987 Rocky Mountain National Park, Tonahutu Creek Trail* Grand Lake roughly along Tonahutu Creek 3/5/2008 to Flattop Mountain, Grand Lake vicinity Trail Ridge Road* Grand Lake Rocky Mountain National Park 11/14/1984 Sources: Ulrectory of GOlorado State Kegister Nropernes, nttp://www.nistOrycoioraao.org/arcnaeoiogists/iistings-county; National Register Information System, nrhp.focus.nps.gov *On both the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties and the National Register of Historic Places **Full data unavailable while the National Register of Historic Places is digitizing its records It should be noted that as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any property over 50 years of age is considered a historic resource and is potentially eligible for the National Register. Thus, in the event that the property is to be altered, or has been altered, as the result of a major federal action, the property must be evaluated under the guidelines set forth by NEPA. Structural mitigation projects are considered alterations for the purpose of this regulation. Economic Assets Economic assets at risk may include major employers or primary economic sectors, such as, agriculture, whose losses or inoperability would have severe impacts on the community and its ability to recover from disaster. After a disaster, economic vitality is the engine that drives recovery. Every community has a specific set of economic drivers, which are important to understand when planning ahead to reduce disaster impacts to the economy. When major Grand County, Colorado 3.100 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 employers are unable to return to normal operations, impacts ripple throughout the community. Table 3.25 lists the top employers in Grand County by district. Table 3.25. Top Employers in Grand County by District Name District 1 Winter Park/Fraser Intra West/Winter Park Resort Devils Thumb Resort YMCA of the Rockies/Snow Mountain Resort Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District District 2 Granby/Grand Lake East Grand School District Granby Ranch Resort City Market Grand County Roofing and Sheeting District 3 Kremmling/Hot Sulphur Springs Grand County Government West Grand School District Kremmling Memorial Hospital Source: Grand County Chambers of Commerce for each district and Colorado LM Gateway It is evident by the information presented in Table 3.25 that several of the County's largest employers are involved in the ski/tourism industry. A natural hazard, such as a drought, could severely impact the industry and the County's economy (including the large retailers that are also among the largest employers). 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard This section describes overall vulnerability and identifies structures and estimates potential losses to buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in identified hazard areas. This assessment was limited to the hazards that were considered moderate or high in planning significance, based on HMPC input and the hazard profiles. This assessment is also limited by the data available for the hazards. The methods of analysis vary by hazard type and data available. Many of the identified hazards, particularly weather related hazards, affect the entire planning area, and specific hazards areas cannot be mapped geographically. For these hazards, which include drought, lightning, and winter weather, vulnerability is mainly discussed in qualitative terms because data on potential losses to structures is not available. Geographic hazard areas can be mapped for the following identified hazards: dam failure; earthquake; flood; landslide, mudflow/debris flow, and rock fall; and wildfire. Avalanche Grand County is highly vulnerable to avalanche -related injuries and fatalities due to the major ski areas located in the County and the high recreational use of backcountry areas. Thousands of people are exposed to avalanche risk in Grand County every winter and spring. Motorists along Grand County, Colorado 3.101 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 highways are also at risk of injury and death due to avalanches, which also cause road and highway closures. Seven people died in avalanches in Grand County between 2005 and 2010. This averages out to 1.4 avalanche -related deaths per year in Grand County. Road closures and the associated economic losses are another impact of avalanches. The Town of Winter Park' economy is impacted whenever Highway 40 is closed due to avalanche, losing roughly $100,000 for each 24 hour period the road is closed. Road closures due to avalanches on Berthoud Pass and Highway 40 occur an estimated 4 times a year according to the Town of Winter Park. CDOT has been considering using automated avalanche control measures on Berthoud Pass. Current methods include preemptively triggering avalanches using WWII howitzers to launch missiles or using helicopters to drop explosives. The new program would utilize Gazex pipes to direct hot gases at avalanche zones at risk. This would trigger controlled, lower -intensity avalanches. CDOT identified the Stanley slide path on the eastern side of Berthoud Pass as a prime candidate for this new system. Avalanches on the Stanley slide path have closed Highway 40 several times. Similar technology is already in use in Utah, Wyoming, California, Europe, and Wolf Creek ski area in Colorado (Source: http://www.denveipost.com/breakingnews/ci 22107595/cdot-considers-automated-avalanche- control-berthoud-pass). Existing Development The County does not have any comprehensive information or mapping of avalanche hazard areas, so there is not data available to identify specific structures at risk or estimate potential losses to structures. Future Development The Grand County Master Plan encourages development that minimizes the impact on environmentally sensitive areas, such as those with steep slopes, but there is no avalanche hazard identified or mapped. There are no guidelines related to utility lines in avalanche hazard areas. Dam Failure Although there is no specific evidence to indicate the likelihood of dam failure within the County, there are ten high hazard and sixteen significant hazard dams located in Grand County. A dam failure could result in impacts greater than the 100 -year flood event and could be catastrophic. Vulnerability to dam failure is highest in Granby which lies downstream of several high hazard dams and dikes. A catastrophic dam failure would challenge local response capabilities and require evacuations downstream to save lives. Impacts to life safety will depend on the warning time available and the resources to notify and evacuate the public. Major loss of life could result as well as potentially catastrophic effects to roads, bridges, and homes. Associated water quality and health concerns could also be an issue. Grand County, Colorado 3.102 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Existing Development Dams in the County are monitored frequently by irrigators and dam owners and operators. The Denver Daily Water Reports monitor capacity and use of the dams, and EAPs are exercised regularly. These resources can help the County protect existing development downstream of the multitude of dams in the planning area. Each dam owner is responsible for having an EAP and inundation map for their facility. Due to security concerns and the sensitive nature of these documents, the EAPs and inundation maps are not available for public inspection or release. Therefore, structures and potential loss estimates in these areas could not be calculated. Future Development Flooding due to a dam failure event is likely to exceed the special flood hazard areas regulated through local floodplain ordinances. The County and towns should consider the dam failure hazard when permitting development downstream of the ten high hazard and sixteen significant hazard dams. Low hazard dams could become significant or high hazard dams if development occurs below them. Catastrophic flooding due to a failure of Dillon Reservoir or Green Mountain could also impact Grand County. The County should also continue to monitor Ritschard Dam due to the rapid settling issue. Disease Outbreak Disease outbreaks affect people, the economy, and business functions rather than structures, making it difficult to estimate the impact of this hazard on existing or future development. Primary damages or losses associated with an outbreak or outbreaks could include economic losses associated with work absences or a decrease in productivity due to disease, human losses associated with disease and fatalities in the community, adverse impacts on hospitals and other health care facilities and staff, and the fear and anxiety associated with a severe outbreak. High public anxiety can cause behaviors such as panic buying at grocery stores, which is especially serious in more remote areas such as Grand County where food and medicine deliveries may not happen as quickly and frequently as other places. The severity of a disease outbreak could also increase if the disease primarily affects more vulnerable populations such as the very young and the elderly. Data from CDPHE indicates that 148 cases of disease occurrence were recorded in Grand County between 2006 and 2012. This averages out to roughly 25 cases per year. Severity in terms of illnesses, fatalities, economic losses, etc. is highly dependent on which diseases occur and how widely and quickly they spread. Drought The majority of past disaster declarations are related to drought, which indicates the County's vulnerability to this hazard. Ongoing drought has left areas more prone to beetle kill and Grand County, Colorado 3.103 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 associated wildfires. Other past impacts of drought have included degradation of air quality due to dust, reduction of tourism and recreation activities, and damage to the ranching economy.. The economy of Grand County, which is based upon the ski industry and other outdoor recreation and tourism, is very vulnerable to drought conditions. The 2010 Colorado Drought Plan's drought vulnerability study identifies Grand County as having relatively high vulnerability to drought in the recreation sector. The recreation sector includes skiing, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, camping, golfing, boating, and rafting. Among these factors, Grand County had the highest vulnerability score in skiing. A high score implies a distinct recreational draw to the County that is significant compared to the population. Additionally, Grand County may not have sufficient adaptive capacities or economic diversification to decrease its vulnerability to drought. Adaptive capacities include snowmaking in ski resorts. However, snow generation can require millions of gallons of water annually. Ski resorts have rights for this water but their ability to divert water can be limited by instream flow rights during drought. The impact to specific resorts will vary by location and depending on where diversions occur relative to other rights. Some resorts may not be impacted at all during drought but can still be hurt by public perception of ski conditions. A widely publicized drought can keep visitation down regardless of actual conditions. A decline in tourism and agricultural revenues could also impact the rest of the County's economy. According to the 2010 State of Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, "the multiplier effect of decreased business revenue can impact the entire economy. When an individual loses or decreases their income all of the goods and service providers they usually support will also be impacted" (Annex B, 306). The study indicates that Grand County has a high vulnerability in the socioeconomic sector, largely due to the large lack of economic diversity and tourism economy base. While widespread, the losses associated with drought are often the most difficult to track or quantify. FEMA requires the potential losses to structures to be analyzed, and drought does not normally have a structural impact. Significant impacts from drought will be on agriculture, wildland fire protection, municipal usage, commerce, tourism and ski industry, and wildlife preservation. Grand County's economy is largely dependent on tourism, recreation and, to a lesser extent, agriculture. A lack of precipitation can impact skiing, fishing, hunting and more. Drought can also exacerbate the potential occurrence and intensity of wildland fires. The wildland areas of the County have seen an increase in dry fuels, beetle kill and some loss of tourism revenue during the ski season. Water supply issues for domestic needs also present an issue given the County's lack of water rights and ownership. Existing Development Drought normally does not impact structures and can be difficult to identify specific hazard areas. Data is not available to estimate potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas. Grand County, Colorado 3.104 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Many of the towns use public education efforts to encourage water conservation during the summer months. Future Development As population grows, so do the water needs for household, commercial, industrial, recreation, and agricultural uses. Vulnerability to drought will increase with these growing demands on existing water supplies. Future water use planning in Colorado is complex and has to account for increasing population size as well as the potential impacts of climate change. Earthquake Past impacts due to earthquakes have been minimal and potential magnitude and severity is believed to be low, so the County's overall vulnerability to earthquake is low. Data on Colorado's earthquake hazard is limited. Existing Development 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. Deterministic analyses provide "what if' scenarios (e.g., determines what would happen if an earthquake of a certain magnitude occurred on a particular fault). The earthquake magnitudes used for each fault were the "maximum credible earthquake" as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey. The faults analyzed for Grand County were Frontal, Mosquito, Northern Sawatch, and Williams Fork (see Figure 3.39). Table 3.26 summarizes the results for Grand County. Figure 3.39. Faults Analyzed for Potential Losses, Statewide 1882 Historical Event Walnut Creek Fault Wil arnsFork4alley Val ntFaul[ raut RockyMounta Arsenal Anta Fault (suspect) .It % Mosquito Fault ontal Fault 1 Chase Gulch Fe u No awatch F ult � Rampart Range F ult Cimarron Fault ault Roth e#eaukreek Fault Southern Sawatch Fa It Cheraw Fault 2a , 7hp Goodpasture Fault Busted 8 Fa Ca 'bal Fault .CO 00 sr w� Source: Earthquake Evaluation Report Grand County, Colorado 3.105 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 3.26. Potential Earthquake Losses in Grand County by Fault Fault/Magnitude Fatalities Total Economic Loss ($)* Loss Ratio Frontal M7.0 0 52.5 million 1.6 M5.5 0 1.1 million 0.03 Mosquito M7.0 0 16.9 million 0.5 M5.5 0 0.2 million 0.0 Northern Sawatch M7.0 0 3.6 million 0.1 Williams Fork M6.75 1 77.3 million 2.4 M6.5 0 45.2 million 1.4 M6.0 0 13.1 million 0.4 M5.5 0 3.8 million 0.1 Source: Earthquake Evaluation Report *Direct and indirect losses **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 10 percent or greater are considered by FEMA to be critical) The results of the statewide analysis indicate that Grand County is not one of the top counties in any category, including most damaging faults, total direct economic loss, highest loss ratio, or counties at greatest risk (high monetary loss, casualties, and loss ratios). This is consistent with prior estimates that earthquake is a relatively low significance hazard in Grand County. The greatest losses would likely result from a M6.75 earthquake or greater on the Williams Fork fault, which is predicted to cause one fatality and millions of dollars in damage. Specific details about the earthquake potential in Grand County and Colorado in general remain largely unknown. A 2,500 year probabilistic HAZUS earthquake scenario was performed as part of this mitigation plan's 2013 update and the results can be referenced below in Table 3.27. This scenario takes into account worst case ground shaking from a variety of seismic sources. According to this probabilistic scenario, there is the potential for 6% of the total number of buildings in the County to be affected, with roughly 750 buildings experiencing at least moderate damage. Total economic impacts could exceed $59.68 million, but casualty estimates are relatively small. Due to the low probability of a damaging earthquake occurring, as discussed below, the planning significance of earthquakes is considered low by the HMPC. Table 3.27. HAZUS-MH Earthquake Loss Estimation 2.500 -Year Scenario Results Type of Impact Impacts to County Total Buildings Damaged Slight: 1,529 Moderate: 654 Extensive: 92 Complete: 4 Building and Income Related Losses $33.22 million 72% of damage related to residential structures 23% of loss due to business interruption Grand County, Colorado 3.106 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Type of Impact Impacts to County Total Economic Losses $59.68 million (includes building, income and lifeline losses) Casualties Not requiring hospitalization: 4 (based on 2 a.m. time of occurrence) Requiring hospitalization: 0 Life threatening: 0 Fatalities: 0 Casualties Not requiring hospitalization: 4 (based on 2 p.m. time of occurrence) Requiring hospitalization: 1 Life threatening: 0 Fatalities: 0 Casualties Not requiring hospitalization: 4 (based on 5 p.m. time of occurrence) Requiring hospitalization: 0 Life threatening: 0 Fatalities: 0 Damage to Transportation and Utility Systems Damage to utility pipeline systems include and Essential Facilities 46 leaks and 11 breaks for potable water, 23 leaks and 6 breaks for waste water, 8 leaks and 2 breaks for natural gas, and no leaks or breaks for oil. No expected damage shown to essential facilities. Displaced Households 8 Shelter Requirements 4 Source: AMEC and HAZUS-MH ver. 2.0: Global Summary Report Historic buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry are most vulnerable to seismic ground shaking. Other potential impacts of an earthquake in Grand County could include damage to infrastructure networks, such as water, power, communication, and transportation lines. Secondary impacts could include landslides or dam failure in a strong event. Future Development Building codes substantially reduce the costs of damage to future structures from earthquakes. Flood Flood hazards affect most of the communities in the County and will continue to occur in the future. They can be limited to critical in their magnitude, depending on where in the County they occur, causing injuries and damaging property and infrastructure. Existing Development Potential losses to Grand County from flooding was analyzed by using the effective DFIRM, where available,with parcel data and building address point data provided by the Grand County Assessor's Office. Below is a discussion of the methodology, including limitations, assumptions, and observed trends of the methodology's results. Grand County, Colorado 3.107 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 A flood vulnerability assessment was performed for the entire County using GIS during the 2013 update of this plan. The parcel layer and associated assessor's building improvement valuation data were provided by the county and were used as the basis for the building inventory. Grand County's effective DFIRM was used as the hazard layer where available, which was limited to the incorporated municipalities (all except Kremmling) with a mapped flood hazard area. DFIRM is FEMA's flood risk mapping that depicts the 1% annual chance (100 -year) and, in some locations, the 0.2% annual chance (500 -year) flood events. Flood zones A, AE, AH and AO are variations of the 1% annual chance event. The "Shaded Zone X" represents the 0.2% annual chance hazard zone on the DFIRM. The effective DFIRM for the municipalities, dated January 2, 2008, was the best available flood hazard data. Since the DFIRM extent does not include the unincorporated County a 100 -year floodplain generated with HAZUS by FEMA was used to represent the approximate flood hazard in the unincorporated areas. Note that this data is for loss estimation purposes only and mainly covers the northern half of the county and was not available for the southern half and much of the lower Colorado River. However the area covered by DFIRM or HAZUS floodplains addresses the areas most likely to have development. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon. Only parcels with improvement values greater than zero were used in the analysis, which assumes that improved parcels have a structure of some type. The DFIRM (or HAZUS where appropriate) flood zones were overlaid in GIS on the parcel centroid data to identify structures that would likely be inundated during a 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance flood event. Building improvement values for the points were based on the assessor's data and summed for the unincorporated county and for the municipalities. Results of the overlay analysis area shown in Table 3.28 and Table 3.29, and are summarized by jurisdiction. More detail on the types of buildings impacted is provided in the appropriate jurisdictional annexes. Occupancy type refers to the land use of the parcel and includes residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, government, mixed use, open space, backcountry, and other. Contents values were estimated as a percentage of building value based on their occupancy type, using FEMA/HAZUS guidance on estimated content replacement values. This includes 100% of the structure value for agricultural, commercial, and exempt structures, 50% for residential structures, 150% for industrial structures, and 0% for vacant land use classifications. Building and contents values were totaled, and a 25% loss factor was applied to the totals, also based on FEMA depth damage functions, assuming a 2 foot deep flood. There are 199 improved parcels in the 1% annual chance flood zone. The total building exposure (actual building value plus content value estimate) in that flood zone is $67 million. Assuming a 2 foot deep flood, losses could be on the order of $16.8 million from the 1% annual chance flood event in Grand County. The countywide loss ratio (the ratio of the building value at risk divided by the overall county building value) is 1.80%. Based on this analysis, the greatest losses in terms of the number of improved parcels impacted from a 1% annual chance flood would occur in unincorporated Grand County (78), followed by Grand County, Colorado 3.108 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Winter Park (53). The unincorporated County would have the highest potential dollar losses. Countywide, losses could exceed $16.8 million. Kremmling is not expected to suffer any losses from a 100 -year flood. Table 3.28. Summary of 1% Annual Chance Flood Building Exposure and Potential Loss by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Improved Parcel Count Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Loss Estimate Loss Ratio Fraser 36 $5,507,320 $2,798,695 $8,306,015 $2,076,504 0.5% Granby 19 $3,186,370 $2,264,025 $5,450,395 $1,362,599 0.3% Grand Lake 11 $2,737,170 $1,460,250 $4,197,420 $1,049,355 0.3% Hot Sulphur Springs 2 $351,090 $175,545 $526,635 $131,659 0.2% Kremmling - - - - - - Winter Park 53 $9,199,180 $4,793,240 $13,992,420 $3,498,105 0.3% Unincorporated Areas 78 $20,865,710 $13,910,105 $34,775,815 $8,693,954 0.2% Total 199 $41,846,840 $25,401,860 $67,248,700 $16,812,176 1.80% Table 3.29. Summary of 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Building Exposure and Potential Loss by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Improved Parcel Count Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Loss Estimate Loss Ratio Fraser - - - - - - Granby - - - - - - Grand Lake - - - - - - Hot Sulphur Springs - - - - - - Kremmling - - - - - - Winter Park 30 $5,493,000 $3,673,675 $9,166,675 $2,291,669 0.2% Unincorporated Areas - - - - - - Total 30 $5,493,000 $3,673,675 $9,166,675 $2,291,669 0.2% Total 1 % & 0.2% Zones 229 $47,339,840 $29,075,535 $76,415,375 $19,103,845 2.00% Grand County, Colorado 3.109 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.40. Grand County Effective DFIRM and Flood Prone Properties O cr "X, JrulfiriYi Alol�rttiriri ' 4 ' Reserlau•i. Kremmling JACKSON Hot -Sulphur Springs LARIMER r . H, ,, rn,rr I► y •; 34 BOULDER - Hazus 100yr Flood Zones Streams r FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Lakes Fraser �__ _ �.� • :aa �� fry ��x` Grand Lake o ° • ,��'' S. ; o0 10 Orr -tt,,,xruarrrr�l.:arta. 9 N 0 Crr'«rrht�- 17 0.2% Annual Chance �•��~ Granby o Hazus 100yr Flooded Structures Zone X • 1% Flooded Structures r . H, ,, rn,rr I► y LEGEND BOULDER - Hazus 100yr Flood Zones Streams r FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Lakes Fraser �__ _ �.� • :aa �� fry ��x` Highways6 i - Zone AE .� 9 N v Winter! 0 GILPIN EAGLE SUMMIT \ Park I y LEGEND - Hazus 100yr Flood Zones Streams r FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Lakes j ,' t, 4t0� � 1%Annual ChanceRailroads t� V. f 1 CLEAR CREEK - Zone A Highways6 i - Zone AE r---+ Towns 0.2% Annual Chance Counties o Hazus 100yr Flooded Structures Zone X • 1% Flooded Structures 1 Zone D 0 0.2% Flooded Structures amec� 0 7.5 15 Miles Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 112/2008 Grand County, Colorado 3.110 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 There are 30 additional improved parcels in the 0.2% annual chance flood zone (all located in Winter Park) with a total building exposure (actual building value plus content value estimate) of $9,166,675. Table 3.29 shows the combined loss estimate from the 1% annual chance and the 0.2% annual chance flood events. The total building exposure in those 2 flood zones is $76.4 million. Assuming a 2 foot flood depth, there could be roughly $2.3 million in losses from the 0.2% annual chance flood event. The countywide loss ratio for this flood event is 0.2%. The loss estimates for this vulnerability assessment are a planning level analysis suitable for flood risk mitigation, emergency preparedness, and response and recovery. The methodology and results should be considered `reasonable'. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, and losses will vary depending on the magnitude of the flood event. Other limitations may include incomplete or inaccurate inventories of the built environment. This loss estimation assumes no mitigation and does not account for buildings that may have been elevated above the 1 % annual chance event according to local floodplain management regulations. Another limitation to this analysis is that flooding does occur outside of mapped floodplains due to poor drainage, stormwater overflow, or in areas adjacent to streams that have not been mapped. The population exposed to the flood hazard was estimated by applying an average household size factor (based on 2010 U.S, Census estimates for each jurisdiction) to the number of improved parcels identified in the flood hazard areas. Based on this estimate, a 1% annual chance flood would displace 348 people and a 0.2% flood would displace an additional 45 people. Table 3.30 summarizes the results of this analysis. Table 3.30. Population at Risk to 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Floods Community Average Household Size* Parcel Count Population at Risk 1 % Annual Chance Flood Fraser 2.26 34 77 Granby 2.40 12 29 Grand Lake 1.96 10 20 Hot Sulphur Springs 2.49 2 5 Kremmling 2.35 - - Winter Park 2.05 50 103 Unincorporated 2.26 51 115 Total 159 348 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Winter Park 2.05 22 45 Total 22 45 Grand Total 181 393 An analysis of critical facilities in flood zones based on available GIS data indicated two facilities to be potentially at -risk: the Visitors Center in Fraser and the Lodge at Sunspot in Winter Park. Both facilities are at risk to the 1 % annual chance flood. Grand County, Colorado 3.111 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 National Flood Insurance Program Policies Analysis Table 3.31 provides detailed information on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in participating jurisdictions in Grand County. The County is not a participant in the NFIP and has been sanctioned since 1/2/2009. The Town of Hot Sulphur Springs has an identified Special Flood Hazard Area but does not participate in the NFIP and has been sanctioned since 11/27/1975. The 2008 Flood Insurance Study for Grand County notes that the Town of Kremmling is non-floodprone, has no Special Flood Hazard Areas identified, and thus is not required to participate in the NFIP. Currently none of the communities in Grand County participate in the Community Rating System (CRS) program. Table 3.31. Community Participation in the NFIP Source: National Flood Insurance Program NFIP insurance data indicates that as of April, 2013, there were 143 flood insurance policies in force in the County with $26,686,300 of coverage. There have been 2 historical claims for flood losses totaling $5,960. There were no repetitive losses in Grand County at the time of this plan's development. Future Development The risk of flooding to future development should be minimized by the floodplain regulations of the County and the floodplain management programs of its NFIP participating municipalities, if properly enforced. Risk could be further reduced by strengthening floodplain ordinances and floodplain management programs beyond minimum NFIP requirements to align with the CWCB Statewide floodplain rule, which will become effective in January 2014. Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Fall, Rock Fall In Grand County, vulnerability to landslides primarily occurs along roadways, where the hazard could cause deaths or injuries. According to the HMPC, problem areas for landslide and rockfall include Byers Canyon, Highway 125, Highway 40 at Windy Gap, the landfill on Highway 34, and CR 1 near Inspiration Point. Highway 40 and the Union Pacific railroad pass through several canyons where rockslides occur annually. A burn area on the west side of Sheep Mountain was also identified as a potential debris flow hazard. Issues also exist in avalanche chutes and in Gore Canyon where there is potential for a train derailment. Road closures due to landslide events also affect the County economically. Landslides in neighboring counties along Grand County, Colorado 3.112 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Number ofClaims Jurisdiction Date Joined Effective Policies in Insurance in Claims FIRM Date Force Force ($) Totals ($) Since 1978 Town of Fraser 1/2/08 1/2/2008 15 $3,359,800 0 $0 Town of Granby 5/15/08 1/2/2008 3 $980,000 1 $0 Town of Grand Lake 1/1/86 1/2/2008 10 $2,818,400 0 $0 Hot Sulphur Springs - 1/2/2008 - $0 0 $0 Town of Winter Park 11/15/85 1/2/2008 115 $19,528,100 1 $5,960 Source: National Flood Insurance Program NFIP insurance data indicates that as of April, 2013, there were 143 flood insurance policies in force in the County with $26,686,300 of coverage. There have been 2 historical claims for flood losses totaling $5,960. There were no repetitive losses in Grand County at the time of this plan's development. Future Development The risk of flooding to future development should be minimized by the floodplain regulations of the County and the floodplain management programs of its NFIP participating municipalities, if properly enforced. Risk could be further reduced by strengthening floodplain ordinances and floodplain management programs beyond minimum NFIP requirements to align with the CWCB Statewide floodplain rule, which will become effective in January 2014. Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Fall, Rock Fall In Grand County, vulnerability to landslides primarily occurs along roadways, where the hazard could cause deaths or injuries. According to the HMPC, problem areas for landslide and rockfall include Byers Canyon, Highway 125, Highway 40 at Windy Gap, the landfill on Highway 34, and CR 1 near Inspiration Point. Highway 40 and the Union Pacific railroad pass through several canyons where rockslides occur annually. A burn area on the west side of Sheep Mountain was also identified as a potential debris flow hazard. Issues also exist in avalanche chutes and in Gore Canyon where there is potential for a train derailment. Road closures due to landslide events also affect the County economically. Landslides in neighboring counties along Grand County, Colorado 3.112 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 major highways that carry traffic into Grand County also impact the County. Structures and people in them are also at risk to landslide in Grand County. Existing Development Potential losses for landslide in Grand County were estimated using County GIS and assessor's data and were examined in terms of values and critical facilities at risk. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon, which was overlayed on the landslide hazard polygons. The assessor's land and improved values for each parcel are linked to the parcel centroids. For the purposes of this analysis, if the parcel's centroid intersects the landslide hazard polygon, that parcel is assumed to be at risk to the landslide. Values were summed and sorted by landslide hazard zone. Additional landslide hazard analysis was completed using the more comprehensive USGS landslide deposits layer during the 2013 update. The results of the overlay analysis are presented in Table 3.32, and more detailed tables with the property types are provided in the jurisdictional annexes. While the results indicate that the most substantial amount of exposure is located in the unincorporated areas of the County, a more detailed, site-specific analysis would need to be conducted to further assess potential risk. Table 3.32. Building Exposure to Landslide by Jurisdiction Community Population 2010 Improved parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Structure Value* Fraser 0 0 $108,740 $0 $0 $0 Granby 29 12 $612,620 $4,270,770 $2,135,385 $6,406,155 Grand Lake - - - - - - Hot Sulphur Springs - - - - - - Kremmling - - - - Winter Park 12 7 $5,027,940 $7,708,800 $4,458,150 $12,166,950 Unincorporated 540 307 $39,841,460 $59,399,500 $39,400,315 $98,799,815 Total 581 326 $45,590,760 $71,379,070 $45,993,850 $117,372,920 Source: Vrand County vis and Assessor's vttice (parcel data) *Value represents "improved structure value" and includes contents. Does not include land value. There are four critical facilities at risk to landslides in Grand County, all located in unincorporated areas of the County. The facilities are listed in Table 3.33. A more detailed, site- specific analysis would need to be conducted to further assess potential risk. Table 3.33. Critical Facilities in Landslide Hazard Areas Type Name Facility Count Bridge County Road 10 1 Bridge YCC Camp Road 1 Communications Granby II/Murphy Site 1 School Faith in Action Christian School 1 Total 4 Grand County, Colorado 3.113 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition and avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas or by corrective engineering. The mountainous topography of the County presents considerable constraints to development, most commonly in the form of steep sloped areas. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and can become unstable. The County's Master Plan encourages development in or near the existing towns and away from environmentally sensitive areas such as those with steep slopes. This policy can help protect future development from being built in unstable areas. Lightning Damaging lightning events are likely to occur and can be critical if a fatality occurs. Outdoor recreationists and others outside at high altitude during summer months are vulnerable to lightning. The HMPC is also concerned about the impacts lightning can have on the County's power grid and information technology network. Failure of these systems would have cascading effects that would disrupt other critical infrastructure in the County, such as water treatment facilities. Damage to communications infrastructure has the potential to cause widespread impacts. Lightning can occur anywhere in Grand County, and it is not possible to identify specific hazard area. Data was not available to identify specific structures at risk or estimate potential losses to these structures. Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation It is somewhat difficult to evaluate the vulnerability of existing and future development to Mountain Pine Beetle infestation. Although the Mountain Pine Beetle is unlikely to cause deaths or injuries or significant damage to property and infrastructures, it is killing millions of trees each year. The forest mortality resulting from this epidemic creates a number of direct and indirect hazards: Deadfall and Blowdown: Approximately five years after mortality, the standing dead trees become markedly susceptible to falling and being blown down. This creates a hazard to lives and property near inhabited areas, travel corridors, and recreation areas. Powerline impingement: The hazard to power lines from beetle impact forests merits specific attention. Power lines are dispersed throughout Colorado's forests, and the clearance around these lines is typically inadequate to address the threat of large scale mortality. Contact between power lines and trees has caused several fires in recent years and creates the potential for local power outages. It is noteworthy that a tree impinging on a powerline in Ohio in 2003 caused the largest electrical outage in United States history, directly impacting an estimated 50 million people and causing billions of dollars in economic losses. In 2010 a multi -forest environmental Grand County, Colorado 3.114 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 assessment paved the way to allow for clearance of hazardous trees around power lines, but the implementation schedules rest with the individual utility operators. Erosion: The loss of the lodgepole pine overstory should not increase erosion in and of itself. Quite unlike the effects of fire, the ground cover provided by duff, forest litter, and the understory remains in place. In fact, the surface litter load increases as needles, limbs, and tree stems fall to the forest floor in the years following mortality. Impacted areas may see an increase in overall water runoff in the absence of the water uptake required by a mature forest (Kaufmann et al 2008). As lodgepole pine near ski runs are lost, wind scouring may become more pronounced on ski runs, requiring increased snow fencing and other mitigative efforts to prevent loss of cover. Hazardous fuels: There is no doubt that the MPB epidemic will greatly increase the amount of dead biomass in lodgepole forests, but predictions that this translates into an immediately drastic increase in the fire hazard is an oversimplification. The cycle is nuanced and complex, and a variety of fuel profiles and fire concerns will emerge. Predicted changes in fuel loads and fire behavior are discussed in more detail in the following section on Probability of Future Occurrence and Conditions. Severe Winter Weather Existing Development In the alpine environment of Grand County, severe winter weather occurs several times every season. This hazard has been critical in its magnitude and severity in the past, most recently during the event in December 2007. Vulnerability is high along roadways and mountain passes, particularly on Highway 40 and Highway 9, where severe winter weather conditions may cause traffic related deaths and injuries and increase avalanche risk. Road closures due to winter weather conditions also restrict or prevent the movement of people and goods and services (including food and gas), which can be crippling during the high tourism season and create the need for emergency sheltering for travelers. The County is more vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards during the winter months due to the increased volume of people living, working, and visiting here. It is impossible to identify specific winter weather hazard areas within Grand County, and data was not available to identify specific structures at risk or estimate potential losses to these structures. Future Development Future residential or commercial buildings built to code should be able to withstand snow loads from severe winter storms. Population growth in the County and growth in visitors will increase problems with road, business, and school closures and increase the need for snow removal and emergency services related to severe winter weather events. Grand County, Colorado 3.115 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Wildfire Vulnerabilities to wildfire include: Structures and private property Critical infrastructure such as power lines and roadways Key Resources such as medical facilities, schools, watersheds, reservoirs, and public buildings Tourism and habitat resources such as trails, ski resorts, dispersed recreation sites, viewsheds, and wildlife habitat The highest potential for negative and even deadly impacts of wildland fire is in the WUI. Every fire season in the United States catastrophic losses from wildfire plague the WUI. Homes are lost, businesses are destroyed, community infrastructure is damaged, and, most tragically, lives may be lost. Existing Development The county is divided into five fire protection districts: Kremmling, Grand, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall, and East Grand. These districts are discussed in four local CWPPS that evaluate the wildfire hazards and vulnerabilities within their jurisdictions: Grand Fire Protection District CWPP, Kremmling Fire Protection District CWPP, Upper Fraser CWPP, and Grand Lake CWPP. Vulnerability discussions from these documents are summarized below. Grand County CWPP The broader scope Grand County CWPP divides the county into three regions: Three Lakes (rated moderate to very high hazard), the Fraser Valley (moderate to very high hazard), and West Grand (low to high hazard). In the eastern areas of Three Lakes and the Fraser Valley, the landscape is dominated by beetle killed lodgepole pine while West Grand generally has lighter grass and brush fuels. While grass and shrub fuels can pose a significant fire hazard, the towns of Kremmling and Hot Sulphur Springs are surrounded by areas of these light and sparse fuels. In addition to Kremmling and Hot Sulphur Springs, Grand County has four additional incorporated towns and three unincorporated towns. While the county CWPP does not assess the more than 950 subdivisions, it does evaluate the hazards to the towns (reference Table 3.34). Hazard ratings range from Winter Park and Grand Lake at high to very high hazard, down to Parshall and Kremmling at low hazard. It is worth noting that the majority of homes in the county are second homes or absentee owned, and some may lie outside of a fire protection district. The majority are within fire protection district boundaries. Grand County, Colorado 3.116 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 3.34. Grand County Community Wildfire Hazard Ratings Hazard Rating Community High to Very High Winter Park High Grand Lake Medium to High Fraser Radium Tabernash Low to Medium Hot Sulphur Springs Granby Low Parshall Kremmling In addition to the standard WUI, Grand County has other values vulnerable to damage from wildfires: Developed and High Valued Recreation Areas - Winter Park/Mary Jane and Ski Granby Ranch (formerly Sol Vista) have extensive infrastructure and buildings in the WUI. Additionally, the ability of the terrain to serve as viable ski runs can be put at risk by damage to the surrounding forest stands from wildfire. The County also has five Nordic ski areas including the Devils Thumb Ranch, Snow Mountain Ranch - YMCA of the Rockies, Granby Ranch, Latigo Ranch near Rabbit Ears Pass, and Grand Lake Touring Center near Rocky Mountain National Park. Critical Infrastructure - Communication towers, power lines, and substations throughout the county can be vulnerable to wildfire. The most difficult and most important of these to protect are transmission power lines and remote mountaintop communication sites. As discussed in the Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard section, increased clearance around these lines and communication sites has been planned, but is primarily designed to provide clearance from hazard trees and not fire protection. The Henderson Mill in the Williams Fork Valley and the associated mine (located just over the county line in Clear Creek County), are significant contributors to the local economy and have substantial infrastructural vulnerabilities to wildfire. These facilities have undertaken extensive wildfire planning and mitigation initiative on their property, and emergency planners can obtain further details by contacting their offices. Transportation Corridors - US Highways 40 and 34 transect the county as do Colorado Highways 125 and 139. These are regular thoroughfares at the state and regional level and are susceptible to closure during wildfires, negatively impacting local traffic as well as visitor and tourist traffic which are essential to the county's economy. Hot Sulphur Springs-Parshall Fire Protection District #3 CWPP The Hot Sulphur Springs-Parshall CWPP planning area covers the Town of Hot Sulphur Springs, Parshall, the northern portion of the Copper Creek Subdivision, Aspen Canyon Ranch, Valentine, Grand County, Colorado 3.117 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 and the southern portion of the Copper Creek Estates. Parshall, Hot Sulphur Springs, and the northern portion of Copper Creek lie within the FPD boundaries, but the other communities do not. The total population in the planning area is 1,205 as of the 2000 U.S. Census. Most of the planning area is designated as moderate to high risk, depending on fuel type, but Copper Creek and Copper Creek Estates are very vulnerable to wildfire. The Grand County CWPP ranked Parshall at low and Hot Sulphur Springs at low to moderate. Values at risk include the two communities (Hot Sulphur Springs and Parshall), ranches, small groupings of homes, freestanding homes throughout the planning area, Hot Sulphur Springs Resort, Drowsy Water Guest Ranch, Aspen Canyon Resort, a variety of small businesses, churches, and county offices and facilities. Distribution lines for electricity and natural gas run through the planning area. Other important infrastructure at risk includes water diversion structures, communication sites, and bridges. Kremmling Fire Protection District CWPP The Kremmling CWPP covers the Town of Kremmling and seven residential WUI areas in and around the district. The Town of Kremmling, with a population of approximately 1,600, is not considered to be at direct risk of wildfire, but economic impacts and surrounding infrastructure are a concern. Table 3.35. Kremmling Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Hazard Ratings Hazard Rating Community Big Horn Park Grand River Ranch / Gorewood Very High Lake Agnes Old Park / Gore Lakers Rabbit Ears Village High Big Valley Acres 1 & 2 Troublesome Valley Low Kremmling Infrastructure at risk includes communication sites at Grouse Mountain, Lawson Ridge, Wolford Mountain, and San Toy Mountain. There are three electrical substations that service the electrical transmission and distribution system in the area. Power lines are particularly difficult to protect from wildfire due to the geographic length of their exposure. Oil and gas leases are being developed in surrounding BLM lands. While drill pads and underground transmission pipelines tend to be relatively well protected from wildfire, man camps and gathering systems can be more vulnerable and require more detailed assessments and specific mitigation. Finally, while not an infrastructure at risk, this CWPP noted the lack of a water supply infrastructure throughout the district. Grand County, Colorado 3.118 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Lake Fire Protection District CWPP The Grand Lake CWPP recognizes WUI in terms of both home ignition zones (the area immediately around the home) and the 1.5 mi buffer, but feels WUI is conditional to each asset at risk. This plan divides the WUI into 3 zones and maps the entire area as high to very high hazard, consistent with the county plan. Specific communities have not been assessed in detail. Grand Lake WUI Zones: North Zone- West of US Highway 34 and north of CR 466. Contains over 920 homes in two major subdivisions, including Columbine Lake and Sun Valley. Town Zone- This is the Town of Grand Lake with over 900 homes. South Zone- The area south of CR 466 on both sides of US Highway 34. The area has many subdivisions and over 1,700 homes. At risk infrastructure includes Western Area Power Authority transmission lines (Mackenzie substation to the Adams tunnel) and distribution lines along US Highway 34. Also listed in the CWPP in general terms are gas lines, watersheds, cell towers, and water and sanitation facilities. Grand Fire Protection District No. 1 CWPP This fire district includes the Town of Granby and 24 distinct communities and three areas of special interest, five of which are extreme or very high risk. Eighty percent of the single family homes in this area are second homes, and the economy is tourism service based. Table 3.36. Grand Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Hazard Ratings Hazard Rating Community Extreme Bussy Hill Winter Park Highlands Homestead Hills Very High Carol Linke Tracts Sunny Shore Park C Lazy U Homestead Mounty Chauncey High Scan Loch Shadow Mountain Ranch Still Water Trail Creek Alpine Acres Granby Ranch/Sol Vista Highway 125 Idle Glenn Moderate Innsbruck Joslin Ranch Legacy Park Ridge Estates Val Moritz Walden Hollow/Ouray Ranch Low Granby Mesa Grand County, Colorado 3.119 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazard Rating Community Lake Shore Sunset Point East Grand Fire Protection District #4 Upper Fraser Valley CWPP The Upper Fraser Valley is home to numerous communities, including Winter Park Resort which is largest ski area in Grand County. There are also two Nordic cross-country resorts and the area is heavily utilized for both winter and summer outdoor recreation. As is the case for much of eastern Grand County, a large proportion of residences are second homes and the economic base is tourism services. Table 3.37. Upper Fraser Valley Community Wildfire Hazard Ratings Hazard Rating Community Hurd Creek Extreme Meadow Creek Hamilton Creek County Road 8 Very High Arapahoe Road Mary Jane Winter Park Ranch Beaver Village Winter Park Resort/Old Town Reserve at Elk Horn Ridge Beaver Mountain Perserve Rendezvous North Rendezvous South High Idlewild Meadows High Country Haus Moose Run Sunset Ridge Estates The Fairways Elk Run/Leland Creek Ice Box Estates/Sky View Acres Alpine Timbers Stagecoach Moderate Sheep Mountain Ridge Pole Creek Meadows Town of Winter Park Tabernash Low Fraser County Road 5170 Infrastructure in the area includes two water treatment plants for the Town of Winter Park, US Highway 40, the Mettler substation, and the associated electric power infrastructure. It is notable that the electrical transmission lines in the Upper Fraser Valley are important for the operation of the Henderson Mill. Other infrastructure includes natural gas pipelines and well heads, which are generally fire resistant, but require individual evaluation. Grand County, Colorado 3.120 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Summary of Building Exposure in WUI Areas The vulnerability analysis involved the use of GIS to quantify the population and buildings at risk within wildfire risk zones. The best available data for wildfire risk was the wildland- urban interface/intermix data from the SILVIS Lab at the University of Wisconsin—Madison mentioned previously in the wildfire hazard profile. The SILVIS data is classified into 13 categories, based on 2010 Census housing unit density and percent of vegetation in the area. In both interface and intermix communities, housing must meet or exceed a minimum density of one structure per 40 acres. Intermix communities are areas where housing and vegetation intermingle and vegetation exceeds 50 percent. Interface communities are areas with housing in the vicinity of contiguous vegetation, have less than 50 percent vegetation, and are within 1.5 miles of an area that exceeds 1,325 acres and are more than 75 percent vegetated. For the purposes of this plan these areas were further classified into High, Moderate, and Low risk threat zones as follows: High Risk Threat Zone (areas of various housing unit density within areas of high vegetation) High Density Intermix Medium Density Intermix High Density Interface Moderate Risk Threat Zone (areas of lower housing unit density within areas of high vegetation) Medium Density Interface Low Density Intermix Low Risk Threat Zone (either no vegetation, or no housing density) Low Density Interface High Density No Vegetation Medium Density No Vegetation Wildland Intermix Uninhabited Vegetation Uninhabited No Vegetation Low Density No Vegetation Wildland No Vegetation The SILVIS Census Blocks that met the High or Moderate Risk Threat Zone definitions above were selected within GIS and are represented on Figure 3.41. The number of buildings within each zone was summarized by county and jurisdiction, based on parcel centroids with improvements that intersected the threat zones. The results are shown in Table 3.38. More detail on the types of properties at risk is included in the jurisdictional annexes. While Winter Park and Granby are shown having the highest building exposure in the high risk threat zone compared to the other jurisdictions, the HMPC feels that the greatest area of concern is Grand Lake and vicinity due to previous fire history, fuels and terrain in the area. An accurate population -at -risk count was difficult to assess because of SILVIS data skewed in urban areas, Grand County, Colorado 3.121 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 and due to the number of second homes in the unincorporated areas that may or may not be occupied at any given time. For the purposes of estimating potential loss, the total improvement value is used which is based on the assessor's data and an estimate of content value. Catastrophic wildfires tend to result in total loss of the structure. It is very unlikely that a wildfire would result in loss of all the structures potentially at risk within a given county, but the results provide an indication of where the highest losses from a fire in the Interface or Intermix areas could occur. Grand County, Colorado 3.122 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.41. Grand County WUI High and Moderate Fire Risk 1 14 LARIMER JACKSON t f ` F 14 j `7 s' 34 x 40 I 7 125 i Grand Lake r— ' � tilk Yi irm O I S ! Resei hon Hot Sulphur -n i Springs 40 Yl« Granby j Kremmling II rr.,rr+s f r,'ti i f 1 `y �1 iL cVt'I l't on t BOULDER Fraser { EAGLE Winter 1 { GILPIN LEGEND - �'' Park 1 �.., VVlldland-Urban Interface SUMMIT High Moderate ,� , 40 Streams Lakes — Railroads CLEAR CREEK Highways '�._4 Towns , L�-, Counties ame C`� �j 0 7 14 Miles 111111111 Map compiled 512013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, SILVIS Grand County, Colorado 3.123 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 3.38. Property Values in Wildfire Threat Zones by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction/ Threat Zone Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value High Risk Threat Zone Grand Ave 1 Total Fraser 732 $35,926,700 $178,177,320 $96,240,555 $274,417,875 Grand Lake 573 $76,940,980 $126,768,810 $69,362,635 $196,131,445 Granby 912 $22,727,490 $140,878,080 $73,821,340 $214,699,420 Hot Sulphur Springs 132 $6,640,230 $18,236,620 $9,758,090 $27,994,710 Kremmling 221 $8,616,530 $21,073,430 $11,647,020 $32,720,450 Winter Park 1,969 $94,060,160 $528,185,440 $272,451,920 $800,637,360 Unincorporated 4,542 $273,809,450 $842,840,720 $427,686,020 $1,270,526,740 Total 9,081 $518,721,540 $1,856,160,420 $960,967,580 $2,817,128,000 Moderate Risk Threat Zone Fraser 212 $24,311,450 $75,398,160 $46,613,990 $122,012,150 Grand Lake 311 $59,438,590 $88,773,730 $52,305,965 $141,079,695 Granby 599 $44,227,020 $104,901,690 $62,812,970 $167,714,660 Hot Sulphur Springs 169 $8,472,360 $20,697,330 $12,579,485 $33,276,815 Kremmling 335 $18,062,610 $31,048,890 $20,795,405 $51,844,295 Winter Park 509 $42,851,280 $165,701,870 $89,387,860 $255,089,730 Unincorporated 2,982 $385,290,860 $829,787,270 $454,064,440 $1,283,851,710 Total 5,117 $582,654,170 $1,316,308,940 $738,560,115 $2,054,869,055 Grand Total 14,198 $1,101,375,710 $3,172,469,360 $1,699,527,695 $4,871,997,055 Source: AMEG and grand county Based on this analysis, unincorporated Grand County has the highest total property value at risk to wildfire, with roughly $2.55 billion in medium and high wildfire threat zones. Winter Park is the town with the highest total value at risk to wildfire, with approximately $1.05 billion in medium and high wildfire threat zones. Fraser has the second highest total value at risk to wildfire with roughly $396 million in medium and high wildfire threat zones. Overall, the County has nearly $4.9 billion in property values in medium to high wildfire threat zones. Table 3.39 lists critical facilities in lowest, low -moderate, moderate, high -moderate, and highest wildfire intensity zones. Table 3.39. Critical Facilities in Lowest to Highest Wildfire Intensity Zones by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Facility Type Facility Name Facility Count Highest Wildfire Intensity Grand Lake Bridges Grand Ave 1 Total 1 Bridges County Road 57 1 Bridges Unincorporated County Road 8022 1 Bridges US 40 ML 1 Total 3 Grand Total 4 Grand County, Colorado 3.124 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Jurisdiction Facility Type Facility Name Facility Count High -Moderate Wildfire Intensity Communications Power World 1 Granby Communications Sol Vista Peak 1 Total 2 Communications* Sunspot 1 Pumphouse Sunspot Water Pump Station 1 Winter Park Water Facility Winter Park Water and Sanitation Treatment 1 Total 3 Bridges County Road 00 1 Bridges County Road 32 1 Bridges County Road 330 1 Bridges County Road 57 1 Bridges County Road 6 1 Bridges County Road 627 1 Bridges County Road 64 1 Bridges SH 134 MI 1 Bridges US 40 MI 1 Bridges YCC Camp Road 1 Communications* Cottonwood 1 Communications* Grouse Mountain 1 Communications Acadia Condominiums 1 Unincorporated Communications Hwy 40 Grand County Wireless 1 Communications LTTK, Inc. Teddy's Car Wash 1 Communications Mount Bross 1 Communications Parshall Divide HSSPFPD 1 Communications Parshall Divide Microwave Reflector 1 Communications Radium Boost Station 1 Communications San Toy Mountain (West) 1 Communications Table Mountain Forest Service 1 Communications Tri-State Troublesome Sub Station 1 Communications Val Moritz HOA 1 School Faith In Action Christian School 1 Waste Water Facility Galloway Inc. (GW) 1 Waste Water Facility Granby Sanitation District 1 Total 24 Grand Total 30 Moderate Wildfire Intensity Fraser Government Fraser Valley Library 1 Total 1 Hospital* MPMC 1 Bridges US 40 ML 1 Granby EMS Station* Grand County EMS and OEM 1 Fire Station Grand Fire Protection District Station 1 School Middle Park High School 1 Total 5 Grand County, Colorado 3.125 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Jurisdiction Facility Type Facility Name Facility Count Government* Courthouse 1 Government* Sheriff's Office 1 Jail* Jail 1 Hot Sulphur Government* County Administration 1 Springs Bridges Grand Avenue 1 Fire Station Hot Sulphur Springs - Parshall Fire Protection 1 Total 6 EMS Station* EMS Station 1 Government* Coroner's Office 1 Kremmling Communications Kremmling Airport 1 Fire Station Kremmling Fire Department 1 School West Grand Elementary School 1 Total 5 Bridges Winter Park Drive 1 Communications Lodge at Sunspot 1 Communications Moffat Station 1 Winter Park Communications Winter Park (Denver Water) 1 Government Administration Building 1 Government Town Hall 1 Pumphouse Booster Pumphouse 1 Total 7 Bridges County Road 1 1 Bridges County Road 10 1 Bridges County Road 11 1 Bridges County Road 2 1 Bridges County Road 25 1 Bridges County Road 3 1 Bridges County Road 30 1 Bridges County Road 39 1 Bridges County Road 40 2 Bridges County Road 6 1 Bridges County Road 620 1 Unincorporated Bridges County Road 73 1 Bridges County Road 8 1 Bridges County Road 83 1 Bridges County Road 84 1 Bridges SH 9 ML 2 Bridges US 40 ML 12 Communications Fraser Boost Station 1 Communications Fraser Road & Bridge 1 Communications Hwy 40 106.3 FM Radio Tower 1 Communications Jasper Mountain (North Cottonwood) 1 Communications Parshall Road & Bridge 1 Communications San Toy Mountain (East) 1 Communications South Grouse Mountain 1 Grand County, Colorado 3.126 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Jurisdiction Facility Type Facility Name Facility Count Communications Table Mountain (South) 1 Communications Williams Peak / Blue Ridge 1 Communications Wolford Mountain 1 Emergency Operations Center EOC County Road 5 1 Fire Station East Grand Fire Protection District Station 1 Waste Water Facility Three Lakes Water & Sanitation District 1 Total 43 Grand Total 67 Low -Moderate Wildfire Intensity EMS Station EMS Station 1 Fraser Fire Station East Grand Fire Protection District #4 1 Total 2 Bridges US 40 ML 1 Winter Park Pumphouse Pumphouse Building 1 Total 2 Bridges County Road 21 1 Bridges County Road 302 1 Bridges County Road 4 1 Bridges FDR 348 1 Bridges Lions Gate Drive 1 Bridges SH 125 ML 1 Bridges U.S.F.S. ROAD 106 1 Bridges US 34 ML 1 Communications Fraser 4 Bar 4 1 Unincorporated Communications Grouse Mountain (North) 1 Communications Grouse Mountain (South) 1 Communications Lake Hill 1 Communications Mount Chauncey 1 Communications South Cottonwood 1 Communications State Highway Radio Relay Station 1 Communications Table Mountain (North) 1 Natural Gas Facility Public Service Co Williams Fork 1 Waste Water Facility Conrad John J. 1 Total 18 Grand Total 22 Low Wildfire Intensity Grand Lake Communications Grand Lake Lodge 1 Total 1 Bridges County Road 491 1 Unincorporated Bridges SH 125 ML 1 Communications Granby II / Murphy Site 1 Total 3 Grand Total 4 'Added per assessment of Grand County OEM Grand County, Colorado 3.127 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries Each of the CWPPs for Grand County recognizes the importance of natural habitat for both its intrinsic and economic value. The county is home to several federally listed species including the lynx, wolverine, and boreal toad. Healthy ecosystems and fisheries were consistently sited as a value to local residents, and with a large portion of the local economy based on outdoor recreation, they are essential to these communities. The CWPPs recognized the threat that wildfires can pose to the local habitats, and also documented the fact that fire exclusion has impacted the long term health of the area's ecosystems. These two issues, however, are difficult to reconcile. Federal land managers, state and local officials, and local residents all have a role to play in mitigating the damaging effects of wildfire while fostering its continued use across a fire adapted landscape. Watersheds Watersheds and the numerous associated reservoirs in the county could be significantly impacted by high severity wildfire, especially in the wake of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. For example, the damage to Strontia Springs Reservoir caused by siltation from the 1996 Buffalo Creek Fire took fifteen years to complete and cost Denver Water over $30 million. The Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment (Piehl 2013) provides a detailed assessment of post -fire watershed concerns that covers a majority of Grand County. Three types of hazards are evaluated to establish the final hazard priority layer for sixth -level watersheds (ref map below). Fire hazard, flooding/debris flow hazard, and soil erosion susceptibility are all evaluated. Final consideration is paid to those watersheds with water supplies features, such as reservoirs, to arrive at the final hazard priority. Those watersheds on the steep western slope of the Front Range feed directly into reservoirs and are of highest concern. Priority lessens further west in the County, away from the larger reservoirs and highest peaks. Watersheds can be considered as assets in their own right. Consultation with those water supply agencies with facilities, reservoirs, and properties should be included in mitigation discussions, and are in fact required to take part since the passage of Colorado House Bill 09-1162. Further consultation with members of a Burned Area Emergency Response Team may provide further guidance in mitigating and preparing for the effects of wildfire in a watershed. Grand County, Colorado 3.128 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.42. Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment Source: Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment Grand County, Colorado 3.129 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development Continued growth of Grand County's population will generally mean an expanded WUI and potential exposure of buildings and people. Grand County's subdivision regulations will help temper the risk to future development. It is important that CWPPs and other planning documents and regulations remain current to ensure improved community adaptation to the fire prone environment in which they are being built. This especially important in the heavy, beetle impacted fuels in the eastern half of the County. Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Wildlife -vehicle collisions caused 36 injuries in Grand County between 1994 and 2006. Such accidents can also temporarily close roads, which can potentially hurt the County's economy during peak tourist seasons. Both existing and future development need to take into account the locations of critical wildlife habitats. Wildlife migration corridors should be clearly marked during future development projects to help protect the County's residents, visitors, and wildlife. Windstorm It is difficult to identify specific windstorm hazard areas within Grand County. Data was not available to identify specific structures at risk or estimate potential losses to these structures. NCDC data did not provide enough details on past damages and casualties to perform an average annual loss assessment. 3.3.4 Development and Land Use Trends As part of the planning process, the HMPC looked at changes in growth and development and land use trends and examined these changes in the context of hazard -prone areas, and how the changes in growth and development affect loss estimates and vulnerability. Information from the following sources form the basis of this discussion: Grand County Master Plan, Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, U.S. Census Bureau Current Status and Past Development According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2010 estimated population of Grand County was 14,843. This is an increase of over 19% from the 2000 census population of 12,442. Table 3.40 through Table 3.43 illustrate past growth in Grand County in terms of population, housing units, and density (2010 data is used because subcounty estimates are not available for 2012). Grand County, Colorado 3.130 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 3.40. Grand County Population Growth 1960-2010 Census Year Population Average Annual Increase (%) Population Colorado Average Annual Increase (%) 1960 3,557 Fraser 1,753,947 1,224 1970 4,107 1.50 2,207,259 2.60 1980 7,475 8.20 2,889,964 3.00 1990 7,966 0.60 3,294,394 1.40 2000 12,442 5.60 4,301,261 3.00 2010 14,843 1.93 5,029,196 1.72 Source: Grand County Master Plan 2011, U.S. Census Bureau Table 3.41. Population Growth for Jurisdictions in Grand County, 2000-2010 Jurisdiction 2000 2010 Percent Change (%) # Change Percent of County (%) Percent of Total Growth (%) Fraser 910 1,224 +34.5 +314 8.2 13.1 Granby 1,525 1,864 +22.2 +339 12.6 14.1 Grand Lake 447 471 +5.4 +24 3.2 1.0 Hot Sulphur Springs 521 663 +27.3 +142 4.5 5.9 Kremmling 1,578 1,444 -8.5 -134 9.7 -5.6 Winter Park 662 999 +50.9 +337 6.7 14.0 Unincorporated Areas 6,799 8,178 +20.3 +1,379 55.1 57.4 TOTAL 12,442 14,843 +19.3 +2,401 100 100 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 3.42. Growth in Housing Units for Jurisdictions in Grand County, 2000-2010 Jurisdiction 2000 2010 Percent Change (%) # Change Percent of County (%) Percent of Total Growth (%) Fraser 622 1,096 +76.2 +474 6.8 9.2 Granby 628 1,531 +143.8 +903 9.5 17.5 Grand Lake 748 918 +22.7 +170 5.7 3.3 Hot Sulphur Springs 227 309 +36.1 +82 1.9 1.6 Kremmling 646 694 +7.4 +48 4.3 0.9 Winter Park 1,231 2,572 +108.9 +1,341 16.0 26.0 Unincorporated Areas 6,792 8,941 +31.6 +2,149 55.7 41.6 TOTAL 10,894 16,061 +47.4 +5,167 100 100 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 3.43. Population and Housing Unit Density for Jurisdictions in Grand County, 2000-2010 Jurisdiction Land Area in Square Miles 2000 Population Density 2010 Population Density 2000 Housing Density* 2010 Housing Unit Density* Fraser 1.9 478.95 644.21 327.37 576.84 Granby 1.8 847.22 1,035.56 348.89 850.56 Grand Lake 0.9 496.67 523.33 831.11 1,020.00 Hot Sulphur Springs 0.8 651.25 828.75 283.75 386.25 Grand County, Colorado 3.131 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Jurisdiction Land Area in Square Miles 2000 Population Density 2010 Population Density 2000 Housing Density* 2010 Housing Unit Density* Kremmling 1.3 1,213.85 1,110.77 496.92 533.85 Winter Park 8.1 81.73 123.33 151.98 317.53 Unincorporated Areas 1,831.87 3.71 4.46 3.71 4.88 TOTAL 1,846.67 6.74 8.04 5.90 8.70 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Based on the Census data, the number of housing units is higher than the population in the County and several of the jurisdictions. This reflects the dynamics of the County's resort community and number of second homes. Grand County receives over one million visitors annually (estimated). Current Status and Past Development Summary 8,178 individuals, or 55.1 percent of Grand County's residents, live in unincorporated portions of the County. Population growth between 2000 and 2010 was greatest in Fraser (34.5%) and Winter Park (50.9%). All areas of the County except Kremmling experienced growth, but Grand Lake (5.4%) and the unincorporated County (19.3%) experienced the least. Kremmling's population declined by 9.7%. Growth in housing units was generally much higher than population growth. Most of the population and housing unit growth occurred in the jurisdictions rather than the unincorporated County, with the exceptions of Kremmling and Grand Lake. Housing unit growth surpassed population growth in all areas of the County. With 1,110.77 people per square mile, Kremmling has the highest population density in the County followed by Granby (1,035.56). With 1,020 housing units per square mile, Grand Lake has the highest housing unit density in the County followed by Granby (850.56). Land Use Figure 3.43 depicts land stewardship in Grand County. Grand County, Colorado 3.132 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure 3.43. Grand County Land Stewardship JACKSON EAGLE l SUMMIT i LEGEND Land Stewardship Streams PRIVATE Lakes BLM Railroads - CDOW Highways - NPS Towns STATE �v� Counties USFS Hot Sulphur Springs `40 a , •l , amec 0 7.5 11111 Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, COMaP v9 Grand County, Colorado Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 rIMER Granby a .BOULDER 4 Fraser i Winter; GILPIN Park t CLEAR CREEK 15 Miles N A 3.133 Future Development As indicated in the previous section, Grand County has grown substantially over the last four decades. Growth is projected to continue through 2040. Table 3.44 shows the population projections for the County as a whole through 2040. The State Demography Office does not produce population forecasts for municipalities. Table 3.44. Population Projections for Grand County, 2015-2040 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population 15,778 18,008 20,672 23,282 25,752 28,028 Percent Change (%) 2.7% 2.8% 2.4% 2.0% 1.7% Sources: Colorado Department of Local Affairs Demography Section, www.dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/ Public opinion and official policy in the Grand County Master Plan is that future growth should be directed in and around the existing towns and development areas. This strategy minimizes the impact on the County's natural environment and scenic character, and utilizes existing water, sewer, and road infrastructure. Members of the public who participated in the Master Plan development process were concerned about protecting "sensitive areas," which includes areas with wetlands and steep slopes. The Grand County Master Plan includes a few policies related to new development and wildfire mitigation, including the following: The County will continue to work with emergency service providers in the review of new developments to ensure adequate access is provided for fire, police, and other emergency services. Continue to ensure that all new proposed subdivisions and special uses comply with applicable wildfire mitigation as required by the Grand County Department of Natural Resources, Colorado State Forest Service, and local fire protection districts. Continue to work with local and state entities and support emergency management planning related to: Local Emergency Operations, Hazard Mitigation Planning and Pre - Disaster Mitigation Planning, as well as other natural hazard planning. Support Community Wildfire Protection Planning and local wildfire mitigation efforts in order to minimize risks with the wildland-urban interface. Grand County, Colorado 3.134 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 3.4 Risk Assessment Summa The Grand County Risk Assessment revealed a number of problem areas to be addressed in the mitigation strategy. These key findings are summarized in the following list. Avalanche History of Colorado Avalanche Accidents, 1859-2006 recorded 20 avalanche -related deaths in Grand County between 1859 and 2006. The HMPC reported seven avalanche - related deaths in the County between 2005 and 2010. 12 avalanche events between 1998 and 2013 were recorded in NCDC, CAIC, and the 2008 Grand County HMP. In the past, avalanches have closed roads and highways. Winter Park and other ski resorts can lose an estimated $100,000 for every 24 hours that major roads such as Highway 40 are closed. Dam Failure Ten high hazard (probable loss of life if failure) and sixteen significant hazard dams are located in Grand County The largest water storage is in Granby Dam and the Granby Dikes 1-4, where failures could result in catastrophic flooding New development in dam inundation areas increases risk and may cause dam hazard rankings to change Disease Outbreak Outbreaks can quickly overwhelm County Public Health staff Primary damages or losses associated with an outbreak or outbreaks could include economic losses associated with work absences or a decrease in productivity due to disease, human losses associated with disease and fatalities in the community, adverse impacts on hospitals and other health care facilities and staff, and the fear and anxiety associated with a severe outbreak. Drought Multi-year droughts occur every 10 years on average in Grand County Drought can affect both water quantity and quality The tourism and recreation economy is particularly vulnerable to drought Drought increases risk to other hazards, such as erosion and deposition, mountain pine beetle infestation, and wildfire Earthquake Roughly 750 buildings with at least moderate damage in 2,500 -Year Probabilistic Scenario Grand County, Colorado 3.135 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Flood Total economic impacts could exceed $59.68 million Few casualty estimates Greatest losses in terms of people and number of improved parcels in unincorporated areas of the County Countywide losses could exceed $16.8 million $26,686,300 in flood insurance in force (143 policies) in Grand County Hazardous Materials Release (Transportation) There were 20 transportation -related hazardous materials incidents reported between 2008-2012; these mainly related to gasoline and diesel fuel spills resulting from an accident Highways 40 and 9 and Rabbit Ears Pass are of particular concern Streams and reservoirs are also vulnerable to contamination, especially near roadways and railroads Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Estimated 581 people and $117 million structure value at risk to landslides countywide Problem areas mostly exist along roadways, in canyons, and in avalanche chutes Has caused train derailments in the past Lightning Lightning -caused injuries have occurred in Grand County in the past Outdoor recreationists at high altitude during summer months are very vulnerable to lightning Lightning can damage power grid and information technology and communications networks Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation The mountain pine beetle hazard is widespread This hazard contributes to other hazards such as blowdown and high speed, sustained winds The infestation is likely to significantly affect forest ecosystems, the economy, and wildfire risk Severe Winter Weather There is high vulnerability to severe winter weather along highways and mountain passes Increased population exposed to hazards and emergencies during high tourist seasons 161 recorded events between 1960 and 2013 Grand County, Colorado 3.136 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Severe winter storms can close roads, strand travelers, and isolate the County, possibly for days at a time Wildfire Countywide there is an estimated $2.8 billion in property value in high wildfire risk areas; $2 billion in moderate wildfire risk areas Critical roads, including Highways 40 and 9 are also vulnerable to wildfire Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Wildlife -vehicle collisions are a common occurrence in Grand County and endanger the lives of residents, visitors, and wildlife Wildlife -vehicle collisions are especially likely to occur in spring and fall between the hours of dusk and dawn when animals are most active Multi -Hazard Past emergency declarations have been for drought and severe winter weather; state declaration for flood Hazard events that cause road closures, such as landslides, avalanches, and winter storms, affect the economy of Grand County by restricting access of visitors, workers, and goods and services Unique vulnerabilities of resort economy Need improved coordination between local governments and with state and federal agencies Grand County, Colorado 3.137 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 4MITIGATION STRATEGY 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Ni This section presents the mitigation strategy developed by the Grand County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) based on the County's risk assessment in Chapter 3. The mitigation strategy was developed through a collaborative group process and consists of goals, objectives, and mitigation actions. The following definitions are based upon those found in FEMA publication 386-3, Developing a Mitigation Plan (2002): Goals are general guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. They are usually long-term, broad, policy -type statements. Objectives define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals and are specific and measurable. Mitigation Actions are specific actions that help achieve goals and objectives. This section describes how the County accomplished Phase 3 of FEMA's 4 -phase guidance - Develop the Mitigation Plan -and includes the following from the 10 -step planning process: Planning Step 6: Set Goals Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan 4.1 Mitigation Strategy Overview The results of the planning process, the risk assessment, the goal setting, the identification of mitigation actions, and the hard work of the HMPC are captured in this mitigation strategy and mitigation action plan. As part of the 2013 plan update process, a comprehensive review and update of the mitigation strategy portion of the plan was conducted by the HMPC. Some of the initial goals and objectives from the 2008 plan were revisited and refined. The end result was an updated mitigation strategy that reflects the updated risk assessment, the status of 2008 actions, and the new priorities of this plan update. Section 4.2 below identifies the current goals and objectives of this plan update, and Section 4.4 details the updated mitigation action plan. 4.2 Goals and Objectives 44 CFR 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. The HMPC developed goals and objectives to provide direction for reducing hazard -related losses in Grand County. These were based upon the results of the risk assessment and a review of goals and objectives from other state and local plans, specifically, the Colorado State Multi - Grand County, Colorado 4.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010, Grand County Master Plan, and Community Wildfire Protection Plans for Grand County and several fire protection districts. This review was to ensure that this plan's mitigation strategy was integrated with existing plans and policies. The HMPC revisited the goals during the 2013 update. Committee members were given the list of goals from the 2008 plan to review, along with the current goals from related plans previously mentioned. The HMPC was instructed that they could use, combine, or revise the statements they were provided or develop new ones on their own, keeping the risk assessment in mind. The goals and objectives were revised significantly. The goals in the 2008 plan were hazard -specific. They were reworded to be more general for the 2013 plan update and align more with the Colorado Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan's goals. Goals and objectives are listed below, but are not prioritized: Goal 1: Reduce the loss of life and personal injuries from hazard events Enhance life safety for residents and responders Improve public education and awareness of all hazards Improve emergency response and early notification capabilities for all hazards within the County Reduce the potential for impact from transported hazardous materials to the public, the County, and participating jurisdictions Identify and characterize facilities and companies that regularly receive or transport hazardous materials Reduce disease outbreak occurrences and severity Minimize the impact of winter storm on Grand County and participating jurisdictions within the County Enhance community policies and procedures to reduce wildfire impact Reduce rockslide occurrences and impact potential on human life Goal 2: Reduce the impacts of hazards on property and the environment Enhance community policies and regulations as measures to reduce property impacts Continue to support development and implementation of Community Wildfire Protection Planning Develop and implement fuel -reduction projects Mitigate undesirable fire outcomes to residential and commercial property Mitigate undesirable fire outcomes to the environment, watersheds, and quality of life Improve identification and characterization of landslide hazards Goal 3: Protect critical facilities and infrastructure from the impacts of hazards Minimize disruption to critical services from hazard events Identify and reduce the wildfire threat to critical infrastructure Grand County, Colorado 4.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Improve physical mitigation actions for high risk landslide hazard areas Goal 4: Minimize economic losses Reduce financial exposure and disaster expenditures of county and municipal governments and special districts Strengthen disaster resistance and resiliency of businesses and employers Speed recovery and redevelopment following future disaster events Support future grant requests for pre- and post -disaster initiatives 4.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. At the third meeting of the HMPC representatives from the participating jurisdictions met to update, identify and analyze potential mitigation actions. AMEC provided the HMPC with a packet of materials at its third meeting and via email with information on types of mitigation actions, key issues from Chapter 3 Risk Assessment, and a worksheet of the plan's goals and objectives. The intent of the process was to update, identify, and analyze potential mitigation actions to achieve the mitigation goals. The group discussed different types and categories of mitigation actions. During the 2013 planning processes, the HMPC was provided with the following list of categories of mitigation actions, which originated from the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System (CRS), as well as definitions and examples for each category: 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 a hazard. Natural resource protection: Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Emergency services: Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a disaster or hazard event. Public information/education and awareness: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. The HMPC used these same categories during the 2008 planning process. Next, the HMPC discussed the key issues for each priority hazard that emerged from the Risk Assessment and Grand County, Colorado 4.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 brainstormed potential mitigation alternatives to address these. To facilitate the brainstorming process, the HMPC referred to a matrix of typical mitigation alternatives organized by CRS category for the hazards identified in the plan. This list is included in Appendix C. HMPC members discussed possible new mitigation actions that would work toward mitigation the specific hazards. Each proposed action was written on a sticky note and posted on flip charts in meeting room underneath the hazard it addressed. Based upon the key issues identified in the risk assessment, including the existing capabilities of jurisdictions, and the overall political, technical, and financial feasibility of the potential actions, the HMPC came to consensus on new mitigation actions for each hazard. Certain hazards were best addressed through multi -hazard actions. A lead for each new action was identified. The leads were responsible for filling out worksheets with additional details on the project so they could be captured in the plan. 4.3.1 Prioritization Process Once the mitigation actions were identified, the HMPC was provided with several decision- making tools, including FEMA's recommended prioritization criteria, STAPLEE sustainable disaster recovery criteria, and others, to assist in deciding why one recommended action might be more important, more effective, or more likely to be implemented than another. STAPLEE stands for the following: Social: Will the action be acceptable to the community? Could it have an unfair effect on a particular segment of the population? Technical: Is the action technically feasible? Are there secondary impacts? Does it offer a long-term solution? Administrative: Are there adequate staffing, funding, and maintenance capabilities to implement the project? Political: Will there be adequate political and public support for the project? Legal: Does the jurisdiction have the legal authority to implement the action? Economic: Is the action cost -beneficial? Is there funding available? Will the action contribute to the local economy? Environmental: Will there be negative environmental consequences from the action? Does it comply with environmental regulations? Is it consistent with community environmental goals? Other criteria used to recommend what actions might be more important, more effective, or more likely to be implemented than others included: Does the action protect lives? Does the action address hazards or areas with the highest risk? Does the action protect critical facilities, infrastructure or community assets? Does the action meet multiple objectives (Multiple Objective Management)? Grand County, Colorado 4.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 The STAPLE/E method was also used during the 2008 plan development, so several HMPC members were familiar with the criteria during the 2013 update process. Other potential mitigation actions were determined through interviews with public and private sector experts, summarized in the 2008 plan, supported by input from community residents and independent research by the planning team. Once collected, mitigation actions were evaluated using the STAPLEE methodology. At its third meeting in 2008, the HMPC used STAPLEE to determine which of the identified actions were most likely to be implemented and effective. Each member used STAPLEE to identify his or her top four mitigation actions and then voted for these actions by sticking a colored dot on the index card on which the action was written. The number of dots next to each action was totaled as an indication of relative priority. The results of the STAPLEE evaluation process produced prioritized mitigation actions for implementation within the planning area. New mitigation actions were developed for wildfire, winter storms, hazmat, landslide/rockslide, and disease outbreak. The actions from the 2008 plan were kept in the 2013 plan update but reorganized according to the revised goals. This process of identification and analysis of mitigation alternatives allowed the HMPC to come to consensus and to prioritize recommended mitigation actions. Emphasis was placed on the importance of a benefit -cost analysis in determining project priority; however, this was not a quantitative analysis. The Disaster Mitigation Act regulations state that benefit -cost review is the primary method by which mitigation projects should be prioritized. Recognizing the federal regulatory requirement to prioritize by benefit -cost, and the need for any publicly funded project to be cost-effective, the HMPC decided to pursue implementation according to when and where damage occurs, available funding, political will, jurisdictional priority, and priorities identified in the Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Cost-effectiveness will be considered in additional detail when seeking FEMA mitigation grant funding for eligible projects identified in this plan. Following the third HMPC meeting in both 2008 and 2013 the representative from each participating jurisdiction coordinated a meeting with his or her jurisdictional planning team to discuss mitigation actions. Using the STAPLEE criteria, the jurisdictional planning teams chose from the mitigation actions those that they wanted to implement in their jurisdiction. They also updated actions from the 2008 plan and identified new actions specific to the risks in their jurisdiction. Individual team members were assigned to complete implementation worksheets for each identified action. The public was also given the opportunity to suggest and prioritize typical mitigation actions through a survey hosted on surveymonkey.com. The results of the survey were provided during the draft planning stage so that public input could be considered before the plan was finalized. Survey results indicated that the public's priority of mitigation efforts were in alignment with the priority actions identified by HMPC (see Appendix C for survey results). 4.4 Mitigation Action Plan 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent Grand County, Colorado 4.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefits review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. This section outlines the development of the updated mitigation action plan. The action plan consists of the specific projects, or actions, designed to meet the plan's goals. Over time the implementation of these projects will be tracked as a measure of demonstrated progress on meeting the plan's goals. 4.4.1 Progress on Previous Mitigation Actions During the 2013 update process the HMPC reviewed and evaluated the 2008 mitigation strategy to determine the status of the actions. The purpose of this was to measure progress by determining which actions were completed, and to revisit the remaining items to determine if they should be carried forward or removed from the plan. The 2008 mitigation strategy contained 50 separate mitigation actions. Of these actions, six have been deleted. The actions that have been deleted and the reasons why are shown in Table 4.1. In general, the review shows that much progress has been made since the original plan was adopted in 2008. Implementation of the actions has resulted in greater community awareness of Grand County's vulnerability to natural hazards and reduced vulnerability for hazards such as wildfire and mountain pine beetle. Several of these actions have increased the mitigation and response capabilities of the County, and thus will help save lives in future incidents. Table 4.2 lists over 40 actions from the 2008 plan that have been implemented or are ongoing and being carried forward, 4 deferred actions, and 28 new mitigation actions. One landslide action in Table 4.2 was merged with another landslide action. More detailed descriptions of those actions follow Table 4.2. Past mitigation success stories include: Mitigation work by the YMCA prevented damage to buildings during the YMCA fire. Grand FPD received funding from BLM to form a Grand County Wildfire Council. Winter Park Highlands HOA, Grand FPD, and CSFS worked together on getting Winter Park Highlands designated as a FireWise community. Winter Park Highlands HOA also added a fire pond, named Bielenberg Pond, at Elk Park. The HOA also implemented fuels reduction projects, created fire breaks on properties, and added reflective, fireproof addressing. Pole Creek Meadows HOA also engaged in public outreach by issuing a forestry newsletter with details on the FireWise program, removal of blown down and dead trees, slash pile burning, and clear cutting. Many mitigation actions have seen much progress and are close to completion. The status of the actions being carried forward from the 2008 plan is included in the more detailed action descriptions that follow Table 4.2 or in the jurisdictional annexes. During the update and revision to the mitigation strategy the priority of the 2008 actions were revisited. Revised priorities are reflected in Table 4.2. Grand County, Colorado 4.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 4.1. Deleted Mitigation Actions from 2008 Plan Jurisdiction Action Description Hazard(s) Status Comments/Progress County, FPDs Develop and implement fuel Wildfire Delete Repeat of Wildfire action 3.2 reduction projects County Identify and improve bridges within Winter Delete Merged with action 1.1 under the planning area that are Storm Wildfire adequate for emergency response. County Establish special planning districts Landslide/ Delete Deleted due to lack of for landslide hazard areas Rockfall widespread landslide areas within the County expect where the Granby Landfill is located, and that is undevelopable anyway. County Consider a local ordinance that Disease Delete Not all diseases can be tested requires appropriate health testing Outbreak for, and the financial cost -benefit of foreign workers. of the action makes it infeasible. County Stockpile vaccines. Currently no Disease Delete Disease specific. adequate refrigerated facility exists Outbreak to handle the County's needs 4.4.2 Continued Compliance with NFIP Given the importance of the NFIP in mitigating flood losses, an emphasis will be placed on continued compliance with the NFIP by all NFIP participating jurisdictions including Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, and Winter Park. As NFIP participants, these communities have and will continue to make every effort to remain in good standing with NFIP. This includes continuing to comply with the NFIP's standards for updating and adopting floodplain maps and maintaining and updating the floodplain zoning ordinance. Other details related to NFIP participation are discussed in the community capabilities section of each jurisdictional annex and the flood vulnerability discussion in Section 3.3. The County has considered the costs and benefits of participation in the NFIP over the years. During the plan update the County maintained that NFIP participation was not a priority out of concern that flood insurance requirements may place a financial burden on some residents. The County has been proactive in its land use and development policies that have limited placement of structures in flood prone areas. 4.4.3 Updated Mitigation Action Plan The new and continuing mitigation actions developed by the HMPC are summarized in Table 4.2. For each identified project a worksheet designed to capture additional details was filled out by the HMPC member or organization taking the lead on project implementation. The worksheets document background information, ideas for implementation, lead agency, partners, potential funding, cost estimates, benefits, and timeline for each identified action. Action details are presented in the respective jurisdictional annex, or following Table 4.2 for multi - jurisdictional actions. Grand County, Colorado 4.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County and the towns of Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs, Kremmling, and Winter Park have significant regulatory, personnel, technical, and financial resources and capabilities that are described in more detail in their respective jurisdictional annexes. The communities have been very proactive about mitigating risk to natural hazards when the need is identified and guiding new development away from hazard areas. Table 4.2 lists several actions related to identifying and mapping hazard areas to keep existing and future development safe. Several of the special districts have also been very proactive about mitigating risk to natural hazards, especially wildfire. As a result, there are few structural mitigation projects that need to be addressed in these jurisdictions. The mitigation strategy instead focuses on improving communication and coordination within the County and among its jurisdictions to improve efficiency and effectiveness of existing mitigation activities. Many actions are also aimed at additional proactive planning efforts and integrating existing plans to further enhance local capabilities. The County's highest priority hazards in the mitigation strategy are wildfire, winter storm, landslide/rockfall, hazmat, and disease outbreak. The County and jurisdictions continue to contribute their own resources to education, planning, land use and building regulations, defensible space, and fuel reduction. However, continued resources are required to implement needed loss reduction measures. Table 4.2 summarizes all of the prioritized mitigation actions and indicates which jurisdictions plan to implement them; it also provides information on the hazards and plan goals addressed. Many of these mitigation actions are intended to reduce impacts to existing development. Those that protect future development from hazards, as required per the DMA 2000 regulations, are indicated by an asterisk `*' in the action title. These actions include those that promote wise development and hazard avoidance, such as code, mapping and zoning improvements. The mitigation action implementation worksheets for multi jurisdictional actions follow the matrix. The implementation worksheets for the jurisdictions are included in each jurisdiction's annex to the plan. Grand County, Colorado 4.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 4.2. Mitigation Action Matrix Grand County, Colorado 4.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazards Goals Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Addressed Addressed Status and Comments Multi -Jurisdictional 1 Develop and implement fuel- High USFS, CDOT, All Wildfire 1, 2, 3 Ongoing —Winter Park has mill levy for reduction projects. Jurisdictions funding natural resources projects. CFSF efforts; Actions incorporated into CWPPs 2 Adopt the proposed countywide High County Planning, Wildfire 1, 2, 3 Partially complete - Ongoing in wildfire regulations.* participating subdivision regulations; jurisdictions 2008 burn ban ordinance adopted in County and municipalities 3 Conduct a survey in selected High LEPC Hazmat Hazmat 1, 2, 4 Ongoing - some information included in business parks to identify use, committee tier III reports storage, and transportation of hazardous materials. 4 Conduct commodity flow studies High OEM; LEPC Hazmat 1 Completed for roads and rail in January of main highways and railroads 2011 throughout the County. 5 Plan and execute hazmat High OEM; LEPC Hazmat 1 Ongoing - 3 completed since 2008 or exercises, including private about 1 per year held stakeholders identified in the surveys from the 2008 HMP. 6 Create a countywide hazmat High LEPC Hazmat 1 Ongoing, in progress through LEPC response plan. Hazmat committee 7 Conduct hazmat training to bring High LEPC Hazmat 1 Ongoing, in progress all responders to awareness (at Long-term plan is to include road & bridge minimum) level. staff Maintenance of training an ongoing need. More than 50% of first responders are now at Operations level. 8 Provide community awareness High LEPC Hazmat 1 Deferred - Long-term (5 yr) goal. education classes, seminars, Countywide Tier II public education advertising, brochures, etc. performed at four locations in February specifically for hazmat 2012. 9 Rockfall mitigation along Highway High CDOT, County Road Rockfall 1 New in 2013 40 in Byers Canyon, mile marker and Bridge 200 Grand County, Colorado 4.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazards Goals Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Addressed Addressed Status and Comments 10 Implement warning and alert High OEM/SO/CDOT Multi -Hazard 1 Complete - RR rockfall warning systems systems with specific coverage of in Byers Canyon monitored by Union the hazard areas. Pacific and Omaha. CDOT Berthoud Pass avalanche warnings and closures. CDOT COTRIP.org, mobile app and electronic signage; CAIC avalanche forecasts. 11 Adoption of International Fire Medium County Planning and Wildfire 1,2 County has convened a working Code.* FPDs committee for consideration of adopting International Fire Code. Working committee has identified negative impacts to residential structures and commercial operations in the County. Working committee has sent recommendations to Fire Chiefs Association for further consideration before meeting with commissioners. 12 Complete defensible space Medium FPDs, CSFS, USFS, Wildfire 1, 2, 3, 4 New in 2013 projects around all built-up areas. County Natural Resources Dept. 13 Identify then certify all privately Medium County Road and Multi -hazard 1 Partially complete; done in Grand Lake owned bridges with load limits to Bridge lead Fire PD. RMNP has ID'd & certified support emergency response. Multi -Jurisdictional bridges in the Park. Work remains to be done in other parts of the County. 14 Update and validate previously Medium LEPC Hazmat Hazmat 1 Ongoing — relates to following action. completed assessments of the committee Commodity flow studies for rail and quantity and frequency for highways were performed in September transported petroleum products in 2010 and January 2011 for action ID #s incorporated areas within the 14 and 15. County. 15 Distribute results of the petroleum Medium LEPC Hazmat Hazmat 1 Completed assessments to all relevant committee stakeholders, particularly fire departments. 16 Coordinate countywide hazmat Medium LEPC Hazmat 1 In progress response resources. 17 Organize local landslide Low Road & Bridge & Landslide 1, 2, 3, 4 Partially complete - More reactionary, committees with regular meetings CDOT CR1 has majority of landslide issues to prioritize needs, make recommendations, etc. Grand County, Colorado 4.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazards Goals Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Addressed Addressed Status and Comments 18 Improve forest and watershed High Denver Water/USFS Wildfire 1,2 New in 2013 conditions in Grand County by Part of the Forests to Faucets program. implementing hazardous fuels treatments and removing hazardous biomass. 19 Wildlife mitigation on Highway 9. Medium County and Wildlife 1 New in 2013 Kremmling Grand County 20 Have County staff certified by the High Sheriff's Office and Wildfire 1,2 Completed for road & bridge staff, National Wildfire Coordinating County Road and Ongoing Group. Bridge Need to bring to attention of Sheriff's Office to expand training availability in county to certify deputies. Many training opportunities exist within the County 21 Prioritize wildfire mitigation in High County Planning Wildfire/ 1,2 Complete — Debris flow risk identified in landslide hazard areas to improve Landslide Upper CO Headwaters secondary impact of landslide Wildfire/Watershed Assessment study following a wildfire. completed in 2013. 22 Verify, and provide as necessary, High County road & bridge, Landslide 1,2 Partially complete - Have identified roads where feasible, dual OEM that can be closed due to hazards; have ingress/egress in landslide hazard put signage on CR5 when Highway 40 areas to support emergency closed; some ROW mitigation done on response and evacuation. Berthoud Pass (CDOT). 23 Create or update as necessary High County Planning Landslide 1,2 Ongoing maps useful to planning and Mapping and GIS based analysis public, including landslide improved in 2013 update including DFIRM inventories, landslide- flood hazards and landslide data; susceptibility maps and landslide Additional landslide data being requested hazard maps.* of CGS. 24 Conduct a planning session with High County Planning Landslide 1,2 Deferred due to other priorities. the CGS, CDOT, and DNR to identify and prioritize landslide mitigation techniques relevant to the planning area. Review high and medium risk landslide hazard areas and evaluate and prioritize for physical mitigation systems. Grand County, Colorado 4.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazards Goals Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Addressed Addressed Status and Comments 25 Identify county areas with the High GC Public Health Disease 1 Ongoing most vulnerable segments of the Outbreak All populations could be vulnerable. This population such as the elderly, the will be disease specific. very young, and overseas visitors. 26 Ensure emergency responders High GC Public Health Disease 1 Ongoing and other County staff receives Outbreak Just in Time training & disease specific. appropriate training in disease outbreak issues. 27 Consider formalizing a warning High GC Public Health Disease 1 Ongoing system that includes disease Outbreak Utilize Health Alert Network, Code Red, outbreak. Potential outlets include 211 System newspapers, the County website, radio, television, and reverse 911. 28 Update mutual aid agreements, High GC Public Health Disease 1,4 Ongoing — no new MAA especially with other northwest Outbreak region counties. 29 Identify priority groups among first High GC Public Health Disease 1 New in 2013. responders and their families for Outbreak emergency prophylaxis so they can continue to perform their duties in the event of a disease outbreak. 30 Enhance awareness and High GC Public Health Disease 1 Ongoing preparedness in the County Outbreak Disease specific through a concerted effort. Adapt existing educational and preparedness materials from various sources to Grand County's needs. 31 Improve mapping in the hazard High County Planning Multi -Hazard 1,2 Ongoing. Mapping and GIS based areas and incorporate results into analysis improved in 2013 update GIS. including DFIRM flood hazards and landslide data; critical facilities identified within County GIS data sets. 32 Fix addressing countywide. High Grand County GIS Multi -Hazard 1, 2, 3 New in 2013 33 Evacuation plans for public and High OEM and Road and Multi -Hazard 1 New in 2013 privately maintained public access Bridge roads. Grand County, Colorado 4.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazards Goals Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Addressed Addressed Status and Comments 34 Develop, implement, and promote Medium County Planning Wildfire 1,2 Completed — regulations require mitigation subdivision wildfire protection plan with proposed development; protocols.* 2008 burn ban ordinance adopted — county & municipalities, 35 Ensure an adequate county work Medium GC Public Health Disease 1,3 Ongoing force is available in the event of a Outbreak disease outbreak. 36 Assign to one County official the Medium GC Public Health Disease 1,4 Ongoing duty of monitoring the availability Outbreak ESF 8 Lead; Director of Grand County of funds from all sources for the Public Health purpose of planning, prevention, and purchasing needed supplies or equipment. 37 Implement code changes so that Medium County Planning Multi -Hazard 1, 2, 3 Completed - Required in subdivision new developments have dual requirements, depending on size (4 or ingress/egress to support more lots) emergency response and evacuation.* 38 Establish Storm Ready programs, Medium OEM, Road & bridge Multi -Hazard 1,2 Process begun to NWS certification, adapted for winter storms, within relates to outreach programs, shelters the County. 39 Implement "overlay zoning" Medium County Planning Multi -Hazard 11,2 Completed. This is included in subdivision provisions to minimize and subdivision exemption regulations. development in high risk areas.* 40 Expand use of risk assessment to Medium County Planning Multi -Hazard 1,2 Completed. Regulations contain guide future land use and policy requirements that require risk areas to be information.* identified during any land use process. High risk areas are required to be open space or easement areas. 41 Review and implement or update Medium County Planning Multi -Hazard 1,2 Ongoing. The Building code is updated as necessary building and grading every few years. The County does not codes in the hazard areas.* have a grading code, nor is there political will to create grading regulations as of 2013. 42 Review and implement or update Medium County Planning Multi -Hazard 1,2 Ongoing. Done as necessary. as necessary land use regulations.* Grand County, Colorado 4.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazards Goals Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Addressed Addressed Status and Comments 43 Develop public awareness Medium County Planning Multi -Hazard 1 Deferred due to other priorities. Priority programs to notify stakeholders in changed from high to medium in 2013 hazard areas of policies and update. regulations in the areas. 44 Determine who receives priority Low GC Public Health Disease 1 Ongoing vaccinations in Grand County. Outbreak Dependent on disease and vulnerable populations affected 45 Strengthen and formalize Low County Planning Multi -Hazard 1, 2, 3 The County has only adopted 1041 oversight and enforcement for regulations for water & sewer. This action compliance to land use standards was modified in 2013 to include action to (H.B. 1041).* evaluate adoption of regulations related to areas of state interest that relate to hazards. 46 Incorporate GIS layer for land- Low County Multi -Hazard 1, 2, 3 Partially complete - Responders have ownership parcels into emergency mobile GIS capabilities; County GIS can response procedures. provide on request, information also available online Sidwell GIS enhancements in works 47 Expand radio coverage within the Low OEM Multi -Hazard 1 Partially complete - Will have NOAA County to better support the all- weather coverage complete this summer hazard warning/alert system (NOAA weather alert system). 48 Implement, if necessary, and Low OEM Multi -Hazard 1 Ongoing, responders know locations for publicize emergency shelters for winter storms; coordination and outreach use immediately following a to public done with Red Cross through hazard event. Code Red, reverse 911, website as needed. 49 Public information/outreach to Low OEM Multi -Hazard 1 New in 2013 include designated locations where the public can find information during an emergency event. 50 Expand airport capacity for air Low OEM Wildfire 2 New in 2013 assets in case of wildfire. Town of Fraser 1 Fraser/St. Louis Creek bank High Town of Fraser Flood 1,2 Ongoing stabilization to keep waters within banks during high water events. Grand County, Colorado 4.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazards Goals Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Addressed Addressed Status and Comments 2 Forest mitigation. Rendezvous High Private Wildfire, 1,2 Ongoing and Grand Park have completed mountain extensive hazard tree removal. pine beetle, windstorm Town of Granby 1 Water Supply Protection for High Town of Granby Wildfire, 1,2 New in 2013 Fraser River and Val Moritz Wells. hazmat Town of Grand Lake 1 Grand Lake FPD CWPP High Grand Lake FPD, Wildfire 1,2 New in 2013 Implementation Support and Town of Grand Lake Outreach. Town of Hot Sulphur Springs 1 Develop and implement fuel High Grand County Wildfire 1,2 Associated actions have been reduction projects. Wildfire Council, incorporated in the CWPPs, HOAs are Town of Hot Sulphur applying for grants. Springs 2 Repair Town fire hydrants. Medium/ Dana Kepner Wildfire 1,2 New in 2013 High Company 3 Sewer collection system High Anderson Services Disease 1,2 New in 2013 maintenance outbreak, flooding 4 Street repairs. High Acord Asphalt, Inc. Multi -hazard 1,2 New in 2013 Town of Kremmling 1 Wildlife mitigation on Highway 9 Medium County and Wildlife 1 New in 2013 Kremmling 2 Improve safety at pedestrian High County and Multi -hazard, 1 New in 2013 crosswalks in Kremmling. Kremmling winter weather 3 Pave roads and install drainage Medium Kremmling Flood 2 New in 2013 pans to protect houses from flooding Town of Winter Park 1 Develop and implement fuel High Grand County Wildfire 1,2 Associated actions have been reduction projects. Wildfire Council, incorporated in the CWPPs, HOAs are Town of Winter Park applying for grants. Fire Protection Districts Grand County, Colorado 4.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazards Goals Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Addressed Addressed Status and Comments 1 Develop and implement a High FPD's, local Wildfire 1,2 Ongoing — wildfire safety week, websites, voluntary wildfire protection municipalities lots of media options for outreach are program for residents within utilized. wildfire/urban interface. 2 Identify high-risk critical structures High FPD's, OEM Wildfire 1, 2, 3 Completed in CWPPS within the wildland/urban interchange and develop fire protection strategies appropriate for those structures. 3 Acquire 4 -wheel drive pumper Medium FPD's & GC Fire Wildfire 1,2 Partially complete. trucks. Chief Association Approx 19 4x4 engines of various types exist in the FPDs. Grand Lake Fire has 6 East Grand Fire has 5 Grand Fire has 4 HSSP Fire has 1 Kremmling Fire has 3 Some resources still needed Mutual and automatic aid agreements in place, including USFS & RMNP Northern Water 1 Colorado -Big Thompson High Northern Water Multi -Hazard 2 New in 2013. Applied for grant funding Headwaters Partnership for through the Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant watershed protection Program (SB 13-269) 2 Upper Colorado and Colorado -Big High Northern Water Multi -Hazard 2 New in 2013. Thompson Watershed Analyses 3 Colorado -Big Thompson High Northern Water Multi -Hazard 2 New in 2013. Headwaters Partnership Post - Wildfire Planning 4 Willow Creek Timber Sale High Northern Water Multi -Hazard 2 New in 2013. 5 Colorado Department of Natural High Northern Water Multi -Hazard 2 New in 2013. Resources Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant 6 Supply Creek Watershed Fuels High Northern Water Multi -Hazard 2 New in 2013. Reduction Project Denver Water 1 Update drought management High Denver Water Drought 3 New in 2013. plan Grand County, Colorado 4.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Action ID Action Priority Lead Agency/Dept. Hazards Addressed Goals Addressed Status and Comments 2 Develop IGA with Grand County Low Denver Water Multi -Hazard 1 New in 2013. 3 Update Annual Operating Plan for Property Owners Low Denver Water Drought 2 New in 2013. 4 Public Outreach in Grand County Low Denver Water Dam failure, drought 1 New in 2013. 5 GIS Mapping Coordination Project Low Denver Water Dam failure 1 New in 2013. 'Action addresses reducing losses to future development Grand County, Colorado 4.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -1 Develop and Implement Fuel Reduction Projects Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Fuel reduction projects are needed to reduce the wildfire vulnerability in wildland Issue & Background urban interface areas. Specific actions have been incorporated in the countywide and local CWPPs. Combine and coordinate CWPPs into one working document? Lead Agency and Title Grand County Wildfire Council, Schelly Olson of Lead Person Partners: Fire Districts, Department of Natural Resources, CSFS, USFS, CDOT, Priority: High Cost Estimate: Variable, create a county -level position to coordinate all mitigation, education, and funding efforts Benefits: Protect life, property, wildlife, watersheds, and infrastructure from wildfire, create (Losses Avoided) and maintain healthy forests, create a Fire -Adapted Community Potential Funding: Winter Park levy (area -specific to Winter Park), grants, federal funding Timeline: Ongoing Status: Winter Park has a mill levy for funding natural resources projects that includes fuels reduction/forest health initiatives. Associated actions have been incorporated in the CWPPs, HOAs are applying for grants, see success stories from Pole Creek Meadows, Homestead Hills, and Winter Park Highlands Grand County, Colorado 4.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -2 Adopt Wildfire Regulations Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Adopt and implement the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code and certain Issue & Background special building construction regulations regarding fire hazard severity reduction. See Wildfire Mitigation Law in the Mountain States of the American West: A Comparative Assessment by Lloyd Burton, PhD Lead Agency and Title Grand County Wildfire Council, Schelly Olson? of Lead Person Partners: Fire Districts, Department of Natural Resources, Planning Dept., CSFS Priority: High Cost Estimate: Variable, create a county -level position to coordinate all mitigation, education, and funding efforts Benefits: Protect life, property, wildlife, watersheds, and infrastructure from wildfire, (Losses Avoided) increase property values, create a Fire -Adapted Community Potential Funding: Staff time, grants, federal funding (BLM, FEMA) Timeline: 18 months Status: Partially complete. Ongoing in subdivision regulations. 2008 burn ban ordinance adopted in County and municipalities. Grand County, Colorado 4.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -3 Transported Hazardous Materials Survey Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Hazardous Materials Project Description, Conduct a survey in selected business parks to identify use, storage, and Issue & Background transportation of hazardous materials. Knowledge of hazardous materials types and quantities is needed so that responders can manage an incident appropriately and communicate appropriate warning to the public. Lead Agency and Title LEPC Hazmat Committee, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Fire Districts, CDOT, CSP, GCEMS, GCOEM, Union Pacific, GCR&B Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety, property, and critical facilities from hazardous materials spills, (Losses Avoided) accidents, and improper storage Potential Funding: Unknown Timeline: Indefinite Status: Ongoing. Some information included in Tier III reports. Grand County, Colorado 4.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -4 Commodity Flow Studies Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Hazardous Materials Project Description, Conduct commodity flow studies of main highways and railroads throughout the Issue & Background County. Knowledge of transported hazardous materials types and quantities is needed so that responders can manage an incident appropriately and communicate appropriate warning to the public. Lead Agency and Title LEPC, OEM, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety from hazardous materials spills on railroads and roadways (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: State and federal grants Timeline: Completed in September 2010 and January 2011 Status: Completed for roads and rail Grand County, Colorado 4.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -5 Hazmat Exercises Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Hazardous Materials Project Description, Plan and execute hazmat exercises, including private stakeholders identified in Issue & Background the surveys from the 2008 HMP Lead Agency and Title LEPC, OEM, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Priority: High Private stakeholders identified in the surveys from the 2008 HMP Cost Estimate: Staff time; resources if using full-scale exercise Benefits: Protect life safety, property, and critical facilities from hazardous materials spills, (Losses Avoided) accidents, and improper storage; improve emergency response and recovery capabilities Potential Funding: Staff time; Timeline: Ongoing on annual basis Status: Ongoing. Three exercises completed since 2008, or roughly one exercise per year Grand County, Colorado 4.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -6 Countywide Hazmat Plan Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Hazardous Materials Project Description, Creating and maintaining a current hazmat plan is essential for effective response Issue & Background and mitigation of an incident. Lead Agency and Title LEPC Hazmat Committee, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety, property, and critical facilities from hazmat incidents; identify (Losses Avoided) strengths and gaps in hazmat response and recovery capabilities Potential Funding: County funds Timeline: Ongoing Status: In progress through LEPC Hazmat Committee. Currently developing interagency Mous Grand County, Colorado 4.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -7 Hazmat Training Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Multi -Jurisdictional Hazardous Materials Project Description, Conduct hazmat training to bring all responders to awareness level (at minimum). Issue & Background Additional training is needed to ensure the safety of first responders. Lead Agency and Title LEPC Hazmat Committee, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Fire protection districts, OEM, County Road and Bridge Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time, approximately $175.00 per student Benefits: Protect life safety, property, and critical facilities from hazardous materials spills; (Losses Avoided) improve hazmat emergency response and recovery capabilities Potential Funding: County or state funds Timeline: Ongoing Status: In progress. Long-term plan is to include County Road and Bridge staff. Maintenance of training is an ongoing need. Approximately 50% of first responders are currently trained to Operations level. Grand County, Colorado 4.24 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -8 Hazmat Community Education Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Hazardous Materials Project Description, Provide community awareness education classes, seminars, advertising, Issue & Background brochures, etc. for hazmat issues in the County. Hazardous materials are transported on the major roadways and railways in Grand County. Public information and education can help increase citizen awareness of hazmat issues, including safety, emergency/continuity plans for businesses and homes, and proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Lead Agency and Title LEPC Hazmat Committee, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Priority: High Cost Estimate: County or state funds Benefits: Protect life safety and property; improve citizen knowledge of prevention, (Losses Avoided) mitigation, response, and recovery regarding hazmat incidents. Potential Funding: SARA Title III; COEM Timeline: Five years Status: Deferred. Long-term (5 year) goal Grand County, Colorado 4.25 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -9 Highway 40 Rockfall Mitigation Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Rockfall Project Description, Implement rockfall mitigation along Highway 40 in Byers Canyon at mile marker Issue & Background 200. There have been continuous rockfall issues along Highway 40 between mile markers 196 and 202. Vehicles traveling through this segment of the Highway have been damaged by rockfall. The last mitigation effort was 6 to 8 years ago. Nearly every rain event causes rockfall issues. Lead Agency and Title CDOT of Lead Person Partners: Grand County Road and Bridge (with BOCC approval) Priority: High Cost Estimate: Est. $500,000 Benefits: Protect life safety and property, prevent, or reduce road closures that can impact (Losses Avoided) local tourism -based economy or delay commuters and emergency response. Secure transportation and safe travel year-round. Potential Funding: CDOT, F.A.S.T.E.R. (Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery) Timeline: Within a year Status: New in 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.26 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -10 Warning Alert System Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Implement warning and alert systems with specific coverage of the hazard areas. Issue & Background Natural hazards can occur along highways and railroads in the County, namely rockfall and avalanches. Warning and alert systems can help protect travelers and alert emergency responders. Coordinate with partners on existing programs and systems in place. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Sheriff's Office, OEM, CDOT, Deputy OEM Chief Nowell Curran of Lead Person Partners: Union Pacific, Omaha railroads Priority: High Cost Estimate: Project dependent Benefits: Protect life safety of citizens and visitors (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: DOT; railroads Timeline: Complete Status: Complete. Railroad rockfall warning systems in Byers Canyon are monitored by Union Pacific and Omaha. CDOT installed avalanche warnings and closure systems along Berthoud Pass. CAIC issues avalanche forecasts. CDOT's COTRIP.org mobile app and electronic signage. Grand County, Colorado 4.27 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -11 Adoption of International Fire Code Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, The International Fire Code (IFC) addresses fire prevention measures in Issue & Background completed and occupied buildings. Combined with the International Building Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Improving life safety, enhancing emergency preparedness, preventing or (Losses Avoided) reducing fire damage to structures Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing since 2008 Status: County has convened a working committee for consideration of adopting International Fire Code. Working committee is developing recommendations and local amendments to Fire Chiefs Association for further consideration before meeting with commissioners. Grand County, Colorado 4.28 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Code, which focuses on construction and design, the IFC can help improve life safety and mitigate fire damage to buildings. The IFC has several provisions for improving fire departments' ability to respond to a building fire and keep their personnel safe, such as having shut-off mechanisms for utilities clearly marked, prohibiting traffic calming devices on fire apparatus access roads, inspecting and testing emergency lighting, etc. This project could be implemented by convening a working committee to understand implications of adopting International Fire Code. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning and fire protection districts, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD of Lead Person #4 Partners: Grand County OEM, elected leadership of participating jurisdictions Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Improving life safety, enhancing emergency preparedness, preventing or (Losses Avoided) reducing fire damage to structures Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing since 2008 Status: County has convened a working committee for consideration of adopting International Fire Code. Working committee is developing recommendations and local amendments to Fire Chiefs Association for further consideration before meeting with commissioners. Grand County, Colorado 4.28 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -12 Complete Defensible Space Projects Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Multi -Jurisdictional Wildfire Project Description, Complete defensible space projects around all built-up areas. Defensible space Issue & Background can help mitigation property losses to existing structures from wildfire. Implement through County and local CWPPs. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Wildfire Council, Schelly Olson with GFPD. Dependent on of Lead Person individual jurisdictions. Partners: Grand County Natural Resources Department, fire protection districts, CSFS, USFS, Grand County OEM Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Variable, create a county -level position to coordinate all mitigation, education, and funding efforts Benefits: Protect life, property, wildlife, watersheds, and infrastructure from wildfire, (Losses Avoided) increase property values, create a Fire -Adapted Community Mitigation projects can reduce damage from wildfires and potentially decrease the cost of response and recovery. Potential Funding: CSFS; State Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant, BLM, FEMA Timeline: Ongoing; see local CWPP for specifics Status: New in 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.29 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -13 Bridge Load Limits Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Identify then certify all privately owned bridges with load limits to support Issue & Background emergency response. Some private bridges are not adequate to support emergency response vehicles. Knowing the location of these bridges in advance of an incident would allow responders to identify potential alternate routes or provide recommendations for bridge owners for enhancements. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Road and Bridge of Lead Person Partners: County GIS Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Improved emergency response; improved ability to protect life safety of first (Losses Avoided) responders and public Potential Funding: County general funds/ private funding Timeline: Ongoing Status: Partially complete, done in Grand Lake FPD. Rocky Mountain National Park has identified and certified bridges in the Park. Work remains to be done in other parts of the County. Grand County, Colorado 4.30 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -14 Transported Petroleum Products Assessment Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Hazardous Materials Project Description, Update and validate previously completed assessments of the quantity and Issue & Background frequency for transported petroleum products in incorporated areas within the County. Lead Agency and Title LEPC Hazmat Committee, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Benefits: Protect life safety, property, and critical facilities from hazardous materials spills (Losses Avoided) and accidents Potential Funding: State, federal grants Timeline: 2014 Status: Ongoing. Related to next action Grand County, Colorado 4.31 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -15 Distribute Petroleum Assessment Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Hazardous Materials Project Description, Distribute results of the petroleum assessments to all relevant stakeholders, Issue & Background particularly fire departments Lead Agency and Title LEPC Hazmat Committee, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life and property from hazmat incidents, keep fire departments informed (Losses Avoided) to improve response to hazmat incidents Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Completed. Status: Done. Commodity flow study results sent to each fire department. Grand County, Colorado 4.32 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -16 Coordinate Hazmat Response Resources Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Addressed Hazardous Materials Project Description, Coordinate countywide hazmat response resources Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title LEPC Hazmat Committee, Lt. Adam Gosey with EGFPD #4 of Lead Person Partners: Fire protection districts, OEM, CSP Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protection of life and property, improved emergency response and recovery (Losses Avoided) capabilities related to hazmat Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: In progress Grand County, Colorado 4.33 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -17 Organize Landslide Committee Meetings Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Multi -Jurisdictional Landslide Project Description, Organize local landslide committees with regular meetings to prioritize needs, Issue & Background make recommendations, etc. Lead Agency and Title County Road and Bridge, Ken Haynes, Superintendent of Lead Person Partners: CDOT, affected jurisdictions Priority: Low Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life and property, improve landslide emergency response and recovery (Losses Avoided) capabilities, identify potential mitigation projects during meetings Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing; as issues arise Status: Partially complete. Need to make committee focus on proactively addressing problem areas versus responding to them. CR1 has majority of landslide issues Grand County, Colorado 4.34 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -18 Forests to Faucets Program Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Multi -Jurisdictional Wildfire Project Description, Improve forest and watershed conditions in Grand County by implementing Issue & Background hazardous fuels treatments and removing hazardous biomass. A severe wildfire can have serious consequences on watershed health. This can include water quality impacts and increased erosion and debris that can clog and foul water collection and distribution infrastructure. Use the recently completed Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment 2013 Report to identify priority watersheds and prioritize treatment areas. Forest treatments, such as thinning, clearing, and creating fuel breaks, influence how quickly and intensely a wildfire can burn. Treatments can slow the spread of a fire, allowing firefighters to stop a fire before it reaches homes, power lines or valuable watersheds. Smaller, less severe fires also reduce the amount of soil erosion and other impacts to the watershed. The projected outcome of this project is 943 acres of hazardous fuels treatments with 54,795 tons of biomass removed or dispersed in the Colorado River headwaters. Lead Agency and Title Denver Water of Lead Person Partners: USFS, fire protection districts, OEM, participating jurisdictions Priority: High Cost Estimate: Benefits: Protect life safety, property, and critical facilities by removing hazardous biomass (Losses Avoided) that exacerbates wildfires; improve watershed conditions Potential Funding: Forests to Faucets program; State Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program (SB 13-269) Timeline: 5 years Status: New in 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.35 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Multi -Jurisdictional -19 Wildlife Mitigation on Highway 9 Jurisdiction: County and Town of Kremmling Hazard Addressed Wildlife Project Description, Wildlife -vehicle collisions are increasingly common along Highway 9 between Issue & Background Green Mountain Reservoir and the Colorado River. 600 accidents have occurred in the past 20 years, often causing injuries or fatalities to humans and animals. The Highway 9 Safety Project was initiated in 2011 and will include wildlife crossings and fencing, the addition of 8 -ft shoulders, and re -alignment to improve site distances. Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM and Town of Kremmling - Town manager of Lead Person Partners: Citizens for a Safe Highway 9, CDOT Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP) Program Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: $9.2 million to qualify for RAMP consideration for funding. Blue Valley Ranch has offered $4 million, leaving $4.2 million to be raised Benefits: Protect life safety of people and animals in Grand County (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Donations Timeline: Funding deadline ($4.2 million) of July 1, 2013 Status: New in 2013 Grand County, Colorado 4.36 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 5PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE 44 CFR Requirement 201.6(c)(4): The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five- year cycle. This chapter provides an overview of the overall strategy for plan implementation and maintenance and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring, updating, and evaluating the plan. The chapter also discusses incorporating the plan into existing planning mechanisms and how to address continued public involvement. Section 2.0 Planning Process includes information on the implementation and maintenance process since the 2008 plan was adopted. This section includes information on the onging implementation and maintenance process and reflects adjustments made in the 2013 update. 5.1 Implementation Implementation and maintenance are critical to the mitigation plan's overall success. While this plan makes many important recommendations, the jurisdictions will need to decide which action(s) to undertake first. Two factors will help with making that decision: the priority assigned the actions in the planning process and funding availability. Low or no -cost actions most easily demonstrate progress toward successful plan implementation. An important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying principles into other plans and mechanisms, such as comprehensive planning, capital improvement budgeting, economic development goals and incentives, and other regional plans. Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated in the day-to-day functions and priorities of government and in land use and development planning. This integration can be accomplished through identifying multi -objective, win-win programs and projects and through the routine actions of monitoring agendas, attending meetings, sending memos, and promoting safe, sustainable communities. Simultaneous to these efforts, it is important to maintain a constant monitoring of funding opportunities that can be leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended actions. This will include creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or participation requirements. When funding does become available, the participating jurisdictions will be in a position to capitalize on the opportunity. Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre- and post -disaster funds, special district budgeted funds, state and federal earmarked funds, and other grant programs, including those that can serve or support multi - objective applications. Additional mitigation strategies include consistent and ongoing enforcement of existing rules and regulations and vigilant review of countywide programs for opportunities for better coordination. Grand County, Colorado 5.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 5.2 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan 5.2.1 Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee in Monitoring and Maintenance With adoption of this plan, the HMPC will be tasked with plan monitoring, evaluation, and maintenance. The participating jurisdictions and agencies, led by the County Emergency Manager within the Grand County Office of Emergency Management or other designated organization elements, plan to conduct the following meetings and activities: • Meet annually or after a disaster event to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the plan. The annual review meeting will take place in the month of June each year. HMPC members also serve on various public safety planning committees and have regular meetings that are hazard specific. The County Emergency Manager will bring MHMP topics into these meetings as an ongoing way to keep mitigation the discussion and monitor implementation. These meetings may include, as an example, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPQ which meets 4 times annually; Additionally the HMPC agrees to: • Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues; • Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants; • Pursue the implementation of high priority, low- or no -cost recommended actions; • Maintain vigilant monitoring of multi -objective, cost -share, and other funding opportunities to help the community implement the plan's recommended actions for which no current funding exists; • Monitor and assist in implementation and update of this plan; • Keep the concept of mitigation in the forefront of community decision making by identifying plan recommendations when other community goals, plans, and activities overlap, influence, or directly affect increased community vulnerability to disasters; • Report on plan progress and recommended changes to the Grand County Board of County Commissioners and governing bodies of participating jurisdictions; and • Inform and solicit input from the public. The HMPC is an advisory body and will not have any powers over county, city, town, or district staff. Its primary duty is to see the plan successfully carried out and to report to the community governing boards and the public on the status of plan implementation and mitigation opportunities. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, hearing stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and posting relevant information on the County website. Grand County, Colorado 5.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 5.2.2 Plan Maintenance Schedule The HMPC agrees to meet annually or after a hazard event to monitor progress and update the mitigation strategy. The Grand County emergency manager is responsible for initiating these plan reviews. In conjunction with the other participating jurisdictions, a five-year written update of the plan will be submitted to the Colorado Office of Emergency Management and FEMA Region VIII, This plan will be updated, approved and adopted within a five-year cycle as per Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i) of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 unless disaster or other circumstances (e.g., changing regulations) require a change to this schedule. Efforts to begin the next update should begin no later than January 2018. The County will inquire with COEM and FEMA for funds to assist with the update in 2016 as most applicable grants have multiple years to expend the funds. Funding sources may include the Emergency Management Performance Grants, Pre - Disaster Mitigation, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (if a presidential disaster has been declared), and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant funds. The next plan update is anticipated to be completed and reapproved by COEM and FEMA Region VIII by November 2018. 5.2.3 Plan Maintenance Process Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities identified in the plan. Changes in vulnerability can be identified by noting: • Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions, • Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions, and/or • Increased vulnerability as a result of new development (and/or annexation). Updates to this plan will: • Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation, • Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective, • Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective, • Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked, • Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks, • Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities, • Incorporate growth and development -related changes to inventories, and • Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization. To best evaluate any changes in vulnerability as a result of plan implementation, the participating jurisdictions will follow the following process: • A representative from the responsible office identified in each mitigation action will be responsible for tracking and reporting on an annual basis to the jurisdictional lead on action Grand County, Colorado 5.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 status and provide input on whether the action as implemented meets the defined objectives and is likely to be successful in reducing vulnerabilities. • If the action does not meet identified objectives, the jurisdictional lead will determine what additional measures may be implemented, and an assigned individual will be responsible for defining action scope, implementing the action, monitoring success of the action, and making any required modifications to the plan. As a measure of progress the HMPC will evaluate the overall percentage of actions implemented within each 5 year update cycle. Changes will be made to the plan to accommodate for actions that have failed or are not considered feasible after a review of their consistency with established criteria, timeframe, community priorities, and/or funding resources. Actions that were not ranked high but were identified as potential mitigation activities will be reviewed as well during the monitoring and update of this plan to determine feasibility of future implementation. Updating of the plan will be by written changes and submissions, as the Grand County Office of Emergency Management deems appropriate and necessary, and as approved by the Grand County Board of Commissioners and the governing boards of the other participating jurisdictions. 5.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms 44 CFR Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii):[The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. Where possible, plan participants will use existing plans and/or programs to implement hazard mitigation actions. Based on the capability assessments of the participating jurisdictions, communities in Grand County continue to plan and implement programs to reduce losses to life and property from hazards. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and related planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing actions, where possible, through the following plans: • Grand County Master Plan • Grand County Emergency Operations Plan • Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan • Comprehensive or master plans of participating jurisdictions • Local CWPPs • Ordinances of participating jurisdictions • Capital improvement plans and budgets • Other community plans within the County, such as water conservation plans, stormwater management plans, source water protection plans, and parks and recreation plans • Other plans and policies outlined in the capability assessments in the jurisdictional annexes The County intends to incorporate information from the multi -hazard mitigation plan into the Emergency Operations Plan, LEPC planning rubric, and County Planning and Zoning planning Grand County, Colorado 5.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 mechanisms, and to improve integration with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the multi -hazard mitigation plan. Efforts should be made to monitor the progress of mitigation actions implemented through these other planning mechanisms and, where appropriate, their priority actions should be incorporated into updates of this hazard mitigation plan. 5.4 Continued Public Involvement 44 CFR 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. The update process provides an opportunity to publicize success stories from the plan's implementation and seek additional public comment. A public hearing(s) or survey to receive public comment on the plan will be held during the update period. When the HMPC reconvenes for the update, they will coordinate with all stakeholders participating in the planning process, including those who joined the HMPC after the initial effort, to update and revise the plan. Public notice will be posted and public participation will be invited, at a minimum, through available website postings and press releases to the local media outlets as well as email and social media announcements. Continued public outreach is an aspect of the mitigation strategy Chapter 4 of this plan. Activities related to public involvement during the 2013 update are documented in Section 2 and Appendix B. Grand County, Colorado 5.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX A: UNINCORPORATED GRAND COUNTY Jurisdictional annexes provide specific information unique to each jurisdiction participating in the hazard mitigation plan. For unincorporated Grand County, countywide information related to sections A.1 Community Profile, A.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles, and A.3 Vulnerability Assessment is addressed previously in the main plan. The location of this information is referenced below. The remainder of this annex focuses on the Capability Assessment and Mitigation Strategy unique to the County government. A.1 Community Profile Community profile information and the base map for Grand County are provided in Section 1.5 Planning Area Profile. A.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Countywide hazard identification and profiles information can be found in Section 3.1 Hazard Identification and Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles. A.3 Vulnerability Assessment The vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance and estimates potential losses where data is available. Table A.1 shows the number of structures, land value, and assessed value of improvement of parcels in the Unincorporated County. Land values have been excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table A.1. Unincorporated Grand County—Building Exposure Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Total Improved Property Parcel Parcel Improved Estimated Type Count Count Land Value Value Content Value Total Value Agricultural 18 8 $65,620 $1,885,160 $1,885,160 $3,770,320 Commercial Improved 38 38 $3,256,690 $6,328,570 $6,328,570 $12,657,140 Commercial Vacant 4 0 $299,430 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 1 1 $445,200 $102,250 $102,250 $204,500 Mixed Use 7 7 $754,210 $725,850 $725,850 $1,451,700 Residential Improved 4,406 4,389 $202,955,100 $823,458,230 $411,729,115 $1,235,187,345 Residential Vacant 1,227 65 $61,249,650 $4,929,130 $2,464,565 $7,393,695 Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Property Type Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Tax Exempt 40 18 $622,410 $2,332,050 $2,332,050 $4,664,100 Unknown 434 9 $759,690 $2,118,460 $2,118,460 $4,236,920 Vacant Land 37 7 $3,401,450 $961,020 $0 $961,020 Total 6,212 4,542 $273,809,450 $842,840,720 $427,686,020 $1,270,526,740 Countywide critical facilities and assets are inventoried in Table A.2. Other countywide vulnerability information is covered in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment in the main plan. Table A.2. Grand County—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Facility Type Name Address City Bridges County Road 00 Bridges County Road 1 Bridges County Road 10 Bridges County Road 11 Bridges County Road 2 Bridges County Road 21 Bridges County Road 25 Bridges County Road 3 Bridges County Road 30 Bridges County Road 302 Bridges County Road 32 Bridges County Road 330 Bridges County Road 39 Bridges County Road 4 Bridges County Road 40 Bridges County Road 491 Bridges County Road 57 Bridges County Road 6 Bridges County Road 620 Bridges County Road 627 Bridges County Road 64 Bridges County Road 66 Bridges County Road 73 Bridges County Road 8 Bridges County Road 8022 Bridges County Road 83 Bridges County Road 84 Bridges FDR 348 Bridges Grand Avenue Bridges Jericho Road Bridges Lions Gate Drive Bridges Service Road Bridges SH 125 MI Bridges SH 134 MI Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Facility Type Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Communications Name SH9MI U.S.F.S. Road 106 Us 34 Ml Us 40 MI Wapiti Street West Portal Drive Winter Park Drive YCC Camp Road Acadia Condominiums Colorado Mines Peak Cooper Creek Square Educational Communications Fraser 4 Bar 4 Fraser 4 Bar 4 (Dismantled) Fraser Boost Station Fraser Road & Bridge Granby Ii / Murphy Site Grand County Administration Building Grand Lake / MPEI Site Grand Lake Lodge Grouse Mountain (North) Grouse Mountain (South) Hwy 40 106.3 Fm Radio Tower Hwy 40 Grand County Wireless Indian Peaks Rental Jasper Mountain (North Cottonwood) Kremmling Airport Kremmling Tower Lake Hill Lodge At Sunspot LTTK, Inc. Teddy's Car Wash Mary Jane Moffat Station Mount Bross Mount Chaun Mount Eva Parshall Divide Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall FPD Parshall Divide Microwave Reflector Address 259 County Road 53 554 County Road 834 (Cranmer Avenue) North Of Berthoud Pass 37. 47. 63 Cooper Creek W 350 County Road 5103 1025 Countv Road 5721 308 Byers Avenue 102 County Road 471 15500 Us Hiahwav 34 Linke Ranch Linke Ranch 68 County Road 85 (Elkhorn Drive) 4330 County Road 5721 (Blm Road 2752) 677 Winter Park Drive 32429 Us Hiahwav 40 81699 Us Hiqhwav 40 Atop Summit Of Berthoud Pass C Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Facility Type Name Address Cit Communications Parshall Road & Bridge Communications Power World 61000 Us Highway 40 Communications Radium Boost Station Communications San Toy Mountain East 4905 County Road 1 Communications San Toy Mountain West Communications Sheriff's Office Center 307 Moffat Avenue Communications Sheriff's Office East 307 Moffat Avenue Communications Sheriff's Office North West 307 Moffat Avenue Communications Sheriffs Office Tower 307 Moffat Avenue Communications Sol Vista Peak Communications South Cottonwood Communications South Cottonwood Terminated Communications South Grouse Mountain Communications State Highway Radio Relay Station Communications Table Mountain Dismantled Communications Table Mountain North Communications Table Mountain South Communications Table Mountain Forest Service Communications Town & Country Kremmlin Communications Tri-State Troublesome Sub Station Communications Val Moritz HOA Val Moritz Tract E Communications Williams Fork Reservoir Communications Williams Peak / Blue Ridge Communications Winter Park (Denver Water) 100 Vintage Way Communications Winter Park Ski Area 1 Communications Winter Park Ski Area 2 Communications Wolford Mountain Communications Wolford Mountain Dismantled EMS Station 1 Grand County EMS 81 W Agate Ave Granby EMS Station 2 Grand County EMS 216 Eisenhower Fraser EMS Station 3 Grand County EMS 201 W. Portal Road Grand Lake EMS Station 4 Grand County EMS 1003 Eagle Kremmling Fire Station East Grand Fire Protection District #4 77601 Us Hwy 40 Winter Park Fire Station East Grand Fire Protection District Station 40 County Rd 526 Tabernash Fire Station Grand Fire Protection District Station 60500 Us Hwy 40 Granby Fire Station Grand Lake Fire Department Protection 201 W Portal Rd Grand Lake Fire Station Hot Sulphur Springs - Parshall Fire Prot 513 Aspen St Hot Sulphur Springs Fire Station Kremmling Fire Department 1320 Eagle Ave Kremmlin Government Administration Building 85 Parsenn Road Winter Park Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Facility Type Name Address Cit Government Fraser Town Hall 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser Government Fraser Valley Library 421 Norgren Rd Fraser Government Grand Lake Town Hall 1026 Park Avenue Grand Lake Government Granby Town Hall Zero W Jasper Ave Granby Government Hot Sulphur Town Hall 513 Aspen St Hot Sulphur Springs Government Kremmling Town Hall 200 Eagle Avenue Kremmling Government Winter Park Town Hall 50 Vasquez Rd Winter Park Government Grand County Administration Building 308 Byers Ave Hot Sulphur Springs Government Grand County Courthouse 307 Moffat Ave Hot Sulphur Springs Government Visitors Center 120 N Zerex St Fraser Government Visitors Center 78841 Us Hwy 40 Winter Park Government Grand County Road And Bridge - Granby 467 East Topaz Granby Government Grand County Road And Bridge - Fraser 350 County Road 5103 Fraser Government Grand County Road And Bridge - Parshall 91 County Road 3 Parshall Government Grand County Road And Bridge - Kremmling 1008 Railroad Avenue Kremmling Government Grand County Road And Bridge - Grand Lake 217 Marina Drive Grand Lake Government Grand County Public Health 150 Moffat Hot Sulphur Springs Government Grand County Judicial Building 307 Moffat Avenue Hot Sulphur Springs Hazmat Climax Molybdenum Co. - Henderson Mill 19302 County Rd. 3 Parshall Hospital Kremmling Memorial Hospital 214 South Grand Avenue Kremmling Hospital Middle Park Medical Center 1000 Granby Park Drive Granby Natural Gas Facility Public Service Co Williams Fork Sec 23 T2S R78W Parshall Electrical Facility Mountain Parks Electric 321 West Agate Avenue Granby Telephone Facility Centur Link Building 195 East Jasper Granby Transfer Station Granby Transfer Station 723 Cr 612 Granby Police Station Grand County Sheriff Dept 670 Spring Street Hot Sulphur Springs Police Station Granby Police 0 Jasper Avenue Granby Police Station Fraser/Winter Park Police 79050 Us Highway 40 Winter Park Police Station Kremmling Police Dept 1318 Park Ave Kremmling Pumphouse Booster Pumphouse 2498 Parsenn Road Winter Park Pumphouse Pumphouse Building 300 Canal Way Winter Park Pumphouse Sunspot Water Pump station 3853 Parsenn Road Winter Park School East Grand Middle School 251 West Diamond Granby School Faith In Action Christian School 115 N Spruce St Kremmling School Fraser Valley Elementary School 125 Eastom Fraser Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Facility Type Name Address Cit School Granby Elementary School 202 West Topaz Granby School Grand Lake Elementary School 301 Marina Drive Grand Lake School Indian Peaks Charter School 197 W. Diamond Granby School Middle Park High School 795 North 2Nd Street Granby School West Grand Elementary School 715 Kinsey Avenue Kremmling School West Grand High School 208 12Th Street Kremmling School West Grand Middle School 109 9Th Street Kremmling Waste Water Facility Conrad John J. 63 County Road 820 Tabernash Waste Water Facility Galloway Inc. (GW) 3 Miles South Of Town Kremmling Waste Water Facility Granby Sanitation District 3493 County Road 57 Granby Waste Water Facility Grand County W&S District #1 78841 U.S. Highway 40 Winter Park Waste Water Facility Three Lakes Water & Sanitation District 1111 County Road 48 Grand Lake Water Facility Winter Park Water And Sanitation Treatment 160 Alpen low Way Winter Park Source: HMPC A.4 Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table A.3 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Grand County. Table A.3. Grand County—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (Ordinances, Codes, Plans) Yes/No Comments Comprehensive or Master Plan Yes 2011 Master Plan Zoning Ordinance Yes Subdivision Ordinance Yes Growth Management Ordinance No Floodplain Ordinance Yes Contained within Land Use Regulations Other Special Purpose Ordinance Stormwater, Steep Slope, Wildfire Yes Contained within Land Use Regulations Building Code Yes Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Regulatory Tool Ordinances, Codes, Plans Yes/No Comments Erosion or Sediment Control Program Yes Granby Airport, Kremmling Airport, Granby Landfill, Kremmling Landfill Stormwater Management Program Yes Granby Airport, Kremmling Airport, Granby Landfill, Kremmling Landfill Site Plan Review Requirements Yes Stormwater Permit required on Disturbance over 1 acre per state requirements Capital Improvements Plan Yes Economic Development Plan No Local Emergency Operations Plan Yes Updated in 2012 Other Special Plans No Flood Insurance Study or Other Engineering Study for Streams No County does not participate in NFIP Elevation Certificates (for floodplain development) No Other No Countywide Master Plan, 2011 The Grand County Master Plan serves as the County's policy guidance and directs decisions that affect the physical and socioeconomic development of the County. The plan updates the County's 1998 Master Plan, with "the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the county." The Master Plan includes seven plan elements: (1) Natural and Cultural Resources; (2) Land Use (Growth and Development); (3) Development: the Built Environment; (4) Community and Public Facilities; (5) Transportation; (6) Economic Base; and (7) Administration and Process. The first four elements are most closely related to hazard mitigation. Emergency Management is incorporated into the Master Plan under the Community and Public Facilities element, including references to Hazard Mitigation Planning and Community Wildfire Protection Planning. Goals and policies related to hazard mitigation include the following: • 1.1 Wildlife: The quality, integrity, and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Grand County should be preserved and protected. • 1.2 Wetlands: Provide for the long-term protection if wetland functions and values. • 1.3 Water Resources: Protect the long-term viability of water resources and water quality in Grand County. • 1.4 Historic and Cultural Resources: Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include historically and archeologically significant sites. • 2.4.1 Rural and Open Lands Pattern Policies: Educate citizens and landowners in Grand County about "Rural Living" and land stewardship related to fencing, water rights, wetlands, noxious weeds, erosion, revegetation (planting grass, flowers, trees, and shrubs), access, emergency response, wildfire, and wildlife. • 4.6 Emergency Management — Continue to work with emergency service providers in the review of new developments to ensure adequate access is provided for fire, police, and other emergency services. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 — Continue to work with local fire districts, state and federal agencies and the Grand County Department of Natural Resources to support Community Wildfire Protection Planning and local wildfire mitigation efforts in order to minimize risks within the wildland-urban interface. — Understand wildfire impacts on the county watersheds and support watershed protection planning in conjunction with wildfire protection and mitigation. — Continue to ensure that all new proposed subdivisions and special uses comply with applicable wildfire mitigation as required by the Grand County Department of Natural Resources, Colorado State Forest Service and local fire protection districts. — Continue to remove hazard trees pursuant and implement the forest management plan along applicable county road rights-of-way. — Continue to work with local and state entities and support emergency management planning related to: Local Emergency Operations, Hazard Mitigation Planning, and Pre - Disaster Mitigation Planning, as well as other natural hazard planning. — Continue to require all new proposed subdivisions to comply with applicable wildfire mitigation as recommended by Grand County Department of Natural Resources, Colorado State Forest Service, and local fire protection districts. — Support Community Wildfire Protection Planning and local wildfire mitigation efforts in order to minimize risks within the Wildland-Urban Interface. Grand County Zoning Regulations While Grand County does not participate in the NFIP, it does have zoning and subdivision regulations which restrict development in the floodplain. Land within an existing one hundred (100) year floodplain or land which is subject to inundation shall not be platted for occupancy unless the flooding condition is alleviated according to plans approved by the Grand County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Applicable text from the County's Zoning Regulations (Section XIV. 14.3) and Subdivision Regulations (Article II — Sections 2.1, 2.7, 2.8, 4.2, 5.2, 5.6 and 7.2) is noted below. • Section 11, 11.8 Special Uses, Requirement (11): Reservoirs and dams engineered to contain more than one hundred (100) acre feet of water in all zoning districts subject to the following additional provisions: — (b) Evidence shall be presented that said structure shall not create a hazard both in construction and afterwards to the existing populated areas of Grand County; — (f) Satisfactory proof that the water level of the dam or reservoir shall be maintained even in drought years as to prevent dry mud flats which may give rise to dust storms creating a hazard for surrounding roadways and land owners; — (h) Said reservoirs and dams shall be engineered in such a manner so that they will not be placed near existing public roadways; both so as to prevent hazards to the public created by said proximity and the unsightly visual impact Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 • Requirement (6): Public utility facilities, excluding business offices and repair facilities, subject to the following provisions: — (g) All extensions of public utility facilities shall give due regard to topsoil, to geologic and watershed characteristics, to which end all extensions shall: consider geologic and natural hazard areas including floodplain and, if applicable, wildfire areas; reflect selection to minimize adverse impact on subsequent development of mineral resources or mineral resource areas; approved or planned reservoir sites; and deposit of construction aggregate... • Section 14, 14.3 Major Flood Channels: Buildings or other structures, except a flood control dam or irrigation structure, shall not be constructed in areas subject to inundation unless and until the plans for such building or structure are first approved by the Board of County Commissioners subject to the following special conditions: — (1) Any building or structure which is approved shall be located so as to offer minimum obstruction to the flow of flood water, and shall not cause lands outside of the natural flood channel to be flooded; — (2) No dwellings shall be permitted; — (3) No schools, churches, or other places of public assembly shall be permitted; — (4) No storage of materials which could be moved by flood waters shall be permitted — (11) Reservoirs and dams engineered to contain more than one hundred (100) acre feet of water in all zoning districts subject to the following additional provisions: (a) Such uses shall serve an obvious public need; (b) Evidence shall be presented that said structure shall not create a hazard both in construction and afterwards to the existing populated areas of Grand County; (c) Satisfactory proof shall be given that such areas will be properly maintained; (d) Satisfactory proof shall be provided that such reservoir or dam site shall not adversely affect wildlife, the environment or stream flows of existing streams to the detriment of the fish population; (e) Satisfactory proof that said dam or reservoir is located in such a manner that minimum damage shall be caused to owners of private land and water rights in the vicinity; (f) Satisfactory proof that the water level of the dam or reservoir shall be maintained even in drought years as to prevent dry mud flats which may give rise to dust storms creating a hazard for surrounding roadways and land owners; The above regulations were reviewed and revised to conform to the updated State Floodplain Rules and Regulations that became effective statewide on January 14, 2011. Grand County Subdivision Regulations • Article II Design Standards, Section 2.1 Special site considerations — 1) Steep, unstable or swampy land, and land subject to inadequate drainage, avalanche or rock slides, and geological hazards, shall be identified and unless acceptable provisions Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 are made for eliminating or controlling problems which may endanger health, life or property, such sites shall not be platted for residential occupancy. Land not usable for residential purposes may be set aside for open land uses as for parks, conservation areas or various agricultural uses. Building and Development is prohibited on slopes in excess of 30%. Developments in suspected geological hazard areas will be designed or reviewed by a qualified professional geologist. — (2) Any land subject to flooding or located in a natural drainage channel shall not be platted for occupancy until adequate provisions to eliminate or control hazards are made and approved by the Planning Commission. These provisions shall be made to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, as well as to eliminate any flood hazard resulting from the development of the area. Areas subject to flooding may be left as open space or reserved as easements. • Article II Design Standards, Section 2.8 Design Standards for Flood Hazard, Fire Hazard and Geological Hazard Areas: — In areas determined to have significant flood, fire or geological hazards the Planning Commission may, in the interest of public safety, require developers to submit for review plans to eliminate or reduce hazards to a reasonable level. Such plans may include, but are not limited to engineering designs, fuel modification, emergency water systems, etc. • Article V Design Standards for Development of, or Conversion to Condominiums, Townhouse, and Apartment Houses (Greater than Four (4) Units), Section 5.6 Design Standards for Flood Hazard, Fire Hazard, Geological Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas: (1) The Planning Commission may require the developer to furnish appropriate technical data and other information necessary to determine applicability to and evaluation of development on any land suspected of having significant flood hazard areas, fire hazard areas, geological hazard areas, and mineral resource areas. Technical data and other information requested by the Planning Commission will be prepared and certified by a professional, qualified in the appropriate field of expertise. If it is determined that a proposed development or a portion thereof lies within a hazard area or a mineral resource area, the Planning Commission may require, in the plans, to eliminate or reduce hazards to a reasonable level. Such plans may include, but are not limited to: engineering designs, fuel modification, emergency water systems, etc. In addition, if it is determined that a proposed development or a portion thereof lies within a flood hazard area or a mineral resource area, said area shall not be used unless the following standards and prohibitions are complied with: — (a) Flood Hazard Areas o (i) Storage or processing of materials that in times of flooding are buoyant, flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life, shall be prohibited. o (ii) Solid waste disposal shall be prohibited within flood hazard areas. o (iii) Development of any nature must be designed so as to prevent: substantial solid debris from being carried downstream, enlargement of a flood plain, or damage to or on lands other than those being proposed for development. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 o (iv) Structures proposed in a flood plain must be adequately flood proofed to or over one foot (1) above maximum water elevation of an intermediate regional flood and be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement. o (v) Development in a flood plain shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. o (vi) Sewage disposal systems shall be designed and located so as to minimize or eliminate infiltration, avoid their impairment, or their contamination of surrounding areas during or subsequent to flooding. o (vii) Water supply systems located in flood plain areas shall be designed and located so as to minimize or eliminate infiltration and avoid their impairment during or subsequent to flooding. — (b) Mineral Resource Areas o ( i) Prior to initiation of exploration or site operation, the operator or developer will provide a general exploration or development plan to the Planning Commission for review to insure compliance with applicable federal, state and county regulations. o (ii) In areas where surface and mineral rights are divided, the surface developer will show proof that the mineral owner has been notified of proposed surface development or improvements C.R.S. §24-65.5-103. Said proof may be in the form of a legal publication, one (1) time, in a newspaper of general circulation in Grand County. o (iii) Surface development may not preclude development of mineral resources, however, preference may be given to another use if sufficient technical or other evidence demonstrates that the economic value of the minerals present is less than the value of other use. o (iv) Mineral extraction and exploration are prohibited if such activity would cause significant danger to the public health and safety. Grand County Storm Drainage Design and Criteria Manual, 2006 The County's Storm Drainage Design and Criteria Manual applies to all land within the unincorporated areas of the County. Presented in these criteria is the minimum design of storm drainage facilities. All subdivisions, resubdivisions, planned development, or any other proposed construction public or private submitted for approval under these provisions, shall include adequate storm drainage analysis and appropriate drainage, system design, such analysis and design shall conform to the criteria set forth in the Manual. • Section 1.4.2 Minor and Major Drainage System — The Minor Drainage System shall be designed to convey runoff from a 10 -year recurrence interval storm for rural type roads with ditches and cross road culverts. Paved streets with curbs, gutters and storm sewers shall be designed for a 5 -year recurrence interval. — The Major Drainage System is designed to convey runoff from the 100 -year recurrence interval flood to minimize health and life hazards, damage to structures, and interruption Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 to traffic and services. Major storm flows can be carried in the urban street system (within acceptable depth criteria), channels, storm sewers, and other facilities. • Section 3.3 Frequency of Design Runoff for Minor Storm — The minor storm for design of cross -road culverts on rural type roads, less than 400 acres shall be designed for a return frequency of 10 years. For basins larger than 400 acres, the initial storm shall be 50 year frequency. Bridges shall be designed for a 100 year frequency and a one foot freeboard for the passage of debris. The minor design storm for urban type paved curb and/or gutter streets and storm sewers in the urban growth areas shall be the five year storm. • 3.3.5 Floodplain Management — Naturally occurring floodplains and associated floodways are vital for continued conveyance and storage of runoff. Urban land use can often compete with areas that historically have served this conveyance and storage function. In general, floodplains should be left in historic condition whenever possible. The policy of the County shall be to leave floodplains in a natural state whenever possible. • 3.3.6 Stormwater Detention — The value of storm runoff detention has been explored by many individuals, agencies and professional societies. Detention is considered a viable method to reduce urban drainage costs. Temporarily detaining storm runoff associated with the increase in impervious areas caused by urban development can sufficiently reduce downstream hazards as well as infrastructure requirements. Storage also provides for sediment and debris collection, which helps to keep streams and rivers cleaner thus helping to protect the natural resources of the County. The policy of the County shall be to require onsite detention facilities for all development, expansions, and redevelopment, unless a variance is granted, as noted in the variance procedure below. The required minimum volume and maximum release rates for the 10 -year and 100 -year storm events will be determined in accordance with these criteria. • Section 3.4 Frequency of Design Runoff for Major Storm — The major storm shall be the 100 year return frequency in all cases. The major storm can be conveyed in all conduits: culverts, storm sewers, roads and streets, but will not be permitted to flood structures or endanger life. Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006 The purpose of the Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan is to establish a focused set of goals, policies, and implementation strategies specific to wildfire prevention and mitigation. A local citizen advisory committee was established to assist Grand County in developing this CWPP. The advisory committee consisted of interested parties who represent municipal government, local fire authority, homeowners associations, private property owners and managers, law enforcement, Colorado State Forest Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The document is organized into eight sections and five appendices that include maps of focus areas for reducing wildfire risk and mitigation and Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 implementation strategies. Sections VII and VIII detail treatment activities and recommendations that support wildfire mitigation in the County. Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment This watershed assessment is designed to identify and prioritize sixth -level watersheds based upon their hazards of generating flooding, debris flows and increased sediment yields following wildfires that could have impacts on water supplies. It is intended to expand upon current wildfire hazard reduction efforts by including water supply watersheds as a community value. The watershed assessment follows a procedure prescribed by the Front Range Watershed Protection Data Refinement Work Group (2009). This assessment also provides an identification of opportunities and constraints for each Zone of Concern. Another goal of this assessment is to gather the key water supply stakeholders to communicate the suggested process, listen to any suggested changes, and build collaborative support for the assessment process. Grand County and the towns of Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, and Winter Park were identified as stakeholders in Appendix A of the assessment. Grand County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), 2012 The Grand County EOP establishes the structure for a coordinated response to various types of natural, technological, manmade emergencies and disasters, and terrorist attacks. The Grand County EOP provides a basis for the coordinated planning and management of types of emergencies and disaster events most likely to occur in Grand County and those emergencies and disaster events of "countywide interest." All Elected Offices and County Departments tasked in the EOP are responsible for developing and maintaining the standard operating procedures and training necessary for implementing the assigned duties and functions of the Grand County EOP. The Grand County EOP is intended to be used when a situation requires that multiple Offices or Departments are involved in coordination and integration with outside agencies and entities, an emergency or disaster declaration, or when an incident escalates beyond the capabilities of Grand County and it is necessary to seek State and/or Federal assistance. Grand County Public Health Epidemiology Response Plan and Quarantine & Isolation Plan The Grand County Public Health (GCPH) Epidemiology Response Plan documents how disease surveillance, investigation, and epidemiological data management are handled at GCPH. In the event of a public health emergency that involves epidemiological response, elements of this plan can be used as a response guideline. While the plan focuses on communicable disease surveillance and investigation, similar epidemiological processes may be followed for response to non -communicable disease emergencies, such as radiological or chemical agent emergencies or natural disasters. This plan also serves as a training tool for new agency staff. The GCPH Quarantine and Isolation Plan establishes procedures for quarantining and isolating persons with certain communicable diseases. A public health order for quarantine or isolation is Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 only one element of case management for an outbreak response. GCPH will consult with several other agencies including the Grand County Board of Health, CDPHE, case investigators, and regional epidemiologists before deciding to execute such an order. GCPH will coordinate with the Grand County Sheriff's Office, Grand County Emergency Management, and the County's PIO when appropriate. Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table A.4 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Grand County. Table A.4. Grand County—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/Engineer with Knowledge Yes Planning Director. of Land Development/Land Management Practices Engineer/Professional Trained in Yes We use a consulting engineer Construction Practices Related to that reviews and comments on Buildings and/or Infrastructure all construction plans submitted for land development Planner/Engineer/Scientist with an Understanding of Natural Hazards Personnel Skilled in GIS Yes GIS Coordinator, Road and Bridge Safety and Materials Coordinator Full -Time Building Official Yes Chief Building Official Floodplain Manager No Planning Department reviews flood risk potential with development permits Emergency Manager Yes Grant writer Yes Road & Bridge Office Supervisor, Safety Coordinator Other personnel GIS Data Resources Yes Road & Bridge (Hazard areas, critical facilities, Safety & Materials Coordinator land use, building footprints, etc. Warning Systems/Services Yes (Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals) Other Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table A.5 identifies financial tools or resources that Grand County could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. The County Subdivision Regulations 2008 include provisions for emergency service impact fees to provide a rational system for identifying and mitigating growth -related costs associated with growth and development and the expansion of emergency Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 services and facilities made necessary by land development activities, a growing population and economic activity levels. Table A.5. Grand County—Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Financial Resources Accessible/ Eligible to Use Community Development Block Grants Capital Improvements Project Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Services Impact Fees for New Development Yes – Emergency Service Impact Fee Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activities Withhold Spending in Hazard Prone Areas Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships Grand County is involved in the following mitigation related outreach programs and partnerships: • The County has worked with the fire protection districts, municipalities, CSFS, USFS, and CDOT to implement fuel reduction projects to mitigate wildfire risk. Specific actions have been incorporated into the countywide and local CWPPs. • Grand County has adopted the CSFS FireWise Community Fire Prevention Partnership, detailed in the 2006 countywide CWPP. • The Forests to Faucets program is a joint effort among Denver Water, USFS, the fire protection districts, Grand County OEM, and participating jurisdictions. The program improves forest and watershed conditions in the County by implementing hazardous fuels treatment and removing hazardous biomass. • Citizens for a Safe Highway 9 has been working with CDOT to implement wildlife -vehicle collision mitigation projects along Highway 9 between Green Mountain Reservoir and the Colorado River. Past Mitigation Efforts The County's past mitigation efforts include the following: • In conjunction with CDOT and Union Pacific and Omaha railroads, the County installed warning and alert systems for rockfall and avalanches. Railroad rockfall warning systems in Byers Canyon are monitored by Union Pacific and Omaha. CDOT installed avalanche warnings and closure systems along Berthoud Pass and does avalanche control in winter. CAIC also issues avalanche forecasts. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 • The County and the fire protection districts have proposed, planned, implemented and completed several wildfire mitigation projects. See Section VII Wildland Fire Mitigation and Fuel Reduction Projects in the 2006 Grand County CWPP for further details. • Several forest health projects have been undertaken to remove beetle -killed lodgepole pine, also reducing fuel loads and creating fuel breaks for wildfires. • County GIS certified privately owned bridges with load limits to support emergency response (this effort is ongoing). • Debris flow risk was identified in the Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment study completed in 2013. • Code changes were implemented to require new developments to have dual ingress/egress routes. • Grand County OEM and the LEPC have conducted annual hazmat exercises and coordinated resources to improve hazmat response and recovery capabilities in the County. A.5 Goals and Objectives Grand County adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the 14MPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. A.6 Mitigation Actions The planning team for the unincorporated areas of the County identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information and information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -1 National Wildfire Coordinating Group Certification Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Have County staff certified by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Sheriff's Office and County Road and Bridge of Lead Person Partners: National Wildfire Coordinating Group Priority: High Cost Estimate: Training time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from wildfire, improve wildfire emergency (Losses Avoided) management capabilities Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Partially completed and ongoing Status: Completed for road & bridge staff. Need to bring to attention of Sheriff's Office to expand training availability in county to certify deputies. Many training opportunities exist within the County Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -2 Wildfire Mitigation in Landslide Hazard Areas Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Grand County Wildfire/landslide Project Description, Prioritize wildfire mitigation in landslide hazard areas to improve secondary Issue & Background impact of landslide following a wildfire. Lead Agency and Title County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM; consultants Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from wildfire and post -wildfire landslides (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Complete Status: Complete — Debris flow risk identified in Upper CO Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment study completed in 2013. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -3 Dual Ingress/Egress in Landslide Hazard Areas Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Landslide Project Description, Verify, and provide as necessary, where feasible, dual ingress/egress in landslide Issue & Background hazard areas to support emergency response and evacuation. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Road and Bridge of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from landslides, improve emergency response to (Losses Avoided) landslide events, improve evacuation Potential Funding: General fund Timeline: 2014 Status: Partially complete - Have identified roads that can be closed due to hazards; have put signage on CR5 when Highway 40 closed; some ROW mitigation done on Berthoud Pass (CDOT). Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -4 Create/Update Landslide Hazard Maps Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Landslide Project Description, Create or update as necessary maps useful to planning and public, including Issue & Background landslide inventories, landslide -susceptibility maps and landslide hazard maps. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Grand County GIS and OEM, CGS Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from landslides, improve land use planning by (Losses Avoided) identifying landslide hazard areas Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Mapping and GIS based analysis improved in 2013 update including DFIRM flood hazards and landslide data; Additional landslide data being prepared by CGS. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -5 Identify Populations Most Vulnerable to Disease Outbreak Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Disease Outbreak Project Description, Identify county areas with the most vulnerable segments of the population such Issue & Background as the elderly, the very young, and overseas visitors. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM, County GIS Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect most vulnerable populations from disease outbreak; support disease (Losses Avoided) outbreak emergency plans Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: All populations could be vulnerable. Vulnerable populations will vary based on the specific disease. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -6 Disease Outbreak Training for First Responders and Other County Staff Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Disease Outbreak Project Description, Ensure emergency responders and other County staff receives appropriate Issue & Background training in disease outbreak issues. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM, fire protection districts, law enforcement Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety, reduce absenteeism among first responders and other County (Losses Avoided) personnel from disease outbreak Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Just in Time training & disease specific. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -7 Formalize Warning System for Disease Outbreak Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Grand County Disease Outbreak Project Description, Consider formalizing a warning system that includes disease outbreak. Potential Issue & Background outlets include newspapers, the County website, radio, television, and reverse 911. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and minimize economic impacts to County from disease -related (Losses Avoided) absenteeism; improve disease outbreak emergency management Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Utilize Health Alert Network, Code Red, 211 System Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -8 Update Mutual Aid Agreements Related to Disease Outbreak Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Disease Outbreak Project Description, Update mutual aid agreements, especially with other northwest region counties. Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM, neighboring counties Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety from disease outbreak; improve emergency management (Losses Avoided) partnerships Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: No new MAAs currently in development Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.24 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -9 First Responder Prophylaxis Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Disease Outbreak Project Description, Concept of Operations / Assumptions Issue & Background The indications for who should be prophylaxed have been determined. If certain groups are defined as priority, GCPH will work with those groups to quickly implement dispensing. The State EOC and/or Grand County Emergency Operations Center has been activated. It is assumed that an event requiring emergency prophylaxis will trigger activation of part or all of the EOC so that resources, including SNS (Strategic National Stockpile) materials, may be ordered according to resource request protocols; so that a centralized and multidisciplinary coordination center may be established; and so that logistical assistance in the form of resource tracking, transport, and other support may be quickly deployed. Medications have been requested, received, inventoried, repackaged, labelled, and are at some local location (an RSS warehouse, Public Health agency, or otherwise) ready for distribution. Medications may be in short supply for the earliest hours of operation, so that prioritization among those defined as 1 st responders may be required for the first doses. This prioritization will be determined by Grand County officials depending upon the type of incident and personnel needed. Identifying First Responder Personnel and Establishing Priority Each agency or discipline has already determined the number of their personnel (e.g. Responders) who may need to be considered for prophylaxis, and has devised a system for prioritizing their personnel, should supplies not be enough for everyone even in the priority groups. See table at the end of this document for specific numbers. GCPH defines first responders as: Those individuals who in the early stages of an incident are responsible for the protection and preservation of life, property, evidence, and the environment, as well as those individuals that provide immediate support services during prevention, response and recovery operations. The list below is included to provide examples of the responder disciplines that should be considered by local officials and planners. Local public health officials will need to determine which of these disciplines and others are appropriate for inclusion in the First Responder Prophylaxis Plan based on jurisdictional needs, the specific scenario, and the amount of vaccine available. Immediate family members of designated First Responders will also be eligible for inclusion in First Responder Prophylaxis. Coordination with and guidance from CDPHE will also help determine these criteria. Grand County Public Health reserves the right to modify these prioritization guidelines in any manner deemed appropriate and as Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.25 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 the event and circumstances so warrant. Responder Disciplines: Emergency Management (EM) = Organizations, both local and State, that coordinate preparation, recognition, response, and recovery for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) incidents or other public health emergencies. This category includes: • Emergency Management Coordinators • Decision makers and support staff who are required to staff/operate the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Communications (Comms) = Individuals who, on a full-time, part-time, or voluntary basis, through technology, serve as a conduit and put persons reporting an incident in touch with response personnel and emergency management, to identify an incident occurrence and help to support the resolution of life -safety, criminal, environmental, and facilities problems associated with the event. This category includes: • Dispatchers (Emergency Medical Services, Police, and Fire) Law Enforcement (LE) = Individuals who, on a full-time, part-time, or voluntary basis, work for agencies at the local, municipal, and/or State levels with responsibilities as sworn law enforcement officers. This category includes: • Patrol Officers • Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams • Bomb Technicians • Evidence Technicians • Supervision/Management/Incident Command • Investigators • Jailers • Search & Rescue Teams Fire Service (FS) = Individuals who, on a full-time, part-time, or voluntary basis, provide life -safety services, including fire suppression, rescue, arson investigation, public education, and prevention. This category includes: • Firefighters • Department Officers • Fire Marshal's Office Emergency Medical Services (EMS) = Individuals who, on a full-time, part-time, or voluntary basis, serve as first responders, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) (basic and intermediate), and paramedics (advanced) on ground-based and air -medical services to provide pre -hospital care. This category includes: • EMT (basic and intermediate) • Paramedic (advanced) Public Works (PW) = Organizations and individuals who make up the Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.26 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 public/private infrastructure for the construction and management of these roles at the local level. The categories/roles include administration, technical, supervision, and craft (basic and advanced). This category includes: • Environmental Services (Water Quality) • Solid Waste • Animal Services • Water Treatment • Public Buildings and Parks • Telecommunications • Electric and natural gas utilities • Digital Cable\Engineering and Equipment Services Governmental Administrative (GA) = Elected and appointed officials responsible for public administration of community health and welfare during an incident. This category includes: • Key Government Officials Hazardous Materials Personnel (HZ) = Individuals who, on a full-time, part-time, or voluntary basis, identify, characterize, provide risk assessment, and mitigate/control the release of a hazardous substance or potentially hazardous substance. This category includes: • Technicians • Specialists • Private Companies and Contractors Supporting Hazardous Materials Activities Health Care (HC) = Individuals who provide clinical, forensic, and/or administrative skills in hospitals, physician offices, clinics and/or other facilities which offer medical care including surveillance (passive and active), diagnosis, laboratory evaluation, treatment, mental health support, epidemiology investigation, evidence collection and/or fatality management for humans and animals. This category includes: • Physicians • Dentists • Nurses • Physician Extenders (Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners) • Veterinarians • Pharmacists/Technicians • Laboratory Technicians • Medical Examiners/Coroners • Therapists • Epidemiologists • Facility Management • Security • Environmental Investigators • Medical Records Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.27 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Public Health (PH) = Individuals whose responsibilities include the prevention of epidemics and spread of disease, protection from environmental hazards, the promotion of healthy behavior, responding to disasters and assistance in recovery, as well as assuring the quality and accessibility of health services. This category includes: • Epidemiologists • Public Health Nurses • Home Health Care Workers • Health Educators • Community Social Workers • Psychologists/Mental Health Providers/Counselors • Administrative Staff Other response staff, volunteers and essential personnel as locally determined, including, but not limited to: • POD Staff: individuals that have been assigned, or volunteered to staff designated POD sites. • Responder Prophylaxis Site staff • Alternative dispensing site staff, including mobile delivery processes • Any additional staff who may have direct patient contact Considerations / Procedures for Prophylaxing Responders • In the case of an event requiring immediate 1st responder prophylaxis, develop a count / roster of the eligible responder personnel and family members. • "Family members" (of responders) that are eligible for prophylaxis are restricted to immediate household members who are most likely to affect a worker's ability to respond to duty. A standard household of 2.49 is assumed. • A "closed" dispensing site will be established just for 1st responders and their immediate families separate from public sites and not open to the general public. Specific sites will be identified on an as -needed basis. • Communication: Notification to 1st responder personnel on how, when, and where they are to receive their medication will be done through a GCPH- initiated HAN as well as an email to all agencies. Agencies will be responsible for notification of eligible employees/volunteers. • Medical History Forms: Agencies may arrange for medical history forms to be provided and completed in advance by responders. Responders will bring completed forms with them to the dispensing site. • Identification: Agencies will provide a list (must include names and DOB's) of all eligible employees/volunteers/family members to GCPH prior to a prophylaxis clinic. Anyone not on an agency -provided list will not be allowed into the clinic. Upon arrival at the clinic, GCPH will require an agency badge, ID or other form of identification from eligible employees/volunteers, along with a valid driver's license or other generic ID. Family members shall also provide valid ID (if age appropriate). • Adverse reaction tracking for 1 st response personnel and their immediate families will be done in the same way that it is for the general public. Please Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.28 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 see the "Adverse Reaction Tracking" section of the Grand County Public Health Mass Prophylaxis/POD Plan. • Assure security, chain -of -custody, medication inventory tracking, and cold chain storage procedures are in place as defined in policy by GCPH. Additional Definitions • "Bioterrorism" means the intentional use of microorganisms or toxins of infectious origin to cause death or disease among humans or animals. • "Emergency" (State definition) is a suddenly occurring and often unforeseen situation determined by the Governor to require state response or mitigation actions to supplement local government in protecting lives and property. • "Local government," as used herein, refers to county -level government and includes all legally recognized political subdivision therein, unless otherwise specified. • "Disaster" means the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from any natural cause or cause of human origin, including but not limited to fire, flood, earthquake, windstorm, wave action, hazardous substance incident, oil spill, or other water contamination requiring emergency action to avert danger, or damage, volcanic activity, epidemic, air pollution, blight, drought, infestation, explosion, civil disturbance, act of terrorism, or hostile military or paramilitary action. • "Emergency epidemic" means cases of an illness or condition, communicable or non -communicable, caused by bioterrorism, pandemic influenza, or novel and highly fatal infectious agents or infectious toxins. • "Prophylactic Measures" defines vaccines, medications, antidotes, etc., that will be used to preventatively treat people prior to the development of illness. • "Resources" means additional capabilities from first responder agencies outside the NCR. This includes any equipment listed in the ROSS system, as well as additional personnel and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). • "Family Member" defines persons living in the same home as the first responder. A standard household of 2.49 is assumed. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: First Responders, CDPHE, other Health Care Providers in County Priority: High during disease outbreak Cost Estimate: If related to an epidemic, vaccine Is usually free from the government. Cost will be staff time to provide clinics. Benefits: First Responders & their families stay healthy during an outbreak, so they can (Losses Avoided) continue to work Potential Funding: Centers for Disease Control, CDPHE Timeline: Ongoing Status: Just in Time training & disease specific. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.29 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -10 Enhance awareness and preparedness for Disease Outbreak Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Grand County Disease Outbreak Project Description, Enhance awareness and preparedness in the County through a concerted effort. Issue & Background Adapt existing educational and preparedness materials from various sources to Grand County's needs. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety from disease outbreak; improve disease outbreak (Losses Avoided) preparedness Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: 2014 Status: New in 2013. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.30 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -11 Fix Addressing Countywide Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Addressing in Grand County needs to be fixed for accuracy and completeness. Issue & Background Inaccurate or incomplete addressing makes it difficult for first responders to locate a home threatened by events such as wildfire. Address signs also need to be fire resistant, legible, and visible from the roadway. Lead Agency and Title County GIS — GIS coordinator of Lead Person Partners: Fire Protection Districts, municipalities Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from hazards; improve emergency response (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: County general fund Timeline: 2014 Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.31 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -12 Evacuation Plans Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Develop evacuation plans for public and privately maintained public access roads Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM and Road and Bridge of Lead Person Partners: Fire protection districts, law enforcement Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety; identify vulnerable populations that may need additional (Losses Avoided) assistance during evacuation Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: 2014 Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.32 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -13 Road Crossing Hazard Jurisdiction: Grand County/Kremmling Hazard Addressed Winter storm Project Description, This project will address the unsafe pedestrian crossing for school age children, Issue & Background town residents and visitors, elderly, special needs. The County towns are seeking crosswalks that meet the below descriptions: A pedestrian crossing or crosswalk is a designated point on a road at which some means are employed to assist pedestrians wishing to cross. They are designed to keep pedestrians together where they can be seen by motorists, and where they can cross most safely across the flow of vehicular traffic. Marked pedestrian crossings are often found at intersections, but may also be at other points on busy roads that would otherwise be too unsafe to cross without assistance due to vehicle numbers, speed or road widths. They are also commonly installed where large numbers of pedestrians are attempting to cross (such as in shopping areas) or where vulnerable road users (such as school children) regularly cross. The pedestrian crosswalk indicators at many locations throughout the county are not visually adequate for oncoming traffic. Some identified locations give pedestrians access to the school, library, hospital, health care clinic and parks. This project will complete a flow study of pedestrian and vehicle traffic through indicated crosswalk locations. This project will result in the installation of better crosswalk signage that can be seen coming from both directions with either LED lighting or permanent base place signs that are placed in the road. Lead Agency and Title County Office of Emergency Management of Lead Person Partners: Town of Kremmling, Town of Grand Lake, Town of Fraser, Town of Winter Park Priority: High Cost Estimate: $60K Benefits: Protection of human life (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: EMPG, DOLA or CDOT grant Timeline: 2013-2014 Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.33 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -14 Develop, Implement, and Promote Subdivision Wildfire Protection Protocols Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Disease Outbreak Project Description, Develop, implement, and promote subdivision wildfire protection protocols. Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title GC Planning of Lead Person Partners: Municipalities, fire protection districts Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from wildfire (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Completed Status: Completed — regulations require mitigation plan with proposed development; 2008 burn ban ordinance adopted by County & municipalities, Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.34 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -15 Ensure Adequate County Workforce during Disease Outbreak Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Disease Outbreak Project Description, Ensure an adequate county work force is available in the event of a disease Issue & Background outbreak. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: ESF 8 agencies/departments Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and minimize business/economic disruption from disease (Losses Avoided) outbreak -related absenteeism Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Ongoing Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.35 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -16 Monitor Funding for Disease Outbreak Planning, Prevention, and Supply Purchasing Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Grand County Disease Outbreak Project Description, Assign to one County official the duty of monitoring the availability of funds from Issue & Background all sources for the purpose of planning, prevention, and purchasing needed supplies or equipment. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM, first responders Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Stay abreast of funding opportunities to enhance the County's capabilities and (Losses Avoided) resiliency related to disease outbreak Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Ongoing Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.36 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand County -17 Implement Code Changes for Dual Ingress/Egress Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Implement code changes so that new developments have dual ingress/egress to Issue & Background support emergency response and evacuation. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Municipalities Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety during hazard events; improve emergency response (Losses Avoided) capabilities Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Completed Status: Completed - Required in subdivision requirements, depending on size (4 or more lots) Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.37 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -18 Establish Storm Ready Programs Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Establish Storm Ready programs, adapted for winter storms, within the County. Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM, Road and Bridge of Lead Person Partners: National Weather Service Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from winter storms; Formal recognition of (Losses Avoided) preparedness efforts Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Process begun to NWS certification; relates to outreach programs, shelters Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.38 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -19 Implement Overlay Zoning Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Implement "overlay zoning" provisions to minimize development in high risk Issue & Background areas. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM, municipalities Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property by restricting development in high risk hazard (Losses Avoided) areas Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Completed Status: Completed. This is included in subdivision and subdivision exemption regulations. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.39 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -20 Use Risk Assessment to Guide Land Use and Development Policy Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Expand use of risk assessment to guide future land use and policy information. Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Completed Status: Completed. Regulations contain requirements that require risk areas to be identified during any land use process. High risk areas are required to be open space or easement areas. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.40 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -21 Review/Update Building Codes in Hazard Areas Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Review and implement or update as necessary building and grading codes in the Issue & Background hazard areas. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from hazard areas; reduce potential damage to (Losses Avoided) buildings by adhering to updated building codes Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Ongoing. The Building code is updated every few years. The County does not have a grading code, nor is there political will to create grading regulations as of 2013. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.41 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -22 Review/Implement Land Use Regulations Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Review and implement or update as necessary land use regulations. Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Municipalities Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from hazards (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Ongoing. Done as necessary. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.42 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -23 Develop Hazard/Policy Public Awareness Program Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Fuel reduction projects are needed to reduce the wildfire vulnerability in wildland Issue & Background urban interface areas. Specific actions have been incorporated in the countywide and local CWPPs. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Municipalities, Grand County OEM Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property; keep public informed and engaged about policy (Losses Avoided) decisions and changes related to hazards Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Deferred Status: Deferred due to other priorities. Priority changed from high to medium in 2013 update. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.43 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -24 Determine Priority Vaccination Targets Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Disease Outbreak Project Description, Determine who receives priority vaccinations in Grand County. Vaccine supplies Issue & Background are frequently limited, particularly at the onset of a disease outbreak. Priority personnel need to be identified to ensure that the County can maintain critical functions during a disease outbreak. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Public Health - Director of Lead Person Partners: First responders, Grand County OEM, municipalities Priority: Low Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and minimize interruption to critical functions due to staff (Losses Avoided) illnesses and absenteeism; protect vulnerable populations Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Dependent on disease and vulnerable populations affected Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.44 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -25 Compliance to Land Use Standards (H.B. 1041) Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Strengthen and formalize oversight and enforcement for compliance to land use Issue & Background standards (H.B. 1041) related to areas of state interest to include natural hazards. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Planning of Lead Person Partners: Colorado Geological Survey Priority: Low Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Improve protection of life safety and property by strengthening and enforcing land (Losses Avoided) use standards Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: 2015 Status: The County has only adopted 1041 regulations for water & sewer. This action was modified in 2013 to include action to evaluate adoption of regulations related to areas of state interest that relate to hazards. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.45 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -26 Incorporate GIS into Emergency Response Procedures Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Incorporate GIS layer for land -ownership parcels into emergency response Issue & Background procedures. Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM of Lead Person Partners: Grand County Planning, County GIS Priority: Low Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Improve emergency response capabilities (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Partially complete - Responders have mobile GIS capabilities; County GIS can provide on request, information also available online. Sidwell GIS enhancements in works Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.46 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -27 Expand Radio Coverage to Support Warning/Alert System Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Expand radio coverage within the County to better support the all -hazard Issue & Background warning/alert system (NOAA weather alert system). Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM of Lead Person Partners: First responders, NOAA-NWS Priority: Low Cost Estimate: $35-50,000 Benefits: Protect life safety; improve emergency management capabilities (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: NOAA Timeline: Ongoing Status: Partially complete — The County will have NOAA weather coverage complete the summer of 2013. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.47 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -28 Emergency Sheltering Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Implement, if necessary, and publicize emergency shelters for use immediately Issue & Background following a hazard event. Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM of Lead Person Partners: First responders, municipalities Priority: Low Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: General fund Timeline: Ongoing Status: Ongoing, responders know locations for winter storms; coordination and outreach to public done with Red Cross through Code Red, reverse 911, website as needed. Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.48 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -29 Public Outreach on Emergency Information Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Public information/outreach to include designated locations where the public can Issue & Background find information during an emergency event. The County currently makes use of Facebook, Twitter, and the County's designated emergency website www.gcemergency.com to reach out to the public. Outreach materials are also provided in the town Chambers, the County Courthouse, libraries, EMS stations around the County, and at public events. Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM (- Emergency Manager of Lead Person Partners: Towns Priority: Low Cost Estimate: $500 per year Benefits: Protect life safety; keep public informed and engaged in emergency management (Losses Avoided) efforts in the County Potential Funding: Grand County OEM budget Timeline: Annually Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.49 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand Mitigation Action: Grand County -30 Expand Airport Capacity Jurisdiction: Grand County Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Expand the capacity at Kremmling McElroy (20v) for air assets in case of wildfire. Issue & Background Grand County is somewhat isolate, which can make multi -jurisdictional fire protection difficult. Expanded capacity for air support can be especially important if roadways are closed during wildfires. This project is part of the CDOT Aeronautics Capital Improvement Plan. This is a very long-term project. Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM (lead person or title?) of Lead Person Partners: Local airport managers Priority: Low Cost Estimate: $6 million - $20 million Benefits: Improve emergency response capabilities (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: FAA (primary grant funding), CDOT Aero (secondary grant), and Grand County (local match) Timeline: Past 2022 Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Unincorporated) Annex A.50 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX B: TOWN OF FRASER 13.1 Community Profile Geography Fraser is located in Middle Park in the valley of the Fraser River along U.S. Highway 40. The Town is at an elevation of 8,550 feet and was established in 1871. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Town has a total area of 1.9 square miles, with 0.04 square miles being water. Fraser is the coldest incorporated town in the contiguous U.S, based on an annual mean temperature of 32.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Average annual precipitation is roughly 19 inches, with an average annual snowfall of over 142 inches. Figure B.1 shows a map of the Town of Fraser and its location within Grand County. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure B.I. Map of Fraser 11 L---••—••------- —e--••—•-- - ......................... .................. Fraser AWinter Park OL5 ameO 0 1 Miles I I I I Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT Grand County (Fraser) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 LEGEND Streams Railroads Local Roads Major Roads Highways Cities Elevation (ft) 6,614 - 8,566 8,567 - 9,649 9,650 - 10,912 10,913 - 14,275 N A Annex B.2 Population The permanent population is the number of people who reside in the town on a year-round basis and was estimated at 1,216 in 2011 and at 1,224 in 2010. Select American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 and 2010 US Census demographic and social characteristics for Fraser's "permanent" population are shown in Table B.1. Table 13.1. Fraser—Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Gender/Age Male (%) 56.5 49.6 Female (%) 43.5 50.4 Under 5 Years (%) 7.2 5.4 65 Years and Over (%) 3.7 10.6 Race/Ethnicity (one race) White (%) 89.5 98.0 Black or African American (%) 0.4 0.0 American Indian and Alaska Native (%) 0.3 0.0 Asian (%) 0.9 0.0 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (%) 0 0.0 Other (%) 7.4 2.0 Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race) (%) 13.6 13.1 Other Average Household Size 2.26 2.59 High School Graduate or Higher (%) 97.8 97.8 Source: AGS 2011, 2010 US Census, Tacttmtler2.census. gov History George Eastom owned an Ohio lumber business consisting of a small sawmill and a barrel stave factory. He read in 1902 of David Moffat's plan to build a railroad due west from Denver to Salt Lake City to help open up the natural resource rich Northwest region of Colorado to development. With his business in Ohio waning he decided to investigate business opportunities along the proposed new railroad line. After a short visit to the Fraser Valley, Eastom formed the Middle Park Lumber Company on December 22, 1902. He began acquiring forested property in the Fraser Valley in 1903 and started a small sawmill in the Crooked Creek drainage, while he waited to learn the final railroad alignment through the valley. On February 20, 1904, Eastom acquired the SE1/4, NE 1/4 and Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Section 19, IS, 75W, 6th PM from R.W. Jenkins for a price of $1,500. Upon this property, Eastom built a new lumber sawmill eventually, with an expansion completed in 1906, capable of processing 65,000 board feet of lumber a day. On December 6, 1904, Eastom bought the NE1/4 of Section 19, 1S, 75W, 6th PM from Harry and Addie Armfield, for $1000. On January 1, 1905, Eastom deeded a 200' x 2700' right of way through this property to the Denver, Northwest Pacific Railway Grand County (Fraser) Annex 13.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Company for a price of $1.00. On June 19, 1905, Eastom filed a town plat dated June 18, 1905 for the Town of Eastom, that straddled the railroad right of way with Blocks 1, 2 and 3 on the West side of the just laid tracks and blocks 4, 5, and 6 on the East side. By October 23, Eastom formed the Eastom Townsite Company to sell the newly created lots. One of the first sales was to William Cozens III, and Evan D. Lemmon, who purchased Lots 37 & 38 Block 6 that was deeded on June 1, 1906. Upon this site the Cozens/Lemmon Mercantile was built. The Mercantile fronted on St. Louis Avenue. A railroad depot was built just south of the Mercantile in the railroad right of way, and a track crossing was built on St. Louis Avenue. St. Louis Avenue would be renamed Eisenhower Drive in 1957. A 1st Addition to Eastom was platted in 1909 to the north of the original plat, adding Blocks 7, 8, 9, and 10. The Lake Site was platted and added by the Trout Lake Mining & Health Resort Company, O. H. Baker, president, in 1912. In 1876, the first post office was established in the Fraser Valley, the Fraser Post Office, on a route from Georgetown to Hot Sulphur Springs. It was located on the William Zane Cozens II ranch. Cozens was named Postmaster. He had bought the squatters' rights to the Hay Stacks Ranch in 1872 from George Grimshaw for a price of $519.72. In 1875, Cozens moved his family to his ranch from Central City where he was city marshal and collector, to become the first family to live full time in the Fraser Valley. Cozens remained the Postmaster for nearly 28 years until his death in January 1904. In February of 1904 the Fraser Post Office was moved to the L.D.C. Gaskill Ranch which adjoined both the Cozens Ranch and the Armfield property. Gaskill and his family had lived on their ranch in the Fraser Valley since 1885. They had moved from their home and toll house at the summit of Berthoud Pass, where they had lived for 9 years. Gaskill had been the construction foreman, maintainer, and toll keeper of the Georgetown, Empire, and Middle Park Toll Road constructed in 1874. The Fraser Post Office was moved to the Cozens/Lemmon Mercantile in 1906 and Evan Lemmon became the Postmaster. The Denver, Northwest Pacific Railway Company named their station at Eastom, the Fraser Depot, and made the town the railroad division point (Fraser would lose this designation to Tabernash in 1913). The Post Office kept the name Fraser. In a short time the town of Eastom was known as Fraser. Most deeds would bear the inscription Eastom also known as Fraser. It wasn't until 1953 that the town incorporated as Fraser and made it official. The original incorporation survey plat of 1953 contained the three previously platted subdivisions. Economy According to the ACS 2011 estimates, the industries that employed the highest percentage of Fraser's labor force were arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (28.4%); retail trade (15.2%); construction (12.4%); and finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (10.2%). Select economic characteristics for Fraser from the 2011 ACS estimates and 2010 US Census are shown in Table B.2. Grand County (Fraser) Annex 13.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table B.2. Fraser—Economic Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Families below Poverty Level (%) 8,9 9,3 Individuals below Poverty Level (%) 16.3 16.7 Median Home Value $237,300 $258,200 Median Household Income $44,453 $45,481 Per Capita Income $22,978 $23,730 Population in Labor Force* 886 771 Source: AGS 2U11, 2010 US Census, tacttinder2.census.gov *Age 16 years and over B.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Fraser's planning team identified the hazards that affect the community and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to the Town (see Table B.3). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Fraser. Table B.3. Fraser—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Small Occasional Limited Low Dam Failure Small Unlikely Limited Medium Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Unlikely Critical Low Earthquake Large Likely Critical Medium Flood Small Likely Limited Medium Hazardous Materials Transportation Large Highly Likely Critical High Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Small Unlikely Limited Low Lightning Small Highly Likely Limited Medium Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildfire Medium Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Medium Windstorm Large Highly Likely Limited Medium "See Section 3.2 tor aennitions or tnese tactors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 13.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Fraser's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. The following vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that may vary from other parts of the planning area. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. Community Asset Inventory Table BA shows the number of structures, land value, and assessed value of improvements to parcels in Fraser. Land values have been purposely excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table BA. Fraser—Building Exposure Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improvement Value Estimated Content Value Total Value* Agricultural 186 2 $903,260 $28,000 $28,000 $56,000 Commercial Improved 52 44 $6,571,390 $19,152,320 $19,152,320 $38,304,640 Commercial Vacant 57 0 $1,448,140 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 1 0 $1,170 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 2 2 $44,490 $475,680 $475,680 $951,360 Residential Improved 883 882 $36,509,980 $220,472,780 $110,236,390 $330,709,170 Residential Vacant 110 4 $10,069,000 $371,290 $185,645 $556,935 Tax Exempt 68 20 $5,001,560 $12,029,870 $12,029,870 $24,059,740 Unknown 161 0 $1,390 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 7 0 $758,370 $0 $0 $0 Total 1,527 954 $61,308,750 $252,529,940 $142,107,905 $394,637,845 Source: Grand County Assessor 2013 *Includes value of improvements and estimated content value Table B.5 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by Fraser's planning team as extremely important to protect in the event of a disaster. Grand County (Fraser) Annex 13.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table 13.5. Fraser—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Name of Asset Type* Replacement Value ($) Hazard Specific Info/Comments East Grand Fire Dept EF 10,000,000 Fire Fraser Domestic Water System EF 5,000,000. Fire/ Flood Upper Fraser Valley Wastewater treatment facility EF 9,000,000 Fire/ Flood Elementary School EA 2,000,000 Fire Safeway EA 2,000,000 Fire/Flood Fraser River -Cozens Ranch Open Space HCNA Drought /Flood/Fire Fraser Valley Library HCNA 1,000,000 Fire EMS Station 2 EF 500,000 Fire Fraser Town Hall** EF Visitors Center** EF Grand County Road and Bridge — Fraser** EF Sources: HMPC *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities, HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset **Identified separately by Grand County OEM The Town also needs to further evaluate the seasonal workforce to better understand their impact on the community and what needs to be done to protect them. Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. These hazards include flood, hazmat, landslide, and wildfire. Flood The Town of Fraser has flood hazard mapping for the Fraser River and Leland Creek, as well as the tributaries St. Louis Creek and Elk Creek. Flooding along the Fraser River and its tributaries occurs primarily in June and is largely due to snowmelt. Fraser is subject to flooding from the Fraser River. Localized stormwater flooding can also cause minor problems. Existing Development The effective DFIRM for Fraser, dated January 2, 2008, was the best available flood hazard data. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon. Only parcels with improvement values greater than zero were used in the analysis, which assumes that improved parcels have a structure of some type. The DFIRM flood zones were overlaid in GIS on the parcel centroid data to identify structures that would likely be inundated during a 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance flood event. Building improvement values for the points were based on the assessor's data and summed for the unincorporated county and for the municipalities. Property exposure located in flood hazard zones by land use type is shown in Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table B.6. Flood zones A and AE are variations of the 1% annual chance event. The "Shaded Zone X" represents the 0.2% annual chance hazard zone on the DFIRM. Building and estimated content values were totaled. The Town's A Zone has an exposure value of over $8 million. To estimate losses a 25% loss factor was applied to the total exposure, based on FEMA depth damage functions associated with a two foot deep flood. Flood loss from the 1% annual chance event based on this assessment would be in the magnitude of $2 million. There are six parcels in the AE zone, but these are undeveloped. Flooded structures for the DFIRM flood zones are depicted in Figure B.2. More information on the methodology used for this loss estimation can be found in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. There is one critical facility, the Visitors Center, located in the floodplain in Fraser. Table 13.6. Fraser—Flood Risk by Flood Zone and Property Type Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Loss Estimate Zone A Agricultural 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Vacant 10 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential Improved 34 34 $5,417,250 $2,708,625 $8,125,875 $2,031,469 Residential Vacant 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 8 2 $90,070 $90,070 $180,140 $45,035 Unknown 4 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 59 36 $5,507,320 $2,798,695 $8,306,015 $2,076,504 Zone AE Agricultural 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 5 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 6 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grand Total 65 36 $5,507,320 $2,798,695 $8,306,015 $2,076,504 Source: AMEC analysis of DFIRM Grand County (Fraser) Annex 13.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure B.2. DFIRM Flood Zones and Floodprone Properties in Fraser i Wrote l' Park I -------------- i 4u I I • 1%Flooded Structures I' I I f I I 0 0.2% Flooded Structures i Wrote l' Park I -------------- i 4u LEGEND • 1%Flooded Structures 0 0.2% Flooded Structures _ FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones o O ..1 1%Annual Chance Zone A ---. — - Zone AE 0.2% Annual Chance Zone X * Zone 0 Streams Railroads Local Roads — Major Roads — Highways r—' -I —: Cities amec 0 0.5 1 Miles t . , , I . . F I Map compiled 4/2013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, FEMA DIFRM 112/2008 Grand County (Fraser) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 A Annex B.9 National Flood Insurance Program Fraser joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on January 2, 2008. NFIP insurance data indicates that as of March 25, 2013, there were 15 flood insurance policies in force in Fraser with $3,359,800 of coverage. Eleven of the policies are in Fraser's A zone, and four are located outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area. There have been zero historical claims for flood losses. There were no repetitive or severe repetitive loss structures. Future Development The Town of Fraser addresses floodplain management policies in its Town Code (see Regulatory Capabilities section below). Hazardous Materials The Town of Fraser is exposed to transported hazardous materials by being in proximity to Highway 40 and the railroad. U.S. Highway 40 is the alternate route to Salt Lake City and primary detour route for closures of the I-70 corridor; trucks and tankers transporting hazardous materials may often use this route. Grand County OEM also identified three reporting Tier II facilities (for 2012 and 2013) in Fraser, so the potential also exists for fixed hazmat incidents in the Town. Data from the National Response Center (NRC) between 2008 and 2012 did not show any reported incidents in Fraser, but it is more likely a matter of "when" rather than "if' given that hazmat events have happened in every other town in the County. Landslide, Mud Flow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Possible landslide areas are identified on steep slopes with unstable soil conditions. Landslide deposits were identified in the western half of Fraser. Existing Development Potential losses for landslide areas were estimated using Grand County GIS and assessor's data and were examined in terms of values and critical facilities at risk. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon, which was overlaid on the landslide hazard polygons. The assessor's land and improved values for each parcel are linked to the parcel centroids. For the purposes of this analysis, if the parcel's centroid intersects the landslide hazard polygon, that parcel is assumed to be at risk to the landslide. Values were summed and sorted by landslide hazard zone. Additional landslide hazard analysis was completed using the more comprehensive USGS landslide deposits layer during the 2013 update. The results of the overlay analysis for the Town of Fraser are presented in Table B.7. No critical facilities were identified in landslide zones in Fraser. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table B.7. Fraser—Landslide Exposure by Land Use Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Total Improved Estimated Land Use Parcel Parcel Land Value Improved Value Content Value Total Value Count Count Agricultural 1 0 $240 $0 $0 $0 Residential Vacant 6 0 $108,500 $0 $0 $0 Unknown 3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 10 0 $108,740 $0 $0 $0 Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure B.3. Landslide Areas in Fraser 40 •'r 'r r i 4 x I_.._..—..---____ l I I Fraser r j ` I I t"y ! I 1 40 Winter Park ..I j {l1lll �/• � •L. L____________ �I LEGEND ``.•'' `~ *. ®Landslide Deposits Streams i`/ /• �I} ``i,�\`�� '�\—a-- ''\•, Railroads .!—.._.._------------- I._..—. ...� '- ^-- Local Roads — Major Roads —Highways Other Cities / r r—•ry Fraser meO 0 0.5 1 Miles aI. !IJ i i I I i i i Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Colton/USGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition and avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas or by corrective engineering. The mountainous topography of the County presents considerable constraints to development, most commonly in the form of steep sloped areas. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and can become unstable. Fraser's Town Code encourages development in or near the existing towns and away from environmentally sensitive areas such as those with steep slopes. This policy can help protect future development from being built in unstable areas. Wildfire Existing Development The Grand County CWPP (2006) evaluated the wildfire hazards to each of the incorporated and unincorporated towns in the County. Fraser received a hazard rating of medium to high. Fraser is also covered by the Upper Fraser Valley/East Grand Fire Protection District's CWPP, which rated the wildfire hazard in 28 distinct communities. Refer to Table 3.36 in Chapter 3 for details on the community wildfire hazard ratings in the Upper Fraser Valley/East Grand Fire Protection District CWPP. Based on the methodology described for wildfire in Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard using the SILVIS threat zones, the property values in Fraser were aggregated by wildfire threat zones. The breakdown of property values in Fraser by wildfire threat zone is shown in Table B.8. The majority of risk to wildfire is to residential structures, but some commercial areas are at risk as well. The Colorado State Forest Service in partnership with the Town and local residents have done or planned several forest health treatments in and around Fraser. These areas are depicted on the map in Figure BA. See Figure HA in Annex H Fire Protection Districts for wildfire intensity in the Fraser area. Table 13.8. Fraser—Property Values in Wildfire Threat Zones Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Improved Threat Parcel Improved Estimated Zone Land Use Count Land Value Value Content Value Total Value Moderate Agricultural 0 $289,490 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 21 $3,998,660 $10,881,320 $10,881,320 $21,762,640 Commercial Vacant 0 $871,110 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 0 $1,170 $0 $0 $0 Residential Improved 181 $9,214,120 $57,197,050 $28,598,525 $85,795,575 Residential Vacant 4 $5,861,270 $371,290 $185,645 $556,935 Tax Exempt 6 $3,422,740 $6,948,500 $6,948,500 $13,897,000 Unknown 0 $1,360 $0 $0 $0 Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Vacant Land 0 $651,530 $0 $0 $0 Total 212 $24,311,450 $75,398,160 $46,613,990 $122,012,150 High Agricultural 0 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 17 $1,909,570 $7,553,410 $7,553,410 $15,106,820 Commercial Vacant 0 $577,030 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 2 $44,490 $475,680 $475,680 $951,360 Residential Improved 703 $27,370,860 $163,873,530 $81,936,765 $245,810,295 Residential Vacant 0 $4,928,410 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 10 $993,500 $6,274,700 $6,274,700 $12,549,400 Unknown 0 $30 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 0 $98,810 $0 $0 $0 Total 732 $35,926,700 $178,177,320 $96,240,555 $274,417,875 Grand Total 944 $60,238,150 $253,575,480 $142,854,545 $396,430,025 Source: AMEC analysis with SILVIS data Two critical facilities were identified in moderate and low -moderate wildfire zones in Fraser. The Fraser Valley Library is located in Fraser's high -moderate wildfire zone. The East Grand FPD fire station is located in the Town's low -moderate wildfire zone. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure B.4. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Fraser LEGEND 40 �;� 1�� 1 r`aL � �,� CSFS Teeatments Vegetation Management Units ~ i USFS Treatment Types Fuels I Timber Sale i L ! \� - - -- Streams i Railroads Ir. Local Roads i•� ;` - Major Roads. Highways Fraser Other Cities ameO 0 0.5 1 Miles Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Fraser) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 — -----•---- I i L...T ._.._.._I A Annex B.15 The East Grand Fire Protection District, which provides fire protection services to Fraser and surrounding area, is considered an initial attack center for wildland fires on all private land and takes a joint responsibility with the U.S. Forest Service for fires on federal land. Future Development The Fraser Town Code requires that development meet fire mitigation standards before it can be approved for occupancy. East Grand FPD enforces the 2006 International Fire Code. All buildings in the District's service area are required to adhere to the International Fire Code. East Grand FPD also reviews all plats, construction plans, and site plans against the District's Development and Review Standards. These standards are designed to help protect life safety and property from wildfire. Growth and Development Trends Table B.9 illustrates how Fraser has grown in terms of population and number of housing units between 2000 and 2011. Table B.9. Fraser—Change in Population and Housing Units, 2000-2011 2011 Estimated 2011 Estimated Estimated 2000 Population Percent Change 2000 # of # of Housing Percent Change Population Estimate 2000-2011 Housing Units Units 2000-2011 910 1,216 +33.6 622 950 +52.7 Source: ACS 2011 and US Census 2000, factfinder2.census.gov Fraser's location northwest of Winter Park provided growth circa 2008 with new condominium and other real estate developments. This trend may persist as Winter Park continues to grow. Most development and growth concerns are related to wildfire vulnerability. There has been subdivision development in the WUI in the east and west part of Fraser that has not yet been mitigated. The Town does have plans to perform wildfire mitigation around these new subdivisions. Figure B.5 depicts Fraser's current town limits and the growth area boundary, as shown in the 2011 Grand County Master Plan. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure B.5. Fraser Growth Areas Fraser - Winter ParkGrowth Areas - 40 i- - I .�� G •1 Al j f C_ 4 n+P T. 'Y '.INTER PARK SCALE N MILES f',9, -i j)Lagend : Parcels +� UP Railroad Tawn Lm s rowth caBcurcary - USFS__Range r District .rapahcVReooseaelt_S,; r n ur RU v c l.'3.haw Routt_Parks R6 40 Fcd ;dude - Etireau of Laird Management _-= Stale Laced Board Division of Wildlife l e jW Grand County Master Plan Page 59 Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 B.4 Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table B.10 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Fraser. Table B.10. Fraser—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (Ordinances, Codes, Plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan Yes Zoning ordinance Yes Subdivision ordinance Yes Growth management ordinance No Floodplain ordinance Yes Other special purpose ordinance stormwater, steep slope, wildfire Yes Water Supply Protection District Building code Yes Fire department ISO rating Yes Rating unknown Erosion or sediment control program Yes Stormwater management program Yes Site plan review requirements Yes Capital improvements plan Yes Economic development plan No Expected completion in 2014 Local emergency operations plan No Pending Completion in 2014 Other special plans Yes Trail Plan EOP; Water and Sewer plan completed (2012) Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams Yes Elevation certificates (for floodplain development Yes Other Town of Fraser Comprehensive Plan, 2010 • Land Use and Development — Land uses must also be carefully planned to provide for critical wildlife habitat areas and sensitive environmental areas, including but not limited to wetland and riparian areas, alpine meadows and tundra, steep slopes, floodplains, unstable soils, high value wildlife habitat, unique natural vegetation, and view corridors. Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 — Development review and permitting should provide for water quality protection through effective erosion control, stormwater management, and revegetation measures. Town of Fraser Subdivision Regulations • Section 17-1-30 Policy — (b) Land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril from fire, flood or other menace. Land shall not be subdivided until adequate public facilities and improvements exist and proper provisions have been made for water, sewer, stormwater drainage, schools, parks, open space, trails, recreation, transportation facilities and other improvements necessary to serve the proposed subdivision. (Ord. 322 §12-1-3, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 17-7-110 Natural Hazards and Conditions — Based on a finding by a qualified engineer, engineering geologist or other professional, no land which is held by the Planning Commission to be unsuitable for development by reason of one -hundred -year flooding frequency, high water table, mudflow, rockslide or other potential natural hazard, feature or condition likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the Town, its residents or future residents in the proposed subdivision shall be subdivided unless the natural hazards are mitigated in a manner acceptable to the Town. (Ord. 322 §12-6-3, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1.1, 2012) • Section 17-7-120 Floodplains — Development is discouraged within the one -hundred -year floodplain. All subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least fifty (50) lots or five (5) acres (whichever is less) shall provide the Town with base flood elevation data per the Town's regulations pertaining to the prevention of flood damage. Technical data and other information requested by the Town shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer. This and other information is necessary to determine applicability to and evaluation of developments on lands subject to flooding or located in a natural drainage area. A permit shall be obtained before construction begins within any area of special flood hazard as set forth in Chapter 18, Article 4 of this Code. (Ord. 322 § 12-6-3, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1.1, 2012) • Section 17-7-160 Steep Slopes — In general, development shall not occur on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) or on land with inadequate drainage unless a part of each lot or tract, sufficient to accommodate a building permit, is deemed buildable by a qualified engineer and all mitigation measures necessary to prevent lateral movement and/or slippage of improvements have been approved by the Town Engineer. (Ord. 322 § 12-6-3, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 17-7-610 Water Supply — (c) Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be required in all subdivisions and shall be located in conformity with the adopted Fire Code. Generally, fire hydrants shall be located no more than five hundred (500) feet apart. Hydrant locations and fire flow demands shall be approved by the Town and the Fire District. Fire hydrant spacing along streets where Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 hydrants are not needed for protection of structures and/or water system operations shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet. (Ord. 322 §12-6-13, 2006; Ord. 391 Part 1.1, 2012) • Section 17-7-700 Landscaping Requirements and Natural Features – (g) Wildfire defensible space. Creating a defensible space around a home and on property is an important step to take in order to protect your home and property from wildfire. Defensible space is an area around a structure where fuels and vegetation are treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire towards the structure. It also creates an area where fire suppression operations can occur. Town of Fraser Zoning Regulations • Section 16-4-270 Floodplains – For any developments located within the one -hundred -year floodplain, a plan of on-site flood prevention, control and hazard mitigation shall be prepared and implemented according to the provisions of the Town. (Ord. 392 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 16-4-280 Geological Hazards – Developments proposed for suspected geological hazard areas should be designed or reviewed by a qualified professional geologist, and all negative impacts should be mitigated. (Ord. 392 Part 1. 1, 2012) • Section 16-4-340 Snow Management – (a) Snow management is critical in the Town's mountain climate. Roofs should be designed to either hold snow or shed snow in appropriate areas. Buildings must be set back from the property line to accommodate snow shedding, or a snow storage easement from the adjacent property owner must be provided. Use of snow guards and protected entries in high risk areas may be required. Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table B.11 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Fraser. Table 13.11. Fraser—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of Yes Planning land development/land management practices Engineer/professional trained in Yes Town Engineer construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Planner/engineer/scientist with an Yes Town Engineer understanding of natural hazards Personnel skilled in GIS Yes Town Staff Full time building official Yes Building Official Floodplain manager Yes Town Planner Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Emergency manager Yes County Grant writer No Other personnel Yes GIS Data Resources (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land use, building footprints, etc.) Yes Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals) Yes County Other Yes Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table B.12 identifies financial tools or resources that Fraser could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. Table B.12. Fraser—Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Financial Resources Accessible/Eligible to Use Yes/No Comments Community Development Block Grants Y Capital Improvements Project Funding Y Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Services Y Impact Fees for New Development Y Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y Incur Debt through Private Activities Y Withhold Spending in Hazard Prone Areas Y Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships • The news media in Fraser has distributed information on water conservation and sewer infiltration. • The Library District holds public education Firewise awareness workshops. • The Town distributes a household preparedness "Get Ready for Winter" newsletter. Past Mitigation Efforts • The Town participates in the NFIP. • Water system improvements • Fuel reduction/treatment projects Grand County (Fraser) Annex 13.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 13.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Fraser had adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. 13.6 Mitigation Actions The planning team for Fraser identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Continued Compliance with the NFIP Fraser will continue participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Specific activities that the Town will undertake to continue compliance include the following: • Working with FEMA and the Colorado Water Conservation Board in the review and adoption of new digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) as part of the map modernization (now RiskMAP) program • Periodically reviewing the flood damage prevention ordinance and identifying opportunities to strengthen requirements and enforcement. The Town has reviewed and updated their ordinance to be compliant with the update State Floodplain Rule (required by January 2014). • Promote and disperse information on the benefits of flood insurance, with assistance from partners such as the Colorado Water Conservation Board. • Continuing strong enforcement of the floodplain ordinance and working with developers and property owners to understand the program Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Fraser -1 Bank Stabilization Jurisdiction: Fire Protection Districts Hazard Addressed Flood Project Description, Fraser/ St. Louis Creek Bank Stabilization Issue & Background This project is necessary to keep the Fraser River and St Louis Creek within banks during high water events. Lead Agency and Title Town of Fraser of Lead Person Partners: None Priority: High Cost Estimate: $40,000 Benefits: Keep waters from running through streets and neighborhoods (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Funded by Town of Fraser Timeline: 2011-2014 Status: Ongoing Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Fraser -2 Forest Mitigation Jurisdiction: Town of Fraser Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Pine Beetle, Windstorm Project Description, Rendezvous and Grand Park have completed extensive hazard tree removal Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Private of Lead Person Partners: None Priority: High Cost Estimate: Private funds/effort Benefits: Protection of property and life safety enhancement (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Timeline: Ongoing Status: Ongoing Grand County (Fraser) Annex B.24 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX C: TOWN OF GRANBY CA Community Profile Geography Granby lies along U.S. Highway 40 about 85 miles west of Denver, southwest of Rocky Mountain National Park. Granby is 7,935 feet above sea level, and is subject to average annual rainfall of roughly 12 inches and annual snowfall of over 128 inches. The Town's total area is roughly 25.6 square miles, or approximately 10,000 acres. Figure C.1 shows a map of the Town of Granby and its location within Grand County. The map also shows critical facilities and landslide deposits. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure C.1. Map of Granby ----~_'__--__---_ LEGEND Streams +—Railroads u="/n""o" Major Roads ---*whwmv^ '—lara"u' Elevation (ft) �–�6.614 8,566 L–�8,569,649 u.ssom.00 10,913 - 14,275 L– —. —7 �� �� Granby k o � z��^ Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT Grand County (Granby) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex C.2 o � z��^ Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT Grand County (Granby) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex C.2 Population The permanent population is the number of people who reside in the town on a year-round basis and was estimated at 2,389 in 2011 and at 1,864 in 2010. Select American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 and 2010 US Census demographic and social characteristics for Granby's "permanent" population are shown in Table C.1. Table C.1. Granby—Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Gender/Age Male (%) 51.3 59.4 Female (%) 48.7 40.6 Under 5 Years (%) 6.7 12.1 65 Years and Over (%) 7.4 5.2 Race/Ethnicity (one race) White (%) 91.2 94.6 Black or African American (%) 0.9 0.6 American Indian and Alaska Native (%) 0.5 0 Asian (%) 0.9 0.2 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (%) 0.1 0 Other (%) 5 3.7 Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race) (%) 9.8 10.3 Other Average Household Size 2.4 2.99 High School Graduate or Higher (%) 96 94.2 Source: AGS 2011, 2U1 US Census, Tacttmtler2.census. gov History The Town of Granby was founded in 1904 along the route of the Denver, Northwestern & Pacific Railway, and incorporated one year later. It was named after Granby Hillyer, a Denver lawyer who later became a U.S. Attorney for Denver's district. Many Granby residents are descended from pioneer settlers who arrived before Grand County was fully surveyed. Early families established themselves under the Homestead Act of 1862, which allowed easy access to land to those who would inhabit and improve upon the territory. Economy According to the ACS 2011 estimates, the industries that employed the highest percentage of Granby's labor force were arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (25%); public administration (14.7%); construction (11.6%); finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (11.5%); and retail trade (9.0%). Select economic characteristics for Granby from the 2011 ACS estimates and 2010 US Census are shown in Table C.2. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table C.2. Granby—Economic Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Families below Poverty Level (%) 9.0 19.5 Individuals below Poverty Level (%) 11.0 20.4 Median Home Value $222,900 $205,200 Median Household Income $54,663 $55,068 Per Capita Income $29,358 $25,097 Population in Labor Force* 1,247 1,317 Source: AGS 2011, 2010 US Census, tacttinder2.census.gov *Age 16 years and over C.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Granby's planning team identified the hazards that affect the community and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to the Town (see Table C.3). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Granby. Table C.3. Granby—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Small Unlikely Negligible Low Dam Failure Small Unlikely Limited Medium Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Highly Likely Limited High Earthquake Large Unlikely Critical Low Flood Small Likely Limited Medium Hazardous Materials Transportation Large Highly Likely Critical High Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Small Likely Limited Low Lightning Small Highly Likely Limited Medium Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildfire Small Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Medium Windstorm Large Highly Likely Limited Medium -See Section 3.2 for dennitions of tnese tactors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. Grand County (Granby) Annex CA Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 C.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Granby's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. The following vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that may vary from other parts of the planning area. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. Community Asset Inventory Table CA shows the number of structures, land value, and assessed value of improvements to parcels in Granby. Land values have been purposely excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table CA. Granby— Building Exposure Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improvement Value Estimated Content Value Total Value* Agricultural 23 0 $704,810 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 121 119 $13,088,190 $27,598,160 $27,598,160 $55,196,320 Commercial Vacant 48 1 $3,830,110 $100,940 $100,940 $201,880 Industrial Improved 1 1 $230,000 $103,910 $155,865 $259,775 Mixed Use 15 14 $1,826,530 $3,095,980 $3,095,980 $6,191,960 Residential Improved 1,426 1,369 $29,150,490 $223,018,140 $111,509,070 $334,527,210 Residential Vacant 1,287 30 $19,697,570 $2,025,480 $1,012,740 $3,038,220 Tax Exempt 121 36 $6,346,250 $8,315,890 $8,315,890 $16,631,780 Unknown 197 1 $1,979,170 $264,730 $264,730 $529,460 Vacant Land 105 1 $5,317,240 $830 $0 $830 Total 3,344 1,572 $82,170,360 $264,524,060 $152,053,375 $416,577,435 Source: Grand County Assessor 2013 "Includes value of improvements and estimated content value Table C.5 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by Granby's planning team as extremely important to protect in the event of a disaster. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table C.5. Granby—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Name of Asset Type* Replacement Value ($) Hazard Specific Info/Comments Middle Park Medical Center EF $20,000,000 Flood Granby Fire Department EF $3,000,000 Flood South Service Area Water Wells LL $2,000,000 Flood Grand County EMS** EF Granby Town Hall** EF Grand County Road And Bridge — Granby** EF Mountain Parks Electric** LL CenturyLink Building** LL Granby Transfer Station** LL Granby Police** EF East Grand Middle School** EF Granby Elementary School** EF Indian Peaks Charter School** EF Middle Park High School** EF Granby Sanitation District** LL Sources: HMPC *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets, EA: Economic Asset **Identified separately by Grand County OEM The Town also needs to further evaluate the seasonal workforce to better understand their impact on the community and what needs to be done to protect them. Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. These hazards include drought, flood, hazmat, landslide, and wildfire. Drought Vulnerability to drought can be difficult to quantify by jurisdiction due to the widespread nature of the hazard. Drought in the summer increases problems with dust and erosion and can cause deterioration in water quality. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding. It also increases the wildfire hazard. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline. A portion of Grand County relies on individual ground wells and constructed water retention structures for their water resources. Ground wells service a significant portion of the population, while local ranchers rely upon ponds and ditches for livestock and crops. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 The County does not own rights to most of the water in its borders, and much of the water is allocated elsewhere. Winter Park and Granby are primarily dependent on streamflow as the primary water source. Wastewater treatment plants are also dependent on streamflows; if streamflows are inadequate, this can become a public health and sanitation concern. The incidence of blue algae increases during periods of extreme heat, which often accompanies drought, and zebra mussels are also a potential issue. Flood The Town of Granby, near the confluence of the Fraser River and the Colorado River has flood hazard mapping for both the Fraser River and its tributary Tenmile Creek. Flooding along the Fraser River and its tributaries occurs primarily in June and is largely due to snowmelt. Granby is subject to flooding from the Fraser River. Localized stormwater flooding can also cause minor problems. Existing Development The effective DFIRM for Granby, dated January 2, 2008, was the best available flood hazard data. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon. Only parcels with improvement values greater than zero were used in the analysis, which assumes that improved parcels have a structure of some type. The DFIRM flood zones were overlaid in GIS on the parcel centroid data to identify structures that would likely be inundated during a 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance flood event. Building improvement values for the points were based on the assessor's data and summed for the unincorporated county and for the municipalities. Property exposure located in flood hazard zones by land use type is shown in Table C.6. Flood zones A, and AE are variations of the 1% annual chance event. The "Shaded Zone X" represents the 0.2% annual chance hazard zone on the DFIRM. Building and estimated content values were totaled. Granby does not have a 2% annual chance flood zone. The Town's A Zone has an exposure value of over $5.4 million. To estimate losses a 25% loss factor was applied to the total exposure, based on FEMA depth damage functions associated with a two foot deep flood. Flood loss from the 1% annual chance event based on this method would be in the magnitude of $1.3 million. Flooded structures for the DFIRM and HAZUS flood zones are depicted in Figure C.2. More information on the methodology used for this loss estimation can be found in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. There are no critical facilities located in the floodplain in Granby. Table C.6. Granby—Flood Risk by Flood Zone and Property Type Grand County (Granby) Annex C.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Total Improved Improved Estimated Loss Land Use Parcel Parcel Value Content Total Value Estimate Count Count Value Zone A Agricultural 5 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 2 2 $204,860 $204,860 $409,720 $102,430 Mixed Use 2 2 $747,010 $747,010 $1,494,020 $373,505 Grand County (Granby) Annex C.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Ll Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Loss Estimate Residential Improved 12 12 $1,799,290 $899,645 $2,698,935 $674,734 Residential Vacant 53 1 $45,400 $22,700 $68,100 $17,025 Tax Exempt 5 2 $389,810 $389,810 $779,620 $194,905 Unknown 12 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 5 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 96 19 $3,186,370 $2,264,025 $5,450,395 $1,362,599 Source: AMEC analysis of DFIRM and HAZUS Grand County (Granby) Annex C.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure C.2. DFIRM and HAZUS Food Zones and Floodprone Properties in Granby it.- _-.. L..__.-• -- _ ._._ 125 Ali '. _ \_,.; v , 1 J \ @I LEGEND O Hazus 1 00y Flooded Structures i 1% Flooded Structures O 0.2% Flooded Structures - Hazus 1 00y Flood Zones FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones 1%Annual Chance - Zone A - Zone AE 0.2% Ann ual Chance Zone X Zone D Streams Railroads Local Roads — Major Roads fthways r_. I Granby r i \ Granby —� amecO 0 1 2 Mmes I r r r I r e i I r� Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 1/212008 Grand County (Granby) Annex C.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 National Flood Insurance Program Granby joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on May 15, 2008. NFIP insurance data indicates that as of March 25, 2013, there were 3 flood insurance policies in force in Granby with $980,000 of coverage. One of the policies is in Granby's A zone, and two are located outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area. There has been one historical claim for flood losses totaling $0. There were no repetitive or severe repetitive loss structures. Future Development Granby addresses floodplain management policies in its Town Code (see Regulatory Capabilities section below). These policies are consistent with flood management policies of the NFIP. Hazardous Materials The Town of Granby is exposed to transported hazardous materials by being in proximity to Highway 40 and the railroad. U.S. Highway 40 is the alternate route to Salt Lake City and primary detour route for closures of the I-70 corridor; trucks and tankers transporting hazardous materials may often use this route. Grand County OEM also identified seven reporting Tier II facilities (for 2012 and 2013) in Granby, so the potential also exists for fixed hazmat incidents in the Town. Data from the National Response Center (NRC) between 2008 and 2012 recorded three reported hazmat events in Granby, including one railroad non -release and two fixed events. Landslide, Mud Flow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Possible landslide areas are identified on steep slopes with unstable soil conditions. Landslide deposits were identified in the eastern half and northwestern corner of Granby. Existing Development Potential losses for landslide areas were estimated using Grand County GIS and assessor's data and were examined in terms of values and critical facilities at risk. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon, which was overlaid on the landslide hazard polygons. The assessor's land and improved values for each parcel are linked to the parcel centroids. For the purposes of this analysis, if the parcel's centroid intersects the landslide hazard polygon, that parcel is assumed to be at risk to the landslide. Values were summed and sorted by landslide hazard zone. Additional landslide hazard analysis was completed using the more comprehensive USGS landslide deposits layer during the 2013 update. The results of the overlay analysis for the Town of Granby are presented in Table C.7. No critical facilities were identified in landslide zones in Granby. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table C.7. Granby—Landslide Exposure by Land Use Grand County (Granby) Annex C. I I Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Total Improved Estimated Land Use Parcel Parcel Land Value Improved Value Content Value Total Value Count Count Agricultural 3 0 $4,870 $0 $0 $0 Residential Improved 12 12 $607,750 $4,270,770 $2,135,385 $6,406,155 Total 15 12 $612,620 $4,270,770 $2,135,385 $6,406,155 Grand County (Granby) Annex C. I I Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure C.3. Landslide Areas in Granby J J 1 i ti, ti f � / /` .fir( •,`•u �, r,1 1'•�-,�` � �f r ! r R . yX �) Granby f� fir 4 �, ameO z Miles Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, ColtonlUSGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Granby) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 A Annex C.12 i LEGEND Landslide Deposits f. i Streams — Railroads Local Roads — Major Roads — Highways Granby A Annex C.12 Future Development The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition and avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas or by corrective engineering. The mountainous topography of the County presents considerable constraints to development, most commonly in the form of steep sloped areas. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and can become unstable. Granby's Town Code encourages development in or near the existing towns and away from environmentally sensitive areas such as those with steep slopes. This policy can help protect future development from being built in unstable areas. Wildfire Existing Development The Grand County CWPP (2006) evaluated the wildfire hazards to each of the incorporated and unincorporated towns in the County. Granby received a hazard rating of low to medium. Granby is also covered by Grand Fire Protection District's CWPP, which rated the wildfire hazard in 24 distinct communities and 3 areas of special interest. Refer to Table 3.35 in Chapter 3 for details on the community wildfire hazard ratings in the Grand Fire Protection District CWPP. Based on the methodology described for wildfire in Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard using the SILVIS threat zones, the property values in Granby were aggregated by wildfire threat zones. The breakdown of property values in Granby by wildfire threat zone is shown in Table C.8. The majority of risk to wildfire is to residential structures, but some commercial areas are at risk as well. The Colorado State Forest Service in partnership with the Town and local residents have done or planned several forest health treatments in and around Granby. These areas are depicted on the map in Figure CA. See Figure H.5 in Annex H Fire Protection Districts for wildfire intensity in the Granby area. Table C.8. Granby—Property Values in Wildfire Threat Zones Grand County (Granby) Annex C.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Improved Threat Parcel Estimated Zone Land Use Count Land Value Improved Value Content Value Total Value Moderate Agricultural 0 $261,110 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 68 $7,097,390 $13,738,340 $13,738,340 $27,476,680 Commercial Vacant 0 $672,880 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 9 $1,268,550 $2,270,820 $2,270,820 $4,541,640 Residential Improved 489 $17,570,470 $83,066,090 $41,533,045 $124,599,135 Residential Vacant 7 $11,717,030 $1,109,690 $554,845 $1,664,535 Tax Exempt 24 $2,062,910 $4,451,190 $4,451,190 $8,902,380 Unknown 1 $1,891,700 $264,730 $264,730 $529,460 Grand County (Granby) Annex C.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Vacant Land 1 $1,684,980 $830 $0 $830 Total 599 $44,227,020 $104,901,690 $62,812,970 $167,714,660 High Agricultural 0 $217,370 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 20 $2,057,220 $5,285,080 $5,285,080 $10,570,160 Commercial Vacant 0 $744,840 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 3 $292,750 $816,040 $816,040 $1,632,080 Residential Improved 862 $10,649,020 $133,754,530 $66,877,265 $200,631,795 Residential Vacant 20 $5,017,180 $358,950 $179,475 $538,425 Tax Exempt 7 $1,399,190 $663,480 $663,480 $1,326,960 Unknown 0 $1,833,260 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 0 $516,660 $0 $0 $0 Total 912 $22,727,490 $140,878,080 $73,821,340 $214,699,420 Grand Total 1,511 $66,954,510 $245,779,770 $136,634,310 $382,414,080 Source: AMEC analysis with SILVIS data Five critical facilities were identified in moderate and high -moderate wildfire zones in Granby. Two communications facilities, Power World and Sol Vista Peak, are located in Granby's high - moderate wildfire zone. The three critical facilities in the Town's moderate wildfire zone include U.S. 40 ML, Grand Fire Protection District Station, and Middle Park High School. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure CA. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Granby '--•_-._.._......_.._.._....._._ . ,125 '34 40 00� J. A. or j� n < Granby 40 O O *ok LEGEND CSFS Treatments Vegetation Management Units It USFS Treatment Types ---I Fuels : If Timber Sale Streams _J - Railroads Local Roads - Major Roads ........... - Highways Granby 0 a1 2 Miles meO I i I I I i I I _J Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Granby) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 N A Annex C.15 The Grand Fire Protection District, which provides fire protection services to Granby and surrounding area, is considered an initial attack center for wildland fires on all private land and takes a joint responsibility with the U.S. Forest Service for fires on federal land. Future Development The Granby Town Code requires that development meet fire mitigation standards before it can be approved for occupancy. Grand FPD also enforces the International Fire Code. All buildings in the District's service area are required to adhere to the International Fire Code. Grand FPD also reviews all plats, construction plans, and site plans against the District's Development and Review Standards. These standards are designed to help protect life safety and property from wildfire. Growth and Development Trends Table C.9 illustrates how Granby has grown in terms of population and number of housing units between 2000 and 2011. Table C.9. Granby—Change in Population and Housing Units, 2000-2011 2011 Estimated 2011 Estimated Estimated 2000 Population Percent Change 2000 # of # of Housing Percent Change Population Estimate 2000-2011 Housing Units Units 2000-2011 1,525 2,389 +56.7 628 1,378 +119.4 Source: ACS 2011 and US Census 2000, factfinder2.census. gov Development in the Town is not directed to flood hazard areas. Granby has seen some growth in the WUI, so the main growth and development concerns center around increased wildfire vulnerability. Figure C.5 depicts Granby's current town limits and the growth area boundary, as shown in the 2011 Grand County Master Plan. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure C.5. Granby Growth Areas Granby Growth Areas 3 t Wr' 4q R ■ G� RSG G. f 40 SCALE IN MILES0 1.2E € ' �. Map Legend PaMes LF Railrnad Town timds C=3 F� rowAkeaEcundary R"o > ngerDistrict Papaho-R,,Dsemet_SuohhurRD �r .heuv.Rautt_Parks RD Fco State 3 -.!eau of Land Management -:c vca.a Land Board Co Civmon ofAidife _R 1 jW Grand CaLint} Master Flan Page 57 Grand County (Granby) Annex C.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 CA Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table C.10 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Granby. Table C.10. Granby—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (Ordinances, Codes, Plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan Yes Zoning ordinance Yes Subdivision ordinance Yes Growth management ordinance No Floodplain ordinance Yes Other special purpose ordinance stormwater, steep slope, wildfire Yes Well head protection ordinance Building code Yes Fire department ISO rating Yes Unknown rating Erosion or sediment control program Yes Stormwater management program Yes Site plan review requirements Yes Capital improvements plan Yes Economic development plan Yes Local emergency operations plan Yes Other special plans Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams Yes Elevation certificates (for floodplain development) Yes Other Granby Town Code The Granby Town Code serves as the legal framework for the Town and contains 17 titles and various subsections. Sections of the Town Code related to hazard mitigation are summarized below: Chapter 8.25 Fire Restrictions Grand County (Granby) Annex C. 18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 (a) The mayor or the town manager or their designee shall have the authority to implement, modify, and rescind restrictions on open fires within the town limits of Granby. The mayor or town manager shall consider the recommendations issued by officials from other affected governmental agencies prior to implementing, modifying, or rescinding a restriction on open fires. (b) For the purposes of this chapter, "open fires" shall be defined as any outdoor fire, including, but not limited to, campfires, slash or trash burning, warming fires, charcoal or wood -burning grills, fused explosives, fireworks of any kind, sparklers, any thing or instrumentality that emits a flame or flammable sparks, any incendiary device, and disposing of ignited cigarettes, cigars, pipes, or other tobacco burning instrumentalities other than by placing them in a fireproof receptacle. (c) The specific terms and conditions of the fire restrictions, as well as their applicability to various types of operations, including commercial operations, shall be determined by the mayor or town manager at the time the fire restrictions are implemented or modified. (d) Any action taken by the mayor or town manager shall be subject to review by the board of trustees at its next regular or special meeting. At the meeting, the board of trustees shall modify, ratify or rescind the action. (e) The penalty for violating this section shall be as follows: Any person violating this section shall be subject to a penalty assessment in the amount of $100.00 for first offense, $200.00 for second offense, and $300.00 for third or subsequent offenses. Such penalty assessments shall be subject to all applicable surcharges imposed by the town or the Granby municipal court. The penalty assessment procedure provided in Section 16-2-201, C.R.S., shall be followed when enforcing the provisions of this chapter except the Granby municipal court rather than the county court shall be utilized. This chapter and any orders made pursuant to this chapter shall be enforced by the town of Granby police department. [Ord. 785 § 1, 2012]. Chapter 16.110 Fire Protection Services Impact Fees. The purpose of this chapter is to: (a) Provide a rational system for identifying and mitigating growth -related costs associated with growth and development and the expansion of fire protection services and facilities made necessary by land development activities, a growing population and economic activity levels. (b) Ensure that the impact fees established by this chapter are based on, and do not exceed, the cost of providing additional capital improvements necessitated by new development. (c) Assure that the impact fees implemented in this chapter are linked to a capital improvements program designed to provide the facilities and equipment for which the impact fees are imposed. [Ord. 594 § 1, 2003. Code 1999 § 17-6-1]. 16.110.030 Imposition of impact fees. Any developer who seeks a development approval for a land development activity requiring additional fire protection services, who has not already dedicated land to defer anticipated impacts of the proposed development, must pay an impact fee in the manner and amount set forth in this chapter. [Ord. 594 § 1, 2003. Code 1999 § 17-6-3]. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Chapter 16.120 Flood Damage Prevention 16.120.010 (a) The flood hazard areas of the town of Granby are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, and extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. 16.120.010 (b) These flood losses are created by the cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains which cause an increase in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods and hazardous to other lands because they are inadequately elevated, floodproofed or otherwise protected from flood damage. [Ord. 710 § 1, 2008]. 16.120.170 (a) Residential Construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the base flood elevation. A registered professional engineer, architect, or land surveyor shall submit a certification to the floodplain administrator that the standard of this subsection as proposed in GMC 16.120.140(a) is satisfied. 16.120.170 (b) Nonresidential Construction. New construction and substantial improvements of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the base flood level or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop and/or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice as outlined in this subsection. A record of such certification which includes the specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which such structures are floodproofed shall be maintained by the floodplain administrator. 16.120.170 (c) Manufactured Homes. The town shall require that all manufactured homes be placed within Zone A on a community's FHBM or FIRM shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage. For the purposes of this requirement, manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. [Amended during 2011 recodification; Ord. 710 § 1, 2008]. Chapter 17.25 Subdivision Design Standards (a) Special Site Considerations (1) Steep, unstable or swampy land, and land subject to inadequate drainage, geological hazards, avalanche or rock slides, shall be identified and unless acceptable provisions are made for eliminating or controlling problems which may endanger health, life or property, such sites shall not be platted for residential occupancy. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Land not usable for residential purposes may be set aside for open land uses, such as for parks, conservation areas or various agricultural uses. (a) Special Site Considerations (2) Any land subject to flooding or located in a natural drainage channel or in a fire hazard area shall not be platted for occupancy until adequate provisions to eliminate or control hazards are made and approved by the commission. These provisions shall be made to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, as well as to eliminate any flood or fire hazard resulting from the development of the area. Areas subject to flooding may be left as open space or reserved as easements. (a) Special Site Considerations (3) Where a residential subdivision borders a railroad or highway right-of-way, the commission may require a buffer strip of such an extent and type as may be practical, or other adequate protection against hazards and undesirable effects of the railroad or highway, such as a fence installed by the applicant prior to conveyance of the lots. Edgewater Resort Flood Evacuation Plan, 2006 This plan was developed to minimize the impacts of flooding upon the safety of residents of Edgewater Resort in Granby, Colorado. The purpose of the plan is to outline procedures for evacuation of the resort in the event of a flood or impending flood, and thresholds that trigger those procedures. Roles and responsibilities are detailed as well. The focus of this plan is to evacuate people out of harm's way; not to protect or remove RV's and other property in the floodplain. Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table C.11 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Granby. Table C.11. Granby—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of land development/land management practices Yes Administration/Town Manager Engineer/professional trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Yes Town Engineer Planner/engineer/scientist with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Town Engineer Personnel skilled in GIS Yes Town Engineer and Water Technician, SSA Full time building official Yes Building Official Floodplain manager Yes Town Engineer Emergency manager No Grant writer No Other personnel Grand County (Granby) Annex C.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments GIS Data Resources No (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land use, building footprints, etc.) Warning Systems/Services Yes County/ Town capability (Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals) Other Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table C.12 identifies financial tools or resources that Granby could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. Table C.12. Granby—Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Accessible/Eligible Financial Resources to Use (Yes/No) Comments Community Development Block Grants Capital Improvements Project Funding Y Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Services Impact Fees for New Development Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activities Withhold Spending in Hazard Prone Areas Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships The Town of Granby uses available resources to promote responsible water use and fire safety. Town ordinance restrict open burning, establish flood mitigation measures, etc. Past Mitigation Efforts The Town has a well area protection ordinance restricting certain uses and activities within a specified area around the Town water wells. C.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Granby had adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. Grand County (Granby) Annex C.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 C.6 Mitigation Actions The planning team for Granby identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Continued Compliance with the NFIP Granby will continue participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Specific activities that the Town will undertake to continue compliance include the following: Working with FEMA and the Colorado Water Conservation Board in the review and adoption of new digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) as part of the map modernization (now RiskMAP) program Periodically reviewing the flood damage prevention ordinance and identifying opportunities to strengthen requirements and enforcement. The Town has reviewed their ordinance and is in the process of updating it to be compliant with the update State Floodplain Rule (required by January 2014). Promote and disperse information on the benefits of flood insurance, with assistance from partners such as the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Continuing strong enforcement of the floodplain ordinance and working with developers and property owners to understand the program Grand County (Granby) Annex C.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Granby -1 Water Supply Protection for Fraser River and Val Moritz Wells Jurisdiction: Town of Granby Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Hazardous Materials Spills Project Description, Develop a plan to 1) protect the surface water and well water sources for potable Issue & Background water for the Town, 2) minimize the potential event of a forest fire up -river from the Town of Granby diversion point for water extraction and well heads, 3) mitigate potential pollution issues in the event of a fire up -river from Granby. Lead Agency and Title Town of Granby, Town Manager of Lead Person Partners: CDOT, USFS, Fire District Priority: High Cost Estimate: unknown Benefits: Maintain a viable source for potable water for the Town (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Town, CDOT, USFS Timeline: 2014-15 Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Granby) Annex C.24 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX D: TOWN OF GRAND LAKE D.1 Community Profile Geography Grand Lake lies at an elevation of 8,386 feet and was established in 1881 and incorporated in 1944. It derives its name from the nearby lake, the largest natural body of water in the State of Colorado. According to the US Census Bureau, the Town has an area of 0.9 square miles, none of which is covered by water (the Town does not encircle the lake). Figure D.1 shows a map of the Town of Grand Lake and its location within Grand County. The map also shows critical facilities and landslide deposits. Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure D.I. Map of Grand Lake Harbisarrl i f �Y r� I Grand Lake r Columbine }..� Lake I � 1 ��, C'randAve .IY'n,rnl,rix Lahr ••�� � ameO 0 0.5 1 Miles Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT Grand County (Grand Lake) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 LEGEND Streams Local Roads — Major Roads — Highways r Grand Lake I.._1 Elevation (ft) Q 6.614 - 8,566 8,567 - 9,649 0 9,650 - 10,912 10,913 - 14,275 A Annex D.2 Population The permanent population is the number of people who reside in the town on a year-round basis and was estimated at 357 in 2011 and at 471 in 2010. Select American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 and 2010 US Census demographic and social characteristics for Grand Lake's "permanent" population are shown in Table D.1. Table D.1. Grand Lake -Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Gender/Age Male (%) 53.3 62.5 Female (%) 46.7 37.5 Under 5 Years (%) 3.2 3.9 65 Years and Over (%) 14.6 17.4 Race/Ethnicity (one race) White (%) 93.2 96.4 Black or African American (%) 0.2 0.0 American Indian and Alaska Native (%) 0.8 3.6 Asian (%) 0.4 0.0 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (%) 0 0.0 Other (%) 2.1 0.0 Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race) (%) 7.4 0.0 Other Average Household Size 1.96 2.19 High School Graduate or Higher (%) 99.2 90.3 Source: ACS 2011, 2010 US Census, factfinder2.census. gov History The Town of Grand Lake was established in 1881. The Town was originally an outfitting and supply point for the mining settlements of Lulu city, Teller City, and Gaskill, and has been a tourist destination for over 100 years. It was incorporated on June 23, 1944 and briefly held the county seat from 1882 to 1888. Economy According to the ACS 2011 estimates, the industries that employed the highest percentage of Grand Lake's labor force were arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (42%); retail trade (13%); construction (11.8%); wholesale trade (11.2%); and public administration (11.2%). Select economic characteristics for Grand Lake from the 2011 ACS estimates and 2010 US Census are shown in Table D.2. Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table D.2. Grand Lake—Economic Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Families below Poverty Level (%) 26.9 25.3 Individuals below Poverty Level (%) 48.3 31.4 Median Home Value $169,600 $370,600 Median Household Income $50,391 $51,513 Per Capita Income $21,285 $24,152 Population in Labor Force* 174 233 Source: AGS 2U11, 2010 US Census, tacttinder2.census.gov *Age 16 years and over D.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Grand Lake's planning team identified the hazards that affect the community and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to the Town (see Table D.3). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Grand Lake. Table D.3. Grand Lake—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Isolated Unlikely Limited Medium Dam Failure Isolated Unlikely Limited Low Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Likely Critical High Earthquake Large Unlikely Negligible Low Flood Large Occasional Limited Medium Hazardous Materials Transportation Isolated Unlikely Negligible Low Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Small Unlikely Limited Medium Lightning Isolated Occasional Limited Medium Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Critical High Wildfire Large Highly Likely Catastrophic High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Medium Windstorm Medium Occasional Limited Medium "See Section 3.2 tor dennitions or tnese tactors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex DA Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 D.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Grand Lake's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. The following vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that may vary from other parts of the planning area. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. Community Asset Inventory Table D.4 shows the number of structures, land value, and assessed value of improvements to parcels in Grand Lake. Land values have been purposely excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table DA. Grand Lake—Building Exposure Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improvement Value Estimated Content Value Total Value* Agricultural 1 0 $670 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 86 82 $14,299,260 $21,559,970 $21,559,970 $43,119,940 Commercial Vacant 11 0 $1,206,250 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 9 9 $2,501,720 $2,470,150 $2,470,150 $4,940,300 Residential Improved 759 757 $97,812,790 $186,916,740 $93,458,370 $280,375,110 Residential Vacant 144 7 $18,128,150 $417,670 $208,835 $626,505 Tax Exempt 25 8 $3,122,480 $2,660,460 $2,660,460 $5,320,920 Unknown 141 15 $479,100 $1,297,880 $1,297,880 $2,595,760 Vacant Land 12 0 $207,560 $0 $0 $0 Total 1,188 878 $137,757,980 $215,322,870 $121,655,665 $336,978,535 Source: Vrand County Assessor 2013 *Includes value of improvements and estimated content value Table D.5 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by Grand Lake's planning team as extremely important to protect in the event of a disaster. Table D.S. Grand Lake—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Replacement Hazard Specific Name of Asset Type Value ($) Info/Comments Grand Lake Fire Station RF 100s of thousands Fire/flood/winter storm Fire / Flood/ Winter GC Sheriff's Sub -Station EF 100s of Thousands Storm Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Name of Asset Type Replacement Value ($) Hazard Specific Info/Comments Town Hall LS 100s of Thousands Fire / Winter Storm Community House LS/HCNA 100s of Thousands Fire / Winter Storm Grand Lake Library LL 100s of Thousands Fire / Winter Storm Public Works Shop LS 100s of Thousands Fire / Flood/ Winter Storm US Post Office LL 100s of Thousands Fire / Flood/ Winter Storm GL Elementary School LL 100s of Thousands Fire / Flood/ Winter Storm Town Water Plant EF 100s of Thousands Fire / Drought / Extreme Temp. H2O Storage Tank (GLL) EF 100s of Thousands Fire / Drought / Extreme Temp. H2O Storage Tank SPW EF 100s of Thousands Fire / Drought / Extreme Temp. Water Wells EF 100s of Thousands Fire / Drought / Extreme Temp. Adams Tunnel LL Millions Fire / Drought / Extreme Temp. / Levee Failure Cellular Tower (GLL) LL 100s of Thousands Fire/ Winter Storm / High Winds Us Highway 34 EF Millions Fire/Flood/W. Storm/ Haz. Mat Bridge — W'Portal Road LL 100s of Thousands Fire / Flood Bridge — Grand Avenue LL 100s of Thousands Fire / Flood Bridge — Jericho Road LL 100s of Thousands Fire / Flood Connecting Channel (Grand Lake To Shadow Res.) EA Millions Flood / Levee Failure / Drought Grand Lake Lode HCNA 100s of Thousands Fire Kaufinen House HCNA 100s of Thousands Fire Rapids Lode HCNA 100s of Thousands Fire / Flood Grand Count EMS"" Sources: HMPC *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset **Identified separately by Grand County OEM The Town also needs to further evaluate the seasonal workforce to better understand their impact on the community and what needs to be done to protect them. Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. These hazards include drought, flood, wildfire, and severe winter weather. Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Drought Vulnerability to drought can be difficult to quantify by jurisdiction due to the widespread nature of the hazard. Drought in the summer increases problems with dust and erosion and can cause deterioration in water quality. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding. It also increases the wildfire hazard. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline. A portion of Grand County relies on individual ground wells and constructed water retention structures for their water resources. Ground wells service a significant portion of the population, while local ranchers rely upon ponds and ditches for livestock and crops. The County does not own rights to most of the water in its borders, and much of the water is allocated elsewhere. Wastewater treatment plants are also dependent on streamflows; if streamflows are inadequate, this can become a public health and sanitation concern. The incidence of blue algae increases during periods of extreme heat, which often accompanies drought, and zebra mussels are also a potential issue. Trans -mountain water diversions may increase in times of drought, exacerbating conditions in the three -lakes region. Flood The Town of Grand Lake has flood hazard mapping along Little Columbine Creek, which drains into the Shadow Mountain Reservoir, and along the North Inlet, which drains into Grand Lake. Localized stormwater flooding can also cause minor problems. Existing Development The effective DFIRM for Grand Lake, dated January 2, 2008, was the best available flood hazard data. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon. Only parcels with improvement values greater than zero were used in the analysis, which assumes that improved parcels have a structure of some type. The DFIRM flood zones were overlaid in GIS on the parcel centroid data to identify structures that would likely be inundated during a 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance flood event. Building improvement values for the points were based on the assessor's data and summed for the unincorporated county and for the municipalities. Property exposure located in flood hazard zones by land use type is shown in Table D.6. Flood zones A and AE are variations of the 1% annual chance event. The "Shaded Zone X" represents the 0.2% annual chance hazard zone on the DFIRM. Building and estimated content values were totaled. The Town's A Zone has an exposure value of over $4.1 million. To estimate losses a 25% loss factor was applied to the total exposure, based on FEMA depth damage functions associated with a two foot deep flood. Flood loss from the 1% annual chance event based on this assessment would be in the magnitude of $1 million. Flooded Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 structures for the DFIRM flood zones are depicted in Figure D.2. More information on the methodology used for this loss estimation can be found in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. There is one critical facility, a bridge on Grand Avenue, located in the floodplain in Grand Lake. Table D.6. Grand Lake—Flood Risk by Flood Zone and Property Type Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Loss Estimate Zone A Commercial Improved 2 1 $183,330 $183,330 $366,660 $91,665 Residential Improved 10 10 $2,553,840 $1,276,920 $3,830,760 $957,690 Residential Vacant 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Unknown 4 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 19 11 $2,737,170 $1,460,250 $4,197,420 $1,049,355 Source: AMEC analysis of DFIRM Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure D.2. DFIRM Flood Zones and Floodprone Properties in Grand Lake f Grand Lake 1 Columbine L. � ¢d � p !7�1f77 f'A" '� I 0�1 j I 34, f 1 1 LEGEND - Hazus 1 ooyr Flood Zones 0 Hazus 100yr Flooded Structures 1 FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones • 1% Flooded Structures 1%Annual Chance D 0.2% Flooded Structures - Zone A Streams - Zone AE Local Roads 0.2% Annual Chance Major Roads 1 , 0 Zone X — Highways Zone D 1r— l Grand Lake IL. -J amee d 0 1 Miles I l r i I l l r l Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 112!2008 Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 National Flood Insurance Program Grand Lake joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on January 1, 1986. NFIP insurance data indicates that as of March 25, 2013, there were 10 flood insurance policies in force in Grand Lake with $2,818,400 of coverage. Three of the policies are in Grand Lake's A zone, and seven are located outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area. There have been no historical claims for flood losses in Grand Lake. There were no repetitive or severe repetitive loss structures. Future Development Grand Lake addresses floodplain management policies in its Municipal Code (see Regulatory Capabilities section below). These policies are consistent with flood management policies of the NFIP. Wildfire Existing Development The Grand County CWPP (2006) evaluated the wildfire hazards to each of the incorporated and unincorporated towns in the County. Grand Lake received a hazard rating of very high. Grand Lake is also covered by Grand Lake Fire Protection District's CWPP. Refer to pages 3.121- 3.122 in Chapter 3 for further details on the Grand Lake Fire Protection District CWPP. Based on the methodology described for wildfire in Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard, the property values in Grand Lake were aggregated by wildfire threat zones. The breakdown of property values in Grand Lake by wildfire threat zone is shown in Table D.7. The majority of risk to wildfire is to residential structures, but some commercial areas are at risk as well. The Colorado State Forest Service in partnership with the Town and local residents have done or planned several forest health treatments in and around Grand Lake. These areas are depicted on the map in Figure D.3. See Figure H.6 in Annex H Fire Protection Districts for a map of wildfire intensity in the Grand Lake area. Table 13.7. Grand Lake—Property Values in Wildfire Threat Zones Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Improved Threat Parcel Estimated Zone Land Use Count Land Value Improved Value Content Value Total Value Moderate Commercial Improved 52 $8,824,750 $12,038,240 $12,038,240 $24,076,480 Commercial Vacant 0 $707,550 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 7 $2,219,570 $1,413,890 $1,413,890 $2,827,780 Residential Improved 231 $41,755,410 $72,792,010 $36,396,005 $109,188,015 Residential Vacant 4 $3,973,060 $143,520 $71,760 $215,280 Tax Exempt 4 $1,521,000 $1,194,500 $1,194,500 $2,389,000 Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Unknown 13 $429,100 $1,191,570 $1,191,570 $2,383,140 Vacant Land 0 $8,150 $0 $0 $0 Total 311 $59,438,590 $88,773,730 $52,305,965 $141,079,695 High Agricultural 0 $670 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 30 $5,474,510 $9,521,730 $9,521,730 $19,043,460 Commercial Vacant 0 $439,330 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 2 $282,150 $1,056,260 $1,056,260 $2,112,520 Residential Improved 533 $55,877,200 $114,538,200 $57,269,100 $171,807,300 Residential Vacant 3 $13,970,460 $274,150 $137,075 $411,225 Tax Exempt 3 $706,170 $1,272,160 $1,272,160 $2,544,320 Unknown 2 $49,970 $106,310 $106,310 $212,620 Vacant Land 0 $140,520 $0 $0 $0 Total 573 $76,940,980 $126,768,810 $69,362,635 $196,131,445 Grand Total 884 $136,379,570 $215,542,540 $121,668,600 $337,211,140 Source: AMEC analysis with SILVIS data Two critical facilities were identified in low and high -moderate wildfire zones in Grand Lake. A bridge on Grand Avenue is located in the high fire intensity zone, and the Grand Lake Lodge is located in the lowest fire intensity zone. Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure D.3. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Grand Lake } Grand Lake I y IP,��..�� �• �+� J Qo °\ GrandgVe •.,�—`� Vii,;', i •� mow 'D 34 LEGEND CSFS Treatments Vegetatuon Management Units r / USFS Treatment Types a s i O Fuels Timber Sale Streams Local Roads � -Major Roads 1 / - Highways Grand Lake amec'�9 D 0.I 0.9 Miles N Map compiled 812013, intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 The Grand Lake Fire Protection District, which provides fire protection services to Grand Lake and surrounding area, is considered an initial attack center for wildland fires on all private land and takes a joint responsibility with the U.S. Forest Service for fires on federal land. Future Development The Grand Lake Municipal Code requires that development meet fire mitigation standards before it can be approved for occupancy. Grand Lake FPD also enforces the International Fire Code. All new buildings in the District's service area are required to adhere to the International Fire Code. Grand Lake FPD also reviews all plats, construction plans, and site plans against the District's Standards. These standards are designed to help protect life safety and property from wildfire. Severe Winter Weather In the alpine environment of Grand County, severe winter weather occurs several times every season. This hazard has been critical in its magnitude and severity in the past, most recently during the event in December 2007. Vulnerability is high along roadways and mountain passes, particularly on Highway 40 and Highway 9, where severe winter weather conditions may cause traffic related deaths and injuries and increase avalanche risk. Road closures due to winter weather conditions also restrict or prevent the movement of people and goods and services (including food and gas), which can be crippling during the high tourism season and create the need for emergency sheltering for travelers. The County is more vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards during the winter months due to the increased volume of people living, working, and visiting here. Winter access to Grand Lake is limited to US Highway 34 since Trail Ridge Road through Rocky Mountain National Park is closed from October through May. Growth and Development Trends Table D.8 illustrates how Grand Lake has grown in terms of population and number of housing units between 2000 and 2011. Table D.B. Grand Lake—Change in Population and Housing Units, 2000-2011 2011 Estimated 2011 Estimated Estimated 2000 Population Percent Change 2000 # of # of Housing Percent Change Population Estimate 2000-2011 Housing Units Units 2000-2011 447 357 -20.1 748 1,096 +46.5 Source: ACS 2011 and US Census 2000, factfinder2.census.aov The Town of Grand Lake has several development concerns related to hazards including steeper slopes, increased fire danger, lake -side and stream erosion, and infill of lakes. Second homeowners in the Town have limited supplies and limited communications capabilities. Access and egress in Grand Lake is also limited with only one highway, U.S. 34, out of the area. Figure DA depicts Grand Lake's current town limits and the growth area boundary, as shown in the 2011 Grand County Master Plan. Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure CIA. Grand Lake Growth Areas Grand County - Grand Lake Growth ,areas Grand County Mash Plan Wage 56 Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 DA Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table D.9 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Grand Lake. Table D.9. Grand Lake—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (Ordinances, Codes, Plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan Yes Does not contain mitigation plan Zoning ordinance Yes Tree Mitigation (Chap. 13) Subdivision ordinance Yes Growth management ordinance No Floodplain ordinance Yes Flood Damage Prevention (Chap. 12) Other special purpose ordinance stormwater, steep slope, wildfire No Building code Yes Building Code (Chap. 9) Fire department ISO rating No Rely on Grand Lake FPD Erosion or sediment control program Yes Municipal Code Stormwater management program No Rely on CDPS Site plan review requirements Yes Capital improvements plan No Limited planning through budget Economic development plan No Limited planning in 2011 report and recent community engagement efforts Local emergency operations plan No Rely on Grand Lake FPD Other special plans No Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams Yes NFIP compliant Elevation certificates (for floodplain development Yes Administered by town staff Other No Grand Lake Municipal Code Chapter 9 Building Regulations • 9-1-2 Adoption of Primary Codes: lists the codes adopted in Grand Lake Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 • 9-2-9 Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The applicant conducting the grading activity shall install and maintain temporary and/or permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures as required by the Town. Chapter 12, Article 5 Flood Damage Prevention • Establishes methods of reducing flood losses • Names Town Manager as the floodplain administrator, and establishes floodplain administrator duties Chapter 13 Urban Forestry Management • 13-1-5 Fire Mitigation Regulations: Public Nuisance – The spread of the mountain pine beetle has posed an immediate threat to the pine trees located within the Town. Trees infested with the mountain pine beetle, as well as trees that have died or are in the process of dying as the result of such infestation, and trees that have died of other causes increase the risk of uncontrolled fires within the Town. In order to contain the spread of the mountain pine beetle, to reduce the risk of uncontrolled fires, and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town, the Board of Trustees does hereby declare pine trees infected with the mountain pine beetle, as well as pine trees that have died or are in the process of dying as a result of such infestation, and other dead trees a public nuisance to be abated by the owner of the land on which such trees are found, or if not so abated, to be destroyed by the Town. Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table D.10 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Grand Lake. Table D.10. Grand Lake—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of Yes Town Manager/Town land development/land management Planner practices Engineer/professional trained in Yes Town Manager/Town construction practices related to Planner buildings and/or infrastructure Planner/engineer/scientist with an Yes Town Planner understanding of natural hazards Personnel skilled in GIS Yes Town Planner Full time building official No Rely on Grand County As needed Building Dept. Floodplain manager Yes Town Manager Emergency manager No Rely on Grand County resources Grant writer Yes Town Manager/Town Limited Experience Planner Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Other personnel Yes Water Supervisor Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y Public Works Director GIS Data Resources Yes Town Planner Limited Data (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land Y Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds use, building footprints, etc.) Incur Debt through Private Activities N Warning Systems/Services No Rely on Grand County (Reverse 9-11, cable override, resources outdoor warning signals) Other Yes Public Works On Call Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table D.11 identifies financial tools or resources that Grand Lake could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. Other funding sources include general fund revenues and reserves, and water utility reserves. Table D.11. Grand Lake—Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Financial Resources Accessible/Eligible to Use (Yes/No) Comments Community Development Block Grants Y Capital Improvements Project Funding N Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Services Y Impact Fees for New Development N Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y Incur Debt through Private Activities N Withhold Spending in Hazard Prone Areas Y Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships • The Town is covered by the Grand Lake FPD CWPP • The Town of Grand Lake holds fire mitigation meetings headed by the Grand Lake FPD and USFS with the community. Past Mitigation Efforts • Several mitigation projects were identified in the Grand Lake CWPP. D.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Grand Lake had adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 D.6 Mitigation Actions The planning team for Grand Lake identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Continued Compliance with the NFIP Grand Lake will continue participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Specific activities that the Town will undertake to continue compliance include the following: • Working with FEMA and the Colorado Water Conservation Board in the review and adoption of new digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) as part of the map modernization (now RiskMAP) program • Periodically reviewing the flood damage prevention ordinance and identifying opportunities to strengthen requirements and enforcement. The Town is in the process of reviewing and updating their ordinance to be compliant with the update State Floodplain Rule (required by January 2014). • Promote and disperse information on the benefits of flood insurance, with assistance from partners such as the Colorado Water Conservation Board. • Continuing strong enforcement of the floodplain ordinance and working with developers and property owners to understand the program Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Grand Lake -1 Grand Lake Fire Protection District CWPP Implementation Support and Outreach Jurisdiction Hazard Addressed Town of Grand Lake Wildfire Project Description, Grand Lake Fire Protection District's CWPP is currently in the update/review Issue & Background process. The Town of Grand Lake will support the Grand Lake Fire Protection District in obtaining final approval of the CWPP at the state level. This will include a cooperative effort for public outreach and education to promote and raise awareness of the CWPP and its associated wildfire mitigation projects. Outreach efforts may include attending meetings, distributing information to the public, etc. Lead Agency and Title Grand Lake Fire Protection District, Town of Grand Lake (joint effort) of Lead Person Partners: Property owners Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Improve public awareness of wildfire risk and mitigation efforts in Grand Lake (Losses Avoided) area; reduce wildfire risk to life and property Potential Funding: CSFS Timeline: Ongoing Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Grand Lake) Annex D.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX E: TOWN OF HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS EA Community Profile Geography Hot Sulphur Springs is the county seat of Grand County. The Town lies at an elevation of 7,680 feet. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Town has a total area of 0.8 square miles, all of it land. The Hot Sulphur Springs Resort and Spa is located in the Town. The natural hot springs are heated from geothermal activity. The Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall FPD (HSSPFPD) CWPP included climate data taken recorded at the Williams Fork Dam. Based on over 37 years of records (1982-2009) recorded at a weather station at the Williams Fork Dam, which is located southwest of Parshall, the annual average day time temperature is 57.3 ° F. The average temperature range during that period of time varies from a high of 79.3° F in July to an average minimum temperature of -2.1° F in January. Average annual precipitation is 14.6 inches. The wettest month is July, which receives on average 1.76 inches of precipitation, and the driest month is December, which averages less than an inch (0.8"). The area in the vicinity of Williams Fork Dam receives 74 inches of snow a year, on average. Figure E.1 shows a map of the Town of Hot Sulphur Springs and its location within Grand County. Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure E.1. Map of Hot Sulphur Springs ameO 0 Ox5 1 Miles N I I I I I I I _j Map compiled 412013', intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT A Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 40 rioi Sulphur Springs ---------- ---- Grand Ave LEGEND Streams 40 Railroads Local Roads Major Roads Highways Hot Sulphur Springs Elevation (ft) 6,614 - 8,566 8,567 - 9,649 9,650 - 10,912 10.913 - 14,275 ameO 0 Ox5 1 Miles N I I I I I I I _j Map compiled 412013', intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT A Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Population The permanent population is the number of people who reside in the town on a year-round basis and was estimated at 1,055 in 2011 and at 663 in 2010. Select American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 and 2010 US Census demographic and social characteristics for Hot Sulphur Springs's "permanent" population are shown in Table E.1. Table E.I. Hot Sulphur Springs -Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Gender/Age Male (%) 50.8 50.9 Female (%) 49.2 49.1 Under 5 Years (%) 8.1 9.3 65 Years and Over (%) 6 8.2 Race/Ethnicity (one race) White (%) 96.8 82.1 Black or African American (%) 0 0.8 American Indian and Alaska Native (%) 0.9 0.0 Asian (%) 0.3 0.0 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (%) 0 1.1 Other (%) 1.2 0.2 Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race) (%) 7.7 1.8 Other Average Household Size 2.49 3.31 High School Graduate or Higher (%) 96.3 95.6 Source: AGS 2011, 2010 US Census, Tacttlnder2.census. gov History Hot Sulphur Springs was originally a summer campground for Native Americans who came for the hot springs. When Grand County was formed, it was the first county seat from 1874 to 1882, after which it moved to Grand Lake. The county seat returned to Hot Sulphur Springs in 1888 and has remained there since. The Town was established in 1860, making it the oldest town in the County. It was originally named Saratoga West and sometimes called Warm Springs. In 1863, the name was changed to reflect the local hot springs that were used for medicinal purposes. The town site was bought by William Newton Byers, founder of the Rocky Mountain News, in 1864. He wished to make it a spa and resort. He surveyed, platted, and named the streets. The Town was incorporated on April 1, 1903. Economy According to the ACS 2011 estimates, the industries that employed the highest percentage of Hot Sulphur Springs's labor force were retail trade (21.8%); construction (17.5%); public administration (11.6%); and finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (10.7%). Select Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 economic characteristics for Hot Sulphur Springs from the 2011 ACS estimates and 2010 US Census are shown in Table E.2. Table E.2. Hot Sulphur Springs—Economic Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Families below Poverty Level (%) 0 2.8 Individuals below Poverty Level (%) 0 3.5 Median Home Value $225,000 $230,200 Median Household Income $68,250 $71,094 Per Capita Income $25,298 $26,562 Population in Labor Force* 547 602 Source: ACS 2011, 2010 US Census, tacttfnder2.census.gov *Age 16 years and over E.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Hot Sulphur Springs's planning team identified the hazards that affect the community and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to the Town (see Table E.3). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Hot Sulphur Springs. Table E.3. Hot Sulphur Springs—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Isolated Likely Limited Low Dam Failure Medium Occasional Critical Medium Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Highly likely Critical Medium Earthquake Isolated Occasional Limited/ Negligible Low Flood Medium Occasional/ Likely Critical Medium Hazardous Materials (Transportation) Isolated Likely Limited Low Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Isolated Likely Limited Medium Lightning Isolated Occasional Limited Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly likely Critical High Wildfire Large Highly likely Catastrophic High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Medium Windstorm Large Likely Limited Low 'bee Section 3.2 Tor detinitions or these tactors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex EA Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 E.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Hot Sulphur Springs's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. The following vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that may vary from other parts of the planning area. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. Community Asset Inventory Table EA shows the number of structures, land value, and assessed value of improvements to parcels in Hot Sulphur Springs. Land values have been purposely excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table EA. Hot Sulphur Springs—Building Exposure Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improvement Value Estimated Content Value Total Value* Commercial Improved 20 20 $1,397,840 $3,293,010 $3,293,010 $6,586,020 Commercial Vacant 14 1 $638,490 $1,060 $1,060 $2,120 Mixed Use 9 9 $1,843,670 $2,476,600 $2,476,600 $4,953,200 Residential Improved 264 262 $7,077,300 $34,387,870 $17,193,935 $51,581,805 Residential Vacant 132 5 $5,326,270 $32,270 $16,135 $48,405 Tax Exempt 26 13 $1,078,800 $5,102,740 $5,102,740 $10,205,480 Unknown 43 1 $5,070 $35,210 $35,210 $70,420 Vacant Land 2 1 $13,420 $940 $0 $940 Total 510 312 $17,380,860 $45,329,700 $28,118,690 $73,448,390 Source: Grand County Assessor 2013 *Includes value of improvements and estimated content value Table E.5 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by Hot Sulphur Springs's planning team as extremely important to protect in the event of a disaster. Table E.S. Hot Sulphur Springs—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Name of Asset Replacement Hazard Specific Type* Value ($) Info/Comments Grand County Sheriff's Dept. LS $8,900,000 Hot Sulphur Springs Fire Dept. LS $1,000,000 Hot Sulphur Springs Water Plant LL $2,200,000 Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Name of Asset Type* Replacement Hazard Specific Value ($) Info/Comments Hot Sulphur Springs Water Storage Tanks LL $500,000 Grand County Administrative Blvd. EF $11,500,000 Grand County Judicial Center EF $9,500,000 Grand County Public & Home Health Offices EF $355,000 Grand County Rural Health Non- Profit EF $334,000 Grand County Public Health Nurse Office EF $240,000 Heart of the Mountains Hospice EF $240,000 Grand County Dept. of Social Services EF $389,000 Mountain Family Center EF $238,000 Hot Sulphur Springs Town Hall** Grand County Courthouse** Sources: HMPC *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset **Identified separately by Grand County OEM The Town also needs to further evaluate the seasonal workforce to better understand their impact on the community and what needs to be done to protect them. Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. These hazards include flood, landslide, wildfire, and winter storms. Flood The Town of Hot Sulphur Springs has flood hazard mapping for the Colorado River. Specific flood concerns exist for the Town's water treatment plant. Localized stormwater flooding can also cause minor problems. Existing Development The effective DFIRM for Hot Sulphur Springs, dated January 2, 2008, was the best available flood hazard data. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon. Only parcels with improvement values greater than zero were used in the analysis, which assumes that improved parcels have a structure of some type. The DFMM flood zones were overlaid in GIS on the parcel centroid data to identify structures that would likely be inundated during a 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance flood event. Building improvement values for the points were based on the assessor's data and summed for the Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 unincorporated county and for the municipalities. Property exposure located in flood hazard zones by land use type is shown in Table E.6. Flood zones A and AE are variations of the 1% annual chance event. The "Shaded Zone X" represents the 0.2% annual chance hazard zone on the DFIRM. Building and estimated content values were totaled. The Town's A Zone has an exposure value of over $526,000. To estimate losses a 25% loss factor was applied to the total exposure, based on FEMA depth damage functions associated with a two foot deep flood. Flood loss from the 1% annual chance event based on this assessment would be approximately $131,000. Flooded structures for the DFIRM flood zones are depicted in Figure E.2. More information on the methodology used for this loss estimation can be found in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. There are no critical facilities located in the floodplain in Hot Sulphur Springs. Table E.6. Hot Sulphur Springs—Flood Risk by Flood Zone and Property Type Source: AMtC: analysis Ot UHKM Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Total Improved Improved Estimated Loss Land Use Parcel Parcel Value Content Total Value Estimate Count Count Value Zone A Residential Improved 2 2 $351,090 $175,545 $526,635 $131,659 Tax Exempt 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Unknown 5 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 8 2 $351,090 $175,545 $526,635 $131,659 Source: AMtC: analysis Ot UHKM Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure E.2. DFIRM Flood Zones and Floodprone Properties in Hot Sulphur Springs s / j ri10 ri r r � I y r--_.._.._ i Hot Sulphur ' Springs i'ulor'o i I _-_-•, i LEGEND .._.._ ._.._.._..1 49 1% Flooded Structures 0 0.2% Flooded Structures FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones 1%Annual Chance - Zone A - Zone AE 0.2% Annual Chance Zone X Zone D Streams + Railroads Local Roads — Major Roads — Highways 17—]Hot Hot Sulphur Springs ame �Q 0 6.5 1 Miles N Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 11212008 Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development The Town of Hot Sulphur Springs addresses floodplain management policies in its Municipal Code, but does not participate in the NFIP. Landslide, Mud Flow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Possible landslide areas are identified on steep slopes with unstable soil conditions. No landslide deposits were identified in Hot Sulphur Springs, though there are deposits to the west and north of the Town. Figure E.3 depicts the location of landslide deposits near Hot Sulphur Springs. Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure E.3. Landslide Areas in Hot Sulphur Springs or r--.. —..—. r i 1 Hot Sulphur f Springs 1 1+_---..—..— I I Grand_ Ave I P 40 r I ,i LEGEND \ ® Landslide [Deposits Streams M. +Railroads Local Roads - Major Roads - Highways Hot Sulphur Springs ameO o.s ,Miles N 1 i i I i i I I Map compiled 4!2013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Colton/USGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition and avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas or by corrective engineering. The mountainous topography of the County presents considerable constraints to development, most commonly in the form of steep sloped areas. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and can become unstable. Wildfire Existing Development The Grand County CWPP (2006) evaluated the wildfire hazards to each of the incorporated and unincorporated towns in the County. Hot Sulphur Springs received a hazard rating of low to medium. Hot Sulphur Springs is also covered by the HSSPFPD CWPP. Refer to pages 3.120- 3.121 in Chapter 3 for further details on the HSSPFPD CWPP. Based on the methodology described for wildfire in Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard using the SILVIS threat zones, the property values in Hot Sulphur Springs were aggregated by wildfire threat zones. The breakdown of property values in Hot Sulphur Springs by wildfire threat zone is shown in Table E.7. The majority of risk to wildfire is to residential structures, but some commercial areas are at risk as well. The Colorado State Forest Service have done or planned some forest health treatments in and around Hot Sulphur Springs. These areas are depicted on the map in Figure EA. Wildfire intensity mapping can be referenced in the Fire Protection District annex. Table E.7. Hot Sulphur Springs—Property Values in Wildfire Threat Zones Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Moderate Commercial Improved 13 $923,700 $2,237,340 $2,237,340 $4,474,680 Commercial Vacant 1 $520,120 $1,060 $1,060 $2,120 Mixed Use 5 $426,850 $952,750 $952,750 $1,905,500 Residential Improved 138 $3,387,150 $16,227,260 $8,113,630 $24,340,890 Residential Vacant 1 $2,631,390 $6,550 $3,275 $9,825 Tax Exempt 9 $564,830 $1,236,220 $1,236,220 $2,472,440 Unknown 1 $4,900 $35,210 $35,210 $70,420 Vacant Land 1 $13,420 $940 $0 $940 Total 169 $8,472,360 $20,697,330 $12,579,485 $33,276,815 High Commercial Improved 4 $240,550 $674,390 $674,390 $1,348,780 Commercial Vacant 0 $34,500 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 3 $270,820 $529,730 $529,730 $1,059,460 Residential 120 $3,469,680 $16,931,340 $8,465,670 $25,397,010 Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Grand Total Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value I Improved Residential Vacant 4 $2,341,090 Tax Exempt 1 $283,570 Unknown 0 $20 Total 132 $6,640,230 $38,933,950 301 $15,112,590 -owed Value Estimated Content Value Total Value $25,720 $12,860 $38,580 $75,440 $75,440 $150,880 $0 $0 $0 $18,236,620 $9,758,090 $27,994,710 $38,933,950 $22,337,575 $61,271,525 Source: AMEC analysis with SILVIS data Two critical facilities were identified in the moderate fire intensity zone in Hot Sulphur Springs: the bridge on Grand Avenue and the HSSPFPD fire station. No other critical facilities were identified in wildfire intensity zones in Hot Sulphur Springs. Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure EA. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Hot Sulphur Springs r If 40) r 1 f Hot SWphur Springs i i t \ I *'d.0 ------• � Z amen D 0.5 1 Miles Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 LEGEND -SFS Treatments Streams — Railroads Local Roads — Major Roads Highways --� Hot Sulphur Springs A Annex E.13 The HSSPFPD, which provides fire protection services to Hot Sulphur Springs and surrounding area, is considered an initial attack center for wildland fires on all private land and takes a joint responsibility with the U.S. Forest Service for fires on federal land. Future Development The Hot Sulphur Springs Town Code requires that development meet fire mitigation standards before it can be approved for occupancy. HSSPFPD enforces the International Fire Code. All buildings in the District's service area are required to adhere to the International Fire Code. HSSPFPD also reviews all plats, construction plans, and site plans against the District's Development and Review Standards. These standards are designed to help protect life safety and property from wildfire. Severe Winter Weather In the alpine environment of Grand County, severe winter weather occurs several times every season. This hazard has been critical in its magnitude and severity in the past, most recently during the event in December 2007. Vulnerability is high along roadways and mountain passes, particularly on Highway 40 and Highway 9, where severe winter weather conditions may cause traffic related deaths and injuries and increase avalanche risk. Road closures due to winter weather conditions also restrict or prevent the movement of people and goods and services (including food and gas), which can be crippling during the high tourism season and create the need for emergency sheltering for travelers. The County is more vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards during the winter months due to the increased volume of people living, working, and visiting here. Growth and Development Trends Table E.8 illustrates how Hot Sulphur Springs has grown in terms of population and number of housing units between 2000 and 2011. These numbers indicate that the Town grew substantially in that time period. As the Town continues to grow, more people and structures may be at risk to hazards. Figure E.5 depicts Hot Sulphur Spring's current town limits and the growth area boundary, as shown in the 2011 Grand County Master Plan. Table E.8. Hot Sulphur Springs—Change in Population and Housing Units, 2000-2011 2011 Estimated 2011 Estimated Estimated 2000 Population Percent Change 2000# of # of Housing Percent Change Population Estimate 2000-2011 Housing Units Units 2000-2011 521 1,055 +103 227 379 +67 Source: ACS 2011 and US Census 2000, factfinder2.census. gov Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure E.5. Hot Sulphur Springs Growth Areas Hot Sulphur Springs Growth Area �a HCS H P BILE IN11LES o 0.25 135 � Map Legend PaTces t.P Railrnad Town timds 0 rowAkeat3cundary p`nnger District kapaho-R,,Dsevet_Suohhur R7 �r`_.heuv-R�autt_'Partcs Rt} F.-tl State 3 -.!eau of Land Management -:c vca.e Land Board (t`' -c: Civ von of Wi dife Grand CaLint} Master Flan Page 55 Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 EA Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table E.9 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Hot Sulphur Springs. The Town of Hot Sulphur Springs has an identified Special Flood Hazard Area but does not participate in the NFIP and has been sanctioned since 11/27/1975. The community addresses floodplain management policies in its Municipal Code, Table E.9. Hot Sulphur Springs—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (Ordinances, Codes, Plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan Yes Zoning ordinance Yes Subdivision ordinance No Growth management ordinance No Floodplain ordinance Yes Other special purpose ordinance stormwater, steep slope, wildfire Yes Building code Yes Fire department ISO rating Yes Erosion or sediment control program No Stormwater management program No Site plan review requirements Yes Capital improvements plan Yes Economic development plan No Local emergency operations plan Yes Other special plans Yes All Hazards Plan — countywide Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams No Elevation certificates (for floodplain development No Other Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table E.10 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Hot Sulphur Springs. Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table E.10. Hot Sulphur Springs—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of Yes Ed Moyer, Hot Sulphur land development/land management Springs Town Planner practices Engineer/professional trained in No Scott Penson, County level construction practices related to Grand County Building buildings and/or infrastructure Dept. Planner/engineer/scientist with an No County level understanding of natural hazards Personnel skilled in GIS No County level Full time building official No Scott Penson, County level Grand County Building Dept. Floodplain manager No County level Emergency manager No Trevor Denney, County level Grand County Emergency Mgmt. Grant writer Yes Town of Hot Sulphur Springs staff Other personnel GIS Data Resources No County level (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land use, building footprints, etc.) Warning Systems/Services Rod Johnson, (Reverse 9-11, cable override, No Grand County Sheriff's County level outdoor warning signals) Dept. Other E.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Hot Sulphur Springs had adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. E.6 Mitigation Actions The planning team for Hot Sulphur Springs identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Hot Sulphur Springs -1 Develop and Implement Fuel Reduction Projects Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional, Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Fuel reduction projects are needed to reduce the wildfire vulnerability in Issue & Background wildland urban interface areas. Specific actions have been incorporated in the countywide and local CWPPs. Examine feasibility of combining and coordinating CWPPs into one working document. Lead Agency and Title Grand County Wildfire Council, Schelly Olson of Lead Person Partners: Fire Districts, Department of Natural Resources, CSFS, USFS, CDOT, Priority: High Cost Estimate: Variable, create a county -level position to coordinate all mitigation, education, and funding efforts Benefits: Protect life, property, wildlife, watersheds, and infrastructure from wildfire, (Losses Avoided) create and maintain healthy forests, create a Fire -Adapted Community Potential Funding: Grants, federal funding Timeline: Ongoing Status: Associated actions have been incorporated in the CWPPs, HOAs are applying for grants. Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Hot Sulphur Springs -2 Repair of Town Fire Hydrants Jurisdiction: Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, The bonnets on the fire hydrants are made of lead which have deteriorated Issue & Background with use (loosening and tightening), causing potential water issues and leakage of water at the hydrants. This could compromise the hydrants' functionality for fire protection. Lead Agency and Title Dana Kepner Company of Lead Person Partners: Jack Zielinski, Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Priority: Medium/High Cost Estimate: Unknown Benefits: Preserve water purity, avoid loss of water for fire protection (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Timeline: Ongoing Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Hot Sulphur Springs -3 Sewer Collection System Maintenance Jurisdiction: Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Hazard Addressed Disease Outbreak, Flooding Project Description, The sewer lines throughout the Town are very old and in need of repair or Issue & Background replacement. Faulty sewer lines can pose a threat to public health. These issues can be exacerbated by flooding. In anticipation of repairs/replacements, the Town had a camera run through the sewer lines and video recorded to identify the problem areas. This will assist the Town in prioritizing the lines that require repair or replacement. Lead Agency and Title Anderson Services of Lead Person Partners: Jack Zielinski, Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Priority: High Cost Estimate: $21,000 Benefits: Help avoid an emergency involving a damaged sewer line which would cause (Losses Avoided) health issues as well as extreme inconvenience to the Town's citizens Potential Funding: Timeline: Ongoing Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Hot Sulphur Springs -4 Street Repairs Jurisdiction: Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard Project Description, Streets in the Town of Hot Sulphur Springs have been deteriorating for some Issue & Background years. This presents a safety issues to pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, and can impact snow removal and access for emergency response vehicles. Funding is now available to perform the necessary repair/replacement of Town roads. Lead Agency and Title Acord Asphalt, Inc. (rotomill ing/paving), Harms & Sons (street repairs) of Lead Person Partners: Jack Zielinski, Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Priority: High Cost Estimate: Acord Asphalt, Inc. - $94,000 Harms & Sons - $13,000 Benefits: Improve access for emergency response vehicles; snow removal; and safety (Losses Avoided) for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Potential Funding: Timeline: Ongoing Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Hot Sulphur Springs) Annex E.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX F: TOWN OF KREMMLING F.1 Community Profile Geography Kremmling sits along the upper Colorado River in the lower and section of Middle Park between Byers Canyon and Gore Canyon, at an elevation of 7,364 feet. The Town is located approximately at the mouth of both the Blue River and Muddy Creek, which descend respectively from the south and north, providing valley access to Dillon and Steamboat Springs. Figure F.1 shows a map of the Town of Kremmling and its location within Grand County. Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure F.1. Map of Kremmling I L I il. l 1 1 ! 40 Eagde-Ave Kremmling 40 it 1 LEGEND Streams- + Railroads Local Roads — Major Roads 9 — Highways r --- L �J Kremmling Elevation (ft) Q 6,614 - 6,566 8,567 - 9,649 9,650 -10,912 10„913 -14.275 ame 0 0.5 1 Miles IIII III I Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only.. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Population The permanent population is the number of people who reside in the town on a year-round basis and was estimated at 2,039 in 2011 and at 1,444 in 2010. Select American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 and 2010 US Census demographic and social characteristics for Kremmling's "permanent" population are shown in Table F.1. Table F.I. Kremmling—Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Gender/Age Male (%) 51.2 46.2 Female (%) 47.8 53.8 Under 5 Years (%) 7.5 8.6 65 Years and Over (%) 8.4 8 Race/Ethnicity (one race) White (%) 92.6 89.3 Black or African American (%) 0.3 0.0 American Indian and Alaska Native (%) 0.3 0.0 Asian (%) 0.3 1.8 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (%) 0.3 0.0 Other (%) 4.3 8.1 Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race) (%) 11.9 18.8 Other Average Household Size 2.35 3.36 High School Graduate or Higher (%) 81.1 78.3 Source: AGS 2011, 2010 US Census, Tacttmtler2.census. gov History The Town was founded in 1881 during the Colorado Silver Boom days, but the lack of mineral resources in the nearby mountains made the Town grow very slowly in the early days. The area started as a general store run by Rudolph "Kare" Kremmling. His store was on the north side of Muddy Creek, but in 1881 two brothers, Aaron and John Kinsey, made part of their ranch into a town and called it Kinsey City. Kare Kremmling moved his store across the river to the new site and soon people were calling the place Kremmling. The original post office was called Kinsey City and ran from 1881 to 1885 with Kare Kremmling acting as the first Post Master. The name Kremmling was not officially recognized until 1895. After the Moffat railroad, Northwestern & Pacific arrived in 1906; Kremmling became the County's central shipping point. It was incorporated May 14, 1904 and as the 20th century progressed, ranching became the main industry in the valley in the vicinity of the Town. Economy According to the ACS 2011 estimates, the industries that employed the highest percentage of Kremmling's labor force were retail trade (18.6%); construction (15.9%); arts, entertainment, Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 and recreation (13.8%); educational services and healthcare (13.5%); and public administration (9.0%). Select economic characteristics for Kremmling from the 2011 ACS estimates and 2010 US Census are shown in Table F.2. Table F.2. Kremmling—Economic Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Families below Poverty Level (%) 4.6 6.8 Individuals below Poverty Level (%) 7,9 7.9 Median Home Value $202,300 $199,600 Median Household Income $42,337 $56,989 Per Capita Income $19,226 $20,494 Population in Labor Force* 898 1,058 Source: ACTS 2011, 2U1 U5 Lensus, tacttinder2.census.gov *Age 16 years and over F.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Kremmling's planning team identified the hazards that affect the community and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to the Town (see Table F.3). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Kremmling, but drought, dam failure, hazardous materials and severe winter weather are the greatest concerns. Table F.3. Kremmling—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Isolated Unlikely Negligible Low Dam Failure Large Unlikely Catastrophic High Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Occasional Limited High Earthquake Large Unlikely Limited Medium Flood Isolated Likely Limited Medium Hazardous Materials Transportation Large Occasional Critical High Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Isolated Unlikely Negligible Low Lightning Medium Likely Critical Medium Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Limited High Wildfire Small Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Variable High Windstorm Large Occasional Limited Medium *See Section 3.2 for definitions of these factors Grand County (Kremmling) Annex FA Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. F.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Kremmling's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. The following vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that may vary from other parts of the planning area. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. Community Asset Inventory Table FA shows the number of structures, land value, and assessed value of improvements to parcels in Kremmling. Land values have been purposely excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table FA. Kremmling—Building Exposure Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improvement Value Estimated Content Value Total Value* Agricultural 4 0 $700 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 59 59 $3,737,930 $12,084,990 $12,084,990 $24,169,980 Commercial Vacant 40 4 $1,378,850 $147,970 $147,970 $295,940 Industrial Improved 4 4 $586,970 $1,460,190 $2,190,285 $3,650,475 Industrial Vacant 3 0 $98,020 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 12 12 $500,130 $1,582,130 $1,582,130 $3,164,260 Residential Improved 477 476 $18,230,980 $39,500,340 $19,750,170 $59,250,510 Residential Vacant 54 7 $1,536,110 $53,410 $26,705 $80,115 Tax Exempt 51 19 $6,450,280 $3,810,810 $3,810,810 $7,621,620 Unknown 44 1 $339,250 $350,000 $350,000 $700,000 Vacant Land 7 2 $175,640 $5,530 $0 $5,530 Total 755 584 $33,034,860 $58,995,370 $39,943,060 $98,938,430 Source: Grand County Assessor 2013 'Includes value of improvements and estimated content value Table F.5 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by Kremmling's planning team as extremely important to protect in the event of a disaster. Grand County (Krenunling) Annex F.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table F.5. Kremmling—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Name of Asset Type* Replacement Value ($) Hazard Specific Info/Comments Water Plant LL $4 million Chlorine in storage Water Storage Tanks LL $2.5 million Maintenance Shop and Equipment EF $3 million Diesel fuel, acetylene tanks Police Station EF $1 million Fire Station EF $5 million Wastewater Plant EF $4 million Middle Park Hospital EF $10 million West Grand Elementary School EF $10 million West Grand High School EF $10 million Airport LL $30 million Jet fuel tanks Colorado River Pumping Station LL $5 million Silver Spruce Senior Apartments LL $5 million Cliff View Assisted Living LL $5 million Grand County EMS** Faith in Action Christian School** Galloway Inc.** Sources: HMPG *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset **Identified separately by Grand County OEM Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. These hazards include dam failure, drought, hazmat, landslide, wildfire, and winter storms. Dam Failure The Ritschard dam (a.k.a Wolford Mountain Reservoir) upstream of Kremmling and the Williams Fork dam upstream of Parshall have storage capacities of 84,639 cubic feet and 101,600 cubic feet respectively. There is potential for future issues with the Ritschard Dam (a.k.a. Wolford Mountain Reservoir), an earthen dam that is settling twice as fast as the expected rate. In the summer of 2012 water levels in the dam were low due to the drought and water demands along the Western Slope. This afforded the Colorado River District, who owns and operates Wolford Reservoir, to study why the dam was settling so much faster than expected. The chief engineer for the River District stated, "There is no reason for concern over dam failure. There are no leaks; the dam is solid." (http://www. steamboattoday. com/news/2012/aug/23/engineers-study-dam-settling-wolford- mountain-rese/) The Colorado River District will continue to monitor the dam to determine the cause of the increased settling. A failure of the Dillon Dam or Green Mountain dam in Summit Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 County would have catastrophic, cascading impacts that could reach Grand County, including Kremmling. Failure of the Dillon Dam could cause other dams downstream, such as Green Mountain, to fail, essentially creating a domino effect. Drought Vulnerability to drought can be difficult to quantify by jurisdiction due to the widespread nature of the hazard. Drought in the summer increases problems with dust and erosion and can cause deterioration in water quality. Drought conditions can also cause soil to compact and not absorb water well, potentially making an area more susceptible to flooding. It also increases the wildfire hazard. Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought, as carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in groundwater basins decline. A portion of Grand County relies on individual ground wells and constructed water retention structures for their water resources. Ground wells service a significant portion of the population, while local ranchers rely upon ponds and ditches for livestock and crops. The County does not own rights to most of the water in its borders, and much of the water is allocated elsewhere. Wastewater treatment plants are also dependent on streamflows; if streamflows are inadequate, this can become a public health and sanitation concern. The incidence of blue algae increases during periods of extreme heat, which often accompanies drought, and zebra mussels are also a potential issue. Flood The 2008 Flood Insurance Study for Grand County notes that the Town of Kremmling is non- floodprone and has no Special Flood Hazard Area identified. Thus no flood hazard areas are shown for the Town of Kremmling in Figure F.2. Accordingly, Kremmling is not expected to suffer any losses from a 100 -year flood. A residential area in the northeast part of Kremmling periodically experiences surface flow from snow melt. A project to improve the drainage in this area is detailed on page F.20. Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure F.2. DFIRM Flood Zones in Kremmling t Kremmling J C LEGEND FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones 1% Annual Chance h r . Zone - Zone AE 0,2% Annual Chance 9 F__] Zone X Zone D streams —� Railroads Local Roads — Major Roads Highways Kremmling amec0I - i i I 0.5 1 Miles o i i i I Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CD©T, FEMA DIFRM 1/2/2008 Grand County (Kremmling) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 A Annex F.8 Hazardous Materials The Town of Kremmling is exposed to transported hazardous materials by being in proximity to Highway 40 and the railroad. U.S. Highway 40 is the alternate route to Salt Lake City and primary detour route for closures of the I-70 corridor; trucks and tankers transporting hazardous materials may often use this route. Grand County OEM also identified four reporting Tier II facilities (for 2012 and 2013) in Kremmling, so the potential also exists for fixed hazmat incidents in the Town. Data from the National Response Center (NRC) between 2008 and 2012 showed five reported hazmat events in Kremmling, including one railroad event and four mobile events. Landslide, Mud Flow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Possible landslide areas are identified on steep slopes with unstable soil conditions. No landslide deposits were identified in Kremmling, though there are deposits to the south of the Town. Figure F.3 depicts the location of landslide deposits near Kremmling. Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure F.3. Landslide Areas in Kremmling , love _ t 40I.r JW v ,J �,• Kremmling �s�'•�.,� 40 9 r,.r LEGEND ElLandslide Deposits Streams • �— Railroads I� Local Roads — Major Roads — Highways —� Kremmling ameO 0 0.5 1 Miles Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Colton/USES Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition and avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas or by corrective engineering. The mountainous topography of the County presents considerable constraints to development, most commonly in the form of steep sloped areas. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and can become unstable. Wildfire Existing Development The Grand County CWPP (2006) evaluated the wildfire hazards to each of the incorporated and unincorporated towns in the County. Kremmling received a hazard rating of low. Kremmling is also covered by the Kremmling FPD CWPP. Refer to Table 3.34 for further details on the community wildfire hazard ratings in the Kremmling FPD CWPP. Based on the methodology described for wildfire in Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard using the SILVIS threat zones, the property values in Kremmling were aggregated by wildfire threat zones. The breakdown of property values in Kremmling by wildfire threat zone is shown in Table F.6. The majority of risk to wildfire is to residential structures, but some commercial areas are at risk as well. Table F.6. Kremmling—Property Values in Wildfire Threat Zones Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Moderate Agricultural 0 $250 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 42 $2,599,480 $8,048,620 $8,048,620 $16,097,240 Commercial Vacant 2 $984,520 $2,020 $2,020 $4,040 Industrial Vacant 0 $57,500 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 7 $332,270 $1,228,980 $1,228,980 $2,457,960 Residential Improved 267 $11,127,710 $20,453,980 $10,226,990 $30,680,970 Residential Vacant 6 $1,040,900 $52,990 $26,495 $79,485 Tax Exempt 11 $1,903,950 $1,262,300 $1,262,300 $2,524,600 Unknown 0 $30 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 0 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 Total 335 $18,062,610 $31,048,890 $20,795,405 $51,844,295 High Commercial Improved 6 $348,220 $962,160 $962,160 $1,924,320 Commercial Vacant 2 $200,620 $145,950 $145,950 $291,900 Mixed Use 3 $112,310 $145,600 $145,600 $291,200 Residential Improved 205 $6,935,640 $18,846,340 $9,423,170 $28,269,510 Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Residential Vacant 1 $415,210 $420 $210 $630 Tax Exempt 2 $246,120 $619,930 $619,930 $1,239,860 Unknown 1 $339,210 $350,000 $350,000 $700,000 Vacant Land 1 $19,200 $3,030 $0 $3,030 Total 221 $8,616,530 $21,073,430 $11,647,020 $32,720,450 Grand Total 556 $26,679,140 $52,122,320 $32,442,425 $84,564,745 Source: AMEC analysis with SILVIS data Three critical facilities were identified in the moderate fire intensity zone in Kremmling: the Kremmling Airport, Kremmling Fire Department, and West Grand Elementary School. No other critical facilities were identified in wildfire intensity zones in Kremmling. The Kremmling FPD, which provides fire protection services to Kremmling and surrounding area, is considered an initial attack center for wildland fires on all private land and takes a joint responsibility with the U.S. Forest Service for fires on federal land. Future Development Kremmling FPD enforces the 2006 International Fire Code. All buildings in the District's service area are required to adhere to the International Fire Code. Kremmling FPD also reviews all plats, construction plans, and site plans against the District's Development and Review Standards. These standards are designed to help protect life safety and property from wildfire. Severe Winter Weather In the alpine environment of Grand County, severe winter weather occurs several times every season. This hazard has been critical in its magnitude and severity in the past, most recently during the event in December 2007. Vulnerability is high along roadways and mountain passes, particularly on Highway 40 and Highway 9, where severe winter weather conditions may cause traffic related deaths and injuries and increase avalanche risk. Road closures due to winter weather conditions also restrict or prevent the movement of people and goods and services (including food and gas), which can be crippling during the high tourism season and create the need for emergency sheltering for travelers. The County is more vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards during the winter months due to the increased volume of people living, working, and visiting here. If power and heating were lost in the area, the impacts to the Town could be serious due to its isolation and the occurrence of extreme cold temperatures in the winter (-30°F). Growth and Development Trends Table F.7 illustrates how Kremmling has grown in terms of population and number of housing units between 2000 and 2011. Growth has not been occurring within any identified hazard Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 zones. Figure F.4 depicts Kremmling's current town limits and the growth area boundary, as shown in the 2011 Grand County Master Plan. Table F.7. Kremmling—Change in Population and Housing Units, 2000-2011 2011 Estimated 2011 Estimated Estimated 2000 Population Percent Change 2000 # of # of Housing Percent Change Population Estimate 2000-2011 Housing Units Units 2000-2011 1,578 2,039 +29.2 646 722 +11.8 Source: ACS 2011 and US Census 2000, factfinder2.census. gov Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure F.4. Kremmling Growth Areas Kremmling Growth Area Grund County Master Plan Page 54 Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 FA Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table F.8 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Kremmling. Table F.B. Kremmling—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (Ordinances, Codes, Plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan Yes Zoning ordinance Yes Subdivision ordinance Yes Growth management ordinance No Floodplain ordinance N/A Non-floodprone, not mapped in NFIP Other special purpose ordinance stormwater, steep slope, wildfire No Building code Yes Fire department ISO rating Yes 5 in Town/ 9 and 10 outside of Town of Kremmling Erosion or sediment control program No Stormwater management program No Site plan review requirements Yes Capital improvements plan Yes Economic development plan Yes Local emergency operations plan Yes Other special plans No Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams N/A Elevation certificates (for floodplain development N/A Other Town of Kremmling Comprehensive Plan This plan is currently being updated. The draft has been reviewed, and the plan is scheduled to be adopted in early 2014. Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table F.9 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Kremmling. Table F.9. Kremmling—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of land development/land management practices Yes Town Manager Engineer/professional trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure No Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Services Planner/engineer/scientist with an understanding of natural hazards No Y Personnel skilled in GIS Yes Town Manager Full time building official No Y Floodplain manager Yes Town Manager Emergency manager Yes Town Manager Grant writer Yes Town Manager Other personnel GIS Data Resources (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land use, building footprints, etc. No Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals) Yes Reverse -911 Other Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table F.10 identifies financial tools or resources that Kremmling could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. Table F.10. Kremmling—Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Financial Resources Accessible/Eligible to Use (Yes/No) Comments Community Development Block Grants Y Capital Improvements Project Funding Y Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Services Y Impact Fees for New Development Y Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y Incur Debt through Private Activities Y Withhold Spending in Hazard Prone Areas Y Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships Fire safety programs are given at Kremmling schools Kremmling FPD participated in the development of the Kremmling FPD Community Wildfire Protection Plan. F.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Kremmling had adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. F.6 Mitigation Actions The planning team for Kremmling identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Kremmling-1 Citizens for a Safe Highway 9 Jurisdiction: County and Town of Kremmling Hazard Addressed Wildlife Project Description, Wildlife -vehicle collisions are increasingly common along Highway 9 between Issue & Background Green Mountain Reservoir and the Colorado River. 600 accidents have occurred in the past 20 years, often causing injuries or fatalities to humans and animals. The Highway 9 Safety Project was initiated in 2011 and will include wildlife crossings and fencing, the addition of 8 -ft shoulders, and re -alignment to improve site distances. Lead Agency and Title Grand County and Town of Kremmling - Town Manager of Lead Person Partners: Citizens for a Safe Highway 9, CDOT Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP) Program Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: $9.2 million to qualify for RAMP consideration for funding. Blue Valley Ranch has offered $4 million, leaving $4.2 million to be raised Benefits: Protect life safety of people and animals in Grand County (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Donations Timeline: Funding deadline ($4.2 million) of July 1, 2013 Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Kremmling-2 Pedestrian Road Crossing or Crosswalk Jurisdiction: Grand County/Kremmling Hazard Addressed Multi -Hazard, Winter Weather Project Description, This project will address the unsafe pedestrian crossing for school age children, Issue & Background town residents and visitors, elderly, special needs. The pedestrian crosswalk indicators at many locations throughout the County are not visually adequate for oncoming traffic. Some identified locations give pedestrians access to the school, library, hospital, health care clinic and parks. This is especially dangerous during severe winter storms with low visibility. This project will complete a flow study of pedestrian and vehicle traffic through indicated crosswalk locations. This project will result in the installation of better crosswalk signage that can be seen coming from both directions with either LED lighting or permanent base place signs that are placed in the road. Lead Agency and Title Grand County OEM and Kremmling Town Manager of Lead Person Partners: Town of Kremmling, Town of Grand Lake, Town of Fraser, Town of Winter Park Priority: High Cost Estimate: $60,000 Benefits: Protect life safety (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: EMPG, DOLA or CDOT grant Timeline: 2013-2014 Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Kremmling-3 Road Paving Project Jurisdiction: Kremmling Hazard Addressed Flood (surface flow of snow melt) Project Description, This covers about 6 streets impacted occasionally by snowmelt run off. The area Issue & Background is residential in the very north east part of the town. Four of the streets running north to south are on a slight gradient. The two streets running east to west especially, Central Avenue carry the burden of the water before it goes into a drainage ditch. The project is to pave the roads and have drainage pans in various areas to move flow away from affected houses at the bottom of the four streets on Central Avenue. Lead Agency and Title Town Of Kremmling of Lead Person Mark Campbell Partners: Dept. of Local Affairs Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: $460,000 Benefits: Reduce damage to residential property. (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: $210,000 DOLA, $250,000 Town of Kremmling Timeline: May -June 2014. Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Kremmling) Annex F.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX G: TOWN OF WINTER PARK G.1 Community Profile Geography Winter Park is located at an elevation of 9,100 feet and is considered alpine country. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Town has a total area of 8.1 square miles, none of which is covered by water. The Winter Park Resort is located about two miles south of the Town. It averages 350 inches of snowfall annually. Figure G.1 shows a map of the Town of Winter Park and its location within Grand County. Grand County (winter Park) Annex G.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure G.1. Map of Winter Park r' 40 J z� I I _ j 1 Fraser I- j I I I I Winter I I I I I Park i � I I I I LEGEND j Streams -------------------- Local Roads j I — Major Roads j I - Highways � r-•—••-- 1--, cities j Elevation (ft) j 6,614 - 8,568 — ............ . 40 0 8.567 - 9,649 O 9,650 - 10,912 0 10,913 -14,275 eO 0 1 2 Miles N am 111 I e i l A 1 l J Map compiled 41013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Population The permanent population is the number of people who reside in the town on a year-round basis and was estimated at 536 in 2011 and at 999 in 2010. Select American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 and 2010 US Census demographic and social characteristics for Winter Park's "permanent" population are shown in Table G.1. Table G.1. Winter Park—Demographic and Social Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Gender/Age Male (%) 58.7 61 Female (%) 41.3 39 Under 5 Years (%) 4.7 8.6 65 Years and Over (%) 8.6 8.7 Race/Ethnicity (one race) White (%) 93.8 100.0 Black or African American (%) 0.4 0.0 American Indian and Alaska Native (%) 0.3 0.0 Asian (%) 1.7 0.0 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (%) 0.1 0.0 Other (%) 2.1 0.0 Hispanic or Latino (Of Any Race) (%) 5.9 8.4 Other Average Household Size 2.05 2.44 High School Graduate or Higher (%) 100 100 Source: ACS 2011, 2010 US Census, factfinder2.census. gov History The land that became Winter Park was purchased by Linus Oliver "Doc" Graves and his wife Helen in 1932. The couple built ten small cabins on the land, mostly rented out to hunters and fishermen. The Town built up around these cabins, adding business and increasing the resident population. The area was originally named Hideaway Park but was renamed Winter Park and incorporated in 1978. Allegedly the name change was influenced by the City of Denver when it "became interested in developing a mountain park system to promote winter sports to tourists and residents... With the assistance of Denver Mayor Benjamin F. Stapleton, the town changed its name to Winter Park" (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=Townof WinterPark%2FCBONL ayout&cid=125162297025 9&pagename=CBONWrapper). Economy According to the ACS 2011 estimates, the industries that employed the highest percentage of Winter Park's labor force were arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (38.5%); professional, scientific, and technical services (12.7%); manufacturing (11.4%); Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 educational services and health care (9.9%); and retail trade (9.4%). Select economic characteristics for Winter Park from the 2011 ACS estimates and 2010 US Census are shown in Table G.2. Table G.2. Winter Park—Economic Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2011 Families below Poverty Level (%) 0 0 Individuals below Poverty Level (%) 3.5 5.6 Median Home Value $520,200 $602,700 Median Household Income $59,943 $61,087 Per Capita Income $34,124 $33,190 Population in Labor Force* 440 416 Source: ACS 2011, 2010 US Census, factfinder2.census. gov *Age 16 years and over G.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Winter Park's planning team identified the hazards that affect the community and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to the Town (see Table G.3). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Winter Park. Table G.3. Winter Park—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Large Highly Likely Critical High Dam Failure Small Occasional Limited Medium Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Likely Negligible Low Earthquake Small Unlikely Catastrophic Low Flood Medium Likely Critical Medium Hazardous Materials (Transportation) Large Highly Likely Catastrophic High Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Medium Highly Likely Limited Medium Lightning Large Highly Likely Limited Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Critical High Wildfire Large Likely Catastrophic High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Medium Windstorm Large Highly Likely Critical Medium *See Section 3.2 for definitions of these factors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. Grand County (Winter Park) Annex GA Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 G.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Winter Park's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. The following vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that may vary from other parts of the planning area. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. Community Asset Inventory Table GA shows the number of structures, land value, and assessed value of improvements to parcels in Winter Park. Land values have been purposely excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table GA. Winter Park—Building Exposure Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improvement Value Estimated Content Value Total Value* Agricultural 7 0 $19,530 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 83 76 $13,019,860 $34,394,670 $34,394,670 $68,789,340 Commercial Vacant 22 1 $5,276,020 $36,940 $36,940 $73,880 Residential Improved 2,404 2,402 $61,995,520 $664,265,410 $332,132,705 $996,398,115 Residential Vacant 341 2 $31,564,760 $427,120 $213,560 $640,680 Tax Exempt 114 12 $32,162,250 $4,078,230 $4,078,230 $8,156,460 Unknown 272 4 $605,350 $890,610 $890,610 $1,781,220 Vacant Land 6 0 $1,738,620 $0 $0 $0 Total 3,249 2,497 $146,381,910 $704,092,980 $371,746,715 $1,075,839,695 Source: Grand County Assessor 2013 'Includes value of improvements and estimated content value Table G.5 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by Winter Park's planning team as extremely important to protect in the event of a disaster. Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table G.5. Winter Park—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Name of Asset Type* Replacement Value ($) Hazard Specific Info/Comments Winter Park Ski Area EA >500 Million Wildfire/Winter Storm Fraser/Winter Park Police Dept. EF 3.5 Million Union Pacific Railway LL 300 Million Haz Mat US Hwy 40 LL Unknown Haz Mat Arapahoe National Forest HCNA Unknown Denver Water Board Diversion/Moffat Tunnel Project LL Unknown Town of Winter Park (Town Hall/Public Works HPL 15 mil Grand One Water District LL 100 mil Winter Park Water/San District LL 100 mil Excel Energy Natural Gas Line LL 100 mil East Grand Fire Protection District #4** Administration Building** Visitors Center** Booster Pumphouse** Pumphouse Building** Sunspot Water Pumpstation** Winter Park Water And Sanitation Treatment Plant** Sources: HMPC *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset **Identified separately by Grand County OEM The Town also needs to further evaluate the seasonal workforce to better understand their impact on the community and what needs to be done to protect them. Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. These hazards include avalanche, flood, hazardous materials, landslide, wildfire, and severe winter weather. Avalanche The Town of Winter Park deals with avalanches every year. The Town estimated that road closures occur roughly four times a year due to avalanches. The Town's economy is impacted whenever Highway 40 is shut down, losing roughly $100,000 for each 24-hour period the road is closed. Avalanches can cause injury or death to motorists along the roadways or skiers, snowboarders, snowmobilers, etc. CDOT has been considering using automated avalanche control measures on Berthoud Pass. Current methods include preemptively triggering Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 avalanches using WWII howitzers to launch missiles or using helicopters to drop explosives. The new program would utilize Gazex pipes to direct hot gases at avalanche zones at risk. This would trigger controlled, lower -intensity avalanches and may help to reduce the occurrence of natural and accidentally triggered avalanches. Flood The Town of Winter Park has flood hazard mapping for the Fraser River and its tributaries, Leland Creek, Vasquez Creek, and Jim Creek. North of Winter Park, insufficient capacity of the culvert under Highway 40 restricts flood flows from Leland Creek, on the west side of the highway, from entering the Fraser River. Localized stormwater flooding can also cause minor problems. Existing Development The effective DFIRM for Winter Park, dated January 2, 2008, was the best available flood hazard data. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon. Only parcels with improvement values greater than zero were used in the analysis, which assumes that improved parcels have a structure of some type. The DFIRM flood zones were overlaid in GIS on the parcel centroid data to identify structures that would likely be inundated during a 1% annual chance and 0.2% annual chance flood event. Building improvement values for the points were based on the assessor's data and summed for the unincorporated county and for the municipalities. Property exposure located in flood hazard zones by land use type is shown in Table G.6. Flood zones A and AE are variations of the 1% annual chance event. The "Shaded Zone X" represents the 0.2% annual chance hazard zone on the DFIRM. Building and estimated content values were totaled. The Town's A Zone has an exposure value of over $13.9 million. To estimate losses a 25% loss factor was applied to the total exposure, based on FEMA depth damage functions associated with a two foot deep flood. Flood loss from the 1% annual chance event based on this assessment would be in the magnitude of nearly $3.5 million. The total exposure value in Winter Park's 0.2% annual chance flood zone is $9.1 million, with a loss estimate of nearly $2.3 million. The grand total exposure is over $23 million with a combined loss estimate of over $5.7 million. Flooded structures for the DFIRM flood zones are depicted in Figure G.2. More information on the methodology used for this loss estimation can be found in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment. There is one critical facility, the Lodge at Sunspot, located in the floodplain in Winter Park. Table G.6. Winter Park—Flood Risk by Flood Zone and Property Type Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Total Improved Estimated Land Use Parcel Parcel Improved Value Content Value Total Value Loss Estimate Count Count Zone A Commercial Improved 1 1 $15,610 $15,610 $31,220 $7,805 Commercial 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Loss Estimate Vacant Residential Improved 50 50 $8,811,880 $4,405,940 $13,217,820 $3,304,455 Residential Vacant 6 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 6 1 $166,460 $166,460 $332,920 $83,230 Unknown 3 1 $205,230 $205,230 $410,460 $102,615 Vacant Land 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 68 53 $9,199,180 $4,793,240 $13,992,420 $3,498,105 0.2% Annual Chance Commercial Improved 9 8 $1,854,350 $1,854,350 $3,708,700 $927,175 Commercial Vacant 4 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential Improved 22 22 $3,638,650 $1,819,325 $5,457,975 $1,364,494 Residential Vacant 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 12 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Unknown 3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 51 30 $5,493,000 $3,673,675 $9,166,675 $2,291,669 Grand Total 119 83 $14,692,180 $8,466,915 $23,159,095 $5,789,774 Source: AMEC analysis of DFIRM Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure G.2. DFIRM Flood Zones and Floodprone Properties in Winter Park 40 I � - j Fraser +4 j L ....... - - f.y I � ' I I ` j Winter Park I j I � I j LEGEND I • 1% Flooded Structures O 0.2% Flooded Structures FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones j 1% AnnualChance I - Zone A I —..—.-----.._,..—.. - Zone AE j I 0.2% Annual Chance j I Zane X Zone D j Streams j Laval Roads ................. 40 — Major Roads Highways r—•- I..—� Cities ameO'� I 1 2 Miles >til i i 1 i r 1 Map compiled 412013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, FEMA DIFRM 1/2/2008 Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 National Flood Insurance Program Winter Park joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on November 15, 1985. NFIP insurance data indicates that as of March 25, 2013, there were 115 flood insurance policies in force in Winter Park with $19,528,100 of coverage. Ninety-eight of the policies are in Winter Park's A zone, and seventeen are located outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area. There has been one historical claim for flood losses in Winter Park, for a claim total of $5,960. There were no repetitive or severe repetitive loss structures. Future Development The Town of Winter Park addresses floodplain management policies in its Town Code (see Regulatory Capabilities section below). Hazardous Materials The Town of Winter Park is exposed to transported hazardous materials by being in proximity to Highway 40 and the railroad. U.S. Highway 40 is the alternate route to Salt Lake City and the primary detour route for closures of the I-70 corridor; trucks and tankers transporting hazardous materials may often use this route. Grand County OEM also identified one reporting Tier II facility (for 2012 and 2013) in Winter Park, so the potential also exists for fixed hazmat incidents in the Town. Data from the National Response Center (NRC) between 2008 and 2012 showed two reported incidents in Winter Park; one event was a railroad non -release and the second was a fixed event. Landslide, Mud Flow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Possible landslide areas are identified on steep slopes with unstable soil conditions. Landslide deposits are shown in Figure G.3. Existing Development Potential losses for landslide areas were estimated using Grand County GIS and assessor's data and were examined in terms of values and critical facilities at risk. GIS was used to create a centroid, or point, representing the center of each parcel polygon, which was overlaid on the landslide hazard polygons. The assessor's land and improved values for each parcel are linked to the parcel centroids. For the purposes of this analysis, if the parcel's centroid intersects the landslide hazard polygon, that parcel is assumed to be at risk to the landslide. Values were summed and sorted by landslide hazard zone. Additional landslide hazard analysis was completed using the more comprehensive USGS landslide deposits layer during the 2013 update. The results of the overlay analysis for the Town of Winter Park are presented in Table G.7. No critical facilities were identified in landslide zones in Winter Park. Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table G.7. Winter Park—Landslide Exposure by Land Use Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Total Improved Estimated Land Use Parcel Parcel Land Value Improved Value Content Value Total Value Count Count Agricultural 3 0 $3,070 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 1 1 $1,463,030 $1,207,500 $1,207,500 $2,415,000 Residential Improved 6 6 $1,800,000 $6,501,300 $3,250,650 $9,751,950 Residential Vacant 12 0 $1,761,840 $0 $0 $0 Unknown 8 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 30 7 $5,027,940 $7,708,800 $4,458,150 $12,166,950 Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.11 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure G.3. Landslide Areas in Winter Park r 40 J Fraser L -------- f --f I - I f� I Winter Park I ILI tl � " LEGEND k i Landslide Deposits ` �••—•--•i / r• _t r streams Local Roads Major Roads • r Highways •' "" r •� Other Cines Winter Park /(�j 0 1 2 Miles N am �DdL7 l i i i i 1 Map compiled 4l2013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, ColtonlUSGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development The severity of landslide problems is directly related to the extent of human activity in hazard areas. Adverse effects can be mitigated by early recognition and avoiding incompatible land uses in these areas or by corrective engineering. The mountainous topography of the County presents considerable constraints to development, most commonly in the form of steep sloped areas. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and can become unstable. Winter Park's Town Code encourages development in or near the existing towns and away from environmentally sensitive areas such as those with steep slopes. This policy can help protect future development from being built in unstable areas. Wildfire Existing Development The Grand County CWPP (2006) evaluated the wildfire hazards to each of the incorporated and unincorporated towns in the County. Winter Park received a hazard rating of high to very high. Winter Park is also covered by the Upper Fraser Valley/East Grand Fire Protection District's CWPP, which rated the wildfire hazard in 28 distinct communities. Refer to Table 3.36 in Chapter 3 for details on the community wildfire hazard ratings in the Upper Fraser Valley/East Grand Fire Protection District CWPP. Based on the methodology described for wildfire in Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard using the SILVIS threat zones, the property values in Winter Park were aggregated by wildfire threat zones. The breakdown of property values in Winter Park by wildfire threat zone is shown in Table G.8. The majority of risk to wildfire is to residential structures, but some commercial areas are at risk as well. The Colorado State Forest Service in partnership with the Town and local residents have done or planned several forest health treatments in and around Winter Park. These areas are depicted on the map in Figure GA. See Figure H.4 in Annex HFire Protection Districts for maps showing wildfire intensity in the Winter Park area. Table G.8. Winter Park—Property Values in Wildfire Threat Zones Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Moderate Agricultural 0 $3,440 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Improved 22 $6,256,620 $13,031,550 $13,031,550 $26,063,100 Commercial Vacant 0 $437,470 $0 $0 $0 Residential Improved 485 $15,740,260 $152,628,020 $76,314,010 $228,942,030 Residential Vacant 0 $12,164,520 $0 $0 $0 Tax Exempt 2 $8,190,540 $42,300 $42,300 $84,600 Unknown 0 $58,430 $0 $0 $0 Total 509 $42,851,280 $165,701,870 $89,387,860 $255,089,730 High Commercial 39 $5,206,440 $13,469,480 $13,469,480 $26,938,960 Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Improved Commercial Vacant 1 $3,145,210 $36,940 $36,940 $73,880 Residential Improved 1,917 $45,931,520 $511,039,920 $255,519,960 $766,559,880 Residential Vacant 2 $19,598,620 $427,120 $213,560 $640,680 Tax Exempt 7 $18,706,570 $2,353,400 $2,353,400 $4,706,800 Unknown 3 $481,980 $858,580 $858,580 $1,717,160 Vacant Land 0 $989,820 $0 $0 $0 Total 1,969 $94,060,160 $528,185,440 $272,451,920 $800,637,360 Grand Total 2,478 $136,911,440 $693,887,310 $361,839,780 $1,055,727,090 Source: AMEC analysis with SILVIS data Eleven critical facilities were identified in low -moderate, moderate, and high -moderate wildfire zones in Winter Park. The Sunspot Water Pumpstation and Winter Park Water and Sanitation Treatment Plant are located in Winter Park's high -moderate wildfire zone. The seven facilities in the Town's moderate wildfire zone include a bridge on Winter Park Drive, the Lodge at Sunspot, Moffat Station, a Winter Park communications facility owned by Denver Water, the Administration Building, the Town Hall, and the Booster Pumphouse. The two facilities in Winter Park's low -moderate fire intensity zone include U.S. 40 ML and the Pumphouse Building. Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure GA. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Winter Park Fraser A — — —i r I I I I i pt 0� h Winter �L Park (�� - P i � A F R I ameO 41 t 2 Miles Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFB, USFS (2013) Grand County (Winter Park) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 LEGEND - GSFS Treatments Vegetation Management Units USFS Treatment Types Fuels Timber Sale Streams Local Roads — Major Roads — Highways r Winter Park r— �_— f Other Cities A Annex G.15 1 Fraser A — — —i r I I I I i pt 0� h Winter �L Park (�� - P i � A F R I ameO 41 t 2 Miles Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFB, USFS (2013) Grand County (Winter Park) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 LEGEND - GSFS Treatments Vegetation Management Units USFS Treatment Types Fuels Timber Sale Streams Local Roads — Major Roads — Highways r Winter Park r— �_— f Other Cities A Annex G.15 The East Grand Fire Protection District, which provides fire protection services to Winter Park and surrounding area, is considered an initial attack center for wildland fires on all private land and takes a joint responsibility with the U.S. Forest Service for fires on federal land. Future Development The Winter Park Town Code requires that development meet fire mitigation standards before it can be approved for occupancy. East Grand FPD enforces the 2006 International Fire Code. All buildings in the District's service area are required to adhere to the International Fire Code. East Grand FPD also reviews all plats, construction plans, and site plans against the District's Development and Review Standards. These standards are designed to help protect life safety and property from wildfire. Severe Winter Weather In the alpine environment of Grand County, severe winter weather occurs several times every season. This hazard has been critical in its magnitude and severity in the past, most recently during the event in December 2007. Vulnerability is high along roadways and mountain passes, particularly on Highway 40 and Highway 9, where severe winter weather conditions may cause traffic related deaths and injuries and increase avalanche risk. Road closures due to winter weather conditions also restrict or prevent the movement of people and goods and services (including food and gas), which can be crippling during the high tourism season and create the need for emergency sheltering for travelers. The County is more vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards during the winter months due to the increased volume of people living, working, and visiting here. Growth and Development Trends Table G.9 illustrates how Winter Park has grown in terms of population and number of housing units between 2000 and 2011. Table G.9. Winter Park—Change in Population and Housing Units, 2000-2011 2011 Estimated 2011 Estimated Estimated 2000 Population Percent Change 2000 # of # of Housing Percent Change Population Estimate 2000-2011 Housing Units Units 2000-2011 662 536 -19.0 1,231 2,158 +75.3 Source: ACS 2011 and US Census 2000, factfinder2.census. gov Growth in Winter Park is fairly minimal as of 2013. Proposed growth areas on the east and south side of the Town have high vulnerability to wildfire. Figure G.5 depicts Winter Park's current town limits and the growth area boundary, as shown in the 2011 Grand County Master Plan. Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure G.5. Winter Park Growth Areas Fraser - Winter Park Growth Arc -as Grand County Master Plan Page 59 Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 GA Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Table G.10 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Winter Park. Table G.10. Winter Park—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (Ordinances, Codes, Plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan Yes Zoning ordinance Yes Subdivision ordinance Yes Growth management ordinance No Floodplain ordinance Yes Other special purpose ordinance stormwater, steep slope, wildfire Yes Building code Yes Fire department ISO rating No Erosion or sediment control program No Stormwater management program No Site plan review requirements Yes Capital improvements plan Yes Economic development plan No Local emergency operations plan No Other special plans No Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams Yes Elevation certificates (for floodplain development Yes Other Winter Park Town Code Title 6 Building Regulations • 6-1-6 Residential Code Amendments – R102.7 Existing Structures: The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 specifically covered in this code, the international fire code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public. Title 6 Building Regulations, Chapter 7 Flood Damage Prevention • 6-7-3 General Provisions — C. Establishment of Floodplain Development Permit: A development permit shall be required to ensure conformance with the provisions of this chapter. — D. Compliance: No structure or land shall hereafter be located, altered, or have its use changed without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations. • 6-7-4 Administration — A. Designation of Floodplain Administrator: The town engineer is hereby appointed the floodplain administrator to administer and implement the provisions of this chapter and other appropriate sections of 44 CFR (national flood insurance program regulations) pertaining to floodplain management. • 6-7-5 Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction — Establishes general and specific standards for all new construction and substantial improvements Title 8 Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 3 Design Standards • 8-3-6 Storm Drainage — The subdivider shall provide a drainage and erosion control plan. The plan shall conform to the "Town of Winter Park Standards and Specifications for Design and Construction." Town of Winter Park Master Plan • 6.3 Residential Design Guidelines — Includes a section on Forest Thinning and Fuels Management. • Section 7.3.4 Forest Management — Town citizens recently approved a ballot questioning creating a fund for forest management. The Town anticipates a multi -pronged effort: work with homeowners to remove dead and dying trees, work with USFS and others to thin and otherwise preserve healthy forests. Town of Winter Park Residential Architectural Guidelines and Design Regulations • Guideline 13 Forest Thinning and Fuels Management Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table G.11 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Winter Park. Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table G.11. Winter Park—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of Yes TOWP Planning & land development/land management Building Dept. practices Engineer/professional trained in Yes TOWP Planning & construction practices related to Building Dept. buildings and/or infrastructure Planner/engineer/scientist with an Yes TOWP Planning & understanding of natural hazards Building Dept. Personnel skilled in GIS Yes TOWP Planning & Building Dept. Full time building official Yes TOWP Planning & Building Dept. Floodplain manager Yes TOWP Planning & Building Dept. Emergency manager Yes Fraser/Winter Park Chief of Police Grant writer Yes TOWP Planning & Building Dept. Other personnel GIS Data Resources Yes TOWP Planning & (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land Building Dept. use, building footprints, etc.) Warning Systems/Services Yes Grand County OEM (Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals) Other Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Table G.12 identifies financial tools or resources that Winter Park could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities. In addition, the General Revenue Fund is utilized on as an -needed basis for mitigation projects. For example, the Town devoted significant resources to hazard tree removal in the past. Grants are sought as needed as well. Table G.12. Winter Park—Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Accessible/Eligible Financial Resources to Use (Yes/No) Comments Community Development Block Grants Capital Improvements Project Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas, or Electric Services Impact Fees for New Development Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Accessible/Eligible Financial Resources to Use (Yes/No) Comments Incur Debt through Private Activities Withhold Spending in Hazard Prone Areas Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships • The Town works with USFS and CSFS to have community meetings on fire safety as well as pre -flood preparations. Past Mitigation Efforts • Winter Park has engaged in large-scale forestry to remove beetle kill trees in the Town. As part of that project, ordinances were passed requiring that dead trees be removed from private and public property. • The Town participates in the NFIP. G.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Winter Park had adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. G.6 Mitigation Actions The planning team for Winter Park identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Continued Compliance with the NFIP Winter Park will continue participation in and compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Specific activities that the Town will undertake to continue compliance include the following: • Working with FEMA and the Colorado Water Conservation Board in the review and adoption of new digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs) as part of the map modernization (now RiskMAP) program • Periodically reviewing the flood damage prevention ordinance and identifying opportunities to strengthen requirements and enforcement, including compliance with the updated State Floodplain Rule (required by January 2014). • Promote and disperse information on the benefits of flood insurance, with assistance from partners such as the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 • Continuing strong enforcement of the floodplain ordinance and working with developers and property owners to understand the program Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Winter Park -1 Develop and Implement Fuel Reduction Projects Jurisdiction: Multi -Jurisdictional, Town of Winter Park Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Fuel reduction projects are needed to reduce the wildfire vulnerability in wildland Issue & Background urban interface areas. Specific actions have been incorporated in the countywide and local CWPPs. Lead Agency and Title Town administration; Grand County Wildfire Council, Schelly Olson of Lead Person Partners: Fire Districts, Department of Natural Resources, CSFS, USFS, CDOT, Priority: High Cost Estimate: Variable, create a county -level position to coordinate all mitigation, education, and funding efforts Benefits: Protect life, property, wildlife, watersheds, and infrastructure from wildfire, create (Losses Avoided) and maintain healthy forests, create a Fire -Adapted Community Potential Funding: Winter Park levy (area -specific to Winter Park), grants, federal funding Timeline: Ongoing Status: Winter Park has a mill levy for funding natural resources projects that includes fuels reduction/forest health initiatives. Associated actions have been incorporated in the CWPPs, HOAs are applying for grants, see success stories from Pole Creek Meadows, Homestead Hills, and Winter Park Highlands Grand County (Winter Park) Annex G.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX H: FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS H.1 District Profiles The material presented in this annex applies to five fire protection districts in Grand County: East Grand FPD, Grand FPD, Grand Lake FPD, Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall FPD, and Kremmling FPD. Figures H.1 -H.5 show maps of the Districts' boundaries based upon best available data from Grand County GIS. The base maps also show DFIRM flood hazards, where available for the incorporated areas, and landslide deposits. East Grand Fire Protection District East Grand FPD was formed in 1968. At the time, the FPD had metal buildings for stations with a couple of trucks and a handful of vehicles at each station. Sixteen years later East Grand FPD moved into their current locations at Highway 40 in Fraser and 60 County Road 526 in Tabernash. The District's service area covers Tabernash, Fraser, Winter Park, and nearby unincorporated areas. The governing body of East Grand FPD consists of a Board of five directors elected by the District's registered voters and property owners. The District consists of 32 volunteer firefighters and officers. East Grand FPD's Resident Program allows firefighters to reside at any of the stations. Resident firefighters help maintain fire apparatus, equipment, and buildings in exchange for living quarters. In 2012 East Grand FPD responded to 207 incidents involving a total of 3,356 man hours. This included providing Automatic and Mutual Aid responses to surrounding fire districts and other public safety agencies. East Grand firefighters logged 3,815 hours of training in 2012. The District has a fleet of 13 vehicles including aerials, rescue/pumpers, water tenders, wildland vehicles, and specially equipped SUVs. (East Grand Fire Annual Report 2012; www.eastgrandfire.com) Grand Fire Protection District The District was originally established as the Granby Volunteer Fire Department in 1939. GFPD was formed in 1951 and provides service to an area comprising 150 square miles in Grand County. GFPD is staffed by volunteer and resident firefighters responding out of two stations operating twelve apparatus. GFPD has 26 firefighters and 2 administrative staff. GFPD is governed by an elected Board of Directors consisting of five people. GFPD has two stations: the headquarters fire station located at 60500 U.S. Highway 40 in Granby and the Red Dirt Fire Station at 85 County Road 5301 in Granby. GFPD also has a Resident Program that provides living accommodations in exchange for filling two 24-hour shifts per week, including two 8 -hour station duty day shifts. (www.grandfire.org) Grand Lake Fire Protection District The GLFPD is a small combination fire and rescue agency serving the greater Grand Lake area from County Road 4 North to Rocky Mountain National Park. It was formed in 1952 following Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 a devastating fire at the Pine Cone Restaurant. As of 2005 GLFPD has employed staff members in support of 22 volunteer firefighters. The Fire Chief focuses on administrative duties while the Captain focuses on operational duties. A Lieutenant and Technician support the Captain and assist with public education, apparatus and facilities maintenance, and emergency response. The firehouse is staffed seven days a week by five full-time and two part-time staff. Volunteers average 260 training hours per year. GLFPD is comprised of three stations and twelve apparatus, including two boats and two snowmobiles. GLFPD also offers a Resident Program, providing living accommodations in exchange for apparatus and station maintenance, two 10 - hour day shift duty per week, etc. ()vww.grandlakefire.org) Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Fire Protection District The Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Fire Protection District (HSSPFPD) is located in the south- central portion of Grand County. It serves the towns of Hot Sulphur Springs and Parshall. The District's CWPP covers a broader planning area that also includes the northern portion of Copper Creek Subdivision, Aspen Canyon Ranch, Valentine, and the southern portion of the Copper Creek Estates. Kremmling Fire Protection District The Kremmling Fire Protection District (Kremmling FPD) is located on Eagle Avenue. A second station is located at Old Park Subdivision, with two fire apparatus and three personnel stationed there. There are a total of 15 firefighters in the Kremmling Fire Department, but the Department is recruiting. Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.1. Map of East Grand Fire Protection District LEGEND 1p; LED Fire Protection Districts Fire Stations --• - Landslide Deposits Streams - Hazus 100yr Flood Zones 0 Lakes FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Local Roads 1 %Annual Chance - Major Roads GFPDD j Zone - Highways - Zone AE r ,Towns R 4( —' 0.2% Annual Chance - Counties i Zone X Zone D i E Grand i - FPD Station 40 o Fraser: GRAN rase FPD _ ivocion 0C",,, Reservoir' f ast Grand FPD Station #4 i J I- ` Winter Park o� I I4 :« f4000 AV CLEAR CREEK eO 0 4 8 Miles am l I I l i c i I i o N I Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 11212008, Colton/USGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.2. Map of Grand Fire Protection District - Landslide Deposits 40 Fire Stations I '� - Hazus 100yr Flood Zones Fire Protection Districts FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Streams ' I 1% Annual Chance O Lakes I i - Zone A + Railroads - Zone AE Local Roads I 1 i l Ch 2%A 0.nnuaance I {} I_,_r — Major Roads •, , - K Zone X —Highways � 3ei Zone D r— Towns _SW —1 GRAND LAKE 1_J FPD s�J Granby �q�-� Grand 1 x�3_FPD Station fast Grand FPD Station amec 0 4 8 Miles N I I , , I Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 11212008, ColtonlUSGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex HA Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.3. Map of Grand Lake Fire Protection District JACKSON LEGEND i * Fire Stations 34; LD Fire Protection Districts I j LARIMER -LandslideDeposits Hazus 1 00y Food Zones f FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones 1% Annual Chance � +1 - Zone A I - Zone AE 0.2% Annual Chance j Zone X Zone D (( b v Streams Lakes �I �6 +Railroads ' t 'Local Roads � L� _—� c —Major Roads Highways r---� L.—J Towns Counties a GRAND LAKE FPD ill _ I i Ai y , 16' 1 f r t 'v Grand Lake s F PD Station : ,I I -------------- ti GRAND% j FPD 3`----------------i \ i . 1 r ee 0 4 S Miles ame ,�(} Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 11212008, ColtonlUSGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure HA Map of Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Fire Protection District (" l Landslide Deposits Fre Stations rl Hazus 1 00y Flood Zones Fire Protection Districts _ FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Streams 1 1%Annual Chance Lakes i l t - Zone A + Railroads 9 gSl / - Zone AE Local Roads ,/ V. 10.2%Annual Chance " —Major Roads Zone X — Highways Zone D f— 7 Towns 4 Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall N. FPD 40 J O Hot SulphurLL 4 „I Springs YLU 1/! Of Y j Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Z CL FPD Station 40 «rrlip,�. �. r --------------- v ameO 0 2.5 6 Miles N I i r F 1 i i i I Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DIFRM 1/2/2008, Colton/USGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.5. Map of Kremmling Fire Protection District Pr ,J { r 1. kd 134 40 f FSI r r4o '44 4g illdlrnd lk�+urrurn r Hesi°Irr it.� r � I KREMfvtiLING � FPD I 0 Kremml'ing Kre.mmling i-_- r_.rL Fie Department 40 • s � HSSPARS�HALLL�� \JfKftrlVWV• A r ry—_ T A i/ 4 L- F SUMMIT��,� N� amec'CO 0 5 10 Miles N Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, COOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DI FIRM 112!2008, Colton/USGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 I LEGEND 11 ® Landslide Deposits ; Fire Stations 1i - Hazus 1 00y Flood Zones = Fire Protection Districts I FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Streams 1%Annual Chance Lakes - Zone A— Railroads - Zone AE Local Roads ®0.2% Annuai Chance — Major Roads Zone X — Highways Zone D r _� Towns Counties A r ry—_ T A i/ 4 L- F SUMMIT��,� N� amec'CO 0 5 10 Miles N Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, COOT, Hazus-MH MR2, FEMA DI FIRM 112!2008, Colton/USGS Earth Data Analysis Center Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 H.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Representatives from each district identified the hazards that affect the districts and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance (see Table H.1). Magnitude and overall hazard rating are assessed in terms of impacts to the fire protection districts. The five districts profiled in this annex all rated wildfire as their most significant hazard. East Grand FPD and Grand FPD also rated hazardous materials as high. Table H.1. Grand County Fire Protection Districts—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Extent* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating East Grand FPD Avalanche Isolated Highly Likely Critical Medium Dam Failure Small Unlikely Limited Low Drought Large Likely Limited Medium Earthquake Large Occasional Critical Low Extreme Temperatures Large Highly Likely Limited Medium Flood Small Likely Negligible Low Hazardous Materials Release Transportation Medium Highly Likely Critical High Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Small Likely Critical Medium Lightning Large Highly Likely Limited Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildfire Medium Highly Likely Critical High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Windstorm Large Likely Limited Low Grand FPD Avalanche Isolated Unlikely Negligible Low Dam Failure Isolated Unlikely Catastrophic Medium Drought Large Occasional Limited Medium Earthquake Large Unlikely Catastrophic Low Extreme Temperatures Large Likely Limited Medium Flood Small Likely Limited Low Hazardous Materials Release (Transportation) Medium Highly Likely Critical High Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Isolated Occasional Negligible Low Lightning Large Likely Limited Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildfire Large Highly Likely Catastrophic High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Windstorm Large Highly Likely Limited Medium Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazard Type Geographic Extent* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Grand Lake FPD Avalanche Isolated Likely Limited Medium Dam Failure Isolated Unlikely Negligible Low Drought Large Occasional Limited Low Earthquake Large Unlikely Catastrophic Low Extreme Temperatures Large Likely Limited Medium Flood Small Likely Limited Medium Hazardous Materials Release (Transportation) Isolated Occasional Negligible Low Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, Rock Fall Small Occasional Negligible Low Lightning Large Likely Limited Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Critical Medium Wildfire Large Highly Likely Catastrophic High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Windstorm Large Highly Likely Negligible Medium HSSPFPD Avalanche Isolated Likely Limited Low Dam Failure Medium Occasional Critical Medium Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Highly likely Critical Medium Earthquake Isolated Occasional Limited/ Negligible Low Flood Medium Occasional/ Likely Critical Medium Hazardous Materials Transportation Isolated Likely Limited Low Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Isolated Likely Limited Medium Lightning Isolated Occasional Limited Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly likely Critical High Wildfire Large Highly likely Catastrophic High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Medium Windstorm Large Likely Limited Low Kremmling FPD Avalanche Isolated Unlikely Negligible Low Dam Failure Large Unlikely Catastrophic High Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable High Drought Large Occasional Limited High Earthquake Large Unlikely Limited Medium Flood Isolated Likely Limited Medium Hazardous Materials (Transportation) Large Occasional Critical High Landslide, Mudflow/Debris Flow, and Rockfall Isolated Unlikely Negligible Low Lightning Medium Likely Critical Medium Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazard Type Geographic Extent* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Weather Large Highly Likely Limited High Wildfire Small Highly Likely Limited Medium Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Variable High Windstorm Large Occasional Limited Medium -See Section 3.2 Tor oeTlnitions OT mese tactors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles of the main plan. H.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess the vulnerability of the fire protection districts separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment in the main plan. For the Districts' purposes, wildfire is the hazard that varies from other parts of the planning area, and for which the Districts have responsibilities. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment in the main plan. District Asset Inventory Table H.2 shows the number of structures and assessed value of improvements to parcels in the five fire protections districts. Land values have been purposely excluded from the Total Value because land remains following disasters, and subsequent market devaluations are frequently short-term and difficult to quantify. Additionally, state and federal disaster assistance programs generally do not address loss of land or its associated value. Table H.2. Building Exposure for by Fire Protection District Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Improvements Value Estimated Content Value* Total Value** East Grand FPD Agricultural 337 64 $40,321,900 $40,321,900 $80,643,800 Commercial Improved 169 152 $61,374,880 $61,374,880 $122,749,760 Commercial Vacant 94 1 $36,940 $36,940 $73,880 Conservation Easement 11 4 $2,828,230 $2,828,230 $5,656,460 Mining 1 0 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 4 4 $12,746,590 $12,746,590 $25,493,180 Residential Improved 6,169 6,155 $1,650,575,460 $825,287,730 $2,475,863,190 Residential Vacant 1,327 36 $4,890,860 $2,445,430 $7,336,290 Tax Exempt 278 64 $41,860,160 $41,860,160 $83,720,320 Unknown 759 8 $1,896,940 $1,896,940 $3,793,880 Vacant Land 56 1 $277,820 $0 $277,820 Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Improvements Value Estimated Content Value* Total Value** Total 9,205 6,489 $1,816,809,780 $988,798,800 $2,805,608,580 Grand FPD Agricultural 362 155 $43,143,120 $43,143,120 $86,286,240 Commercial Improved 165 163 $33,239,740 $33,239,740 $66,479,480 Commercial Vacant 54 1 $100,940 $100,940 $201,880 Conservation Easement 35 4 $1,064,310 $1,064,310 $2,128,620 Industrial Improved 1 1 $103,910 $155,865 $259,775 Industrial Vacant 1 0 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 23 22 $4,795,850 $4,795,850 $9,591,700 Residential Improved 3,316 3,253 $612,129,260 $306,064,630 $918,193,890 Residential Vacant 2,695 60 $4,102,600 $2,051,300 $6,153,900 Tax Exempt 166 44 $11,923,030 $11,923,030 $23,846,060 Unknown 553 2 $360,700 $360,700 $721,400 Vacant Land 193 7 $644,260 $0 $644,260 Total 7,564 3,712 $711,607,720 $402,899,485 $1,114,507,205 Grand Lake FPD Agricultural 85 26 $10,820,980 $10,820,980 $21,641,960 Commercial Improved 112 108 $27,151,190 $27,151,190 $54,302,380 Commercial Vacant 13 0 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 3 2 $807,420 $807,420 $1,614,840 Mixed Use 17 17 $5,585,470 $5,585,470 $11,170,940 Residential Improved 3,071 3,050 $657,407,860 $328,703,930 $986,111,790 Residential Vacant 892 52 $3,840,060 $1,920,030 $5,760,090 Tax Exempt 67 14 $3,721,590 $3,721,590 $7,443,180 Unknown 496 25 $3,483,440 $3,483,440 $6,966,880 Vacant Land 85 12 $1,702,240 $0 $1,702,240 Total 4,841 3,306 $714,520,250 $382,194,050 $1,096,714,300 HSSPFPD Agricultural 214 34 $6,647,000 $6,647,000 $13,294,000 Commercial Improved 22 22 $4,165,080 $4,165,080 $8,330,160 Commercial Vacant 14 1 $1,060 $1,060 $2,120 Conservation Easement 53 1 $273,810 $273,810 $547,620 Mixed Use 13 13 $3,318,140 $3,318,140 $6,636,280 Residential Improved 355 352 $43,412,940 $21,706,470 $65,119,410 Residential Vacant 203 10 $160,820 $80,410 $241,230 Tax Exempt 56 17 $5,608,350 $5,608,350 $11,216,700 Unknown 5,596 1 $35,210 $35,210 $70,420 Vacant Land 17 2 $7,050 $0 $7,050 Total 6,543 453 $63,629,460 $41,835,530 $105,464,990 Kremmling FPD Agricultural 230 100 $25,271,040 $25,271,040 $50,542,080 Commercial Improved 64 64 $12,837,840 $12,837,840 $25,675,680 Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.1 I Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Land Use Total Parcel Count Improved Parcel Count Improvements Value Estimated Content Value* Total Value*" Commercial Vacant 40 4 $147,970 $147,970 $295,940 Conservation Easement 11 4 $954,130 $954,130 $1,908,260 Industrial Improved 4 4 $1,460,190 $2,190,285 $3,650,475 Industrial Vacant 3 0 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 14 14 $1,764,610 $1,764,610 $3,529,220 Residential Improved 880 875 $90,002,050 $45,001,025 $135,003,075 Residential Vacant 373 24 $729,380 $364,690 $1,094,070 Tax Exempt 93 22 $3,980,530 $3,980,530 $7,961,060 Unknown 111 1 $350,000 $350,000 $700,000 Vacant Land 18 2 $5,530 $0 $5,530 Total 1,841 1,114 $137,503,270 $92,862,120 $230,365,390 Grand Total 29,994 15,074 $3,444,070,480 $1,908,589,985 $5,352,660,465 Source: Grand County Assessor 2013 *Content Value estimated; ** Improvements and Contents Table H.3 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by the five fire protection districts as important to protect in the event of a disaster. Table H.3. Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Name of Asset Type Replacement Value ($) Hazard Specific Issues East Grand FPD Winter Park Resort EA Unknown Drought, wildfire, wind Fraser Safeway ENEF Unknown Flooding East Grand School LS Unknown Extreme temperatures Fraser Substation EF Unknown High winds Union Pacific Railroad EA Unknown Landslides, flooding Gas Transmission Line LL Unknown Landslides DWB Water Collection EA Unknown Flooding, wildfire Grand FPD Granby Fire EF $5 million Fire, flood Town Hall EF $3 million Water Treatment Plan LL $6-7 million Flood, hazmat Sewer Plant LL $6 million Flood Windy Gap Power Substation LL $4 million Fire Cell and Radio Towers (fire, police) EF $2 million Fire Grand Lake FPD Grand Lake Fire Station EF $4 million Town Hall EF $2 million Wildfire Water Treatment Plant LL $1 million Wildfire McKenzie Substation LL $2 million Wildfire Verizon Cell Tower LL $1 million Wildfire Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Name of Asset Type Replacement Value ($) Hazard Specific Issues Rocky Mountain National Park Visitors Center EA $3 million Wildfire HSSPFPD Grand County Sheriff's Dept. LS $8,900,000 Hot Sulphur Springs Fire Dept. LS $1,000,000 Hot Sulphur Springs Water Plant LL $2,200,000 Hot Sulphur Springs Water Storage Tanks LL $500,000 Grand County Administrative Blvd. EF $11,500,000 Grand County Judicial Center EF $9,500,000 Grand County Public & Home Health Offices EF $355,000 Grand County Rural Health Non -Profit EF $334,000 Grand County Public Health Nurse Office EF $240,000 Heart of the Mountains Hospice EF $240,000 Grand County Dept. of Social Services EF $389,000 Mountain Family Center EF $238,000 Hot Sulphur Springs Town Hall** Grand County Courthouse** Kremmling FPD Water Plant LL $4 million Chlorine in storage Water Storage Tanks LL $2.5 million Maintenance Shop and Equipment EF $3 million Diesel fuel, acetylene tanks Police Station EF $1 million Fire Station EF $5 million Wastewater Plant EF $4 million Middle Park Hospital EF $10 million West Grand Elementary School EF $10 million West Grand High School EF $10 million Airport LL $30 million Jet fuel tanks Colorado River Pumping Station LL $5 million Silver Spruce Senior Apartments LL $5 million Cliff View Assisted Living LL $5 million Grand County EMS** Faith in Action Christian School** Galloway Inc.** Source: East Grand FPD, Grand FPD, Grand Lake FPD, Town of Hot Sulphur Springs, Town of Kremmling *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset **Identified separately by Grand County OEM Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Other areas of concern include the protection of critical watershed areas for the Upper Colorado River. The Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment identifies several "Zones of Concern" in the watershed that fall within the fire protection district boundaries. The report "is designed to identify and prioritize sixth -level watersheds based upon their hazards of generating flooding, debris flows, and increased sediment yields following wildfires that could have impacts on water supplies. It is intended to expand upon current wildfire hazard reduction efforts by including water supply watersheds as a community value" (pg. 1). While the fire protection districts were not specifically identified as stakeholders in this report, their fuels treatments and wildfire mitigation activities are related to the goals of the assessment. Vulnerability by Hazard This section analyzes existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. For the Districts' purposes, wildfire is the hazard that varies from other parts of the planning area, and for which the Districts have responsibility. Wildfire Existing Development Based on the methodology described for wildfire in Section 3.3.3 Vulnerability by Hazard using the SILVIS threat zones, the property at risk within the fire protection districts were aggregated by wildfire threat zones. The breakdown of property types and values in each District by wildfire threat zone is shown in Table HA. Figures H.6 through H.10 show the wildfire intensity in East Grand FPD, Grand FPD, Grand Lake BFPD, HSSPFPD, and Kremmling FPD respectively. Figures H.I I through H.15 show the wildfire treatment areas in the five fire protection districts. Table H.4. Property in Wildfire Threat Zones by District Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value East Grand Fire Protection District Medium Agricultural 26 $1,254,210 $23,782,790 $23,782,790 $47,565,580 Commercial Improved 69 $12,463,420 $30,875,640 $30,875,640 $61,751,280 Commercial Vacant 0 $1,562,090 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 4 $1,268,840 $2,247,730 $2,247,730 $4,495,460 Mixed Use 1 $130,230 $303,880 $303,880 $607,760 Residential Improved 1,816 $126,446,450 $594,218,270 $297,109,135 $891,327,405 Residential Vacant 19 $74,336,230 $2,300,510 $1,150,255 $3,450,765 Tax Exempt 20 $19,493,410 $24,335,620 $24,335,620 $48,671,240 Unknown 3 $1,880,720 $984,020 $984,020 $1,968,040 Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Vacant Land 1 $2,879,820 $277,820 $0 $277,820 Total 1,959 $241,715,420 $679,326,280 $380,789,070 $1,060,115,350 High Agricultural 2 $12,890 $502,460 $502,460 $1,004,920 Commercial Improved 59 $7,403,840 $21,406,800 $21,406,800 $42,813,600 Commercial Vacant 1 $3,722,240 $36,940 $36,940 $73,880 Mixed Use 2 $44,490 $475,680 $475,680 $951,360 Residential Improved 4,012 $107,527,520 $968,278,350 $484,139,175 $1,452,417,525 Residential Vacant 12 $36,713,640 $1,674,610 $837,305 $2,511,915 Tax Exempt 32 $20,203,250 $10,723,730 $10,723,730 $21,447,460 Unknown 3 $482,030 $858,580 $858,580 $1,717,160 Vacant Land 0 $1,088,630 $0 $0 $0 Total 4,123 $177,198,530 $1,003,957,150 $518,980,670 $1,522,937,820 Totals 6,082 $418,913,950 $1,683,283,430 $899,769,740 $2,583,053,170 Grand Fire Protection District Medium Agricultural 30 $964,810 $8,180,950 $8,180,950 $16,361,900 Commercial Improved 80 $8,506,250 $15,038,180 $15,038,180 $30,076,360 Commercial Vacant 0 $842,380 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 1 $41,990 $409,930 $409,930 $819,860 Industrial Vacant 0 $167,400 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 11 $1,667,310 $2,412,340 $2,412,340 $4,824,680 Residential Improved 1,105 $51,121,350 $228,426,460 $114,213,230 $342,639,690 Residential Vacant 22 $32,916,370 $2,133,050 $1,066,525 $3,199,575 Tax Exempt 26 $2,855,680 $5,971,220 $5,971,220 $11,942,440 Unknown 1 $1,891,730 $264,730 $264,730 $529,460 Vacant Land 4 $5,343,900 $590,860 $0 $590,860 Total 1,280 $106,319,170 $263,427,720 $147,557,105 $410,984,825 High Agricultural 2 $223,010 $299,030 $299,030 $598,060 Commercial Improved 39 $3,094,600 $7,962,550 $7,962,550 $15,925,100 Commercial Vacant 0 $957,850 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 5 $634,050 $1,055,800 $1,055,800 $2,111,600 Residential Improved 1,927 $44,273,570 $319,551,410 $159,775,705 $479,327,115 Residential Vacant 32 $16,481,720 $1,307,980 $653,990 $1,961,970 Tax Exempt 9 $1,417,680 $808,330 $808,330 $1,616,660 Unknown 0 $1,833,260 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 1 $2,033,100 $480,910 $0 $480,910 Total 2,015 $70,948,840 $331,466,010 $170,555,405 $502,021,415 Totals 3,295 $177,268,010 $594,893,730 $318,112,510 $913,006,240 Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Grand Lake Fire Protection District Medium Agricultural 17 $81,460 $4,567,360 $4,567,360 $9,134,720 Commercial Improved 62 $10,332,240 $14,126,480 $14,126,480 $28,252,960 Commercial Vacant 0 $707,550 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 2 $1,532,120 $807,420 $807,420 $1,614,840 Mixed Use 10 $3,270,710 $3,929,980 $3,929,980 $7,859,960 Residential Improved 754 $112,029,040 $223,308,850 $111,654,425 $334,963,275 Residential Vacant 8 $26,241,760 $892,430 $446,215 $1,338,645 Tax Exempt 6 $2,580,410 $1,435,280 $1,435,280 $2,870,560 Unknown 13 $429,170 $1,191,570 $1,191,570 $2,383,140 Vacant Land 5 $5,127,340 $1,212,860 $0 $1,212,860 Total 877 $162,331,800 $251,472,230 $138,158,730 $389,630,960 High Agricultural 4 $51,760 $1,083,670 $1,083,670 $2,167,340 Commercial Improved 43 $7,238,090 $12,662,710 $12,662,710 $25,325,420 Commercial Vacant 0 $525,750 $0 $0 $0 Conservation Easement 1 $445,200 $102,250 $102,250 $204,500 Mixed Use 6 $684,780 $1,535,230 $1,535,230 $3,070,460 Residential Improved 2,278 $178,101,180 $428,900,350 $214,450,175 $643,350,525 Residential Vacant 42 $45,918,890 $2,870,300 $1,435,150 $4,305,450 Tax Exempt 3 $733,350 $1,272,160 $1,272,160 $2,544,320 Unknown 11 $617,460 $2,224,770 $2,224,770 $4,449,540 Vacant Land 6 $2,007,330 $480,110 $0 $480,110 Total 2,394 $236,323,790 $451,131,550 $234,766,115 $685,897,665 Totals 3,271 $398,655,590 $702,603,780 $372,924,845 $1,075,528,625 HSSP Fire Protection District Medium Agricultural 6 $59,600 $1,331,220 $1,331,220 $2,662,440 Commercial Improved 13 $923,700 $2,237,340 $2,237,340 $4,474,680 Commercial Vacant 1 $520,120 $1,060 $1,060 $2,120 Mixed Use 8 $808,370 $1,787,170 $1,787,170 $3,574,340 Residential Improved 173 $5,093,030 $19,349,750 $9,674,875 $29,024,625 Residential Vacant 3 $3,727,250 $19,690 $9,845 $29,535 Tax Exempt 10 $595,710 $1,267,900 $1,267,900 $2,535,800 Unknown 1 $4,910 $35,210 $35,210 $70,420 Vacant Land 1 $13,420 $940 $0 $940 Total 216 $11,746,110 $26,030,280 $16,344,620 $42,374,900 High Commercial Improved 4 $240,550 $674,390 $674,390 $1,348,780 Commercial 0 $34,500 $0 $0 $0 Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Threat Zone Land Use Improved Parcel Count Land Value Improved Value Estimated Content Value Total Value Vacant Mixed Use 4 $281,100 $536,850 $536,850 $1,073,700 Residential Improved 136 $3,946,080 $18,273,730 $9,136,865 $27,410,595 Residential Vacant 4 $2,512,840 $25,720 $12,860 $38,580 Tax Exempt 2 $293,130 $167,010 $167,010 $334,020 Unknown 0 $20 $0 $0 $0 Total 150 $7,308,220 $19,677,700 $10,527,975 $30,205,675 Totals 366 $19,054,330 $45,707,980 $26,872,595 $72,580,575 Kremmling Fire Protection District Medium Agricultural 14 $138,310 $2,152,930 $2,152,930 $4,305,860 Commercial Improved 42 $2,599,480 $8,048,620 $8,048,620 $16,097,240 Commercial Vacant 2 $984,520 $2,020 $2,020 $4,040 Conservation Easement 0 $15,510 $0 $0 $0 Industrial Vacant 0 $57,500 $0 $0 $0 Mixed Use 9 $411,070 $1,411,460 $1,411,460 $2,822,920 Residential Improved 479 $23,067,590 $46,745,850 $23,372,925 $70,118,775 Residential Vacant 19 $10,806,620 $664,670 $332,335 $997,005 Tax Exempt 12 $2,166,220 $1,280,650 $1,280,650 $2,561,300 Unknown 0 $41,910 $0 $0 $0 Vacant Land 0 $475,500 $0 $0 $0 Total 577 $40,764,230 $60,306,200 $36,600,940 $96,907,140 High Commercial Improved 8 $507,120 $1,026,520 $1,026,520 $2,053,040 Commercial Vacant 2 $200,620 $145,950 $145,950 $291,900 Mixed Use 3 $112,310 $145,600 $145,600 $291,200 Residential Improved 298 $13,488,320 $31,118,320 $15,559,160 $46,677,480 Residential Vacant 2 $3,241,170 $4,020 $2,010 $6,030 Tax Exempt 2 $310,120 $619,930 $619,930 $1,239,860 Unknown 1 $531,390 $350,000 $350,000 $700,000 Vacant Land 1 $19,200 $3,030 $0 $3,030 Total 317 $18,410,250 $33,413,370 $17,849,170 $51,262,540 Totals 894 $59,174,480 $93,719,570 $54,450,110 $148,169,680 GRAND TOTAL 13,908 $1,073,066,360 $3,120,208,490 $1,672,129,800 $4,792,338,290 Source: AMEC analysis with County data East Grand FPD has the most total exposure in medium and high wildfire threat areas, followed by Grand Lake FPD. In all five fire districts, residential improved parcels make up the majority of total exposure. East Grand FPD also has the most people at risk with an estimated population of 9,067 in the high risk zone and 4,104 in the moderate risk zone for a total of 13,171. These Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 estimates are based on the average household size in the County according to the 2010 U.S. Census. However, many houses in the County are second or seasonal homes. Vacancy rates from the 2010 Census were used to estimate the permanent population at risk. East Grand FPD's adjusted population at risk is 6,084 people in high risk zones and 2,754 in moderate risk zones. Grand FPD has an estimated 4,355 people (2,922 adjusted for vacancy rates) in high risk zones and 2,497 people (1,676 adjusted) in moderate zones. Grand Lake FPD has 5,148 people (3,454 adjusted) people in high risk zones and 1,704 (1,143 adjusted) in moderate risk zones. HSSPFPD has 307 people (206 adjusted) people in high risk zones and 391 (262 adjusted) in moderate risk zones. Kremmling FPD has 673 people (452 adjusted) people in high risk zones and 1,083 (726 adjusted) in moderate risk zones. Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.6. Wildfire Intensity in East Grand FPD Y LEGEND I* Fire Stations Streams -{ - - r ----Y i, ® B Fire Protection Districts � Railroads _ ' � ~- f. 4" Fire Intensity Scale Local Roads * ^�� '~ ~•{ �" ;� +i Lowest Intensity — Major Roads GRAND . 0 —Highways FPD..Air Moderate Intensity —J Towns �.:"' •� �;� �' ` �� • f r� 41.0 Counties Highest Intensity I 1. �► ' - Granby l i !. 40 X4. , j i �. _. Fraser y' 4 a EAST GRAND i ��•, �� :3 a r , --/FPD, 'fir` �P r3\ Jr r 1i 1} Winter Park A Al- 411; A �W f !, Ir )06 4 40 F \ CLEAR CREEK amecl� 0 4 8 Miles I i r , I , , u I Map compiled $!2013; intended far planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Colorado State Forest Service: CO -WRAP Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.7. Wildfire Intensity in Grand FPD LEGEND I 'L Grand take Fire Intensity Scale Fire Stations Local Roads zRp t f' OLowest intensity �i Fire Protection Districts — Major Roads • Luk i•ri 1 - Streams Highways Tal.. - ® Moderate Intensity Lakes —`� I a 11r`t<J°y l..-1 Tcwns i Voutilanl•L Ike �— Railroads - Highest Intensity ! c .41 F ' GRAND LAKE, FPD ",; ! La(c ,- Y• ' !,rig � 1f ir(. 6 .,,i. ,' - `. u. r k �.-.., /�� .f , K- 125 GRAND'34 ! �A I`k FPDCO 0 CO i x as - ao,``'s Granby ! I - 1 1 6 - ),N f y4 t 1 iii r Zs 40 �. `�- `s� E--------- — -------=-----------.-----= — - — - --- — 0 4 8 Miles ame �(} Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source, Grand County, CD©T, Colorado State Forest Service C4 -WRAP Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.B. Wildfire Intensity in Grand Lake FPD ti tri, r LEGEND 4 # Fire Stations 34 1—� Fire Protection Districts t--� - 1 i Fire Intensity Scale JACKSON i'r �'� �'� I { LARIMER Lowest lntensitw Moderate Intensity Highest Intensity Streams A - i. Lakes ' + Railroads Local Roads 4'` Y Major Road., y�y r —Highways Towns I� r — ---^ � Counties ' r ' j.,.. - GRAND�L'AKE j _- . .,.�it��� i.• r w FPD 09 A Grand Lake �Lukr } y q( r i v -------------------------- , -GRAND, M a 34 -- - -m — (,r nlhr I - - ► amen' 0 4 8 Miles N I Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Colorado State Forest Service: CO -WRAP Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.9. Wildfire Intensity in HSSPFPD LEGEND Fire Stations Streams Fire Protection Districts � Lakes � � ., � - � . - !, V Fire Intensity Scale —F— Railroads r >lt I�'• Lowest Intensity Local Roads d- ; .. —Major Roads,„, J I . I -4 � Moderate Intensity — Highways' ` Towns Highest Intensity _ *i --- -- —_—_—_—_—r_ ---ti.- ' Hot Sulphur SpringslParshall I� FPD ao I u T -JoJ+ 4 ., -Hot Sulphur �' p '�,Springs f. I w w� *' Y o j 0 --------- ; S a -------- ---- ---_�----------'----� riff- J �'a , 4 + •' _ � }� * „fir ✓M ��a,, _ '`�i- •'; ;y..r�r -4 ' l 0 2.5 5 Miles N amec I I I, I I Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source. Grand County, CDOT, Colorado State Forest Service: CO -WRAP Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.10. Wildfire Intensity in Kremmling FPD r -_., 40 134 L— ----- __� j 1 Q kPo- KREMMLING 1 r. '' I FPD A ; st 1 . _ Kremmling --- 40 i ----------- - - ----a-7 HSSPARSHALL FP1D.yam WmOW 14" ' 19 6 z ..t• LEGEND w_ ip Fire Stations Streams ' Fire Protection Districts F Lakes s Fire Intensity Scale —+-- Railroads SUMMIT „/ ® Lowest Intensity Local Roads \'.tF y — Major Roads _� Q Moderate Intensity — Highways 1 f —'Towns] - Highest Intensity Counties aIII�0 5 1Miles N Ill I 1 I. 1 I 1 1 1 I Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, Colorado State Forest Service: CO -WRAP Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.11. Wildfire Treatment Areas in East Grand FPD v ae� 1Granby ----------------------------- . I Lleaulok Creek i I � j Reserl�oir• , I I GRAND h FPD � I J I o toe a EAST GRAND jam! oa 5PD - l r' `I " int IJ i Winter 4 .Fz` Park LEGEND 40 Fire Stations Streams ♦ y Fire Protection Districts Lakes `� 40 n - CSFS Treatments Local Roads * �_ Vegetation Management Units — Major Roads USFS Treatment Types — Highways Fuels r— l Towns ' CLEAR CREEK 7mber Sale —moi counties ameO 4 4 S Miles N I I i i i I Map compiled 8l2013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.24 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.12. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Grand FPD LEGEND { Ear d -r^°"°'1 Grand Lake Fire Stations Streams Fire Protection Districts Lakes CSFS Treatments +- Railroads Vegetation Management Units Local Roads elf r USFS Treatment Types Major Roads I --l-- —"'"— —� ,� � r j' "� - Fuels — Highways C' Timber Sale I.._.r Towns 14v GRAND LAKFt FPD 4v' Ok I i Lake 7 l( � i (irurrl?I' r j Will rna f reek f 125 Reservoir v1 a n it .� GRAND 34 'M FPD 40 {, GranbyCO LL l C ' 1 40 55 tC I ame/'(� 0 4 8 Miles N 4�il ••7 I e I e r I Map compiled 8f2013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) 'A Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.25 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure H.13. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Grand Lake FPD LEGEND q — - — - — - — ------ } Fire Stations ` lS fLARI �— Fire Protection Districts JACKSON ;l j ! MER CSFS Treatments Vegetation Management Units i USES Treatment Types { Fuels r I � Timber Sale 1 I Streams 1 Lakes Railroads Local Roads Major Roads I I 6 - Highways Towns Counties I , j GRAND LAKE I j FPD �f I Grand Lake i a e �� r----� „ - U ri rt GRAND l --------- ---i FPD 4 �V 34 --- ! Figure H.14. Wildfire Treatment Areas in HSSPFPD LEGEND 1� �1 Fire Stations Streams Fire Protection Districts Lakes –CSFS Treatments —}-- Railroads Vegetation Management Units — Local Roads USFS Treatment Types — Major Roads Fuels — Highways Timber Sale ED, Towns Williams I° Resemaj, a �I i I Hot Sulphur SpringslParshall FPD 40 r giver Hot Sulphur t �LtiE o Springs Lu Ilk Iii amecO 0 2 5 Miles I i t r I i r r 1 Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USPS (2013) Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 0 5 A Annex H.27 1� `1 �I i I Hot Sulphur SpringslParshall FPD 40 r giver Hot Sulphur t �LtiE o Springs Lu Ilk Iii amecO 0 2 5 Miles I i t r I i r r 1 Map compiled 812013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USPS (2013) Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 0 5 A Annex H.27 Figure H.15. Wildfire Treatment Areas in Kremmling FPD 40 l r r�{,rfar, Re r r I Kr Mountain rmir• \1 7.,KREMmLINGPD �m imling,; \1 T 9 SUMMIT \'--,HSSPARSHALL �'— F,PD 1 i,�all rcux.s I' ork �! ameO 0 5 1Miles N I i i I i I Map compiled 8!2013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.28 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 LEGEND Fire Stations Streams Fire Protection Districts Lakes p 0 CSFS Treatments Railroads Vegetation Management Units Local Roads USFS Treatment Types - Major Roads Fuels - Highways Timber Sale r Towns —_] Counties \1 T 9 SUMMIT \'--,HSSPARSHALL �'— F,PD 1 i,�all rcux.s I' ork �! ameO 0 5 1Miles N I i i I i I Map compiled 8!2013; intended for planning purposes only. Data Source: Grand County, CDOT, CSFS, USFS (2013) Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.28 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development Residential development continues to occur in the wildland-urban interface where limited access, lack of a central water supply with fire hydrants, and longer response times elevate the risk associated with the a wildfire event. Development in wildland-urban interface areas is regulated through the building code and land use planning policies of the jurisdiction in which the development is located. Other Hazards The Districts are also affected by other hazards that exacerbate wildfire hazard conditions, such as drought, lightning, and windstorms. In addition, lands damaged by wildfire are subject to increased runoff and erosion as well as landslides, mudslides/debris flows, and rock fall. Growth and Development Trends Residential development is likely to continue to occur in the wildland-urban interface in both districts. Increasing population also increases the likelihood of a human -caused fire or natural fire forcing the community to evacuate. In the East Grand FPD service area, development is mostly occurring on the Fraser Valley floor. All development on the Valley floor is susceptible to wildfire, high winds, winter storms, and extreme temperatures. Some areas outside of the Valley floor are susceptible to flooding and landslides. People who live in more isolated areas of the County can be difficult to locate and assist. There has been little growth in the Grand FPD area between 2011 and 2013, and in fact the population has declined. The Town of Granby sits on a hill, and schools and businesses are located outside of the floodplain. Some roads and train tracks are in the floodplains, so transportation can be impacted during flood events. The Grand Lake area has also not seen growth since the 2008 economic downturn. The population has declined and the school has even closed. Growth is not expected in coming years. Although a lack of growth can reduce risk and vulnerable populations and structures in some ways, it may also mean that the fire protection districts will struggle with recruiting new volunteers in the future. The Town of Hot Sulphur Springs saw significant growth between 2000 and 2011. The population increased by 103% and the number of housing units increased by 67%. The Town of Kremmling's population increased by 29.2% between 2000 and 2011. The number of housing units increased by 11.8%. Increases in population and the number of housing units can indicate increased risk to wildfire and other hazards in these fire protection districts. HA Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.29 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, and mitigation outreach and partnerships. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory mitigation capabilities include the planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. The fire protection districts are governed under the policies and programs of Grand County, including its building codes and land use planning. Grand FPD's proposed development and review standards were last revised in 2009. The fire districts enforce the International Fire Code. The Grand County Fire Chiefs Association and Grand County are working together to evaluate adopting the 2012 International Fire Code. The fire districts also support programs such as Firewise and Ready, Set, Go. East Grand FPD has a master plan, site plan review requirements, and capital improvements plan. East Grand FPD helps enforce fire codes in Winter Park, Fraser, and Grand County. East Grand FPD has an Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating of 4 for all properties within five miles of their stations and within 1,000 feet of a water supply, a rating of 6 for rural areas with a Fire Department Developed Supply, and an ISO rating of 10 for rural areas outside of the five mile radius. Grand FPD has an ISO Class 4 rating in areas serviced by a water system, with rural areas rated at Class 6. Grand Lake FPD has an ISO Class 4 designation district -wide. The ISO rating for the area within a five mile radius of the Hot Sulphur Springs fire station is 6. Areas outside of that five mile radius but still within the HSSPFPD boundaries are rated at 8b. Areas outside the five mile radius and outside HSSPFPD boundaries are rated at 10. Kremmling FPD has an ISO Class 5 rating in the Town of Kremmling, and ratings of 9 or 10 outside of the Town. For other regulatory mitigation capabilities, all five FPDs primarily rely on the County or the towns within their districts. Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities The Districts work with Grand County departments of engineering, emergency management, and GIS on activities related to hazard mitigation and loss prevention. East Grand FPD has a full- time fire prevention officer and fire code technician. The FPDs rely on the County or towns within their districts for other administrative/technical mitigation capabilities. Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities The fire protection districts are funded through property taxes. Fiscal mitigation capabilities are financial tools or resources that the fire protection districts could or already do use to help fund mitigation activities. These include the following: IGA Impact Fees Community assistance grants administered by BLM CSFS grants Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.30 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships Other mitigation related activities for each district include the following: East Grand Fire Protection District Auto Aid Agreement with Granby Fire Protection District #1 Mutual Aid Agreement with all Grand County fire protection districts Mutual Aid Agreement with Clear Creek County Emergency Service District Mutual Aid Agreement with Northwest Colorado I-70 Corridor Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Grand County Emergency Telephone Service Authority IGA with Grand County Dispatch Center IGA with Grand County EMS and Search and Rescue IGA Mechanics Agreement with Snake River Fire Department East Grand FPD puts on various school functions and programs on fire safety and smoke/carbon monoxide detectors. Pole Creek Meadows is a certified FireWise community. East Grand FPD participated in the development of the Upper Fraser Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2007). Grand Fire Protection District Received funding from BLM to form a Grand County Wildfire Council. Worked with Winter Park Highlands HOA and CSFS on getting Winter Park Highlands designated as a FireWise community. Winter Park Highlands HOA also added a fire pond, named Bielenberg Pond, at Elk Park. The HOA also implemented fuels reduction projects, created fire breaks on properties, and added reflective, fireproof addressing. Pole Creek Meadows HOA issues a forestry newsletter with details on the FireWise program, removal of blown down and dead trees, slash pile burning, and clear cutting. Ongoing wildfire education Annual open house for general fire safety Promoting National Fire Prevention Week each October at elementary schools and day cares Commercial fire safety inspections Grand FPD participated in the development of the Grand FPD Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2009). Grand Lake Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Readiness Workshops Ongoing wildfire education Open house/BBQ each October as part of National Fire Prevention Week Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.31 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Fire prevention business inspections Free defensible space site surveys Wildland Deployment Program to assist other districts Grand Lake FPD participated in the development of the Grand Lake FPD Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2006). Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Fire Protection District The following education and outreach actions are listed in the HSSPFPD CWPP: Issue press releases in the spring and fall to be carried in the local paper informing their readers about the importance of making their properties fire safe and/or promoting FireWise. Send direct mailings to all residents in Copper Creek Estates, the Williams Fork Valley, Sheriff Creek, and other remote areas about the importance of signing up for CodeRed. Include information about FireWise in the mailing, as well. As part of Fire Prevention Week activities in schools, distribute FireWise promotional materials to school -aged kids. This activity could take on an interagency flavor and involve the BLM, CSFS, USFS, and other local fire protection districts. Use a large highway message board during hunting season to inform area visitors of the fire danger and/or to call attention to CodeRed. Kremmling Fire Protection District Fire safety programs are given at Kremmling schools Kremmling FPD participated in the development of the Kremmling FPD Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The following education and outreach actions are listed in the Kremmling CWPP: Establish a fire safe council or fire mitigation group. Educate citizens on the proper escape routes and evacuation centers to use in the event of an evacuation. This also applies to animal rescue. Create an evacuation plan that is presented and distributed to residents. Develop fire safety brochures that can be distributed and made available to guests in the summer months. Table A.5 Public Education lists several projects for public outreach and education. Participate in the Ready, Set, Go! Program H.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Each of the fire protection districts adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.32 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 H.6 Mitigation Actions Each of the fire protection districts identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. The districts also participate in several multi jurisdictional mitigation actions detailed in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy, including Develop and implement fuel -reduction projects' and `Complete defensible space projects around all built-up areas.' Many of the details on these projects are listed in the CWPPs. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.33 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Fire Protection Districts -1 Develop and Implement Wildfire Protection Program for Residents in WUI Jurisdiction: Fire Protection Districts Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Develop and implement a voluntary wildfire protection program for residents Issue & Background within wildfire/urban interface. Lead Agency and Title Fire Protection Districts- Fire Chiefs, municipalities of Lead Person Partners: Grand County OEM Priority: High Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Protect life safety and property from wildfire (Losses Avoided) Potential Funding: Staff time Timeline: Ongoing Status: Ongoing — wildfire safety week, websites, lots of media options for outreach are utilized. Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.34 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Fire Protection Districts -2 Develop Fire Protection Strategies for Critical Facilities in WUI Jurisdiction: Fire Protection Districts Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Identify high-risk critical structures within the wildland/urban interchange and Issue & Background develop fire protection strategies appropriate for those structures. Lead Agency and Title Fire Protection Districts — Fire Chiefs, Grand County OEM of Lead Person Partners: Municipalities Priority: High Cost Estimate: Benefits: Protect life safety and property from wildfire; protect critical facilities and (Losses Avoided) continuity of operations during a wildfire event Potential Funding: Timeline: Status: Completed in CWPPs. Update as needed or in conjunction with CWPP update schedule Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.35 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Fire Protection Districts -3 Acquire 4 -Wheel Drive Pumper Trucks Jurisdiction: Fire Protection Districts Hazard Addressed Wildfire Project Description, Acquire 4 -wheel drive pumper trucks. Issue & Background Lead Agency and Title Fire Protection Districts - Fire Chiefs of Lead Person Partners: Grand County Fire Chiefs Association Priority: Medium Cost Estimate: Benefits: Protect life safety and property from wildfire; improve wildfire mitigation and (Losses Avoided) response capabilities Potential Funding: Timeline: Ongoing Status: Partially complete. Between Fire Districts there are the following ALL WHEEL DRIVE units: five Type 1 engines, three Type 3 engines, three Type 4 engines, eight Type 6 engines, one Type 7 engine, six Type 1 tactical tenders, one Type 2 tactical tender, one Type 2 rescue vehicle, one Type 4 rescue vehicle, and six Type 2 utility vehicles. Some resources still needed. County -wide mutual aid agreements are in place between all the Fire Districts. Grand County (Fire Protection Districts) Annex H.36 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX I: DENVER WATER 1.1 Community Profile Denver Water is a large special district that includes Grand County within its service area. Denver Water is the State's oldest and largest water utility, established in 1918. It is funded by water rates and new tap fees, as opposed to taxes. Denver Water is run by a five -member Board of Water Commissioners. A designated CEO/Manager is appointed by the Board to execute its policies and orders. Denver Water's service area encompasses the entirety of Grand County. Refer to the countywide maps in Chapter 3 and in Grand County's annex. 1.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Representatives of Denver Water identified the hazards that affect the District and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to the District and its facilities (see Table I.1). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Denver Water. Table 1.1. Denver Water—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Isolated Likely Limited High Dam & Levee Failure Small Unlikely Critical High Disease Outbreak Large Likely Variable Low Drought Large Likely Limited Moderate Earthquake Large Occasional Limited Low Flood Small Likely Critical High Hazardous Materials Isolated Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate Landslide, Debris Flow/Mudflow and Rockfall Isolated Occasional Limited Moderate Lightning Isolated Likely Limited Moderate Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited Medium Severe Winter Storm and Blizzards Large Highly Likely Critical Moderate Wildland fires Large Highly Likely Critical High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Low Windstorm Large Likely Limited Low *See Section 3.2 for definitions of these factors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 1.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Denver Water's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment in the main plan. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. District Asset Inventory Table 1.2 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by the District as important to protect in the event of a disaster. Table 1.2. Denver Water—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Sources: Denver Water *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. This section focuses on wildfire impacts to watersheds. Wildfire Existing Development Watersheds and the numerous associated reservoirs in the county could be significantly impacted by high severity wildfire, especially in the wake of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. For Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Replacement Hazard Specific Name of Asset Type* Value ($) Info/Comments Capital Lease interest in Wolford Mountain reservoir Williams Fork Dam EF $300M Dam Failure (loss of life, property, recreation in Grand County Water Supply for Western Region. Winter Park Facilities EF Land subsidence - - Moffat Tunnel $100M underground tunnel - Vasquez Tunnel $50M system that transports - Gumlick Tunnel $50M water from western - Jones Pass slope to the Denver metro area. Impact if damages occurred would be to Denver Water customers. Sources: Denver Water *EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of moderate or high significance that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. This section focuses on wildfire impacts to watersheds. Wildfire Existing Development Watersheds and the numerous associated reservoirs in the county could be significantly impacted by high severity wildfire, especially in the wake of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. For Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 example, the damage to Strontia Springs Reservoir caused by siltation from the 1996 Buffalo Creek Fire took fifteen years to complete and cost Denver Water over $30 million. Watersheds on the steep western slope of the Front Range feed directly into reservoirs and are of highest concern for wildfire impacts. The Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment (JW Associates, Inc. 2013) "identifies and prioritizes sixth -level watersheds based on their hazards of generating flooding, debris flows, and increased sediment yields following wildfires that could have impacts on water supplies" (pg. 1). Figure I.1 shows the Upper Colorado headwaters watershed wildfire hazard ranking. Watersheds can be considered as assets in their own right. Consultation with those water supply agencies with facilities, reservoirs, and properties should be included in mitigation discussions, and are in fact required to take part since the passage of Colorado House Bill 09-1162. Further consultation with members of a Burned Area Emergency Response Team may provide further guidance in mitigating and preparing for the effects of wildfire in a watershed. Figure 1.1. Upper Colorado Headwaters Watershed Wildfire Hazard Ranking tim9 I—., P, ,k 4-1 Legend . OA Ct Wgoq , U"ery 7 crerptor3 � uugar} 1�'k VJ II irW Source: JW Associates, Inc., Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment 2013 Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Future Development Continued growth of Grand County's population will generally mean an expanded WUI and potential exposure of buildings and people. It is important that CWPPs, EDPs, and other planning documents and regulations remain current to ensure improved community adaptation to the fire prone environment in which they are being built. Denver Water has already begun to work with local offices of emergency management, including Grand County, to address wildfire hazards. Growth and Development Trends Denver Water does not have authority to manage growth or development within its district. 1.4 Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory mitigation capabilities include the planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. Table I.3 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Denver Water. Many of the regulatory capabilities used by local jurisdictions are not applicable to Denver Water. Table 1.3. Denver Water—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan N/A Zoning ordinance N/A Subdivision ordinance N/A Growth management ordinance N/A Floodplain ordinance N/A Other special purpose ordinance stormwater, steep slope, wildfire N/A Building code N/A Fire department ISO rating N/A Erosion or sediment control program N/A Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Regulatory Tool Yes/No Department/Position Comments (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No Comments Stormwater management program N/A Site plan review requirements N/A Capital improvements plan Yes Engineering Economic development plan N/A Local emergency operations plan Yes Denver Water Emergency Management began Planner/engineer/scientist with an Yes developing an EOP in August 2012. Emergency understanding of natural hazards manager brought on board to implement a Personnel skilled in GIS Yes comprehensive emergency management program Full time building official N/A that will interface with local jurisdictions Other special plans N/A Drought Response Plan Emergency manager Yes FERC requires Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) on all dams. Also have treatment and distribution plans. Flood insurance study or other N/A engineering study for streams Elevation certificates (for floodplain N/A IT/GIS development Other Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table I.4 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Denver Water. Table 1.4. Denver Water—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of N/A Planning land development/land management practices Engineer/professional trained in Yes Engineering construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Planner/engineer/scientist with an Yes Drought planners understanding of natural hazards Personnel skilled in GIS Yes IT/GIS Full time building official N/A Floodplain manager N/A Emergency manager Yes Operations & Maintenance — Manager of Emergency Response Grant writer Other personnel GIS Data Resources Yes IT/GIS Hazard areas, critical facilities, land Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments use, building footprints, etc. Warning Systems/Services Yes IT Everbridge (Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals Other Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Fiscal mitigation capabilities are financial tools or resources that Denver Water could or already does use to help fund mitigation activities. Denver Water has received funding for watershed improvements from the Colorado State Forest Service. Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships Denver Water has public education programs related to water conservation, drought response, water quality, and a very active youth education program focusing on a variety of water -related topics. Additionally, Denver Water has a public affairs division that provides media relations, social media, marketing, publications, internal communication, stakeholder relations, government relations, community outreach, and website communications for both our combined service area of 1.3 million people and for the communities where Denver Water's watersheds and facilities are located. Past Mitigation Efforts Denver Water has partnered with USFS to improve forest and watershed conditions in parts of Colorado by implementing hazardous fuels treatments and removing hazardous biomass. Forests play a role in protecting areas important to surface drinking water. USFS maps these areas using GIS before working with Denver Water on fuels treatment projects. This effort is part of the Forests to Faucets program. The projected outcome of this project is 943 acres of hazardous fuels treatments with 54,795 tons of biomass removed or dispersed in the Colorado River headwaters. This project is detailed as a multi jurisdictional mitigation action item in Chapter 4. 1.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Denver Water has adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. 1.6 Mitigation Actions Denver Water identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Denver Water -1 Update Drought Management Plan Jurisdiction: Denver Water Action Title: Update drought management plan Priority: High Issue/Background: Updating the drought management plan will allow Denver Water to identify risks to their infrastructure and critical facilities, and reduce the impacts of water shortages. Ideas for Implementation: Responsible Agency: Denver Water Partners: CWCB Potential Funding: Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Reduce drought impacts to people and critical facilities; build resiliency to drought (Losses Avoided) Timeline: Tentative completion date of 12/31/2013 Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Denver Water -2 Develop IGA with Grand County Jurisdiction: Denver Water Action Title: Develop intergovernmental agreement with Grand County Priority: Low Issue/Background: Denver Water currently has an IGA signed with the Colorado Office of Emergency Management. The Denver Water legal department will develop an IGA for Grand County for emergency management purposes. Ideas for Implementation: Responsible Agency: Denver Water Partners: Grand County OEM Potential Funding: Denver Water Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Strengthening emergency management partnerships; improving emergency (Losses Avoided) preparedness by putting these agreements in place before a disaster or emergency occurs Timeline: Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Denver Water -3 Update AOP for Property Owners Jurisdiction: Denver Water Action Title: Update the Annual Operating Plan for Grand County property owners and Denver Water customers Priority: Low Issue/Background: AOPs Informs Grand County customers of projected operations and releases from Denver Water's reservoirs each year and contributes to drought preparedness if water levels are projected to be lower than previous years. AOPs are updated on an annual basis. Ideas for Denver Water can meet with Grand County officials to provide the updated AOP Implementation: and basic training on the plan. Responsible Agency: Denver Water Partners: Grand County Potential Funding: Denver Water Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Informs Grand County customers of projected operations and releases from (Losses Avoided) Denver Water's reservoirs each year; contributes to drought preparedness if water levels are projected to be lower than previous years. Timeline: AOPs are updated annually Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Denver Water -4 Public Outreach in Grand County Jurisdiction: Denver Water Action Title: Public outreach efforts in Grand County Priority: Low Issue/Background: The Denver Water government stakeholder group would like to partner with Grand County stakeholders and rebuild relationships, and provide networking and education for the public. Denver Water OEM has additional ideas and information on public education efforts as they related to FERC requirements. Ideas for Implementation: Responsible Agency: Denver Water Emergency Management Partners: Grand County OEM, participating jurisdictions Potential Funding: Denver Water Cost Estimate: Staff time, developing and printing public information materials Benefits: Strengthen partnership between Denver Water and Grand County; keep public (Losses Avoided) informed Timeline: Ongoing Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Denver Water -5 GIS Mapping Coordination Project Jurisdiction: Denver Water Action Title: Develop GIS mapping coordination project to show damages based on dam EAPs, flood maps, and county floodplains Priority: Low Issue/Background: COEM is in the process of developing a "reference guide" for all 600+ dams in Colorado for local emergency managers to access and use for local planning efforts. Denver Water has inundation maps, included in their AOP for local officials to use in order to develop local notification and evacuation plans. Ideas for Implementation: Responsible Agency: Denver Water Partners: COEM, CO DNR — Division of Water Resources, Grand County Potential Funding: Denver Water Cost Estimate: Staff time Benefits: Improve dam failure notification and evacuation procedures in Grand County; (Losses Avoided) protect life safety Timeline: Three years Status: New in 2013 Grand County (Denver Water) Annex I.1 1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 ANNEX .J: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT J.1 Community Profile The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and its Municipal Subdistrict (collectively Northern Water) provide water to Northeastern Colorado from the Colorado -Big Thompson (C- BT) and Windy Gap projects. The West Slope Collection System for C -BT and Windy Gap include Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Lake Granby, and Willow Creek Reservoir (see Figure J.1). Northern Water and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation jointly operate and maintain C -BT; Northern Water owns, operates and maintains Windy Gap. Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure J.1. Northern Water West Slope Collection System West Slope Collection System' 2'. SHADOW MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR WILLOW CREEK RESERVOIR r frILLOw CREEK PUA CANAL & PUMP PLP. T i r4� WINDY GAP PUMP PLANT * 0 vJlt'�N pl0radp �. 1�' as- Alr1 wATC14Al3LE WILDLIFE AREA Granby WINDY WINDY4a V GAP untnin RESERVOIR 00, Lake sos go WEST PORTAL GRAND LAKE�`f'`� A�, HADOW Rocky OUNTAIN Mountain GRA Y DAM PUMP National CANAL cq«park FARR PUMP PLANT F d", LAKE GRANBY w ren Sym InselofCrWj1Vo 1tain - d0 Legend ?:%Of Kremmiing , C -BT Reservoirs 0 ; City/Town �ploi v - Canal iiis Pipeline/Conduit POYWER --- Tunnel PLANT Dom M Power Plant 144 ney o Pump Plant FR 30 GREEN MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR nrt,W to Sale .'flap area not to scale Source: Northern Water (htt�://www.northernwater.org/WaterProiects/C-BTWestRecreation.asr) ) J.2 Hazard Identification and Profiles Representatives of Northern Water identified the hazards that affect C -BT and Windy Gap, and summarized their geographic location, probability of future occurrence, potential magnitude or severity, and planning significance specific to Grand County (see Table J.1). In the context of the countywide planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Northern Water, however wildfire damage to the watersheds in Grand County and impacts to C -BT and Windy Gap infrastructure and water supplies is the primary concern to Northern Water. Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Table J.1. Northern Water—Hazard Summary Hazard Type Geographic Location* Probability* Magnitude* Hazard Rating Avalanche Isolated Likely Limited Low Dam & Levee Failure Small Unlikely Catastrophic Low Disease Outbreak Isolated Occasional Limited Low Drought Large Likely Limited High Earthquake Large Occasional Limited Low Flood Small Likely Critical Low Hazardous Materials Isolated Likely Negligible Low Landslide, Debris Flow/Mudflow and Rockfall Isolated Occasional Limited Low Lightning Isolated Likely Limited Low Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Large Occasional Limited High Severe Winter Storm and Blizzards Large Highly Likely Limited Low Wildland fires Small Likely Critical High Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Isolated Highly Likely Negligible Low Windstorm Large Likely Limited Low 'See Section 3.2 for definitions of these factors Information on past events for each hazard can be found in Section 3.2 Hazard Profiles in the body of this document. J.3 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Northern Water's vulnerability separately from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been addressed in Section 3.3 Vulnerability Assessment in the main plan. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 3 Risk Assessment. District Asset Inventory Table J.2 lists critical facilities and other community assets identified by the District as important to protect in the event of a disaster. Table J.2. Northern Water—Critical Facilities and Other Community Assets Replacement Name of Asset Type* Value ($) Hazard Specific Info/Comments Colorado Big -Thompson Project LL Unknown Infrastructure and water quality Windy Gap Project LL Unknown Infrastructure and water aualitv 'EF: Essential Facilities; LS: Life Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; HCNA: Historic, cultural or natural assets; EA: Economic Asset Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Vulnerability by Hazard This section examines those existing and future structures and other assets at risk to hazards that vary from the risks facing the entire planning area and estimates potential losses. This section describes all hazards within Northern Water jurisdiction, but focuses on wildfire impacts to watersheds. Avalanche Risk of avalanche to Northern Water, C -BT and Windy Gap facilities is isolated and minimal, and similar to the Severe Winter Storm and Blizzard section below. Dam & Levee Failure The Windy Gap Dam, Granby Dams, Shadow Mountain Dam, Willow Creek Dam, and appurtenant C -BT and Windy Gap facilities are regularly inspected by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Northern Water personnel to ensure that these facilities meet federal dam safety standards. Northern Water also participates in standard operating procedure layout and dam emergency table top exercises. Coupled with the low probability of occurrence the hazard rating of a dam or levee failure is considered low. Disease Outbreak Disease outbreak primarily has the potential to affect Northern Water staff, rendering key personnel unavailable to operate and/or maintain project facilities. Northern Water staff have an "unlimited" number of sick days available annually, and encourage staff to use sick time as needed to get healthy and avoid spreading disease to other staff. Additionally, Northern Water has multiple personnel trained to perform all key tasks, and can operate many key facilities remotely. Thus, the hazard rating of disease outbreak is considered low. Drought Drought has the potential to affect Northern Water via two primary methods: drought conditions result in decreased water availability to fill C -BT reservoirs, resulting in decreased water supply for the projects; and, prolonged drought increases the probability of wildfire. Northern Water's water allocation methods to water users on the East Slope account for water supply availability and makes adjustments to the amount of water available for delivery to water users based on the amount of water available in the system. Storage facilities in both Grand County and on the East Slope allow C -BT and Windy Gap to store water in wetter times for use during drought conditions. Most major water users on the East Slope have their own drought contingency plans that are implemented in times of severe drought conditions. Thus, the hazard rating from a water supply perspective is low. The risk of wildfires is described below. Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Earthquake The hazard rating for earthquakes is negligible. All buildings and facilities are constructed to code. As with Dam & Levee Failure, Bureau of Reclamation and Northern Water personnel regularly inspect all C -BT and Windy Gap facilities to ensure that these facilities meet federal safety standards, including stability during earthquake events. The Bureau of Reclamation performs dam risk analyses that include earthquake analyses. Flood C -BT storage facilities are not authorized for Flood control purposes. During times when storage in C -BT reservoirs is not at capacity, reservoirs can provide incidental flood control benefits to downstream areas. During times when C -BT reservoirs are at capacity, water is released from the reservoirs in a controlled manner over spillways designed to convey flood events. Northern Water plans and coordinates these releases with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Grand County and the Colorado Division of Water Resources during high flow releases. Thus, the hazard rating for flooding is low. Hazardous Materials Northern Water personnel periodically transport hazardous materials as part of its operation and maintenance of C -BT and Windy Gap facilities. Northern Water personnel follow all applicable federal, state and local regulations when transporting these materials, and have response plans in place in case the integrity of these materials is compromised. Thus, the hazard rating for hazardous materials is low. Landslide, Debris Flow/Mudflow and Rockfall There are isolated areas adjacent to C -BT and Windy Gap facilities that could be susceptible to landslides, debris flows and rockfalls. These areas would be especially vulnerable following a wildfire coupled with extreme precipitation events. As part of its routine inspection and monitoring of project facilities, Northern Water regularly monitors areas that may be susceptible to these hazards. In the event of a wildfire, Northern Water would enact wildfire mitigation projects that are currently being developed as part of the C -BT Headwaters Partnership (see below). Thus, the hazard rating for landslides, debris flow/mudflow and rockfall is low. Lightning Concerns with lightning include increased risk of wildfire, and disruption of power or communication facilities used to operate C -BT facilities. All critical C -BT facilities maintain backup power systems (generators) that are fully maintained and exercised frequently to serve as emergency power systems for operations. All facilities maintain the ability to operate in manual mode if necessary. Northern Water also maintains full time staffing (24 hours per day, 7 days per Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 week) at its Farr Pump Station control room. Thus, the hazard rating for lightning is considered low. Wildfire hazard is discussed below. Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Mountain pine beetle has essentially killed vast swaths of forests adjacent to and upstream of key C -BT and Windy Gap water supply facilities. The death and subsequent decay of these forests increases wildfire hazard for many years following the infestation, which is why the hazard rating is considered high. Wildfire hazard is discussed below. Severe Winter Storm and Blizzards The primary concern for severe winter storms and blizzards is access to C -BT and Windy Gap facilities by operations and maintenance personnel, and operations of the facilities themselves. Northern Water maintains a fleet of four-wheel drive vehicles and heavy equipment, including a snowcat, that can be used to clear access roads and infrastructure of heavy snow accumulations. Northern Water also maintains full time staffing (24 hours per day, 7 days per week) at its Farr Pump Station control room. Thus, the hazard rating for severe winter storm and blizzards is low. Wildfire Existing Development Watersheds and the numerous associated reservoirs in the county could be significantly impacted by high severity wildfire, especially in the wake of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Watersheds on the western slope feed directly into reservoirs and are of highest concern for wildfire impacts. In addition to the direct threat to C -BT infrastructure, fire in C -BT watersheds could affect the water quality of inflows to C -BT and Windy Gap facilities, possibly causing these facilities to become inoperable for short or extended periods of time. Disruptions to C -BT could affect the quantity and quality of water that can be diverted to the East Slope for municipal and agricultural use, and affect the amount of power that can be generated through C -BT hydropower facilities. The Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment (JW Associates, Inc. 2013) "identifies and prioritizes sixth -level watersheds based on their hazards of generating flooding, debris flows, and increased sediment yields following wildfires that could have impacts on water supplies" (pg. 1). Figure J.2 shows the Upper Colorado headwaters watershed wildfire hazard ranking. Watersheds can be considered as assets in their own right. Consultation with those water supply agencies with facilities, reservoirs, and properties should be included in mitigation discussions, and are in fact required to take part since the passage of Colorado House Bill 09-1162. Further consultation with members of a Burned Area Emergency Response Team may provide further guidance in mitigating and preparing for the effects of wildfire in a watershed. Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Figure J.2. Upper Colorado Headwaters Watershed Wildfire Hazard Ranking 4` "rail 1r6,Ik x��l':;:IIS Legend . CO IC�Ufj + C.wsY y z caul,", , Catz,�or}{ uuFary Source: JW Associates, Inc., Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment 2013 Future Development JM3' \% 4kJ;A14a IIx:. Continued growth of Grand County's population will generally mean an expanded Waterhsed- Urban Interface (WUI) and potential exposure of buildings and people. It is important that CWPPs, EOPs, and other planning documents and regulations remain current to ensure improved community adaptation to the fire prone environment in which they are being built. Northern Water has already begun to work with local offices of emergency management, including Grand County, to address wildfire hazards. Wildlife -Vehicle Collisions Northern Water staff routinely travel to project sites via highways and local roads in which wildlife -vehicle collisions are possible. These represent a life and property hazard to Northern Water. Northern Water staff are routinely trained in safe automobile and equipment operation, and maintain vehicles in top working condition. Furthermore, most vehicles operated by Northern Water staff in Grand County are full-size pickups, sport utility vehicles, and trucks that Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 that have a better ability to survive wildlife collisions without serious injury to the driver. Although the likelihood of these types of collisions occurring is high, the magnitude of these collisions is negligible given the equipment and driver training, and the overall hazard rating is low. Windstorm Windstorms could affect Northern Water and C -BT facilities by knocking down power lines and increasing fire danger. The Western Area Power Administration, the federal agency in charge of electrical transmission to and from C -BT facilities, routinely monitors and maintains power line right-of-way throughout the C -BT project, including clearing trees that could potentially threaten power lines and communication facilities. Thus, the hazard rating for windstorms is low. Wildland Fires are discussed above. Growth and Development Trends Northern Water does not have authority to manage growth or development within Grand County. JA Capability Assessment Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts. Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory mitigation capabilities include the planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. Table J.3 lists planning and land management tools typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities and indicates those that are in place in Northern Water. Many of the regulatory capabilities used by local jurisdictions are not applicable to Northern Water. Table J.3. Northern Water—Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No Comments General or Comprehensive plan N/A Zoning ordinance N/A Subdivision ordinance N/A Growth management ordinance N/A Floodplain ordinance N/A Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No Comments Other special purpose ordinance (stormwater, steep slope, wildfire) N/A Building code N/A Fire department ISO rating N/A Erosion or sediment control program N/A Project Management, Stormwater management program N/A Collection Systems, Site plan review requirements N/A Distribution Systems Capital improvements plan N/A Departments Economic development plan N/A Project Management, Local emergency operations plan N/A Standing Operations procedures (SOP), Emergency Action plans EAP for each facility Other special plans Water resources planning documents Flood insurance study or other engineering study for streams N/A IT Department Elevation certificates (for floodplain development N/A Other No Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities Table JA identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Northern Water. Table J.4. Northern Water—Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Planner/engineer with knowledge of No land development/land management practices Engineer/professional trained in Yes Project Management, construction practices related to Collection Systems, buildings and/or infrastructure Distribution Systems Departments Planner/engineer/scientist with an Yes Project Management, understanding of natural hazards Collection Systems Departments Personnel skilled in GIS Yes IT Department Full time building official No Floodplain manager No Emergency manager Yes Real Estate Manager Grant writer No Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position Comments Other personnel Yes Multiple Departments GIS Data Resources Yes IT Department (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land use, building footprints, etc. Warning Systems/Services No (Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals) Other No Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities Fiscal mitigation capabilities are financial tools or resources that Northern Water could or already does use to help fund mitigation activities. Northern Water has received funding from the Colorado -Big Thompson Headwaters Partnership and state -level grants. Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships The C -BT Headwaters Partnership was created through an MOU between the US Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation and Northern Water. The goal of the partnership is to proactively restore forest and watershed health, and to pre -plan post -wildfire response to protect C -BT infrastructure and water supplies on the West Slope in Grand County and the East Slope primarily in Larimer County. Past Mitigation Efforts Northern Water has developed an internal crises plan. They are currently developing a more detailed fire preparedness and response plan, and planning and implementing forest health treatments to reduce the effects of wildfire. Northern Water also participates in Bureau of Reclamation table top exercises in preparation for emergencies related to flood, including communications and reservoir control. J.5 Mitigation Goals and Objectives Northern Water has adopted the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the HMPC and described in Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategy. J.6 Mitigation Actions Northern Water identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information on how each action will be implemented and administered, Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 such as ideas for implementation, responsible agency, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline also are included. Mitigation Action: Northern Water -1 Colorado -Big Thompson Headwaters Partnership for Watershed Protection Jurisdiction: Northern Water Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Mountain Pine Beetle, Drought, Landslide, Debris Flow/Mudflow and Rockfall Project Description, The C -BT Headwaters Partnership was created through an MOU between the US Issue & Background Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation and Northern Water. The goal of the partnership is to restore health and resiliency of forests and watersheds and preplan wildfire response to protect C -BT infrastructure and water supplies. C -BT delivers about 215,000 acre-feet of water annually to supplement water supplies for 860,000 people and 640,000 acres of irrigated land in northeastern Colo. Watersheds include the Upper Colorado and Big Thompson rivers in Grand and Larimer counties. C -BT water supplies are nearly entirely dependent upon snowmelt from high elevation watersheds along the Continental Divide in Northern Colorado. Forest health and fires within these watersheds can have dramatic effects on the quality of watershed runoff and the ability of C -BT water supplies to meet municipal, industrial and agricultural water uses. Catastrophic wildfires that occurred in Northern Colorado during 2012-2013 drought conditions highlighted the risk that C -BT water supplies face given deteriorated forest health conditions, drought, and urbanization at the wildland-urban interface. Northern Water, in conjunction with its partner local, State and Federal agencies is taking a pro -active approach to addressing these conditions. The following efforts will be conducted by the partnership: Conduct forest and watershed health treatments, and pre -plan post - wildfire response Develop a 5 -year operating plan specifying treatment zones and activities Support creation and refinement of watershed assessments Coordinate to provide education, technical and financial incentives Engage other partners Develop a shared communications and media campaign The C -BT Headwaters Partnership meets on a monthly basis to plan and coordinate activities, review on-going projects, and perform field investigations of new projects. The partnership is currently developing its 5 -year operating plan. Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J. I I Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Lead Agency and Title Northern Water, Jerry Gibbens, Project Manager of Lead Person Partners: U.S. Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (signatories) Western Area Power Administration, National Park Service (participants) Priority: High Cost Estimate: Unknown — To be developed as part of operating plan Benefits: Protection of water supplies in Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Lake (Losses Avoided) Granby, Willow Creek Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, Upper Colorado, and numerous other tributaries. Additional benefits to neighboring private and public land, homes/structures, utilities, etc. Potential Funding: Partner and participatory agencies, coupled with state grants and other private funding. Timeline: 2013-2017, with optional extensions possible Status: New in 2013 and On-going Mitigation Action: Northern Water -2 Upper Colorado and Colorado -Big Thompson Watershed Analyses Jurisdiction: Northern Water Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Mountain Pine Beetle, Landslide, Debris Flow/Mudflow and Rockfall Project Description, As part of the C -BT Headwaters Partnership, Northern Water and its consultant Issue & Background have updated the Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment report and developed the Colorado -Big Thompson Project Report on Small Watershed Targeting & Zones of Concern Prioritization. The broader Upper Colorado Headwaters report identified and prioritized sixth -level watersheds in the Upper Colorado Basin based upon their hazards of generating flooding, debris flows and increased sediment yields following wildfires that could have impacts on water supplies. It followed a procedure prescribed by the Front Range Watershed Protection Data Refinement Work Group. The more detailed C -BT Small Watershed report specifically analyzed C -BT watersheds at a finer scale, identified zones -of -concern upstream of C -BT facilities, applied a similar watershed evaluation and developed a composite hazard ranking. Additionally, the report performed a sediment transport analysis that identified streams and stream reaches that could generate or deposit sediment in case of wildfire. Lead Agency and Title Northern Water, Jerry Gibbens, Project Manager of Lead Person Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Partners: J.W. Associates (Consultant) U.S. Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, National Park Service (C -BT Headwaters Partnership) Priority: High Cost Estimate: $40,000 (NW staff and consultant) Benefits: Protection of water supplies in Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Lake (Losses Avoided) Granby, Willow Creek Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, Upper Colorado, and numerous other tributaries. Additional benefits to neighboring private and public land, homes/structures, utilities, etc. Potential Funding: Funding provided by Northern Water Timeline: 2014-2015 Status: New in 2013; Complete Mitigation Action: Northern Water -3 C -BT Headwaters Partnership Post -Wildfire Planning Jurisdiction: Northern Water Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Landslide, Debris Flow/Mudflow and Rockfall Project Description, As part of the C -BT Headwaters Partnership, Northern Water and its consultant Issue & Background are preparing a report that identifies potential areas to construct sediment basins within C -BT zones of concern if a large-scale wildfire were to occur. The analysis utilizes information prepared in the Colorado -Big Thompson Project Report on Small Watershed Targeting & Zones of Concern Prioritization. The analysis includes a more detailed review of sediment basin locations, field verification, cost -benefit determination, and documentation. Lead Agency and Title Northern Water, Jerry Gibbens, Project Manager of Lead Person Partners: J.W. Associates (Consultant) U.S. Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, National Park Service (C -BT Headwaters Partnership) Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Priority: High Cost Estimate: $35,000 (NW staff and consultant) Benefits: Protection of water supplies in Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Lake (Losses Avoided) Granby, Willow Creek Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, Upper Colorado, and numerous other tributaries. The project also provides benefits to neighboring private and public land, homes/structures, utilities, etc. Potential Funding: Funding provided by Northern Water Timeline: 2014 Status: New in 2013; On-going, expected completion in September 2014. Mitigation Action: Northern Water -4 Willow Creek Timber Sale Jurisdiction: Northern Water Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Mountain Pine Beetle Project Description, Northern Water identified property it owns near Willow Creek Reservoir as an Issue & Background area where severe Mountain Pine Beetle infestation resulted in increased fire risk adjacent to C -BT infrastructure and source water supply. Northern Water has implemented a timber sale on this land, which involves the harvesting of approximately 115 acres of beetle -kill lodgepole pine and removing these trees from the premises. In conjunction with the Colorado State Forest Service, the timber harvest was designed in a way that substantially reduces wildfire hazard, promotes regeneration of more fire adaptable vegetation (Aspen) in certain areas, and maintains wildlife habitat. Lead Agency and Title Northern Water, Jerry Gibbens, Project Manager of Lead Person Partners: Colorado State Forest Service Priority: High Cost Estimate: Approximately $17,000 revenue to Northern Water. Benefits: Protection of Willow Creek Dam, Windy Gap Pipeline, water supplies in Windy (Losses Avoided) Gap Reservoir, Willow Creek Reservoir, Willow Creek below Willow Creek Reservoir, and the Colorado River. The project also provides benefits to neighboring private and public land, homes/structures, utilities, etc. Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Potential Funding: N/A Timeline: 2013-2014 Status: New in 2013; On-going, expected completion in September 2014 Mitigation Action: Northern Water -5 Colorado Department of Natural Resources Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Jurisdiction: Northern Water Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Mountain Pine Beetle Project Description, Northern Water received a grant through the Colorado Department of Natural Issue & Background Resources' Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program to perform fuels reduction projects on non -Federal land in both West Slope and East Slope C -BT watersheds. In cooperation with the Colorado State Forest Service, Northern Water is currently contracting with private land -owners in Grand County to perform roughly 25-50 acres of private land treatments in C -BT watersheds. Fuels treatment projects on the West Slope primarily consisting of harvesting and removing beetle -kill lodgepole pine. Lead Agency and Title Northern Water, Jerry Gibbens, Project Manager of Lead Person Partners: Colorado State Forest Service Priority: High Cost Estimate: $25,000 - $50,000 Benefits: Protection of water supplies in Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Lake (Losses Avoided) Granby, Willow Creek Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, Upper Colorado, and numerous other tributaries. The project also provides benefits to neighboring private and public land, homes/structures, utilities, etc. Potential Funding: 50% Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant; $25% Northern Water, $25% in-kind services by private land owners. Timeline: 2013-2015 Status: New in 2013; On-going, expected completion in Spring 2015. Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action: Northern Water -6 Supply Creek Watershed Fuels Reduction Project Jurisdiction: Northern Water Hazard Addressed Wildfire, Mountain Pine Beetle Project Description, Northern Water is providing 50 percent of the funding to perform hazardous fuels Issue & Background reductions on Arapaho National Forest land in the Supply Creek watershed west of the Town of Grand Lake. The U.S. Forest Service will provide the remainder of the funding. Approximately 150 acres of timber, mostly beetle kill lodgepole pine, will be harvested and removed from the area. Wildfire risk in this area will be substantially reduced. Lead Agency and Title Northern Water, Jerry Gibbens, Project Manager of Lead Person Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland, Mark Martin, Acting Ecosystem Group Leader Partners: U.S. Forest Service Priority: High Cost Estimate: $180,000 Benefits: Protection of Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Grand Lake, and the Colorado River. (Losses Avoided) The project also provides benefits to neighboring private and public land, homes/structures, utilities, etc., including the Town of Grand Lake Potential Funding: $90,000 by Northern Water; $90,000 by U.S. Forest Service Timeline: 2014-2015 Status: New in 2014; Underway in Fall 2014. Grand County (Northern Water) Annex J.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 APPENDIX A: REFERENCES 2012 Report on the Health of Colorado's Forests. Colorado State Forest Service. http://csfs.colostate.edu/pdfs/137233-forestreport-12-www.pdf American Community Survey. 2011. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ Amman, Gene D., Mark D. McGregor, and Robert E. Dolph, Jr. Mountain Pine Beetle. U.S. Forest Service. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 2. 2002. www.barkbeetles.org/mountain/ fidl2.htm. Atkins, Dale. A History of Colorado Avalanche Accidents, 1859-2006. International Snow Science Workshop 2006 Proceedings. 2006. www.avalanche.org/—issw2004/issw_previous/ 2006/proceedings/data/papers/044.pdf. Census 2000 and 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov/. Colorado Avalanche Information Center. Colorado Geological Survey. https:Havalanche.state.co.us/index.php Colorado Department of Transportation. www.coloradodot.info. Colorado Earthquake Evaluation Report. www.dola.state.co.us/dem/mitigation/plan2007/ 2007_p1an.htm. Colorado Earthquake Information. Colorado Geological Survey. http: //geosurvey. state. co.us/hazards/Earthquakes/Pages/Earthquakes. aspx. Colorado Geological Survey. http://geosurvey.state.co.us/Pages/CGSHome.aspx. Colorado Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic 1996-2007. Colorado State Forest Service. 2008. http://csfs. colostate. edu/library/pdfs/iandd/2007-1996_StateOverview_I&D—MPB_AIlForest Species.pd£ Colorado Office of Emergency Management. http://www.coemergency.com/. Colorado State Forest Service. csfs.colostate.edu. Colorado Water Conservation Board. cwcb.state.co.us. Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal. www.coloradowildfire.risk.com. Community Rating System. Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program. http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-rating-system Grand County, Colorado Appendix A.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-3. 2003. www.fema.gov/plan/mit planning/howto3. shtm. Directory of Colorado State Register Properties. Colorado Historical Society Office of Archeology and Historical Preservation. http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/listings-county. Drought Impact Reporter. National Drought Mitigation Center. http://droughtreporter.unl.edu/ East Grand Fire Protection District/Upper Fraser Valley Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2007. Edgewater Resort Flood Evacuation Plan, 2006. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Colorado Counties. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain -Prairie Region. August 2013. http : //eco s. fws. gov/ipac/wizard/trustResourceList ! prepare. action. Farm Service Agency. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subj ect=diap&topic=landing Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data. http://wildfire.cr.usgs.gov FEMA Map Service Center. msc.fema.gov. Flood Insurance Study: Grand County, Colorado, Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas. Federal Emergency Management Agency. January 2, 2008. Fraser Comprehensive Plan, 2010. Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-1. 2002. www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howtol.shtm. Grand County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006. Grand County Emergency Operations Plan, 2012. Grand County Forest Management Plan, 2008. Grand County Master Plan, 2011. Grand Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2009. Grand Lake Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2006. Grand Lake Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006. Grand County, Colorado Appendix A.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Federal Register. Interim Final Rule. February 26, 2002. www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/interim—final—rules.shtm. Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Federal Register. Final Rule. October 31, 2007. HAZUS-MH MR2 and 2.0. Federal Emergency Management Agency. www.fema.gov/plan/ prevent/hazus/index. shtm. Historic American Buildings Survey. National Park Service. www.nps.gov/history/hdp/habs/. Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2013. Introduction to Hazard Mitigation. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA IS -393.A. 2006. http:// training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is393A.asp. Kremmling Comprehensive Plan, 2013. Kremmling Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2011. Leatherman D.A., I. Aguayo, and T.M. Mehall. Mountain Pine Beetle. Colorado State University Extension. www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05528.html. Multi -Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2214. Multi -Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Draft. 2007. Multi -Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-8. 2006. www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto8.shtm. National Atlas. U.S. Geological Survey. www.nationalatlas.gov National Flood Insurance Program. Federal Emergency Management Agency. http://www.fema.gov/national-Rood-insurance-program. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Floodplain Management Requirements: A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 480. http: //www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/floodplain-management-requirements. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/. National Response Center. www.nrc.uscg.mil/. National Weather Service. www.weather.gov. Grand County, Colorado Appendix A.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 National Weather Service Lightning Safety. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/ National Wildfire Coordinating Group. http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/s.htm. Natural Diversity Information Source. Colorado Division of Wildlife. http://ndis.nrel.colostate .edu/. Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities. National Institute of Building Science Multi -Hazard Mitigation Council. 2005. www.nibs.org/MMC/mmcactiv5.html. Population Totals. Colorado Division of Local Government State Demography Office. http://www. colorado. gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=DOLA- Main%2FCB ONLayout&cid=1251593346867 &pagename=CBONWrapper. Public Entity Risk Institute Presidential Disaster Declaration Site. Public Entity Risk Institute. www.peripresdecusa.org/mainframe.htm. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act. Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207. June 2007. www.fema.gov/pdf/about/stafford—act.pdf. Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States. University of South Carolina Hazards Research Lab. http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvriapps/sheldus web/sheldus_login.aspx. Species Tracking Lists. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list.asp. State of Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan. 2010 and 2013. http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=145453 &searchid=8bOc8c76- e047-4f46-8 e09-723 7713 bddeb&dbid=0 State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Colorado Division of Emergency Management. 2011. http://www.dhsem.state.co.us/emergency-management/mitigation-recovery/mitigation/state- colorado-natural-hazards-mitigation-plan. Storm Events Database. National Climatic Data Center. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/. Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 386-2. 2001. www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto2.shtm. University of Wisconsin Spatial Analysis for Conservation and Sustainability (SILVIS). silvis.forest.wisc. edu. Upper Colorado Headwaters Wildfire/Watershed Assessment, 2013. Grand County, Colorado Appendix A.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 U.S. Drought Monitor Archives. University of Nebraska -Lincoln. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/archive.html U.S. Geological Survey. http://www.usgs.gov/. U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook. National Weather Service Climate Prediction Service. www.epe.neep.noaa.gov/products/expert assessment/seasonal drought.html. Western Regional Climate Center. www.wrcc.dri.edu/. Grand County, Colorado Appendix A.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 January 21't, 2013 Dear Stakeholder. APPENDIX B: PLANNING PROCESS Grand County Emergency Management Emergency Manager P-0. Box 1457 Granby. Cdorado Cl k--1370-897-2732 s Facsimile 97i-887-1998 MATERIALS Grand County is beginning the process of the fine -year update and revision to our All Hazards N -litigation Plan. The Plan is being compiled to assist in reducing and mitigating future losses from natural and man-made hazard events- The plan will profile each hazard and outline historical hazard events while analyzing the potential impacts to the people, property, infrastructure and critical facilities in Grand County. The existing plan can be referenced on our website at http:,' "co.grand crr_usloenLhtml_ As part of the planning process, your special district, jurisdiction or agency is receiving this letter as an =tation to participate in this important planning process. In order to submit projects to be funded for FEMA Pre-Eksaster hiitigation (PDN , Flood Mitigation Assistance (FAN) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grants, FEMA. requires that jurisdictions participate in this planning process, or conduct their ox%n process to develop and adopt their mm plan - It is the intent of the County to ensure that the mitigation plan is &7�Tloped in an open manner mwrohing community stakeholders, that it is consistent with county, municipality and special district policies and is an accurate reflection of Grand County community values- Should you choose to participate; a designated representative from your jurisdiction will need to regularly attend planning committee meetings, assist with plan development, provide information for risk assessment and capabilities assessment, provide feedback on drafts of all chapters- and commit to developing, prioritizing and adopting mitigation actions for your jurisdiction- the plan will provide your jurisdiction with a powerful tool to assist in the finding and implementation of mitigation actions. An open public invohremmt process is also essential to the development of an effective plan- In turn, the Grand County plan process will include an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan prior to its approval - Grand County Emergency Management will be taking the lead m developing this plan update - The County has hired a consultant, AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, to assist with the planning project AMEC will facilitate the planning process, collect the necessary data, and perform other to cal sen -ices, including updating the risk assessment and plan document. However, County Emergency Management and AMEC will need your help to successfully complete this project If your special district, jurisdiction or agency should like to participate in this important process,, please send a representative(s) to attend a kick-off meeting on Monday February 11flL from 9:30 to 12 p.nL at the County Emergency Operations Center located at 350 GCR 5133 in Fraser (The county road and Bridge shop). Please. RSVP by ensiling Trevor Denney at tdenneyco. grand.co-us or calling him at (970) 887-2.732- Thank you in advance for your participation in this vital planning process- Trevor Demey Ernergency Manager Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 .•. GRAND COUNTY MULTI HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2013 UPDATE KICKOFF MEETING and HAZARD IDENTIFICATION UPDATE ❖ Monday, February 11th, 2013 ❖ 9:30 a.m. to Noon ❖ County Emergency Operations Center ❖ 350 GCR 5103 in Fraser (County Road and Bridge Shop) ••• Introductions ❖ Mitigation, Mitigation Planning, and the Disaster Mitigation Act Requirements ❖ The Role of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee ❖ Overview of the existing Hazard Mitigation Plan ••• Implementation Success Stories ❖ Objectives and Schedule for the Plan Update ❖ Review of Identified Hazards ❖ Coordinating with Other Agencies, Related Planning Efforts, and Recent Studies ❖ Planning for Public Involvement ❖ Information Needs and Project Website ❖ Questions and Answers/Adjourn Grand County, Colorado Appendix 13.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 L: ^� Z e.. ild rl 0 V ISI 1�] Q G C� x L Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 4 jr P6 ra C1 rr.,. a i L k Ryy cur 4L `. Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.4 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 UK vp V, er Edi • 11 bn .:l' I -4a ` m 1 ^ 1 IDQ 59 �y+�y rL '., VI -1191 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.5 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 GRAND COUNTY MULTI HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2013 UPDATE RISK ASSESSMENT and GOALS UPDATE MEETING ❖ Thursday, April 18th, 2013 ❖ 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. ❖ YMCA of the Rockies, Snow Mountain Ranch, 1101 County Road 53, Granby, CO ••• Introductions ••• Review of the Planning Process ❖ Review of Identified Hazards ❖ Vulnerability Assessment Update Results ❖ Capability Assessment ❖ Reviewing and Updating Plan Goals ••• Public Involvement Activities ❖ Information Needs and Next Steps ❖ Questions and Answers/Adjourn Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.6 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.7 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 s , A 3c a. cQ t 1� OL 1� { a Or Iti ~~ Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.8 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 GRAND COUNTY MULTI HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2013 UPDATE Mitigation Strategy Development Meeting Date: May 23rd, 2013 Time: 9:00am-12:00pm Location: Grand County Road and Bridge Conference Room (upstairs) 467 E. Topaz Granby, CO Agenda 1. Opening remarks and introductions 2. Review of the planning process and key issues from the risk assessment and capability assessment 4. 3. Overview of revised goals and objectives 4. Review of possible mitigation activities and alternatives 5. Discuss criteria for mitigation action selection and prioritization 5. 6. Review of progress on existing actions in the plan 7. Brainstorming Session: Development of new mitigation actions (group process) 8. Prioritize mitigation actions (group process) 9. Discuss plan implementation and maintenance 10. Discuss next steps and public involvement Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.9 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.10 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand k Appendix EB 6xzara4Gwmme September 2013 2 � @ � Grand k Appendix EB 6xzara4Gwmme September 2013 � @ � T § / 7 . . n . 9 2 � A q IZJ . 2 � � � } � . � . d§ � 44 k i � 9 ti, W PIM Z d 2 § k _ § - _j CO . .n Grand k Appendix EB 6xzara4Gwmme September 2013 As part of the initial hazard identification process, members of the HMPC used a hazards worksheet to identify and rate the significance of a variety of possible hazards. Significance was measured in general terms, focusing on key criteria such as the geographic extent of the hazard, the probability of an event occurring, and the likely magnitude and severity levels. A data collection guide was used to collect hazard, risk and capabilities information from Grand County and the participating jurisdictions which was then integrated into this plan. A template of the data collection guide is provided here: Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.12 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Data Collection Guide for Grand County, Colorado Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) Prepared by MEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. February 2013 Please c mplefe ky ,1 rrch 15". 201 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.13 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Overview The contents of this w. orkbook have been designed to assist Grand County in collecting necessary background inforniatio n to support the hazard mitigation planning process pursuant to the Federal Disaster h1itigation Act (I3 .A) of 2000. This includes a hazard identification and vulnerability assessment- an assessment of Grand County's current hazard mitigation capabilities, and an identification of potential mitigation projects that, if u1 dertakie , could prevent or reduce future losses - The essential information needed to support the planning process includes background infomxalion about Grand County plans, technical studies, and data related to hazards and risks; current governing codes, ordinances, regulations, and procedures whose intent is to winirk-d Mare losses; and an assessment of the planning area's tecbnical and organizational capabilities to peifoim hazard mitigation/loss prevention fumctions. It is portant that the plan shows what Grand County is doing now to limit future disaster losses. The planning process is heavily dependent on existing data to be supplied by each of the participants represented on the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committer (HMPC.'). The DMA plan de�,Tlopment process Dines not require the development of nein data, but requires arrsfing data r nty. The goal of this process is to produce a hazard mitigation plan that meets Grand Cmmty's needs, as well as the requirements of DMA 2000 and that contains a list of updated projects that may be eligible for streamlined federal mitigation Minding pre or post disaster_ What is Mitigation? Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as "any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term rusk to human life and property from a hazard event." The results of a three-year, congressionally mandated independent study tan assess future savings from mitigation activities provides eMence 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 mjunes (National Iostita1c of Building Science Midti-Hazard Mitigation Council 2005)_ Mitigation generally moms reducing long -team risk from hazards to acceptable levels through predetermined measures accompanying physical development, for example_ strengthening structtues to withstand high winds or snow loads, elevating, removing or limiting development in flood -prone areas; clearing defensible space around residences in Wildfire Urban Interface VIM areas; or designing development away from areas of geological instability. Mitigation is different from emergency preparedness or response. Preparedness concentrates on activities which make a person, place, or organization ready to respond to a disaster with omd CoLm,r, Celmilo Bda1&Hamrd;Sdidpmm Plan Update 2413 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.14 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 emergencyequipment, food, emergency shelter, and medicine_ Response activities may reduce damages, such as sandbagging during a flood, but this is a short term solution and requires advance warning and capabilities in place during the event_ Mitigation of flood hazards through wise floodplain management is a long term solution. Participation The DMA planning regulations and guidance stress that each entity seeking the required FFN1A approval of their mitigation plan mast • Participate in the process; • Detail areas within the planning area where the risk differs from that facing the entire area; Identify specific projects to be eligible for funding; and • Have the governing board formally adopt the plan_ For HMPC members, 'participation' means the planning committee representatives w. ill: • Attend and participate m HNTPC meetings; Provide available data that is requested of the Hh-TPC coordinator, • Review and provide. -'coordinate comments on the draft plaits; • Ad%rertise, coordinate and participate in the public input process; and • Coordinate the formal adoption of the plan by the governing board. Data Collection Guide This guide contains an explanation of the types of hazard mitigationefloss pm�ention data that is needed for tette hazard mitigation planing process_ This guide identifies specific requirements for the Risk Assessment Process, which. includes the Hazard Identification, Vulnerability, and CapabiWAssesmeats as well as defines requirements for development of the Mitigation Strategy_ Also review the existing Grand County Multi Jurisdictional All Hazards Pre -Disaster Mitigation Plan (2008) as you go through the workshmts_ The worksheets have been developed to assist with the data collect m These need to be completed for each participating jurisdiction (erne each for the county, tGwn, city, or special district) that desires credit for participation in the 2111 3 update. The guide will serve two purposes • They will help facilitate the collection of the necessary information_ • They will function as evidence of "participation' in the planning process_ Each jurisdiction should utilize members of their planning subcommittee to complete this from MtigMM Flan Update 2,,:1 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.15 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Data collection guides are due on March 15 t to Jeff BrIslanm (contact information below). Project Reference Grand County Point of Contact: Trevor Denney Gramd. County Emergency Nlana,gemmt 81 IJV_ Agate PO Box 1457 Gn mby, CO 8044 Tel 970-887-2732 Fax 970-887-1698 tdenney co_grand.co_us AAZEC Pi%oject Manager Jeff Brislawn Hazard Nf ttgabon I di Sr Project Manager AMEC Emwunnwnt and Infrastructure, Inc_ 1002 Walnut St_, Suite 200 Boulder CC) 80302. Tel 303-820-4654 Fax 303-442-0616 j efi.brislawn(Ramec_com Link to the existing Grand Counts- Ainiti-Jurisdictional All -Hazards Pre -Disaster Mitigation Plan (2008): littp ca.gsand.eo.us:OEh 'do i l�racls Grind County PDM Plan.pdf The Risk Assessment Process The risk assessment process imeludes three components: hazard identification-. T,u1nerability assessment, and capability assessment_ Data needs and worksheets for each of the risk assessment components are included m this guide. Gram3 Cmm9r, Colorado €4Iaf-H=d#riidptunPin Update ;;:3 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.16 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Worksheet #1: Hazard Identification Update Name of DepartmentlJurisdiction: Use this worksheet to identify passible hazards that may impact yourjurisdiction. Hazards currently identified in the plan are listed. List others that may not be represented, llubere appropriate- Please rank acc�arding to the guidelines that follaur the table- Use copies of �Vofksheet #2: Historic Hazard Event to pro%ride evidence to justify your conclusians- Frequency of Spatial Hazard Occurrence Extent Hazard Map? Potential �PaperfGl'Si Magnitude Significance Source} Avalanche ❑amlLerree Failure Drought Earth uake Extreme Temperatures Flooding Hazardous Materials (transported) Hi h Winds Landslide, Debris FlowiMuciflow and R€bckfall Li htnin Tornado W ildland fires Winter Storm and Blizzards ProbabiHy of Fulw a Occurrence: Highly Likely (dear 100% pmbab&y in next year cr happens every year- Likehr Beuveen 10 and 100% probability in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less. Occasional: BeLreen 1 and 10% pmbab ty n next year or has a reouerenoe internal of 11 to 100 years. Unlikely: Less than 1% probability n next 100 years or has a recurrence intensof greater than every 100 years. Geographic Locat:ion[Spatial Extents Large: More than 50% of p anning area affected Medium_ 25-W% of plann ng area affeded Surat 10-2551 of planning area afteded Isolated Less than 10% of planning area affected "--d by Phan: Ernat Grad Crummy, Colorado Nlafti-Hmaid Migpdon Plan Update 2'' 3 Potential Magnitude: C atastrophic: Nu lip a deaths; property destroyed and severely damaged; aaxifor interruption of essential facilbes and service for more than 72 hours Critical= Isolated deaths andlar multiple injuries and illnesses; major or bng-term property damage that threatens structrral stability and. or interruptobn cf essential fatilliiies and series .for 24-72 hours Limited: M nor n,uries and illnesses. minimal property carriage Olaf does not threaten structural stability; and; or interruption of essential fatties and services for less than 24 hours N egligible- No or few itjtries cr illnesses; minor quality of fife loss; little or no property dames; andlor brief interruption of essential faoiilies and serwk*s SignificanceIyoursubjective opinion): Low, Mec . rr, High ma u. email. or to: .teff Brislawn, AM EC Environment 8 Infrastructure 1002 Walnut St., Suite 200 Boulder. CO 80362 Fax 1303li-0616 Phone 1303)4120-443-7E39 Email: Jeff.brislawnAameo.com Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.17 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Worksheet ##2: Historic Hazard went Name of DepartmentlJuri%diction: Please fill out one sheet for each significant hazard n.ent with as inuch detail as possible. Attach supporting documentation, photocopies of nex%spsper articles, or other original setuces. Type of event Nature and magnitude of event Location Date of event Inj u ries Deaths Property damage Infrastructure dam ape Crop damage Businessieconomic impacts Roadlschool�other closures � £umty, Caradoameel Other damage Insured losses Federal state disaster relief funding Opinion on likelihood of occurring again Source of information Comments Please return worksheets by m ail, email, or fax to: Jeff Brislawn, AMEC Enxironrnent 8 Infi-astructure 1 �2 Walnut St., Suite 2110 Boulder, CO 84362 Fax (303 442-6616 Phone (363) 626-d.J3-7639 Email: Email: Jeff.brislawngameo.com Prepared by: Phone_ � £umty, Caradoameel Adal&Ha�rd;arion Plan TJixdaze X6`3 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.18 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Worksheet #3: Vulnerability Assessment Name of Departmentl.lurisdiction: The purpose of this worksheet is to assess the vulnerable buildings, populations, critical facilities, infrastructure, and other important assets in your community by using the best available data to complete the table and questions that follows Use the table on the next page to compile a detailed taventor, of specific asses at risk including critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, cultural, and historical assets; and economic assets as defined below_ These may include hospitals, fire stations, or historic biuldings. In the hazard specific column of the asset inventory table, indicate if there is a specific hazard to which the asset is at risk Critical Facilities FEIN N generally defines four kinds of critical facilities: ■ S tnictulres or facilities that; produce, use, or store highly volatile, flannuable, explosi-�,,e, toxic, and`or water -reactive materials Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing likely to ba%,e occupants who pray not be sufficiently mobile to avoid injury or death during a hazard event ■ Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities-, and emergency operations centers that are needed for emergency response activities before, during, and after a hazard event 16 Public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal sen;is to Hazard areas before, during, and after a hazard event FEMA's HAZUS- H loss estirnation software uses the fallowing three categories of critical assets. `Essential facilities' are those that, if damaged, would have devastating impacts on disaster response unci or recovery. `High potential loss facilities' are those that would have a high lass or impact on the community. Transportation and lifeline facilities are third category of critical assets; examples are provided below. Essential. Facilities High Potential Loss Facilities Transportation and Liferirne Hospitals and other Bower plants Highways, bridges, and medical facilities Damsllevees tunnels Police stations Military installations Railroads and facilities Fire station Hazardous material sites Bus facilities Emergency Operations Schools Airports Centers Shelters Water treatment facilities Day care centers Natural gas facilities and Nursing homes pipelines Main govemmernt buildings [Jit facilities and pipelines Communications facilities 0md County, Cpkra& =p 7 t&l&Hwzmd bi fipt um Ru Updau 2.'_3amet 'T Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.19 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Natural, Cultural, and Historical Assets Natural resotuce assets may include wetlands, threatened and endangered species, or other environmentally sensitive .areas_ Historical assets include state and federally listed histnric sites_ Economic Assets Economic assets at risk may include major employers or primary economic sectors, slrch as recreation or agriculture, whose losses or downtime would have severe impacts an the comtmmity and its agility to recover from disaster. Asset Inventory Replacement Flame of A gset Type' value Hazard Specific Issues *EF: Essential Faeiliifies; LS: Liffe Safety Facilities; LL: Life line facilities; ECNA Histmric, cultural or natural assets; EA: Econonne Asset Matt¢ -Hamid Nbagaaon Plan Upcla[e N". 3 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.20 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Additional Vulnerability Questions Average depth of 100 -year floodplain Describe any hazard -related concerns or issues regarding the vulnerability of special needs populations, such as the elderly, disabled, or low-income. Describe growth .and development trends and future growth areas and how they relate to hazard areas and vulnerability concern %?is%ues. Review Appendix A in the 2008 Grand County All -Hazards Mitigation Plan. Indicate what projects have been cornpreted or are ongoing and describe how vulnerability has changed (or not) as a result of implementing successful mitigation actions. Prepared by: Phone: Email: &md Gamly, Colorado iHallli-Ha=A bii�g mm Plan Update 2013 Please return worksheets by mail, email, or fax W: Jeff Brislawn, AiMEC E nvironm ent & Infrastructure 1002 Walnut 5t, Suite 204 Boulder, CO GM2 Fax (343) 442-0616 Phone (303) 91x -443-7M Email: Jeff.brislawn@amee_snm Grand County, Colorado Appendix 13.21 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Worksheet ##4: Capability }assessment Name of Department)-lurisdiction: Capabilities are the programs and policies cAurently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implemeut hazard mitigation activities_ Please complete this worksheet and provide supporting documentation if possible. Regulatory The following pluming and land management tools are typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation actin-ities_ Please indicate which your jurisdiction has m place. If your jurisdiction does not have this capability or authority, please indicate if a higher level of govemme t has the authority. Also use the comments column to indicate have we can obtain a copy of the plan or do current (i.e. available on the web (include address), will put on t1p, will e- mail or mail, will fax). Regulatory Tool (ordinances, codes, plans) Yes?No Comments General orComprehensiue plan Zoning ordinance Subdivision ordinance Growth management ordinance Floodplain ordinance Other special purpose ordinance storrnwater, steep sloe wildfire Building code Fire department ISG rating Erosion or sediment control program Storrnwater management program Site plan review requirements Capital improvements plan Economic development plan Local emergency operations plan Other special plans Flood insurance study ar other engineering study for streams Elevation certificates (for flood a n development) Other C,rnd Clamty, Colmdo 10 Multi -H NWkptkmPlnUpdj-e=v:= amec Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.22 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 AdministrativefTechn ical Identify the Wchuical and personnel resources responsible for aetivities related to hazard rmligationlloss preventioc within your juns&ction_ For smaller jurisdictions Althout local staff` resources, ifthere are public resources at the next higher less -el government that can pro Ade technical assistance, please indicate so in the comments column. Personnel Resources YeslNo He artmentJPos.ition Comments Plannedengineer with knowledge of lend development9and management practices Engineerfprofessional strained in construction practices related to buidings andlor infrastructure Plannedengkreerlscientisk with an understanding of natural hazards Personnel skilled in GIS Full time building official Floodplain manager Emergency manager Grant writer Other personnel GIS data Resources (Hazard areas, critical facilities, land use, building footprints, etc_) Warning Systems/Services {Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals} Other bitigu=PIM TP&E29l i Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.23 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Additional Capabilities Questions Does your community haw any hazard -related carbficAicns, such as Siam Ready certification or Firewise Communities certificatiai? Describe any past or ongoing public education or information prog€ams, such as for responsible Water use, earthquake or fie Safety, household preparedness, or environmental education. Describe any other past or ongoing projects or pragrams de*ned to reduce disaster losses. These may ndude projects to protect critical facgities_ Describe any funding sources that could be leveraged far rrri%abon. These could include stxounwater uliity fees, general fund revenue, or grand sources_ Prepared b7: Phone: Email: Please rehnrt wrorksheets by mail, email, or fax to: Jeff Brislawn, AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 1002 W31nut St., Suite 241! Boulder, CO 84.302 Fax (303) 442-061,9 Phone (303) 820-443-7939 Email: Jeff.brislawn@amec.com Grand C4aniy. Cobraco 12 Nfulti-Hazard'dii pamm Plan Lt da E NE 3 amee-y Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.24 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand CountyKamrid Mitigation Plan 2013 Update: Public Survey - Provide feedback to the Grand 011 The hazards addressed in the Draft Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan update are listed below. Please indicate the level of significance in Grand (County that you perceive for each hazard. .Aisvrarau_ 87 Sklppad: 1 Awaatit Daryl haura Dlsuasa �uih rank Q ru ug h1 2.46 3.74 1.70 2.32 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Earthy uaka 1,09 F loo❑ 1.6. F laza rdous Manor ial s 2.16 -1— Lama sli da I:Includiny 1 2.42 n•udnow anc ... Lig h1ming 2.46 Severe Winiar Storm Tornado- 2.13 Wildfire W1ldl1re 2€19 hazards W in dslorm 2.07 1 2 9 how modaralo hlg,h Tatai Amraga Rating APilaAralaOS% 37.9956 54: U2% 35 47 87 248 . Dam hllltira 94.N% 45.9EM A.94% al dG 13 87 1.78 01suasa outbroak 41.989. 47.13% 11.49% Y. 41 la 87 ilii ©raugh2 13.79% 46.29% 45.9111% 17 35 416 8787 2.32 GaMw..Wa I— o+'YSk: 414AG 'S 9fT I I Appendix B.25 Grand County, Colorado Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand oru* heard Mitigagon Plan 2013 Upd tc PLiblic Survey- Provide feedback to the Grand qui uyu nu t �r.cu a u.r..m s. ure N OLhar (praasu spacl`yl as" . _ W1212D13 1:19 PM 2 87 1 1.08 Rand 7f I1V2013 4:49 PM 44.19% 5D% 5.8t% 2013 4'1)5 Phi a Bulkkznr Rainµsye 2013 4'02 Phi 3a. 43 5 86 1.62 Ha arduusNaLarlalsrelaaso 16.6456 44.935E 35.8M 1? 39 31 87 2.15 Lanalslids (Including rnudflow and r6ckf.11) 24.42% 4L"% 2M.74% 21 42 25 86 2772 Llgh'ning 11.49% 31.03% 57,47% 1 P^ 27 6(i 87 246 Sevure W111 Lur S'o rm 25096 17.24% 89AM 15 70 87 279 Turnada x fMh70% 6.91% 3.49% 72 5 :3. 86 1.15 Wlldgrn 7-30% 11.4976 9$.21% 10 7� 87 2.84 Wildfire hazards MAW% 49.43% 29.99% 1g 43 39. 67 zoo W4nusLorm 23.29% 46.916 50.23% 217 40 28 86 207 N OLhar (praasu spacl`yl as" 1 YeWs atZmbim inking ®ver - - - - JOKINe W1212D13 1:19 PM 2 tuurisltrarficirrpa[7s W110201391.19AM 3 Bulkkx Rsrnpayas MUMS S 9:07 PM 4 Lusz or elet Lk 51 meo r Las r a aii exlenL J Ewr id. Feud $ waler diOributkxi K Lliare Is a disrulaliuii in "ivt 62. 7f I1V2013 4:49 PM Tlw cities All h] taken Gare d kirrd Lx4 uma vet bre. 5 u.muka1771,11: 2013 4'1)5 Phi a Bulkkznr Rainµsye 2013 4'02 Phi 219 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.26 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Hard Mitigation Plan 2013 Update: Public Survey - PratAde feedback to the Grand 02 Do you have information on specific hazard issuesfproblem areas that you would like the planning committee to consider'? (Vote the jurisdiction to which it applies, if applicable (Le town, fire district, unincorporated County etc). Answered: 13 Skipped: 75 � RnspoM� Elate 1 nu 7'1&'2613 1:17 Phi Avalarr.e e+antfd an 1 adhi uti and 1-70. flood after nildrire espatialFy nith aralar & •wvstersiler plardLa One entry 7'13,'2613 11:41 AM in anal mt ci Gnrld LAke 9 The ruck fall lis and in Byers Carey an needs nli6y6tkm. I bellev a this is a GDOT Issue but prasatra nmxk lobe! 7f1 V2613 12:02 PM al:Tidted Lry the Ccur>1y. 4 Fire Code Ad�plkm. uWWMqdfed CmriLy 711102613 10'41 AM 5 NAM&utiiim [hie reGenlly rdam6d •upperCdbrtvJu Hesd. Lers 'e4'idrire''e4'atarstied Assas3Mtet9t rrarsrkin 9 711112613 14'25 AM aecassiLJe aL hiLIx www.jrre3eocleies.uh)iuthdWurneilu..html. Adso plaase aevass the GIS lq&rs of ga,Auyc hamrds nraimlained by the Culurad:i Geuiuyical Surw ay, as well as [heir aenUnche resuumc . An updated sun, iMlry of damri L undtitria burr the u6xir :las that ami Lha dairia would ba xtiriderf ul Lo hewe in anis 1. a a. Aird inrunna[ien f rtrii uinion Pacific Rairuad aLu L 1he hamrduus malarials tray elinid tlrcrugh She L—inly And plans to address skills wHh my or lhrelm world bei Iraipdrlaul fur (xeprstYxi. 5 Ea auualiun H*y 34 7f1112013 &:43 AM 7 ruutlig Irarf[e T1 V21313 9:49 AM a Peupla am nim LhrMnq Lhirrjs Ike ctrl -}r bm. TV'e. Gall phorias, mu filum. lnuuse hold appliaices out into the T1 1.12Dl 3 7:94 AM f orad ralher ifiai pay iiny lu re y cle. This Is a mune hamrid utricerk fur peeipkn, rralar, animals and Llla ern Irunmerlt. 9 rio T1 V2D1 3 9:44 AM 10 riot at this, Gnia. 7'1026135:38 PM 11 Th. pewslbilfy cf aeuesa Wft Aird cul cf North Ttt,emash bang bkx:ked by A train in She ev &M of a1 al T1 11'2Dl 3 4:13 Phi arnaryaacles or ev scuall n_ There is orrly brie ruad end it is htockad by trains a1 leas{ Nice par day, ecrretimas f ur n length ur [line. 12 exit s9mayias it nut already aLldressed 7' 111'2613 4:45 RM 13 Wildrire Miligalici aid Preparediass. Grand Cowfly needs a fire W6 Council at 1ho county level, rruuh the 7'111'2613 3:11 RM san-:e ae t[ri C'N PP torr miLlae. 1 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.27 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand CoLrity Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013 Update PLiblic Survey - Provide feedback to the Grand 03 The following types of mitigation actions may be considered in Grand County. Please place a check next to the types of mitigation actions that you think should have the highest priority in the Grand County Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan. Answered:, 85 Sk.Ippud: "s Expand 4.71% nd our70wldoer 32.$4% Warning_ Wildfire Fuals and, Truatman7.... . Asslsiaueu with 38-0244 defensible... _ drainage 8.24% Parlicipaifen 8.24% In the... crltlral Facll lilo-s 34.12'1& Pru Laeilun Planningf2ond ng 1511dalmudMide17.63% Public Lila n.Awwanass 34.12% Flocd 4.71% midgailorr Educaand and, ■ dfseuwnLs om_.. SLormwatur drainage 8.24% Irnprevanien! ,4ralancha 3B.82% mltlgailan 1511dalmudMide17.63% mltigalion Rockfall 35.29% midgaiian Wildlife• 36.47% rahicla calllsfun.._ Cuaeuailo�e r Outa day JDPmen4 Fe1re51 ual LhiwaLurshBel 49.41°x$ p ra Laeilen llaxardous Maierlals 37.65% training and... Expanding cxpabi'I Iilo 21.18% to address... �5E .rM% 40% f D% a0% 100% 4/9 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.28 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 +G`=r'and County Hazard Mifigativn Plan 2013 Updat: Public Survey - Protide feedback to the Grand MBYlar C1Y�ICBa Reelxxisea Expand Indoar10u1doar Warning eapahlllliea 37-94% 29 Wlldfira F.W. Tralfmfnl prmwm 70. 60 AHNSlanpa1NI/r d-hm Imhlo spam 3 -IM 33 Ps Mcowdon In lb* Natlanal Flood Inarrmos Pfbiram 1,44% 7 Criier FaNlliaa Proimfion 311.12% 29 Ra1lnW9rZaning 1M1111154 g Pabli6EduuulonlMar4mad6 34..1454 29 Flood ml Ug all on 'LTI% 4 EducaBom and dl..aoounla o■ Mond IlaYfanca 9L4154 B ffiarrrwatw dra ragla lWorpv"Mm 8.M14 7 AWanche sli fgaion 38.8274 38. LandNldahnildalids 1Wnpadan 17.45% u 1s RackUll miMga6on Wlidll%,• hleMcollision minlmlxa'.Ion EV2CY161lon rotlla dWM0PMani Foraal hca[thfwaiwellad protacMon Naserdous HnLarl all lraloing and exarcl ses Expanding capah-I111]" to addrass disease awbTaa�ks Tn[al iReaptwduiim. 85 519 38.2D74 30 38IW% 31 78.M% &I 1"151 42 37.M% 32 21.19% 18 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.29 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Hard Mitigation Plan 2013 Update Public Survey - Provdde feedback to the Grand C)r `- Please comment on any ether pre - disaster strategies that the planning committee should consider for reducing future losses caused by natural disasters 0 Responses 1 Be prepared b hands lu [tie hlghas[ dagrea pms ble 2 putlfr_' uriicials or the Gplriun chat becausa rao Galaalraphic eY ad has titer happaned here. ro cataslropk: eY enl Yril happen beta 3 We Yruuld need ramily shal[ara IhM ccukl a=W' Adana pmts. The privalllrrg Ihuughl. la. that pets Ma expandabla. Bul Malleav es rsniilies s1rarn.9ed ahu wiil rkx rursake their pale. 4 tes[iny the plvxre alert sy start f luygluy of deed trees should be alkxned!1! 6 A luoh M Prapoaad Shtkaia io assess need r or eyuiphiant to run tlwm. it long-lenrl sheha drry takes place. 7 Faxniak)n all a Fire Sala Ca"il. 6f9 DAM 711742613 11:41 A41 7;1924)13 8:38 AAI 7;1IM2013 4:48 PM 7;T1V2613 4:05 PM 7110.12x}13 4:01 PM 701OM13 5:11 PM 701 OM13 5' 11 PM Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.30 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Pinard Mitigation Plan 2013 Update PLiblic Survey - Provide feedback to the Land If desired, provide your name and email address if you would like to be added to a distribution list for u pcoming activities related to the planning process: 11,,,—r C kul Mama: Company: Address: Aldran 2- Cltylrotrlt: BhNW ZIP. Carnbv: Fiarll Ad dr®ss: Phom Number T" iieapcaxlanm: 10 0 Name. 1 Tud Laullrald 2 Darty `.dlertke. W 3 CATHY 11NOLE 4 hiartus DisvIe 6 Nwrk Camvbw S Jim Cadmmd 7 Deb& llhompaw Amy RymMK ms B Schdly 0120n is M1 —L -1l Curran N Company: 1 Winbar Park Rastrl 2 Detw r Health-Easl Gram] Cllrit 3 GRAND COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE 4 GrAM County Plsnnirrd 8 2ankV 6 Town or Krerrmm lirrg 8 Krarrirrlirigilne 7 GrarrJ Cormty a GrarvJ Fire f Addraesit; 1 POB 36 2 145 ptraelm 3 PO Box 3= 7/9 Rmpohmen 10691. 80% 90% 10% 10654 10614 1.0614 076 Baia MUMS 4:51 PM 711112[}13 12:15 PU 711112[}13 9:24 AM 711 11241 3 8:48 AM 711 1124 1 3 & s AM 7111/2413 6'.05 AM MUM 35:'38 PM 71 OM13 4:1G PM 71M412L13 3:11 PM. 711 a"2613 1:53 PM Data 702EO2013 4:51 PM 711112613 12:15 PMA 711112413 9:24 AM I1i1124138:48AM 7/1112419 8:19 AM 711112413 6:05 AM 71i M13 5:38 PM 711rk2D133:11 PM Dabs 712V2413 4:51 PM 711 1121}13 12:15 PM 711112413 91.24" 16 8 9 1 16 1tM 1a 4 6 7 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.31 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Hazard Mitigabon Plan 2013 Update Public Survey - Pro%dde feedback to the Grand 4 308 9yera 7119!MS 8:46 AM 5 205 Ea6ld Avant* 7111!2{}13 8:18 AM 6 318 S 61h 7111!2{}13 8:05 AM 7 POB W1 71192D13 5:3a PM 9 PO BdX 3w 7010 ZD13 3:11 PM 9 POB 354 7111742613 1:53- PM / Address L luta 1 PO EOX539 7111120138ASAM tl C11ylT&,M. DaU 1 Winter Park MGM 51 PM 2 Wirlter Park 7111121713 12:15 PRA S H OT SULH U R SPR IM GS 7!111217139:24 AM d Ha Sulphur Sprlrtga 7.111.12D13 8:48 AM 5 Krdnin-Mg W1 112D13 8:13 AM 6 Kmnvring 7!11!21713 6:05 AM 7 Hcx Sulphur Sprinya 711 W21713 5:38 PM 9 Granby 711W217134:10 PM 9 Granby 711 612171 3 3:11 PM 10 Kterirrfrg 7111X12013 1:53 Phi 0 SAW 138/6 1 CO 7!29121713 4:51 PM 2 Co 7!11!21713 12:15 PRA 9 CO 7111126139:21 AM 4 CO 701 IPM136:46 AM 5 CO 7111l21713&ASAM 6 C:0 7l1IM138:U6AM 7 C:0 701 W2613 5:38 PM a C0 7110126134:14 PM 9 C 0 711012013 3:11 PM 10 C Q 711012013 1:53 PM / ZIP, DM6 1 80192 MUM 34:51 PM 2 80192 711 VM13 12:15 PM a 80151 711112013 9,.21 AM 4 80161 7!1 112171 3 8:46 AM 5 80159 7/1112013 8:13 AM a 80469 7!11!2013 6:m5 AM 7 80461 711012013 5:38 PM 6 80446 711W20134:IGPM 9 80446 711 IV2D1 3 3:11 PM 10 80499 711W21313 1:53 PM Country. Me, Rm are rw rdapwn as. Email Add nen: DA" 819 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.32 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County Hazard Utigation Plan 2013 Updit: Public Survey - Provide feedback to the Grand 1 tleuLhGkl@rdnLnxjxarkrt* e'Lpdilti.. 7RUM13 4:51 Phi 2 sieeGy_eseldirkia clhhe_CIg 7f1112613 12:15 PU 3 rn ls&6.VrrJ.ea.us 7f11126138:40AM 4 ratan ngLu xwikr rnliuy—y 7f1112G13 8:13 AM 6 711W2f1139:98 PM a aiwillierns a.grarui.Gu.us T1N2f1134:10 PM 7 aLA&UrI ranrifh*.MY T1N26133:1.1 PM 8 nturran@cagrsnttaOLus T1N2f1131:53PM M PifahtF MWiRO I t am* 1 97fk72&MW 7l2&M 3 4:51 PM 2 97fk725 4298 711112613 12:15 PFA 3 970-72ry3105 7/1112613 8:48 AM 4 970-724m324® 7111!26138: 13 AM 5 970495510 711112613 8:09 AM a 970.725 15 711f7P2613 5:98 PM 7 970B973sm 711f7P2613 3:11 PM 919 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.33 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Grand County, Colorado Appendix B.34 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 APPENDIX C: MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES AND PRIORITIZATION Example Mitigation Action Items Alternative Mitigation Actions Dam Failure Floods Hazardous Materials Avalanche Landslides/ Debris Flows/ Rockfalls Weather Extremes (hail, lightning, wind, temps, drought) Earthquakes Wildland Fires Severe Winter Storm PREVENTION Building codes and enforcement ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Comprehensive Watershed Tax ■ Density controls ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Design review standards ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Easements ■ ■ ■ ■ Environmental review standards ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Floodplain development regulations ■ ■ ■ Hazard mapping ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Floodplain zoning ■ ■ ■ Forest fire fuel reduction ■ ■ Housing/landlord codes ■ ■ Slide -prone area/grading/hillside development regulations Manufactured home guidelines/regulations ■ ■ ■ Minimize hazardous materials waste generation ■ Multi -Jurisdiction Cooperation within watershed ■ ■ Open space preservation ■ ■ ■ ■ Performance standards ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Periodically contain/remove wastes for disposal ■ Pesticide/herbicide management regulations ■ Special use permits ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Stormwater management regulations ■ ■ Subdivision and development regulations ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Surge protectors and lightning protection ■ Grand County, Colorado Appendix C. l Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Alternative Mitigation Actions Dam Failure Floods Hazardous Materials Avalanche Landslides/ Debris Flows/ Rockfalls Weather Extremes (hail, lightning, wind, temps, drought) Earthquakes Wildland Fires Severe Winter Storm Tree Management ■ ■ ■ Transfer of development rights ■ ■ ■ Utility location ■ ■ ■ ■ PROPERTY PROTECTION Acquisition of hazard prone structures ■ ■ ■ ■ Facility inspections/reporting ■ ■ ■ ■ Construction of barriers around structures ■ ■ ■ Elevation of structures ■ ■ Relocation out of hazard areas ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Structural retrofits (e.g., reinforcement, floodproofing, bracing, etc.) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ■ Debris Control ■ ■ Flood Insurance ■ ■ Hazard information centers ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Public education and outreach programs ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Real estate disclosure ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Crop Insurance ■ ■ Lightning detectors in public areas ■ NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Best Management Practices (BMPs) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Forest and vegetation management ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Hydrological Monitoring ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Sediment and erosion control regulations ■ ■ ■ ■ Stream corridor restoration ■ ■ Stream dumping regulations ■ ■ Urban forestry and landscape management ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Wetlands development regulations ■ ■ ■ ■ Grand County, Colorado Appendix C.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Alternative Mitigation Actions Dam Failure Floods Hazardous Materials Avalanche Landslides/ Debris Flows/ Rockfalls Weather Extremes (hail, lightning, wind, temps, drought) Earthquakes Wildland Fires Severe Winter Storm EMERGENCY SERVICES Critical facilities protection ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Emergency response services ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Facility employee safety training programs ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Hazard threat recognition ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Hazard warning systems (community sirens, NOAA weather radio) Health and safety maintenance ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Post -disaster mitigation ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Evacuation planning ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ STRUCTURAL PROJECTS Channel maintenance ■ Dams/reservoirs (including maintenance) ■ ■ Isolate hazardous materials waste storage sties ■ Levees and floodwalls (including maintenance) ■ Safe room/shelter ■ ■ ■ Secondary containment system ■ Site reclamation/restoration/revegetation ■ ■ ■ Snow fences ■ Water supply augmentation ■ Grand County, Colorado Appendix C.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Mitigation Action Selection and Prioritization Criteria Does the proposed action protect lives? Does the proposed action address hazards or areas with the highest risk? Does the proposed action protect critical facilities, infrastructure, or community assets? Does the proposed action meet multiple objectives (multi -objective management)? STAPLE/E Developed by FEMA, this method of applying evaluation criteria enables the planning team to consider in a systematic way the social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental opportunities and constraints of implementing a particular mitigation action. For each action, the HMPC should ask, and consider the answers to, the following questions: Social Does the measure treat people fairly (different groups, different generations)? Technical Will it work? (Does it solve the problem? Is it feasible?) Administrative Is there capacity to implement and manage project? Political Who are the stakeholders? Did they get to participate? Is there public support? Is political leadership willing to support it? Legal Does your organization have the authority to implement? Is it legal? Are there liability implications? Economic Is it cost -beneficial? Is there funding? Does it contribute to the local economy or economic development? Does it reduce direct property losses or indirect economic losses? Environmental Does it comply with environmental regulations or have adverse environmental impacts? Grand County, Colorado Appendix CA Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 APPENDIX D: HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE Table D.1 HMPC Contact List Name Department Email Phone Grand County Curran, Lurline Grand County Icurran@co.grand.co.us 970-725-3347 Linke, Merritt Grand County mlinke@co.grand.co.us 970-531-4304 Moyer, Ed Grand County emoyer@co.grand.co.us 970-725-3347 Scott, Jennifer Grand County DNR jscott@co.grand.co.us 970-887-0745 Jennings, Ray Grand County EM rjennings@co.grand.co.us 970-887-2732 Barber, Erich Grand County EMS ebarber@co.grand.co.us 970-887-2132 Curran, Nowell Grand County EMS ncurran@co.grand.co.us 970-887-2732 Thorne, Greg Grand County GIS gthorne@co.grand.co.us Sutton, Matthew Grand County Library District msutton@co.grand.co.us 970-531-2039 Belew-LaDue, Brene Grand County Public Health bbelew@co.grand.co.us 970-725-3288 Cobb, Abbie Grand County Public Health abbiec@colorado.net 970-389-8210 Manguso, Kristen Grand County Planning kmanguso@co.grand.co.us 970-725-3128 Green, Alan Grand County Road and Bridge agreen@co.grand.co.us 970-887-2124 Haynes, Ken Grand County Road and Bridge khaynes@co.grand.co.us 970-887-2123 Batura, Dave Grand County Search and Rescue dbatura@comcast.net 970-531-5794 Kafer, David Grand County Search and Rescue Idkafer@comcast.net 970-627-2415 Campbell, Jim Grand County Sheriff's Office jcampbell@co.grand.co.us 970-725-3343 Johnson, Rod Grand County Sheriff's Office rjohnson@co.grand.co.us 970-725-3343 Town of Fraser Durbin, Jeff Fraser Town Manager jdurbin@town.fraser.co.us 970-726-5491 Town of Granby Housley, Bill Granby Police Department whousley@granbypolice.com 970-887-9282 Baird, Wally Granby Town Manager wbaird@townofgranby.com 970-887-2501 Town of Grand Lake Hook, David Grand Lake Town Manager glmanager@townofgrandlake.com 970-627-3435 Biller, Joe Grand Lake Town Planner glplanning@townofgrandlake.com 970-627-3435 Town of Hot Sulphur Springs Meirose, Lucy Hot Sulphur Springs Trustee hssmeirose@gmail.com 303-619-0350 Town of Kremmling Clark, Thomas Kremmling Mayor mayor@townofkremmling.org 970-724-3243 Campbell, Mark Kremmling Town Manager manager@townofkremmling.org 970-724-3249 Town of Winter Park Trainor, Glen Fraser -Winter Park Police Department gtrainor@wpgov.com 970-722-7779 Grand County, Colorado Appendix D.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Name Department Email Phone Buss, Katie Winter Park Town Clerk kbuss@wpgov.com 970-726-8081 x208 Nelson, Drew Winter Park Town Manager dnelson@wpgov.com 970-726-8081 Fire Protection Districts Holzwarth, Todd East Grand FPD toddh@eastgrandfire.com 970-726-5824 Soles, Dennis East Grand FPD dsoles@eastgrandfire.com 970-726-5824 Olson, Schelly Grand FPD solson@grandfire.org Long, Mike Grand Lake FPD mlong@grandlakefire.org 970-627-8428 Waldorf, Steve Grand Lake FPD swaldorf@grandlakefire.org 970-627-8428 White, Brad HSS/Parshall FPD hsspchief@rkymtnhi.com Tucker, Tony Kremmling FPD ttfirechief@gmail.com Special Districts Cranor, Jan Denver Water OEM jan.cranor@denverwater.org 303-628-6352 Martinez, Rebecca Denver Water OEM Rebecca.Martinez@denverwater.org 303-607-3160 Anderson, Steve Northern Water sanderson@northernwater.org 970-627-3406 Gibbens, Jerry Northern Water jgibbens@northernwater.org 970-627-3406 Shearer, Bill Northern Water bshearer@northernwater.org 970-627-3406 Underbrink, Noble Northern Water nunderbrink@northernwater.org 970-622-3565 Other Partners and Stakeholders Carlson, Jill Colorado Geological Survey jill.carlson@state.co.us 303-866-2611 x8316 Butterbaugh, Deanna Colorado OEM dean na.butterbaugh@state.co.us 720-852-6697 Denney, Trevor Colorado OEM trevor.denney@state.co.us 970-759-1187 Gally, Marilyn Colorado OEM marilyn.gally@state.co.us 720-852-6694 Gavelda, Trish Colorado OEM patricia.gavelda@state.co.us 970-749-8280 Vale, Chuck Colorado OEM chuck.vale@state.co.us 970-846-3912 Cousineau, Ron Colorado State Forest Service ron.cousineau@colostate.edu 970-887-3121 Houck, Kevin Colorado Water Conservation Board kevin.houck@state.co.us 303-866-3441 x3219 Prochno, Jamie Colorado Water Conservation Board jamie.prochno@state.co.us 303-866-3441 x3215 Bellatty, Douglas Gran by/Si lvercreek Authority dbellatty@townofgranby.com 970-531-9246 Koerper, Noah Senator Bennet's Office noah-koerper@bennet.senate.gov 970-433-1361 Thompson, Kevin U.S. Bureau of Land Management k45thomp@blm.gov 970-724-3033 Miller, Lannis U.S. Bureau of Reclamation LDMiller@usbr.gov 970-724-3538 Camm, Todd U.S. Forest Service tcamm@fs.fed.us 970-887-4128 Paciorek, Matt U.S. Forest Service mpaciorek@fs.fed.us 970-887-9139 Klancke, Kirk Winter Park Ranch Water and Sanitation District kk@wprwater.com 970-726-8891 Tien, Will Winter Park Resort wtien@winterparkresort.com 970-531-7149 Grand County, Colorado Appendix D.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Name Department Email Phone AMEC Planning Team Brislawn, Jeff AMEC jeff.brislawn@amec.com 303-443-7839 Chambers, Mack AMEC mack.chambers@amec.com 303-820-4663 Hayes, Susan AMEC susan.hayes@amec.com King, Hillary AMEC hillary.king@amec.com 303-820-4652 Geoff Butler Alpenfire LLC gbutler@alpenfire.com 970-217-8495 Grand County, Colorado Appendix D.3 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 APPENDIX E: PLAN ADOPTION Note: The records of adoption will be incorporated as an electronic appendix. When the plan is adopted in 2013, the jurisdictions and adoption date will be noted here, but scanned versions of all adoption resolutions will be kept on file with Grand County Emergency Management. A sample adoption resolution is provided here. Grand County, Colorado Appendix E.1 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption Sample Resolution Resolution # Adopting the Grand County Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan 2013 Whereas, (name of county or community) recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property within our community; and Whereas, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm to people and property from future hazard occurrences; and Whereas, an adopted Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple FEMA pre- and post -disaster mitigation grant programs; and Whereas, (name of county or community) resides within the Planning Area, and fully participated in the mitigation planning process to prepare this Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan; and Whereas, the Colorado Office of Emergency Management and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VIII officials have reviewed the Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan and approved it contingent upon this official adoption of the participating governing body; and Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the (name of board or councils hereby adopts the Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, as an official plan; and Be it further resolved, Grand County Emergency Management will submit this Adoption Resolution to the Colorado Office of Emergency Management and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VIII officials to enable the Plan 's final approval. Passed: date Certifying Official Grand County, Colorado Appendix E.2 Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2013 TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION 2015-01-01 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE GRAND COUNTY MULTI -HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Town of Fraser, with the assistance from Grand County, has gathered information and prepared the Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan has been prepared in accordance with FEMA requirements at 44 C.F.R. 201.6; and WHEREAS, the Town of Fraser is a local unit of government that has afforded the citizens an opportunity to comment and provide input in the Plan and the actions in the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the Plan and affirms that the Plan will be updated no less than every five years. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Fraser Town Board of Trustees that the Town of Fraser adopts the Grand County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan as this jurisdiction's Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, and resolves to execute the actions in the Plan. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 4t" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ATTEST: TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO BY: Town Clerk Mayor (S E A L) TOWN OF FRASER ORDINANCE No. 427 Series 2015 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR STREETS AND ROADWAYS, WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND STORMWATER UTILITIES AND CERTAIN PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE OF CHAPTER 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 31 and other provisions thereof, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Fraser has the authority to establish and regulate public streets and rights of way and public utilities, and to adopt building and other regulations applicable within the Town; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees, by Ordinance No. 389, Series 2012, has previously adopted design and construction standards for streets and roadways, water utilities, sanitary sewer, storm drainage facilities and incorporated such Standards into the Fraser Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Fraser Planning Commission and Water and Wastewater Committee has reviewed the proposed amendments and recommends approval of such amendments; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees finds and determines that said amendments to such Standards are reasonable and necessary to protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Fraser, Colorado. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO, THAT: PART 1: The Code of the Town of Fraser, Colorado (herein sometimes referred to as the "Municipal Code"), is hereby amended by adopting the following additions and deletions to the Design and Construction Standards of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Fraser, Colorado as depicted in the attached Exhibit A: [Note: additions are shown in black bold print; deletions are shown as strikethre qI1 print.] PART 2: PENALTY CLAUSES. The following section of the Code of the Town of Fraser, Colorado, contains penalty clauses applicable to violations of this Ordinance, and such section is herewith set forth in full and hereby enacted: Sec. 1-4-10. General penalty for violation. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate, disobey, omit, neglect, refuse or fail to comply with or resist the enforcement of any provision of this Code; and where no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation of any provision of this Code shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand six hundred fifty dollars ($2,650.00), by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one (1) year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. PART 3: REPEAL. Any and all existing ordinances or parts of ordinances of the Town of Fraser covering the same matters as embraced in this Ordinance are hereby repealed and all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed; provided, however, that such repeal shall not affect or prevent the prosecution or punishment of any person for any act done or committed in violation of any ordinance hereby repealed prior to the taking effect of this Ordinance. PART 4: SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Town of Fraser hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PART 5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage, adoption and publication thereof as provided by law. This Ordinance shall be published by title only. READ, PASSED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND SIGNED THIS 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. Votes in favor: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Votes opposed: TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO Votes abstained: AM Peggy Smith, Mayor ATTEST: (SEAL) Lu Berger, Town Clerk Published in the Middle Park Times on February 12, 2015. CHAPTER 14 Design Criteria and Construction Standards Article 1 General Provisions Sec. 14-1-10 Standards adopted Sec. 14-1-20 Compliance required Sec. 14-1-30 Security for access permits Sec. 14-1-40 Security for Improvements Agreements Sec. 14-1-50 Penalties; enforcement Article 2 Drawings and Submittals Division 1 Plan Submittal Requirements Sec. 14-2-10 General Sec. 14-2-20 Preliminary construction plan submittal Sec. 14-2-30 Final construction plan submittal Sec. 14-2-40 Construction Sec. 14-2-50 As -built plan submittal Division 2 Drawing Requirements Sec. 14-2-110 Construction plans Sec. 14-2-120 As -built drawings Article 3 Public Infrastructure Division 1 Street and Roadway System Design Sec. 14-3-10 Basic design policies Sec. 14-3-20 Trip generation Sec. 14-3-30 Street and road classifications Sec. 14-3-40 Horizontal alignment Sec. 14-3-50 Cross-sections Sec. 14-3-60 Vertical alignment Sec. 14-3-70 Intersections Sec. 14-3-80 Pedestrian facilities Sec. 14-3-90 Signage and striping Sec. 14-3-100 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Sec. 14-3-110 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Sec. 14-3-120 Pavement design Sec. 14-3-130 Grading Division 2 Water System Design Sec. 14-3-210 General Sec. 14-3-220 Basic design policies Sec. 14-3-230 Water system hydraulic model Sec. 14-3-240 Required easements Sec. 14-3-250 Water system infrastructure Sec. 14-3-260 Potable water distribution system Sec. 14-3-270 Abandonment of existing potable water distribution system infrastructure Division 3 Sanitary Sewer System Design Sec. 14-3-310 General Sec. 14-3-320 Basic design policies Sec. 14-3-330 Required easements Sec. 14-3-340 Sanitary sewer collection system Sec. 14-3-350 Flushing and leak testing Sec. 14-3-360 Abandonment or existing sanitary sewer system infrastructure 14-1 Division 4 Stormwater System Design Sec. 14-3410 General Sec. 14-3-420 Basic design policies Sec. 14-3-430 Required easements Sec. 14-3-440 Storm sewer piping and manholes Sec. 14-3-450 Storm sewer inlets Sec. 14-3-460 Culverts Sec. 14-3-470 Bridge and box culvert design Article 4 Private Infrastructure Bedding and backfill installation Division I Street and Driveway Design Sec. 14-4-10 Basic design policy and permitting Sec. 14-4-20 Street and driveway classifications Sec. 14-4-30 Street horizontal and vertical alignment Sec. 14-4-40 Street cross-sections Sec. 14-4-50 Individual driveway cross-sections Sec. 14-4-60 Street intersections Sec. 14-4-70 Pedestrian facilities Sec. 14-4-80 Signage and striping Sec. 14-4-90 Pavement design Sec. 14-4-100 Grading Sec. 14-4-110 Structures Sec. 14-4-120 Culverts Sec. 14-4-130 Revegetation, erosion and sediment control Sec. 14-4-140 On-site snow storage Division 2 Water Service Line Standards Sec. 14-4-210 General Sec. 14-4-220 Potable water services Sec. 14-4-230 Construction Sec. 14-4-240 Service line connection Sec. 14-4-250 As -built documentation Sec. 14-4-260 Abandonment of existing service lines Division 3 Sanitary Sewer Service Line Standards Sec. 14-4-310 General Sec. 14-4-320 Sanitary sewer services Sec. 14-4-330 Construction Sec. 14-4-340 Service line connection Sec. 14-4-350 As -built documentation Sec. 14-4-360 Abandonment of existing service lines Article 5 General Division I Other Utilities, Exterior Lighting and Landscaping Specifications Sec. 14-5-10 Underground dry utilities Sec. 14-5-20 Aboveground utilities Sec. 14-5-30 Exterior lighting specifications Sec. 14-5-40 Landscaping specifications Division 2 Trenching, Bedding and Backfill Sec. 14-5-110 Trench zones Sec. 14-5-120 Material Sec. 14-5-130 Bedding and backfill installation Division 3 Road and Trail Cut Standards and Regulations Sec. 14-5-210 Permit and regulations Sec. 14-5-220 General policies 14-2 Sec. 14-5-230 Traffic control Sec. 14-5-240 Inspection and warranty Sec. 14-5-250 Emergency conditions Division 4 Revegetation, Erosion and Sediment Control Sec. 14-5-310 Introduction Sec. 14-5-320 Regulatory requirements Sec. 14-5-330 Revegetation Sec. 14-5-340 Rip rap Article 6 Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 14-6-10 Publications, References and Design Aids Sec. 14-6-20 Variance Review Procedure Sec. 14-6-30 Definitions Appendix Appendix 14-A List of Attachments ARTICLE 1 General Provisions Sec. 14-1-10. Standards adopted. (a) The Board of Trustees has adopted the Design Criteria and Construction Standards ("Standards") set forth in this Chapter to govern various aspects of development and construction within the Town. Presented in these Standards are the minimum design and technical criteria for the design and construction of additions and modifications to the following: (1) Water system; (2) Sanitary sewer system; (3) Street and roadway system; (4) Stormwater system; and (5) Private infrastructure. (b) Such Standards are applicable within the Town according to their terms and as provided in this Code. References in other parts of this Code to design criteria or construction standards shall be deemed to refer to the criteria and standards contained in this Chapter unless the context otherwise requires. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-1-20. Compliance required. Among other things, such Standards specify minimum design requirements for water and sanitary sewer facilities, streets, driveways, drainage facilities, utilities and other public and private facilities and include permit and fee requirements for driveway construction and excavations or installations in public streets or rights-of-way. All persons undertaking any activities that are subject to such Standards are required to fully comply with all such Standards and requirements. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) 14-3 Sec. 14-1-30. Security for access permits. (a) In cases involving driveway construction, excavations or installations in public streets or rights-of-way or other instances where an access permit is required pursuant to such Standards, as a condition of issuance of such permit, the applicant shall provide to the Town a cashier's check or letter of credit in such amount as is established from time to time by ordinance or resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees, to be held as security for proper completion of the excavation work provided in the permit. The formula established by the Board of Trustees for determining the amount of financial security required is set forth in Appendix A to this Code. The Board of Trustees authorizes the Town staff to accept financial security provided in accordance with said formula and to approve the form of security unless, in the Town staffs judgment, special circumstances require review by the Board of Trustees. (b) In the event the permittee fails to complete the work provided in the permit or fails to correct any deficiency found to exist during the warranty period provided in the Standards, then the Town may utilize all or a portion of such security as necessary to complete the work or correct the deficiency, including payment of all administrative costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the Town as a result of such failure. (c) After expiration of all warranty periods, and provided that the work has been completed in accordance with the permit, the remaining balance of said security, if any, shall be refunded or released. (d) As a condition of issuance of an access permit, the permittee shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Town against any and all damages or claims for damages, losses, costs, charges or expenses that may be brought against it by any person by reason of the work performed pursuant to the permit and against any losses or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the Town by reason of such work. The Town may draw upon the cashier's check or letter of credit deposited by the permittee to pay any such claims, damages, losses and expenses, and the permittee shall be liable to the Town for any amounts not covered by such security. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-1-40. Security for Improvements Agreements. (a) In cases involving infrastructure construction, not associated with a subdivision, an Improvement Agreement (IA) is required. An IA is a written contract between the Town and the applicant providing for construction of improvements, with collateral security to guarantee completion of such improvements. Such agreement shall set forth construction specifications, dates for completion, cost estimates, terms and conditions for the acceptance of improvements, the form of security and any other provisions or conditions deemed necessary by the Board of Trustees to ensure that all improvements will be completed in a timely, quality and cost-effective manner. The agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Grand County Clerk and Recorder and shall run with the land and bind all successors, heirs and assignees of the applicant. (b) The provisions of the Town subdivision regulations, as contained in Chapter 17 of this Code, and particularly Article 6 of that Chapter, as such regulations may be amended from time to time by the Town, shall govern with respect to the inspection and acceptance of the Secured Improvements, the deposit, use and release of collateral securing completion of the Secured Improvements and all 14-4 other matters relating to applicant's obligation with respect to the Secured Improvements. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-1-50. Penalties; enforcement. (a) Every person convicted of a violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be punished as set forth in Section 1-4-10 of this Code. (b) Town staff are authorized to withhold or revoke any permits, certificates or other approvals for any construction or activity which are not in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. (c) In addition to other remedies provided by law, the Board of Trustees may authorize appropriate actions and proceedings in law or in equity to prevent any violation of the provisions of this Chapter; to prevent unlawful construction; to recover damages; to restrain, correct or abate a violation; and to prevent illegal occupancy of a building, structure or premises. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) ARTICLE 2 Drawings and Submittals Division I Plan Submittal Requirements Sec. 14-2-10. General. (a) Per the subdivision regulations of the Town, as contained in Chapter 17 of this Code, all subdivision design and improvements shall be in accordance with these Standards, current adopted version, and shall be prepared, signed and sealed by a professional engineer, licensed by the State, who prepared and/or directed preparation of the construction plans. (b) The project design and construction must also comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations, including but not limited to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requirements and shall be in accordance with the minimum standards of other applicable regulatory agencies and service providers. Review and approval of local facility designs by the Town, its Engineer or other agencies shall not relieve the engineer of record from responsibility for adequate design. (c) If the Town determines that it is in the Town's best interest to oversize a waterline or sanitary sewer line through any development to ultimately serve future development, the Town may require such oversizing as a condition of development/plan approval. The terms and conditions of payment for and/or cost sharing of such oversizing shall be addressed by separate agreement. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-2-20. Preliminary construction plan submittal. Construction plans at the preliminary plan submittal stage must contain sufficient information and detail to determine that all Town standards can be satisfied. Three (3) copies of the submittal shall be 14-5 provided. The Town and/or its Engineer may require additional copies, documentation or calculations, if necessary, in order to complete its review. Each submittal shall, at a minimum, contain the information required by these standards and Chapter 17 of this Code, although additional information may be required at the discretion of the Town. (1) Construction plans. See Section 14-2-110 for requirements. (2) Survey plat. A survey plat shall be submitted, if a preliminary plat is not required, along with the construction plans. The survey plat or preliminary plat shall indicate all existing right-of- way, adjacent property ownership, easements and other information critical to the design. (3) Preliminary Geotechnical Report. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report shall include a representative number of test bore locations and provide site soil conditions based on those test locations. The Geotechnical Report shall include recommendations and opinions on adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading as affected by soils engineering factors, including the stability of slopes. The Geotechnical Report shall also include soil testing for corrosiveness (soil resistivity testing) for each test location and recommendations to protect ductile iron pipe, fittings, valves and other metallic elements from corrosive deterioration. (4) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and/or Traffic Impact Study (TIS). A Traffic Impact Analysis and/or Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all developments proposing ADTs > 400. The Town, at its discretion, may waive such requirement. (5) Phasing plan. A phasing plan shall identify all improvements necessary for the project build -out condition and those improvements proposed to be constructed under each phase. (6) Water line layout plan and fire flow requirements. a. For a new development, a water line layout plan, including horizontal and vertical detail, shall be submitted in a digital AutoCAD format acceptable to the Town. The fire flow requirements for the proposed building product type within a development shall be submitted with the plan. This data will be entered into the Town's hydraulic water model to determine infrastructure requirements. All improvements shall be designed in accordance with the modeling results. b. For a development within an area where infrastructure currently exists, any upgrades required to the water system in order to provide adequate water service and fire flows for the proposed development shall be constructed by the applicant. See Article 3, Division 2, for requirements. (7) Sanitary sewer line layout plan. a. For a new development, a sanitary sewer line layout plan, including horizontal and vertical detail, shall be submitted in a digital AutoCAD format acceptable to the Town. The sanitary sewer hydraulic loading demands for the development shall be submitted with the plan. The capacity of the proposed and existing downstream infrastructure will be analyzed using this data to determine infrastructure requirements. All improvements shall be designed in accordance with the results of this analysis. 14-6 b. For a development within an area where infrastructure currently exists, any upgrades required to the sanitary sewer system, in order to provide adequate sewer service for the proposed development, shall be constructed by the applicant. See Article 3, Division 3, for requirements. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-2-30. Final construction plan submittal. (a) Final construction plans shall contain sufficient information to complete the construction of necessary improvements in accordance with these standards and Chapter 17 of this Code. Three (3) copies of the submittal shall be provided. The Town and/or its Engineer may require additional plan copies, documentation or calculations, depending on the complexity of the application. (b) All submittals shall, at a minimum, contain the following information: (1) Final construction plans shall include all plan and profile sheets. See Article 2, Division 2, for requirements. (2) Final Geotechnical Report. (c) The cover sheet of each final design drawing set shall have an "approval block" affixed thereto which provides for signatures of authorized representatives of the Town and the Town Engineer prior to construction. The "approval block" shall be a facsimile of that appended in Attachment A-1 — Approval Block. Final drawings for any public improvements submitted for approval signatures shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer, licensed by the State. Two (2) sets of the final construction documents, including original signatures, seals and date from the Engineer of Record and two (2) electronic copies, each including one (1) PDF copy (with signatures and seals) and one (1) AutoCAD copy (format acceptable to the Town) shall be delivered to the Town within fifteen (15) days after acceptance of the final design and prior to commencement of work to install the improvements. The PDF and AutoCAD file copies can be recorded on the same disk so that only two (2) disks are required for submittal. Construction shall not begin until the design documents have been approved by the Town, the required final plans submitted to the Town and the approval block signed by all parties. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-2-40. Construction. (a) The applicant is responsible for all necessary permits and regulatory compliance (federal, state and local) for construction. The construction contractors shall have a copy of the executed, approved construction plans in their possession at the construction site for the duration of the project. (b) At any time during construction, should site conditions require modification to the approved plans, the applicant shall notify the Town of the proposed change. All field modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to construction. (c) Any request for changes to the approved construction plans which do not change the intent of the design of the project may be agreed upon by the applicant and the Town. Approval of said changes can be made in the field and signed off on all approved sets of construction plans. 14-7 (d) Construction of, or affecting, any public infrastructure is prohibited between October 15th and April 15th, unless otherwise approved by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-2-50. As -built plan submittal. (a) Preliminary acceptance as -built plan submittal shall include the following: (1) Two (2) full size paper copies of the as -built plans in twenty -four -inch by thirty -six-inch format stamped and signed by the Engineer of Record. (2) Two (2) electronic PDF copies of the preliminary as -built plans submitted with all signatures and seals affixed. (b) Final acceptance as -built plan submittal shall include the following: (1) Two (2) full size paper copies of the as -built plans in twenty -four -inch by thirty -six-inch format with all original signatures and seals affixed. (2) Two (2) electronic copies of the final as -built plans submitted in AutoCAD.dwg or AutoCAD.dxf format. The drawing shall be based on or referenced to a known coordinate system, not an assumed local coordinate system. The digital file shall utilize the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, in feet, North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83) for horizontal control and NAVD 88 for vertical control, whenever possible. If GPS is not used, the Geographical Control Data Base (GCDB) should be used to obtain PLSS data in NAD 83 datum. The GCDB is available from the BLM at www.blm.gov/gcdb. The drawing shall include either a data dictionary to explain the layers, or a self-explanatory layering system. A permanent survey benchmark shall be shown on the plans. (3) Two (2) PDF copies of the as -built plans with all signatures and seals affixed. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Division 2 Drawing Requirements Sec. 14-2-110. Construction plans. (a) Drawing size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches and shall contain a title block, sequentially numbered sheets, scale, north arrow, date and the seal and signature of the professional engineer, licensed by the State. (b) Existing and proposed contours shall be at one -foot -minimum intervals. Other intervals may be allowed and/or required by the Town, in developments with flat or steep terrain. (c) Electronic media shall be provided for updating and maintaining information in the Town's Geographic Information System (GIS). The drawing shall be based on or referenced to a known coordinate system, not an assumed local coordinate system. The digital file shall utilize the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, in feet, North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83) for horizontal control and NAVD 88 for vertical control, whenever possible. If GPS is not used, the Geographical Control Data Base (GCDB) should be used to obtain PLSS data in NAD 83 datum. The GCDB is available 14-8 from the BLM at www.blm.gov/gcdb. The drawing shall include either a data dictionary to explain the layers, or a self-explanatory layering system. A permanent survey benchmark shall be shown on the plans. (d) Cover sheet. The cover sheet shall include the following: (1) Certification: These construction plans for (name of development or project) were prepared by me under my direct supervision in accordance with the requirements of these Standards. [Name of Engineer of Record] [Name of Firm] The statement shall be signed and stamped by the professional engineer, licensed by the State, who prepared and/or directed preparation of the construction plans. (2) A vicinity map, at an appropriate scale, which shows the location and name of key arterial streets/roads in the vicinity of the proposed development. (3) Index of sheets. (4) Agency and emergency contacts list with names, phone numbers and email addresses. (5) A Utilities Notification Center of Colorado (UNCC) note with phone number (811) and website to be included on all applicable plan sheets. (6) Approval signature blocks per applicable standards. (e) Plan and profile sheets. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) The scale shall be one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet. A one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet scale may be used upon written request and approval of the Town. (2) Locations and dimensions of existing and proposed property lines, easements and rights- of-way. (3) Existing and proposed streets and roads shall be identified. (4) Survey line ties to section or quarter corners. (5) Waterline improvements shall be stationed using centerline of street stationing when the design of the waterline and street are concurrent. If the waterline is constructed in an open area or is being installed under or adjacent to an existing street, the stationing shall follow the centerline of the waterline alignment. (6) Centerline stations shall be provided for all intersecting water lines. 14-9 (7) Sanitary sewer line improvements shall be stationed along the centerline of the sanitary sewer line. (8) Storm sewer line improvements shall be stationed along the centerline of the storm sewer line or referenced from the street stationing when the storm sewer crosses the street and doesn't extend beyond the street right-of-way on either side. (99) Existing and proposed street/road improvements, including shared driveways, sidewalk, curb, gutter, pavement limits, trails, bridges, culverts, guardrails, handicap ramps, etc. A dashed line shall depict existing improvements and a solid line shall depict proposed improvements. (101) Elevation and station shall be noted for all points of horizontal or vertical alignment changes. (110) Match lines and consecutive sheet numbers. (124-) Key map. (133) A legend to identify existing (dashed or thinner line weight and gray in color) and proposed (solid, heavier line weight and black in color) utilities and structures, size, type, height and location, as applicable, including but not limited to: water fence lines fire hydrants ditches and/or swales sanitary sewer natural gas storm sewer electric telephone cable television trash enclosures signs snow storage guardrails retaining walls trees (143) Stations and critical elevations of all utility and drainage appurtenances. (154) All proposed water and sanitary sewer service line connections shall be shown on plans. The length of each service line constructed shall also be shown. (163) Snow storage areas. (f) Profile sheets. The profile shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) The vertical scale shall be one (1) inch equals five (5) feet. (2) Existing (dashed or thinner line weight and gray in color) and proposed (solid, heavier line weight and black in color) grades. 14-10 (3) Continuous stationing for the entire portion of the improvements shown in the plan view, with the centerline station for all intersecting roadways and waterlines. (4) Existing (dashed) and proposed (solid) utilities. (g) Grading plan. A construction sheet shall contain the proposed grading plan illustrating the extent and limits of the land disturbance. The plan shall show existing site features and estimated quantities of cut -and -fill, and shall depict existing and proposed contours using a contour interval of one (1) foot. (h) Drainage plan. A construction sheet shall contain a preliminary drainage plan. See Article 3, Division 4, of this Chapter. (i) Revegetation, erosion and sediment control plan. A construction sheet shall contain a revegetation, erosion and sediment control plan. See Article 5, Division 4, of this Chapter. 0) Signage and striping plan. A construction sheet shall contain the proposed signage and striping plan. See Article 3, Division 1, of this Chapter. (k) Detail sheets. Detail sheets shall be included within the plan set to include the pertinent details as depicted in the attached drawings to these Standards and any other details required to accurately and completely detail all improvements included within the project. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-2-120. As -built drawings. (a) The as -built drawings shall identify and show all existing or abandoned utilities that were encountered during construction that were not shown on the design plans or that were shown on the design plans incorrectly, as well as any field modifications or other changes to the approved construction plans. (b) The method to show locations is by the use of centerline stations as depicted on the construction plans with suitable distances and offsets given relative to these lines. (c) All elevation information shall be based upon an existing on-site benchmark as depicted on the approved construction plans. (d) The as -built plan cover sheet shall include in large bold text "AS -BUILT PLANS" under the project name title. The text "As -Built Plans" shall also be included on the lower right hand side of the cover sheet, visible when the plans are rolled up. The standard plan approval block, Attachment A-1 — Approval Block, shall be removed from the title sheet and replaced with the as -built plan approval block as shown on Attachment A-2 — As -Built Plan Submittal Block. As -built plans shall be in conformance to the Attachment A-3 — As -Built Plan Required Information (Street and Storm Drainage Systems) and Attachment A-4 — As -Built Plan Required Information (Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems). As -built information shall be included on the electronic and paper copies. (e) The following information shall be shown/corrected on the as -built drawings: (1) Street and roadway system. 14-11 a. Locations of street and road centerline, intersection radii, edge of asphalt, edge of gravel shoulder and flowline of ditch, at fifty -foot -maximum intervals, and at all beginning and end of horizontal curves. Vertical information should be included in order to determine centerline grades, cross -slope grades, super -elevation rates, flowline grades and side slopes. b. All existing infrastructure in the street, including but not limited to drainage appurtenances, vaults, manholes (both invert and rim elevations), inlets, catch basins, water valves, fire hydrants, etc. c. Guardrail locations, types and alignment. d. Retaining wall top and bottom elevations, locations, type, height and alignment. e. Clear zone obstructions location, type and alignment. f. All signage within the right-of-way: size, location, type and alignment. g. Public utility easements and street right -of way locations and widths. Dimension of the distance between the edge of right-of-way and the centerline of street improvements. (2) Waterline improvements. a. Location of all waterline bends, tees, crosses and other underground fittings. b. Location of the waterline from the edge of the street and from the boundary of the right- of-way or easement. c. Location of any specialty items, such as fire hydrants, meter vaults, pressure reducing valve (PRV) vaults, air release valve (ARV) vaults, couplings, etc. d. Location of all valves, service lines and service line shut-off valves. c. Note any right-of-way and easement information. f. Note final invert elevations of all vertical bends with benchmark elevation referenced. g. Note distance between the waterline and other underground utilities. h. Note length, size and material of line as installed. Note pertinent inverts as needed to clearly note final location of the waterline. i. Note permanent easement monuments and property comers where used for ties. j. Note the parcel lot number. (3) Sanitary sewer improvements. a. Manhole locations, types, rims and invert elevations. 14-12 b. Location of all service lines along the sewer line, location and elevation of the plugged end of the service line and the slope of the installed service line. c. Location of the sewer line from the edge of the street and from the boundary of the right- of-way or easement. d. Locations of any specialty items such as clean outs, manholes, etc. e. Note any right-of-way and easement information. f. Note final invert elevations with benchmark elevation referenced. g. Note distance between the sewer line and other underground utilities. h. Note length, size and material of line as installed. Note pertinent inverts as needed to clearly note final location of the sewer line. i. Note permanent easement monuments and property corners where used for ties. j. Note the parcel lot number. (4) Storm drainage improvements. a. Manholes/inlets/catch basin locations, types, rims and invert elevations. b. Storm line locations, materials, lengths, slopes, diameter, location of catch basins and side sewer tees, and invert elevations. c. Public utility easement locations and widths. d. Retention/detention system as -built volume of constructed system, pond storage and construction limits, overflow elevations and locations, discharge orifice diameters and locations. A certification letter is required from the Engineer of Record confirming that the pond volume, surface elevations, outlet structure detail and orifice diameters meet the design requirements and detail. The certification letter shall include the signature and seal of the Engineer of Record. e. Drainage swale location, width, depth, side slopes, lengths and elevations of inlet and outlet locations. (5) Bridge and box culvert structures. a. Horizontal and vertical dimensions, grade and layout of all structure components. b. Structural steel reinforcing and construction joints within the structure. c. Elevation of structural components and of stream bank, water surface at normal flow condition and water surface at the calculated one -hundred -year flow event. 14-13 d. Guard rail location, types and alignment. e. Location of all utility lines adjacent to and/or attached to the bridge structure. f. All signage and lighting on or associated with the bridge structure. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) ARTICLE 3 Public Infrastructure Division 1 Street and Roadway System Design Sec. 14-3-10. Basic design policies. All new street designs and related information shall meet the minimum standards listed within these Standards. Any design standards not included within these Standards will be subject to the minimum standards set forth in the most current publications found in Section 14-6-10 and approved by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-20. Trip generation. (a) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generations for proposed development should be based on the type of occupancy for which the development is designed and shall be formulated from the following: Development Type Trips Generated Single-family 8 ADT/Unit Multi -family 5 ADT/Unit Commercial 40 ADT/1,000 sq. ft. Lodging 8 ADT/Occupied Room Restaurant 30 ADT/1,000 sq. ft. Convenience store 150 ADT/1,000 sq. ft. (b) Other uses not listed above shall use the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual for trip generation. Other acceptable data sources may be used in cases where the Trip Generation Manual does not provide the information necessary. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-30. Street and road classifications. The Town's streets and roads are classified according to function and ADTs. Functional classifications shall be established by the Town in accordance with the Street/Roadway Classification and Minimum Design Criteria table below. The applicant may be required to conduct traffic counts to establish or change existing street classifications. 14-14 (1) Arterial streets and roads. The arterial street and road system links towns and other large traffic generators with minimal interference to through traffic movements and higher design speeds. The typical cross-section for an arterial street or road is shown on Attachment A-6 — Cross -Section for Arterial Street. (2) Collector streets and roads. Collector streets and roads provide a link between arterial streets and roads and local streets. More moderate speeds are typical on collector streets and roads. The typical cross-section for a collector street or road is shown on Attachment A-7 — Cross -Section for Collector Street. (3) Local streets. Local streets primarily provide access from collector and arterial streets and roads to adjacent neighborhoods and other developments. A local street is a street whose primary function is to provide access to residences, businesses or abutting property rather than to serve through traffic. The street shall be designed for a design speed of not less than twenty (20) mph. Posted speed limits for local streets shall be twenty (20) mph. The typical cross-section for a local street is shown on Attachment A-8 — Cross -Section for Local Street. (4) Alleys. Alleys provide for limited access and will be subject to special review as appropriate to the land use plan. (5) Curbs and Gutters. All arterial streets, collector streets, local streets and private streets shall include valley pans, ribbon curbs or curbs and gutter as detailed in Attachment A-11 — Curb and Gutter. On the typical street sections identified above: Valley pans or the mountable curb and gutter shall be used in residential areas when surface flow storm drainage is proposed at the edge of the street. Ribbon curb shall be used alongthe he edge of street when storm drainage is proposed in a ditch section located off the edge of the shoulder. Vertical curb and gutter shall be used in business districts where street parking abuts the sidewalk and/or when surface flow storm drainage is proposed at the edge of the street. Street/Roadway Classification and Minimum Design Criteria ROWow Shoulder Class Width; Roadbase Width Pavement Width ADT Width Arterial highways See State Highway Access Code (CDOT) for design criteria Arterial streets 80' 56' 36' > 600 10' 14-15 Formatted: Superscript Collector streets 60' 40' 24' < 600 8' Local streets 36' 36' 24' <400 6' Alleys 20' 20' 16' min N/A NOTES: 1. Increase for the minimum R.O. W./easement widths may be required by the Town to accommodate for on -street parking, drainage improvements, sidewalks, trails, excessive cut/fill slopes, intersections, clear zones, or required snow storage. 2. e!��si.eyes.�Re!�srnrr...!�a+.:nay.a■!ee!.ses�ne!�s!r..n.r:r..san.u!e...at■en!�e!r�aer..sie . . --. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-40. Horizontal alignment. (a) Centerline curve radius. Horizontal design criteria are established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Criteria include centerline curve radius design, minimum tangent lengths and stopping sight distance. Compound curves and reverse curves are prohibited without prior approval of the Town. The minimum curve radius is ultimately determined by the stopping sight distance and sight triangle. The cross -slope of all crowned streets shall be two percent (2%) from the centerline to the edge. In mountainous areas, all streets shall not be crowned but shall slope toward the mountain, from the outside edge of pavement, for the full width. The outside shoulder shall slope away from the street edge. (b) Lane widening. Lane widening may be necessary on sharper curves and where large vehicle traffic is expected and should be consistent with the design guidelines outlined in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Turning templates may be required for streets and/or parking lot designs at the discretion of the Town. (c) Dead -ends and turnarounds. (1) Dead-end streets are discouraged within the Town. All dead-end streets require turnarounds or cul-de-sacs per Attachment A-12 — Cul -De -Sac and Turnarounds for Streets. All turnarounds shall provide ten (10) feet of level, treeless ground around the perimeter. Special attention should be given to provide adequate functional snow storage and sight distance. All turnarounds shall be signed "Emergency Turn Around, No Parking Anytime." (2) The maximum length of streets ending in turnarounds shall be five hundred (500) feet. Additional turnarounds may be required for emergency services when topography dictates. (3) All turnarounds shall be subject to review and approval of the Town. (d) Switchbacks. A switchback is defined as a curve with a central angle of greater than one hundred twenty (120) degrees and a radius less than or equal to one hundred (100) feet. Switchbacks 14-16 shall not be allowed on collector or arterial roadways. On all other streets and in mountainous terrain, when other alternatives may cause significant adverse impacts, the use of switchbacks may be allowed on a case-by-case basis, with approval from the Town. Switchbacks shall be designed with a minimum centerline radius of sixty (60) feet. Maximum centerline grades within twenty-five (25) feet of a switchback curve and throughout the curve shall not exceed four percent (4%). Super elevation shall not exceed four percent (4%). Special attention should be given to provide adequate functional snow storage and sight distance. Widening of the streets/roadways around the curve may be necessary to allow for wide turning vehicles (i.e., fire trucks, snow plows, trash trucks, etc.). (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) See. 14-3-50. Cross-sections. (a) Surfacing requirements. (1) All streets and roadways shall be paved with hot asphalt meeting locally available CDOT mix approved in writing by the Town. Alternate hard surfacing materials may be permitted at the discretion of the Town. Pavement thickness shall be determined from a pavement design and specification based on a Geotechnical Report prepared for the project and anticipated vehicular loading by a professional engineer licensed by the State. The CDOT Pavement Design Manual shall be used to determine vehicular loading and the pavement section of the street. The minimum pavement thickness shall be five (5) inches. (2) Alleys in residential subdivisions shall be paved with surfacing requirements equal to the surfacing requirements for streets and roadways. (b) Crown/super-elevation. The cross -slope on all streets, including intersections, shall be two percent (2%). The maximum super -elevation rate is two percent (2%) where the longitudinal grade of the street is less than five percent (5%). Where the centerline grade of the street is five percent (5%) or greater, the super -elevation can be increased to three percent (3%). Super -elevation shall be required on all collector streets. Where super -elevation is used, the minimum tangent lengths between curves shall be consistent with the design guidelines outlined in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. (c) Clear zone. (1) The minimum clear zone required for streets shall be based on ADTs, speed, horizontal and vertical alignments as proposed by the Engineer of Record and approved by the Town. Embankment slopes steeper than 3:1 are considered critical slopes, on which a vehicle is likely to overturn. All newly constructed streets shall provide a minimum clear zone with a maximum 3:1 embankment slope. The clear zone includes any shoulders or auxiliary lanes. (2) The clear zone width should be increased on the outside of curves to accommodate the path of an errant vehicle. Determination of the width of the clear zone should take into consideration right-of-way availability, environmental concerns, economic factors, safety needs and accident histories. The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide may be used to determine clear zone widths for arterials and collectors. For local streets, a minimum clear zone of ten (10) feet should be provided. If these minimum clear zone widths are not feasible, guardrail installation may be required. 14-17 (d) Guardrail. The use of a guardrail is discouraged and should not be used when it is economically feasible to remove the obstruction, correct the hazardous condition or where it is determined that the guardrail would create a more serious hazard than the feature it would shield. Refer to the CDOT Roadside Design Guide for details. The use of a guardrail may be necessary if any of the following conditions exist: (1) Roadside hazards are present within the clear zone. (2) A street built to these Standards contains an isolated sharp curve in conjunction with a side slope steeper than 3:1. (3) A section of street having a history of vehicular accidents. When guardrails are considered for installation, especially for extended lengths, special provisions shall be made for adequate snow storage and removal and blowing/drifting snow. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-60. Vertical alignment. (a) Centerline grades. (1) The maximum centerline grade for all streets and roads is seven percent (7%). The minimum centerline grade for all streets and roads is one percent (1%). A minimum flowline grade of one percent (1%) shall be maintained around all full and partial cul-de-sac bulbs. If curb and gutter is proposed, the minimum flowline grade may be one-half percent (0.5%). (2) Continuous grade changes shall not be permitted. The use of grade breaks in lieu of vertical curves is discouraged; however, if a grade break is necessary and the algebraic difference in grade does not exceed one-half percent (0.5%) along the street, the grade break will be permitted. (b) Vertical curves. See A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for the standard for rate of vertical curvature ('K' value) requirements. The minimum length is controlled by those standards and by stopping sight distances. (c) Stopping sight distance. See A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for minimum stopping sight distance requirements. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-70. Intersections. All connections to existing asphalt streets will require the asphalt to be sawcut full depth and be paved with a neat line match to the existing surface. (1) Skew angles. All new street or driveway connections shall intersect existing roads at ninety (90) degrees. Where this is not possible, the skew angle shall not be less than seventy-five (75) degrees from the existing street. An oblique street should be curved approaching an intersection and should be approximately at right angles for at least one hundred (100) feet thele f am here from. No more than two (2) streets shall intersect at any point. 14-18 (2) Minimum curb radius. Minimum curb radius at the intersection of two (2) local streets shall be twenty (20) feet. Minimum curb radius at an intersection involving an arterial and/or a collector street shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet unless a larger radius is deemed necessary by the Town for maintenance and emergency services. Abrupt horizontal changes in alignment within a block are discouraged; but if necessary, shall have the corners angled in accordance with standard engineering practice to permit safe vehicular movement. (3) Horizontal offset. a. All new street connections shall meet existing streets without an offset whenever possible. When a new development can access two (2) different streets, access shall always be to the street with the lowest classification. b. When a street parallel to a railroad right-of-way intersects a street which crosses an at - grade railroad right-of-way, it shall, to the extent practicable, be at a distance of at least one hundred fifty (150) feet from the railroad right-of-way. Such distance shall be determined with due consideration of the minimum distance required for future separation of grades by means of appropriate approach gradients. (4) Grades. All intersections shall utilize vertical curves. The minimum design speed for all vertical curves at intersections shall be fifteen (15) mph. Intersections shall be designed with a minimal grade whenever practical. In hilly or rolling areas, at the approach to an intersection, a leveling area shall be provided having not greater than a four percent (4%) slope for a distance of sixty (60) feet, measured from the edge of pavement or back of curb and gutter. The four percent (4%) only applies when intersecting streets are either local streets, private streets and/or shared private drives. The maximum allowable slope is the greater of the slope measured at the centerline or edge of pavement on the approaching minor street. On all streets approaching arterials or collector streets, the maximum grade shall be two percent (2%) for a distance of sixty (60) feet measured from the edge of pavement or back of curb and gutter. (5) Corner sight distance. The corner sight distance is measured from a point on the local street at fifteen (15) feet back from the edge of the collector street pavement flowline and measured from a height of eye at three and one-half (3'/Z) feet on the local street to a height of object at four and one-quarter (41/4) feet on the collector street. The distance shall be ten (10) feet for a local -local street intersection measured from the pavement flow line. The minimum corner sight distance is defined in the table below. Using the plan and profile of the intersection, the Engineer of Record shall verify that these minimum sight distances can be attained. Minimum Corner Sight Distance Design Speed (mph) Corner Sight Distance (Peet) 20 225 30 335 Sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn left onto a two-lane street with no median and grades of three percent (3%) or less. For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and the required sight distance recalculated. Truck traffic entering onto streets requires 14-19 longer sight distances. Any proposed public or private street or driveway regularly used by truck traffic may require an individual analysis. When the criteria for sight distance cannot be met, the Town may deny the access, prohibit right or left turns by vehicles entering the street or require speed change lanes. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-80. Pedestrian facilities. Sidewalks and trails shall be included with the project design and construction plan set. The type, Formatted: indent: First line: 0.19" width and surface of the trail required depend upon the topography and general layout of the subdivision. See Attachment A-13 —Sidewalks and Trails and Attachment A-14 —Handicap Ramps. (1) Trail separation. Separation between public rights-of-way and trails is encouraged unless topography or other physical constraints necessitate a trail adjacent to a public right-of-way. The minimum distance between public rights-of-way and trails shall be ten (10) feet horizontally. Grade differential or differing surfaces shall be provided between trails and public rights-of-way to discourage crossover by vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. (2) Trail width. Detached, paved, eight -foot -wide trails shall be provided adjacent to arterial and collector streets. (3) Trail construction. The type of construction for trails shall be compatible with the anticipated use. All trails shall be constructed to provide stable sub -grades suitable for support of heavy equipment and pavement. (4) Trail signage and markings. Way -finding and directional signs may be required at the discretion of the Town. Warning signs, stop signs and pavement markings shall be required at all intersections and street crossings. (5) Easements. Trails may overlap with other easements, provided that any overlapping easement does not compromise the functional use of any other easement. (6) Sidewalk width and location. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide on each side of the street and shall be required in the Business Zone District and in all Mixed Use, Accommodation, Lodging and Commercial zoned planning areas in all Planned Development Districts (PDDs). Sidewalks in residential areas shall be required on at least one (1) side of the street if trails are not provided and shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide. The typical sidewalk and trail is shown on Attachment A-13 — Sidewalks and Trails. (7) ADA requirements. All trails and sidewalks shall be ramped at intersections and other pedestrian crossings and constructed in accordance with handicapped accessibility standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The typical handicap ramp is shown on Attachment A- 14 — Handicap Ramps. (8) Drainage. Adequate drainage measures shall be provided along and across trails and sidewalks to prevent erosion damage and to allow free passage of drainage flows. Surface drainage shall not sheet flow across a trail or sidewalk. Drainage shall cross a trail or sidewalk at specified locations. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-20 Sec. 14-3-90. Signage and striping. (a) All signs, striping, markers, delineators, signals and other traffic control devices must conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Colorado Supplement to the MUTCD. (b) Pavement striping material and application shall be in accordance with the CDOT Standard Specifications for Street and Roadways Construction for epoxy paint materials and installation per Section 627.05 Epoxy Pavement Marking and for thermoplastic pavement markings per Section 627.06 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking. The area to be covered by the thermoplastic pavement marking shall be ground down one-eighth (%) of an inch so that the top of the thermoplastic pavement marking is flush with the street surface. (c) Thermoplastic pavement markings shall be used for cross -walk lines, stop bars, turn lane lines at intersections, turn arrows and school zone markings. Epoxy pavement marking shall be used for centerline striping, no passing zone lines and edge lines along streets. (d) All required street identification signage and no parking signs shall be consistent with Fraser's current standard signage content detail and installation standards.—approved by the Town. Speed limit signs, stop signs, emergency turn around signs, striping and other traffic control devices shall meet current Town installation standards. All signageai� shall be installed by, and paid for by, the applicant.. following approval by the Town. The applicant should contact the Town for the current signage content detail and installation requirements. (e) No signs are permitted within the public right-of-way without the approval of the Town. (f) All sign sheeting shall conform to ASTM D4956-04 and the retroreflectivity requirements as defined in the MUTCD. All sign posts shall be the POZ-LOC Socket System as manufactured by Northwest Pipe Traffic Systems or approved equal. The sign post wall shall have a minimum thickness of eight -hundredths (0.08) of an inch, a minimum weight per foot of one and ninety-six hundredths (1.96) pounds per foot and be hot dipped galvanized. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-100. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). A Traffic Impact Analysis, when required, shall be based on the projected traffic needs twenty (20) years after construction or build -out of the development and shall encompass the needs from existing development, future development and the proposed development. Trip generations from future development over the design period shall be based on zoning, existing land use, proximity to developed areas, historic growth and other factors expected to influence development. See Sections 14-3-20 and 14-3-30 for vehicle trip calculations and street classifications. The TIA shall be prepared by a professional engineer, licensed by the State of Colorado, and shall contain, but not be limited to: (1) A description of the proposed land use, a site plan and an overall plan view of proposed streets within the development and all accesses to the Town streets with offset distances to other intersections (including driveways) within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of the site. (2) On-site issues, including number and location of driveways, parking needs and layout, circulation, pedestrians, truck access and operations, transit and safety. 14-21 (3) Description of and maps depicting existing street and transportation conditions affected by the development. (4) Identification of traffic congestion, street classifications and possible deficiencies of the existing transportation system affected by the development. This should address and anticipate "seasonal" traffic volumes, effects of phased construction and opening day/ planned special events. (5) Anticipated nearby land development (planned or under construction) and associated traffic, along with the anticipated trip generation, and daily and peak -hour traffic volumes of the proposed development, at full build and at any interim construction phase. (6) The impacts of the development on the existing street and transportation system and the need for potential improvements to existing streets, such as horizontal alignment and vertical alignment. Based on the results of this analysis, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), including traffic counts, may be required by the Town. The applicant/ developer is responsible for any permits and approvals required by the Colorado Department of Transportation. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-110. Traffic Impact Study (TIS). A Traffic Impact Study, when required, shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed by the State and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: (1) A scaled map of the vicinity showing all streets and highways adjacent to the site; a scaled map of the study area, including land uses; a scaled map of the immediate access area; and a scaled plan showing on-site anticipated vehicular circulation patterns. (2) Map identification and textual consideration of all accesses that are existing and possible future access locations, including signal locations for at least one-half ('/�) mile in each direction along the street, as well as all potential roadway and signal improvements. (3) Evaluation of current daily and peak hour traffic data and twenty-year projections, including turning movements at all intersections and any key year midpoints, assuming a build out of the study area based upon zoning, comprehensive plans and growth estimates. (4) An evaluation of the level of service and capacity for all design and traffic operation elements, including mainline street and affected intersections. (5) An analysis of the clear zone and the horizontal and vertical sight distances. (6) Accurate and understandable diagrams. (7) All assumptions and adjustment factors. (8) An analysis of all reasonable alternatives, including no build or alternative street access. 14-22 (9) Current and projected travel speed, travel time and delay time within the study area that will be impacted by the access proposal. (10) Site traffic generation rate estimates and resulting trip generation distribution and assignments. (11) Analysis of queue lengths for all turn lanes affected to the twentieth year. (12) A safety analysis, including conflict points, turning movements and three (3) years of accident history. (13) A conceptual design showing all geometric elements and their approximate dimensions, with analysis of any element of the access that will be below standard. (14) Sources of information, data and references. (15) The existence of any current traffic problems in the local area, such as a high accident location, confusing intersection or an intersection in need of a traffic signal. (16) The current projected level of service of the street system adjacent to the development, which will be significantly affected. (17) The sensitivity of the adjacent neighborhoods or other areas that may be perceived as impacted. (18) The proximity of the site driveways to the other access points or intersections. (19) The ability of the adjacent existing, or planned, street system to handle increased traffic or the feasibility of improving the roadway system to handle increased traffic. (20) Other specific problems or deficiencies that may be affected by the proposed development or affect the ability of the development to satisfactorily accommodate seasonal traffic volumes, phased construction and opening day/special events. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-120. Pavement design. (a) Design. (1) Structural sections shall be designed for all new streets or existing streets being upgraded due to increased traffic. The applicant shall provide a pavement design report performed by a Geotechnical Engineer, licensed by the State, prior to approval of the final street design. The structural section shall include the asphalt and/or concrete street surface and the aggregate street sub -base. Aggregate sub -base shall be Class 6 road base material and/or Class 6 road base material in combination with other locally available CDOT aggregate classifications to meet the design requirements for the street per the Geotechnical Report pavement design. (2) The final pavement design for all streets must meet all the procedures and requirements within the CDOT Pavement Design Manual. Minimum as -built thickness of asphalt shall be five (5) inches. 14-23 (3) Hot mix asphalt shall be placed only on properly prepared unfrozen surfaces which are free of water, snow and ice. The hot mix asphalt shall be placed only when both the air and surface temperatures equal or exceed the temperatures specified in the following table and the Engineer determines that the weather conditions permit the pavement to be properly placed and compacted. Placement Temperature Limitations in F° Compacted Layer Thickness in Inches Minimum Surface & Air Temperature (F) Top Asphalt Lift Bottom Asphalt Lift < 1 '/ 60 50 1 %<3 50 40 3 or more 45 35 * Note: Air temperature is to be taken in the shade. Surface is defined as the existing base on which the new pavement is to be placed. If the temperature falls below the minimum air or surface temperatures, paving shall stop. If more than two (2) lifts of asphalt are proposed, consult with the Town for placement temperature requirements. (b) Construction/testing requirements. (1) The sub -base and base shall be placed and compacted in uniform layers that do not exceed eight (8) inches depth after compaction. All asphalt shall be placed in multiple lifts with each lift being one and one-half (1'/z) inches minimum or three (3) inches maximum after compaction. The top lift of asphalt shall be placed within fourteen (14) days following installation of the bottom lift of asphalt. In the event that the top lift is not placed within the fourteen -day time frame, prior to placement of the top lift of asphalt, a Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect the existing asphalt lift to ensure that it is free of dirt and debris and is structurally sound to properly bond to the top lift of asphalt. The Geotechnical Engineer shall also certify that the completed asphalt structure has not been compromised by this delay and that it meets the approved pavement design. (2) Paving shall not start until sub -grade compaction tests are taken meeting the requirements of the plans, these standards and final pavement design. Compaction for the street base course shall meet ninety-five percent (95%) of Standard Proctor density of the material within two percent (2%) of optimum moisture content as determined by AASHTO T-180. Compaction testing for embankment and base course shall be performed every two hundred (200) linear feet on every other lift staggered within the street unless otherwise recommended by a Geotechnical Engineer, licensed by the State and approved by the Town. (3) Compaction for the hot mix asphalt shall meet a density of ninety-two percent (92%) to ninety-six percent (96%) of the maximum theoretical density, determined by CP -51. Field density determination shall be made in accordance with TCP -81. Testing shall be performed on each lift at intervals of one (1) test per two hundred (200) linear feet per lane. Test locations on each lift and each lane shall be staggered. 14-24 (4) At completion of construction, as part of the preliminary acceptance, the Town will select representative locations to take asphalt corings as confirmation of asphalt depth and consistency of the asphalt section. The Town will contract directly with a company to perform this work and will back charge the applicant for the cost. The Town may elect to waive this requirement if sufficient water valves and manholes are present within the street project to verify asphalt depths throughout the project from the concrete/ asphalt collar installation process. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) See. 14-3-130. Grading. Slopes should be gradual at all intersections to allow for sufficient snow storage and not interfere with the intersection sight triangle. All specifications for earthwork compaction, moisture content, materials and construction limitations shall be based on recommendations within the Geotechnical Report and within the appropriate utility standards and these street/roadway standards. (1) Retaining walls. a. Retaining walls required for public improvements shall be located within the Town right-of-way. Additional right-of-way or easements may be required in these areas to protect the slope and design features of the retaining wall. Retaining walls for improvements on private property shall not extend into the public right-of-way or easements. Retaining walls shall not be installed over any utility without sleeving and prior written approval of the Town and the utility owner. b. All retaining walls over four (4) feet in height, measured from bottom of footing to top of wall, shall be designed by a professional engineer, licensed by the State. Design calculations, layout and construction details must be provided with final plans for review and approval by the Town. Gabion baskets shall not be used within the Town right-of-way. Retaining walls shall not be positioned near flowlines unless proper design and erosion control installation has been addressed. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits. (2) Slopes. The maximum cut/fill slope requirement is three (3) vertical feet to one (1) horizontal foot. Slopes exceeding the 3:1 grade shall not be considered usable snow storage. Slopes shall be protected from erosion. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Division 2 Water System Design See. 14-3-210. General. (a) The Town operates and maintains the municipal water system. The system consists of five (5) pressure zones, water supply wells and transmission lines, booster pump stations, water treatment facilities and distribution lines, pressure reducing valves and water storage tanks. The five (5) pressure zones and their respective service areas are defined as: Pressure Zone Respective Service Area (elevation in feet) Blue 8,600 to 8,680 Yellow 8,680 to 8,860 14-25 Green 8,860 to 9,080 Red 9,080 to 9,300 Purple 9,300 to 9,460 (b) Maps of existing service areas can be viewed at the Town Hall (c) Three (3) water storage tanks and a series of pumps provide the water pressure to operate the system. The existing Blue Zone tank is an underground concrete tank. The overflow of the Blue Zone tank is at elevation 8795.0 (NGVD 29 Datum). (d) The Yellow Zone tank currently serves portions of development on East Mountain and West Mountain (US Highway 40 being the division line). An additional Yellow Zone tank is proposed for West Mountain as development continues. The existing Yellow Zone tank is an underground, post - tensioned concrete tank. The overflow of the Yellow Zone tank is at elevation 8964.2 (NGVD 29 Datum). (e) The Green Zone tank currently serves a portion of development on East Mountain. An additional Green Zone tank is proposed for West Mountain as development continues. The existing Green Zone tank is an underground prestressed concrete tank. The overflow of the Green Zone tank is at elevation 9174.0 (NGVD 29 Datum). (f) The Red Pressure Zone on East Mountain is served by water booster pumps at the Green Zone tank site. A future Red Zone tank is proposed for West Mountain at some future point required by development. (g) The Purple Pressure Zone is proposed for West Mountain at some future point required by development. It will serve an area proposed for development by booster pumps from the West Mountain Red Zone tank. (h) The Blue Zone System is connected to the Yellow Zone and Green Zone systems through a pressure reducing valve (PRV) located in Old Victory Road. The Yellow and Green Zone systems are connected by booster pumps and two PRVs to control the pressure and flow within their respective zones. In the event of a fire within a lower pressure zone, water stored in the upper pressure zone water storage tanks is available to meet fire flow requirements. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) See. 14-3-220. Basic design policies. All new water system designs and related information shall meet the requirements of the these Standards and the requirements and approval of the State of Colorado Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems. Any design standards not included within these Standards shall be subject to the minimum standards set forth by the American Water Works Association or in other current publications found in Appendix 14-A to this Chapter. In all cases, the more stringent standards and design criteria shall be applicable. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) 14-26 Sec. 14-3-230. Water system hydraulic model. (a) The Town has prepared a water system hydraulic model. The hydraulic model was prepared using the layout and detail of the existing Town municipal water system components, flow rates and water pressures at various fire hydrant locations. (b) The hydraulic model is utilized to forecast flow rates and water pressures for system extensions to determine if the proposed development improvements meet minimum current requirements of the National Fire Code standards. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-240. Required easements. (a) Where the municipal water system is to be located out of the public right-of-way, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining easements required for the construction, maintenance and operation of the facilities. The legal description for the easements shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor in the State. Easements shall be in a form acceptable to the Town and shall be shown on the design and as -built drawings. The Town will not approve the design documents until all required easements have been deeded to the Town. (b) The minimum width of easements for a single pipeline shall be thirty (30) feet. Temporary construction easements shall have a minimum width of forty (40) feet. An easement containing both a water line and a sewer line shall be no less than thirty-six (36) feet. Wider easements shall be required for deep sections of pipeline, multiple lines, steep terrain or where otherwise required by the Town. Deep sections of pipeline is defined as the water line depth of cover exceeding nine (9) feet and/or the sanitary sewer line depth of cover exceeding seven (7) feet. Easement widths for deep lines are determined using Attachment A-5 — Utility Easement Widths. (c) For any service line curb stop located outside of a public right-of-way or utility easement, a rectangular shaped utility easement shall be provided. The rectangular easement shall extend two (2) feet on each side of the service line from the boundary of the right-of-way or utility easement to four (4) feet behind the curb stop. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-250. Water system infrastructure. (a) Groundwater well design and construction. Water wells that are to be designed and constructed for the Town shall meet the State Rules and Regulations for Water Well Construction, Pump Installation, and Monitoring and Observation Hole/Well Construction. (Water Well Construction Rules) 2 CCR 402-2. (b) Water well and meter house structures. All water well appurtenances related to the operation of a production well for the Town shall be installed indoors of a structure per Attachment A-36 — Water Well Meter House Elevations and Attachment A-37 — Water Well Meter House Floor Plan and Foundation. Electrical services and/or photovoltaic solar powered services shall be provided to the site in order to operate lighting, heat and pump controls, as well as all necessary telemetry and SCADA control systems, as defined in Subsection (c) below. (c) Telemetry and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition systems. Telemetry and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems shall be provided at all new water 14-27 system production and distribution facilities and shall be compatible and conform to the detail of the Town's existing telemetry and SCADA systems, as determined by the Town. (d) Water storage tanks. (1) Water storage tanks shall be underground, circular post -tensioned concrete storage tanks. Storage tanks shall be sized and located to meet the requirements of the area to be served and as approved by the Town. Multiple tanks within the same pressure zone shall be designed, detailed and built to operate in unison. The pressure set points shall be coordinated to provide equal pressures within the system. (2) The concrete underground tanks shall have a reinforced concrete floor slab, post -tensioned concrete walls and roof slab. Columns shall be incorporated to assist in support of the roof. Eighteen (18) inches of soil material shall cover the roof for insulation and aesthetics. The tank shall be designed in conformance with AWWA Standard D115-95. (3) Two (2) four -foot by six-foot access hatches shall be installed within the roof slab. Access hatches shall be lockable and stainless steel. One (1) hatch shall be configured for personnel accessibility and the second for equipment accessibility. Each hatch shall be installed at a height of eighteen (18) inches above finish grade to prevent soil and debris from falling into the tank from the surrounding area. The tank shall have a separate inlet and outlet piping located at opposite sides of the tank floor to promote water circulation when filling and withdrawing water from the tank. Connection to the water distribution system will utilize check and gate valves to control the inlet and outlet flows from a valve structure adjacent to the tank. Tank vents and screens shall be located sufficiently above finish grade to prevent them from being covered by drifting snow. A floor drain will be located at the center of the tank to drain the tank if necessary. The drain pipe will be operated with a gate valve and the drain line will release water to an external, above -ground location. The drain pipe shall include a one-way flap gate at the external, above -ground location, installed on a concrete headwall, to open only when in use and be normally closed to prevent animal/rodent access into the pipe. An internal tank overflow will be installed to the same drain line to prevent overfilling the tank. (4) Electrical services and conduit shall be installed at each roof access point necessary to connect services from one (1) tank hatch to the other and shall be buried in a straight line between the hatches and at a depth as required by the NEC. (e) Pressure reducing valve (PRV) vaults. (1) Pressure reducing valves (PRVs) are required to interconnect the pressure zones within the Town municipal water system at locations required by topography to adequately service development within the Town. (2) The pressure reducing valves shall be installed inside a below -ground precast rectangular watertight concrete vault as detailed in Attachment A-32 — Underground PRV Vault — Plan View and Attachment A-33 — Underground PRV Vault — Section View. The PRV bypass gate valve shall be installed with a locking valve box as detailed in Attachment A-26 — Locking Valve Box Detail. 14-28 (3) The PRV vault shall include two (2) pressure reducing valves connected in parallel, with capability to isolate either PRV for maintenance. One (1) PRV shall be designed and set to operate with the system minor flow requirements. The second PRV shall be designed and set to operate with the system major flow requirements. The Town will review the PRV location, sizing and proposed settings in conjunction with their hydraulic model. The PRV vault shall be accessible through a watertight manhole frame and cover. All pipe/vault wall penetrations shall be watertight. A sump shall be incorporated into the vault floor to contain minor water spills during operation and maintenance. All piping within the PRV vault shall be installed on a horizontal plane with no binding connections and with adequate pipe clearances from all walls for maintenance and repair. Pipe stands shall be installed to adequately support all piping and valves. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-260. Potable water distribution system. (a) Design, layout and sizing. (1) The water distribution system shall be designed to meet the more stringent of the following two (2) conditions: a. Maximum hourly demand with pressures not less than forty (40) psi at any point of the distribution system; or b. Maximum daily demand rate plus fire flow demand (as determined by ISO guidelines) with delivery pressures of not less than twenty (20) psi at the hydrant. (2) The normal nominal minimum size water distribution main shall be eight (8) inches. The Engineer of Record should review the output detail of the water hydraulic model to determine if oversizing of any lines is required for transmission purposes. (3) Dead-end lines are discouraged and will only be allowed with prior approval from the Town. _ ,: , d will only be allowed with 13fief appfeval of the Town. In mountainous areas dead-end lines shall be minimized by making appropriate tie-ins (looped lines) whenever practical, in order to provide increased reliability of service, reduction of head loss and maximization of water quality parameters within the system. The maximum length of any dead- end line shall not exceed five hundred (500) feet in len tg h. Any dead-end line approved shall have a blow-off device installed at the end of the line; as a minimum this device shall be a apgreved J;all�ave .a fire hydrant assembly k llo ] at the end R f the line (4) Water main sizing, layout and connections shall be coordinated with the Town's Water System Engineer during the review process. The systems shall be designed to maximize interconnections, creating loops within the system and strengthening the Town's water system. Where certain lines may also serve a transmission function, in the opinion of the Town, the Town may direct that such lines be oversized, and the applicant's Engineer shall so design the system. In this case, the Town will pay the incremental oversize costs. (5) State regulations require a ten-foot-minimum horizontal separation measured from the outside of the pipe to the outside of the pipe between the potable water line and any line carrying water of lesser water quality than potable water (i.e., sanitary sewer, raw water, storm sewer, 14-29 irrigation water, etc.). When located in public streets, potable water pipelines shall be located approximately eleven (11) feet north or east of, and parallel to, the roadway centerline. Curved water line alignments shall be avoided. Whenever a crossing must occur where a nonpotable line passes within ten (10) feet horizontally of a water main, and where the water main is not at least eighteen (18) inches vertically clear above the nonpotable line, special construction will be required in accordance with Attachment A-23 — Pipe Crossing Detail, and Attachment A-24 — Pipe Encasement Detail. The distance shall be measured horizontally from the outside edge to the outside edge of the pipe. (6) A ten -foot centerline to centerline separation shall be maintained between the waterline and all dry utilities and between the sanitary sewer and all dry utilities, unless otherwise approved by the Town. Dry utility cabinets, risers, pedestals or other appurtenances shall not be located within this ten -foot separation distance, within the right-of-way or within a ten -foot radius of any fire hydrant, unless otherwise approved by the Town. The applicant is referred to all other utility providers to determine their respective minimum separation criteria and requirements from the Town's utilities and then design its site and utility layout to meet the more stringent of requirements. (b) Materials. (1) Pipe. All water mains shall be either ductile iron pipe or C -900/C-905 PVC pipe except in areas found to have high levels of corrosiveness, as determined by the Geotechnical Report. In those cases, where the soil has a high level of corrosiveness as identified by the Geotechnical Engineer, C-900/905 PVC pipe may be required by the Town. HDPE DIPS (Ductile Iron Pipe Size) waterline'' 900,0 905 PVC pipe may be considered by the Town in specific applications and shall only be used in the Town water system with prior written approval from the Town. (2) Ductile iron pipe. Ductile iron pipe shall conform to ANSI A21.51, Pressure Class 250 psi minimum, Thickness Class 52 minimum thickness. Pipe joints shall be push -on type in accordance with ANSI A21.11. Pipe shall have a cement mortar lining meeting AWWA 104 and bituminous exterior coating. (3) C -900/C-905 PVC Pipe. AWWA C -900/C-905 Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC). Pressure Class 235 psi (DR 18), shall conform to Cell Class 12454 per ASTM D1784. Standard laying length shall be twenty (20) feet, plus or minus one (1) inch, with integral bell and spigot joints. Pipe joints shall be push -on type with provision for expansion and contraction at each joint with an elastomeric seal. The minimum wer4ing pressu-e shall be twe wundFed fifty r250 . (4) HDPE DIPS Pipe. HDPE DIPS (Ductile Iron Pipe Size) pipe PE4710, Pressure Class 250 psi (DR 9) or PE3608, Pressure Class 250 psi (DR 7.4), shall conform to AWWA C901 and AWWA C906. Standard laying lengths shall be fogy (40) to fifty (50) feet in length.All pipe joints shall be fused welded per the pipe manufacturer's standards. (5117ittings. Fittings shall be ductile iron or cast iron, minimum two hundred fifty (250) psi minimum working pressure, conforming to AWWA C153 or C110 with mechanical joint connections meeting AWWA C111. Lining and coating shall match pipe. 14-30 (63) Pipeline insulation. For normal depth of bury and overburden, insulation shall be Dow STYROFOAM 60, or approved equivalent. For heavy traffic or other high -compaction service, Dow STYROFOAM 115 shall be used. (76) Tracer wire and test stations. Tracer wire shall be continuous loop twelve -gauge stranded copper tracer wire with watertight insulation for direct bury, installed in the trench above the water line. Test stations shall be located adjacent to each fire hydrant and shall include the C.P. Glen 4 with heavy cast iron locking cover and four -point terminal box as manufactured by C.P. Test Services, Inc., or equal approved by the Town. The tracer wire shall be installed in accordance with Attachment A-17 — Tracer Wire Detail. Splices in tracer wire shall only be made using solderless, 3M Type DB4-6 Low Voltage Direct Bury Splice Kit or equal approved by the Town. (P) Sheathing. All ductile iron pipelines, valves and fittings shall be polyethylene sheathed in accordance with ANSI A21.5, AWWA C105, eight -mil minimum thickness. Installation shall comply with Attachment A-19 — Polyethylene Wrap Detail. In certain circumstances and with technical documentation, the Town may waive the sheathing requirements. (98) Line valves. Line valves shall be provided to allow isolation of parts of the system for maintenance or repair. They are required approximately every six hundred (600) feet and on each line at all intersections of mains to allow isolation of any line, loop or branch. Line valves are required at each fire hydrant assembly along the main distribution system line to provide isolation of a main line segment and maintain use of the hydrant. Line valves shall comply with requirements for buried valves. (109) Buried valves. Valves shall be resilient wedge, nonrising stem and ductile iron gate valves with mechanical joint ends conforming to AWWA C500. The valve shall be fully coated, inside and outside, with a fusion bonded coating of epoxy. Valves shall have two-inch square operating nuts and open left (counter -clockwise rotation). Valves shall be Mueller Series 2360 for valves twelve (12) inches and smaller, and Series 2361 for valves fourteen (14) inches and larger; American Flow Control Series 2500 or equal approved by the Town. (110) Valve boxes. a. Each buried valve shall be provided with a cast-iron valve box and round cover. The box shall have a minimum inside diameter of five and one-quarter (5'/4) inches, be adjustable in length and be of the screw type. The word "WATER" shall be cast on the cover. Valve boxes shall be "wide oval base" by Tyler or equal. Valve boxes shall allow for at least six (6) inches additional extension above the level required for final grade at the time of installation. The top of all valve stems (including extensions) shall be located between twenty-four (24) inches and thirty-six (36) inches below final grade. The valve stem nut shall be centered within the valve box. Valve boxes shall be installed vertical and plumb. b. Valve boxes located within the street shall be raised to final grade with either asphalt surfacing installed adjacent to the valve box or with a concrete collar. If the valve box is set at final grade during the asphalt paving process the following procedure shall be followed: 1. Installation of the bottom lift of asphalt shall be placed over the top of the valve box. 14-31 2. The valve box shall be exposed and set to its final grade at one-half ('/z) inch lower than the grade of the final street surface. Any void created in the bottom lift of asphalt by exposing and raising the valve box shall be filled with compacted hot mix asphalt prior to placement of the top lift of asphalt. 3. Installation of the top lift of asphalt shall be placed and compacted maintaining the required vertical distance from the street surface to the top of the valve box. The valve box shall remain vertical and centered over the valve operator. c. If a concrete collar is the selected method used to raise the valve box to final grade it shall be installed after the top lift of asphalt is placed and in accordance with Attachment A-28 — Valve Box Concrete Collar Detail. The surrounding area that is to be prepared for the collar shall be mechanically cored and not jack -hammered out. d. Where water valves are located in off-road areas, open field areas or in a proposed future paved area, the water valve box shall be adjusted to final grade and a concrete collar installed in accordance with the collar detail in accordance with Attachment A-28 — Valve Box Concrete Collar Detail. Off-road/open-field condition concrete collars are required on all valve boxes located in future paved areas if the pavement is not installed within the same construction season in which the waterline construction is performed. e. Where valve boxes are located in the shoulder of a road, the top of the valve box shall be constructed in accordance with Attachment A-27 — Manhole/ StructureNalve Box Placement — Shoulder Area. (124) Warning tape. Warning tape shall be installed continuously in the trench above the water line a distance of thirty (30) inches above the pipe. The warning tape shall be three (3) inches wide and blue in color, with the legend "Caution Buried Water Line Below" in black and extend continuously in the trench. If any existing warning tape is damaged in construction activities, the contractor shall splice additional warning tape to each end to provide a continuous warning tape along the water line. Warning tape shall be installed on water service lines from the tap at the main to the edge of the right-of-way or easement. (13-2) Marker posts. Fiberglass reinforced composite marker posts shall be installed adjacent to each water line that is located outside of a paved road surface. The marker posts shall be installed adjacent to and within two (2) feet of each valve and change in direction of the waterline. Intervals between marker posts shall be such that there is a clear line -of -sight between marker posts. The marker posts shall be a minimum of three and one-half (3'/z) inches wide allowing for a three-inch decal to be placed on one (1) or both sides. The post shall extend four (4) feet above finish grade and include a minimum of eighteen (18) inches anchor depth underground. The marker posts shall be blue in color. (143) Fire hydrants. a. Fire hydrants shall be Mountain Specified Hydrants of the dry barrel type and conform to AWWA C502. Hydrants shall have a five -and -one -quarter -inch main valve, two (2) two - and -one -half-inch hose connections and one (1) four -and -one -half-inch pumper connection. Hydrants shall have six-inch mechanical joint connections and safety traffic flange. Fire 14-32 hydrants shall be Mueller Centurion No. A-423 or Waterous Pacer WB -67 with bronze seat ring. Hydrants shall open left (counter -clockwise rotation). b. Fire hydrant assemblies shall include both mechanical joint restraints to fittings/piping as detailed on Attachment A-21 — Mechanical Joint Restraint Details and concrete thrust blocks as detailed on Attachment A-16 — Fire Hydrant Detail and described in Subsection 14-3-260(c). The mechanical joint restraints shall be installed on all joints from the water main tee to and including the fire hydrant. Tie rods may be required in instances where necessary as determined by the Town. c. The fire hydrant assembly gate valve shall be located a distance of three feet (3' - 0") from the centerline of the fire hydrant in open areas. In areas where the fire hydrant is located less than three feet - six inches (3' - 6") behind the edge of pavement, curb and gutter, and/or sidewalk, the hydrant assembly gate valve shall be located in the pavement, a distance of one foot - three inches (1' - 3"1 from the edge of pavement. If conditions vary from those described herein, Fraser shall determine the location for the hydrant assembly gate valve. de.A metal marker pole assembly shall be attached around one (1) of the hydrant's two -and - one -half -inch -hose connections. The assembly shall be designed with a spring assembly at the bottom and a red metal flag at the top. The marker pole assembly shall be approved by the Town. (154) Blow -offs. Blow -offs are prohibited and shall not be used. Dead-end lines, when approved, shall include a fire hydrant assembly located at the end of the line. (163) Air -release valves. a. Air -release outlets shall be provided at high points in the water distribution system. These outlets shall take the form of a fire hydrant or an automatic air -release valve. The proposed location must be preapproved by the Town. The Town prefers the use of fire hydrants as the air -release outlet unless the water line designer determines that the automatic air -release valve is required for proper system operation based on factors such as topography, site conditions, etc. Automatic air -release valves shall be installed in a four -foot -diameter manhole in accordance with Attachment A-31 — Air Release Valve Structure. The air -release valve shall be Cla-Val Air Release Valve Series 34 AR or equal, approved by the Town. Air - release valve structures located within the street shall be raised to final grade with either asphalt surfacing installed adjacent to the access frame and cover or with a concrete collar. If the access frame and cover are set at final grade during the asphalt paving process the following procedure shall be followed: 1. Installation of the bottom lift of asphalt shall be placed over the top of the air -release structure. 2. The frame and cover of the structure shall be exposed and set to its final grade at one- half ('/2) inch lower than the grade of the final street surface. Any void created in the bottom lift of asphalt by exposing and raising the access frame and cover shall be filled with compacted hot mix asphalt prior to placement of the top lift of asphalt. 14-33 3. Installation of the top lift of asphalt shall be placed and compacted maintaining the required vertical distance from the street surface to the top of the access frame and cover. b. If a concrete collar is the selected method used to raise the access frame and cover to final grade, it shall be installed after the top lift of asphalt is placed and in accordance with Attachment A-29 — Structure/Manhole Concrete Collar Detail. The surrounding area that is to be prepared for the collar shall be mechanically cored and not jack -hammered out. c. Fire hydrants used as an air -release outlet must meet the requirement for fire hydrants in Subsection 14-3-260(b). Each fire hydrant designated as an air -release outlet within the potable water system shall be painted red. Each fire hydrant designated as an air -release outlet within the nonpotable water system shall be painted purple. (116) Casing pipe. Steel casing pipe shall be installed at all state highway crossings, railroad crossings, waterway crossings and at major street locations, as determined by the Town. Steel casing pipe shall be installed either as a bore casing or an open trench casing. The casing shall extend beyond the edge of shoulder, top of bank or the toe of slope a distance equal to one and one-half (P/2) times the depth of the casing pipe, unless otherwise approved by the Town. The carrier pipe shall be push -on single gasket or mechanical joint ductile iron pipe. Three (3) skids shall be affixed to the carrier pipe for each twenty -foot pipe length. The skids shall consist of a steel skid clamp with neoprene or PVC runners. Four (4) runners shall be attached to each skid at ninety -degree positions around the pipe. The carrier pipe within the encasement pipe section, including the first two (2) joints outside the casing pipe on each end, shall have restrained joints. Reference Attachment A-25 — Bore Casing Detail. The steel casing pipe size and wall thickness shall meet the following minimum requirements: Carrier Pipe Nominal Min. O.D. Casing Pape Minimum Wall Thickness 4" 12" 0.188" 6" 16" 0.250" 8" 18" 0.282" 12" 22" 0.344" 16" 28" 0.406" 20" 32" 0.469" Trench -laid casings shall be installed per trenching standards and detail. (1P) Tapping sleeves. Tapping sleeves shall be used where tying a new line perpendicular to an existing water line for six-inch through twenty -inch nominal diameter pipe. Tapping sleeves shall be stainless steel and conform to ASTM A240 Type 304/304L or approved equal. Flanges shall conform to AWWA C-223. Bolts and nuts shall be stainless steel Type 304SS. The tapping sleeve assembly shall be enclosed within the polyethylene wrap. A gate valve and valve box assembly shall be connected at the tapping sleeve prior to installation of pipe. The tapping sleeve shall be ROMAC SST, FORD Model FTSS or approved equal. 14-34 (198) Pressure reducing valves. Pressure reducing valves shall be CLAVAL, Model 90-1 as manufactured by CLAVAL or equal approved by the Town. (204-9) Drainage flap gates. Drainage flap gates shall be Waterman Model F-10 as manufactured by Waterman Water Control Specialists or equal approved by the Town. (c) Pipeline installation (1) Water pipelines shall be installed in a thorough and workmanlike manner in accordance with the approved plans. Pipe shall be laid in an unwatered trench and shall not be used for draining water from the trench. Pipes are to be kept clean during installation by capping or plugging ends with a mechanical plug or other similar means. The minimum bedding and backfill requirements for pipelines and appurtenances shall be as shown on Attachment A-18 — Water Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail. The minimum cover shall be nine (9) feet from the top of the water line to finished grade. Pipelines shall not be placed deeper than ten (10) feet without prior approval by the Town. (2) A minimum of seven (7) feet of cover will be allowed if at least two (2) inches of an approved pipeline insulation is provided for each vertical foot of cover less than nine (9) feet, as shown on Attachment A-18 — Water Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail. If insulation is installed, use approximately six (6) inches of a fine-grained material (i.e., Class 6 road base, sand or squeegee/pea gravel) for the pipe zone materials above and beneath the insulation to protect it from breakage during backfill. Prior to placement of the insulation, level and compact the trench bedding material to provide a flat, smooth surface for the insulation. Carefully place bedding material over the insulation so as to not puncture or damage the insulation. (3) If the bottom of the excavation is soft or unstable and, in the opinion of the Town, is not a satisfactory support for the pipeline, further depth and/or width shall be excavated, refilled and compacted to six (6) inches below the pipe outside diameter (excluding bells) with trench stabilization material, as specified in Trenching, Bedding and Backfill. (4) All pipeline fittings (i.e., bends, tees, plugs and caps) shall be installed with concrete thrust blocks adequately designed for the specific application. Thrust blocks shall be cast -in-place from concrete having a minimum compressive strength of three thousand (3,000) psi and bear against undisturbed earth on the trench wall. Minimum requirements for thrustblocks shall be as shown on Attachment A-20 — Concrete Thrustblocks. (5) Batch plant mix or pre -mix concrete may be used for thrust block construction, provided it meets the compressive strength requirements for thrust blocks and is thoroughly mixed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. Stacking bags of pre -mix concrete as a substitute for placing thoroughly mixed concrete for thrust blocks is not acceptable. Splitting bags of pre -mix cement in the hole at the thrust block location and adding water is not acceptable. Only thoroughly mixed concrete placed in the thrust block locations to the detail shown in these standards for thrust blocks is acceptable. (6) Alternate means of thrust restraint may be considered and approved for use where proved to provide similar restraint. Supplemental restraint shall be required where the Town Engineer 14-35 believes the soil -bearing pressures to be inadequate or where the Town Engineer is concerned about subsequent movement due to slope or other conditions of service; see Attachment A-21 — Mechanical Joint Restraint Details, and Attachment A-22 — Length of Restrained Pipe. Valves near a fitting must be tied back to that fitting, using rodding or mechanical joints. (d) Fire hydrant installation. Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the Town and the Fire Protection District in accordance with the International Fire Code, as adopted by the Town. The applicant shall be required to obtain the approval of the Fire Protection District for fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant assemblies shall be installed with both mechanical joint restraints to fittings/piping as detailed on Attachment A-21 — Mechanical Joint Restraint Details and concrete thrust blocks as detailed on Attachment A-16 — Fire Hydrant Detail and described in Section 14-3- 260(c). The mechanical joint restraints shall be installed on all joints from the water main tee to and including the fire hydrant. (e) Locking valve box installation. Specific instances may be identified, in the opinion of the Town, which require a water system valve to remain in the open or closed position and only operated by Town staff. In the event a specific water valve is identified for this security, a locking valve box lid shall be installed in accordance with Attachment A-26 — Locking Valve Box Detail. (f) Testing. (1) All finished water lines, after pipe and fitting restraints are in place, shall be pressure and leakage tested at not less than one hundred fifty (150) psi for a two-hour period. If working pressure is greater than one hundred (100) psi, the test shall be performed at one and one-half (1'/z) times the expected working pressure. Unless approved by the Town Engineer, no lines longer than one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet shall be tested at one (1) time. (2) No pipeline installation will be acceptable until the leakage is less than the amount computed by the following formula: L= SD(P)" 148.000',204 Where L = Allowable leakage in gallons (per hour) S = Tested length of pipe (feet) D = Nominal diameter of pipe (inches) P = Average test pressure during the test, psi The following table summarizes the allowable leakage per each one -hundred (100) linear feet Formatted: Font: 11 pt of pipe for the various pipe sizes and pipe pressures; calculated using the above allowable water leakage formula,. Formatted: Font: 11 pt 14-36 Nominal Pipe Size (Inches) 50 7 2 0.01 0.1 4 0.02 0.1 6 0.03 0.1 8 0.04 0.1 10 0.05 0.1 12 0.06 0.1 14 0.07 0.1 16 0.08 0.1 18 0.09 0. (3) An electrical conductivity test shall be conducted on each of the tracer wire installation and the piping system pre -welded tab and jumper strip installation using a low -voltage, low - current test procedure to confirm that the tracer wire is continuous and functional between each test station located adjacent to the fire hydrants. The test results shall be pass/fail. The electrical load shall not exceed the capacity of the system. The electrical conductivity testing shall be contracted by the Town and back -charged to the applicant for any and all costs incurred. (4) Results of the conductivity test shall be submitted in written format to the Town upon completion of the testing. The report information shall include the testing firm's name, address and telephone number; testing technician's name; date(s) of test; and results of the conductivity test for each section of tracer wire between test stations. The report shall be signed by the technician performing the conductivity test. (5) All fire hydrant assemblies and distribution system gate valves shall be fully operated in the presence of the Town to ensure they are fully operable. 14-37 (6) A leak detection test shall be performed on the water lines during the last quarter of the warranty period and a written record of the test results provided to the Town. If the leak detection test cannot be performed due to inclement weather and/or site conditions, it will be delayed until a future date when the weather or site conditions allow for a safe working environment to perform the test, as determined by the Town. The leak detection testing work shall be contracted by the Town and back -charged to the applicant for any and all costs incurred. (g) Disinfection (1) All water piping shall be disinfected in accordance with AWWA C651 after all construction work has been completed. Chlorine shall be added to the water at the necessary locations in the amount to form fifty (50) ppm free chlorine residual. The chlorine solution shall be left in the pipelines for not less than twenty-four (24) hours, during which time all valves and fire hydrants shall be operated in order to disinfect the appurtenances. After that length of time, the chlorine residual of the solution, at any place within the system, shall not be less than ten (10) ppm. All chlorination work must be done in the presence of the Town. At the end of twenty-four (24) hours, a bacteriological test shall be performed by a Colorado certified laboratory, acceptable to the Town, to ensure adequate disinfection. A third party independent contractor, acceptable to the Town, will take the required samples and deliver them to the certified laboratory for testing. At the Town's discretion, they may take additional check samples and deliver the samples to a certified laboratory for testing. All costs associated with the sampling and testing shall be at the cost of the applicant. (2) Following completion of the disinfection (chlorination) work, the applicant is responsible to dechlorimte and properly dispose of the test water in strict compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. Prior to disposal, provisions must be made by the applicant to assure that no chlorinated water is discharged to the ground. Acceptance or acknowledgement of the proposed method of disposal of the test water by the Town does not relieve the applicant from any and all responsibility, liability and/or damages caused by the release. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012). Sec. 14-3-270. Abandonment of existing potable water distribution system infrastructure. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" In order to maintain the safety and integrity of the water system, a watertight cap shall be provided for any water distribution system main line being abandoned. Two (2) scenarios are outlined below to provide such watertight cam (1) If the water main line is to be abandoned from an existingfitting, itting, the abandoned line shall be disconnected from the fitting and a factory -made blind flange, with gasket, installed at that location. A thrust block, meeting the requirements of these standards shall be installed at that blind flange location. (2) If the water main line is to be abandoned from a mid -point location on an existing line, the line shall either be extended to another point where it is looped into the system or it shall include an accessible fire hydrant at the end of the line. Any dead-end line within the system shall meet the requirements of these Standards for dead-end lines. 14-38 The required scenario for water system main line abandonment shall be determined by the Town - Formatted: indent: Left: 0.19", First line: o" In each case, the existing infrastructure shall be disinfected in accordance with these Standards. All existing water system infrastructure being abandoned shall be physically removed from the site. The infrastructure shall not be abandoned in-place. Reference ties to constructed infrastructure associated with the abandonment shall be recorded and provided to the Town. The water system main line abandonment shall be approved and inspected by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1.2012). Division 3 Sanitary Sewer System Design Sec. 14-3-310. General. (a) The Town operates and maintains the municipal sanitary sewer collection system. The collection system, as designed, is intended to provide gravity service only. Before the start of design, the applicant shall contact the Town to conium the appropriate connection point with the existing collection system. Sewage lift stations and force mains will not be permitted unless special conditions merit consideration for approval otherwise. (b) The system design is based on a wastewater flow rate of one hundred (100) gallons per capita per day and an average household of two and three-quarters (23/4) people per household for a total flow rate of two hundred seventy-five (275) gallons per day. Historical peak flow rates are identified as two and one-half (2'/z) times the average flow rate. The standards defined herein require the peak build -out flow rate to be carried within the pipe flowing not greater than half full. (c) Nonresidential user flow rates shall be determined and calculated as described above. These flow rates shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to design of proposed improvements to connect to the Town's system. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-320. Basic design policies. All new sanitary sewer collection system designs and related information shall meet, at a minimum, these Standards. Any design standards not included within these Standards will be subject to the minimum standards set forth in other current publications found in Section 14-6-10 of this Chapter. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-330. Required easements. (a) Where the municipal sanitary sewer system is to be located out of the public right-of-way, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining easements required for the construction, maintenance and operation of the facilities. The legal description for the easements shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor in the State. Easements shall be in a form acceptable to the Town and shall be shown on the design and as -built drawings. The Town will not approve the design documents until all required easements have been deeded to the Town unless an alternate schedule is approved by the Town. (b) The minimum width of easements for a single pipeline shall be thirty (30) feet. Temporary construction easements shall have a minimum width of forty (40) feet. An easement containing both 14-39 a water line and a sewer line shall be no less than thirty-six (36) feet. Wider easements shall be required for deep sections of pipeline, multiple lines, steep terrain or where otherwise required by the Town. Deep sections of pipeline is defined as the water line depth of cover exceeding nine (9) feet and/or the sanitary sewer line depth of cover exceeding seven (7) feet. Easement widths for deep lines are determined using Attachment A-5 — Utility Easement Widths. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-340. Sanitary sewer collection system. (a) Design, layout and sizing. (1) Collection sewers shall be designed to carry not less than the projected peak flow rates flowing one-half full (safety factor = 2.0), unless otherwise approved by the Town. The minimum size sewer collection line shall be eight (8) inches diameter. Sewers shall be so designed and constructed to give mean velocities, when flowing full, of not less than two (2) feet per second. Pipe slopes shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) grade. (2) Sewers shall generally be designed with sufficient depth to serve basements by gravity. The minimum cover shall be seven (7) feet from top of sewer to finished grade. Sanitary sewers with less than seven (7) feet of cover will be considered by the Town with installation of two (2) inches of pipeline insulation installed for every one (1) foot of cover less than seven (7) feet. The minimum cover for sanitary sewer lines installed with insulation is five (5) feet from top of sewer to finish grade. See Attachment A-38 — Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding & Backfill Detail for details. (3) Sewer main sizing, layout and connections shall be coordinated with the Town during the review process. Where certain lines may also serve a truck line function, in the opinion of the Town, the Town may direct that such lines be oversized, and the applicant's Engineer shall so design the system. In this case, the Town will pay the incremental oversize costs. (4) State regulations require that sewer and water lines shall have ten (10) feet minimum of horizontal separation from outside of pipe to outside of pipe. Where this separation is impractical, the Town may permit other separation requirements in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. If a water line passes within eighteen (18) inches vertical distance above a sewer main or service or if it lies within the minimum horizontal separation of the sewer, the sewer is to be encased per Attachment A-24 — Pipe Encasement Detail or modified to have "no bell" construction per Attachment A-23 — Pipe Crossing Detail. If a water line crosses under a sewer main or service line, a twenty -foot length of PVC C-900 or C-905 (as appropriate) shall be used for the gravity sewer line, Smith -Blair 229, Full Circle Collar Leak Repair Clamps shall be installed on all sanitary sewer joints within the minimum horizontal clearance requirements, and a twenty -foot length of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the water line, centered over the centerline of the sanitary sewer. (5) A ten -foot centerline to centerline separation shall be maintained between the sanitary sewer line and all dry utilities and between the water line and all dry utilities, unless otherwise approved by the Town. Dry utility cabinets, risers, pedestals or other appurtenances shall not be located within this ten -foot separation distance within the right-of-way or within a ten -foot radius of any fire hydrant, unless otherwise approved by the Town. The applicant is referred to all other utility providers to determine their respective minimum separation criteria and requirements from 14-40 the Town's utilities and then design its site and utility layout to meet the more stringent requirements. (6) Where required for structural reasons or to protect potable water pipelines, the sewer shall be encased in reinforced concrete having design characteristics not less than those shown on the Attachment A-24 — Pipe Encasement Detail. (7) Manholes shall be located at a maximum spacing of four hundred (400) feet center -to - center, at changes in sewer pipeline alignment and/or grade and at the end of each line. Sewers shall be laid with uniform slope between manholes. (8) Drop manholes are to be provided for any pipeline whose invert entering the manhole is greater than eighteen (18) inches above the invert out. (9) Where different size pipes enter a manhole, the smaller pipe flowline shall be higher such that the top of the two (2) pipes is at the same elevation. Any variation to this layout shall require a variance. See Section 14-6-20 of this Chapter. (10) Manhole steps shall be spaced uniformly from the top step to the bottom step for maximum operator safety when entering and exiting the manhole. Additionally, the top step and bottom step shall be installed within the tolerances defined herein. See Subparagraph 14-3- 340(b)(8)b. for the spacing detail and tolerances. (b) Materials. (1) Pipe and fittings. a. For pipe installations less than fourteen (14) feet deep measured from the pipe invert to finished grade and slopes less than eighteen percent (18%). 1. Pipe and fittings, fifteen (15) inches in diameter and smaller may be SDR 26 (sizes; eight -inch through fifteen -inch), AWWA C-900 (sizes; eight -inch through twelve -inch) or AWWA C-905 (size; fourteen -inch). 2. Pipe and fittings, sixteen (16) inches in diameter and larger shall be AWWA C905. b. For pipe installations greater than fourteen (14) feet deep measured from the pipe invert to finished grade and/or slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%): 1. Pipe and fittings twelve (12) inches in diameter and smaller shall be polyvinyl chloride (PVC), AWWA C900, minimum thickness conforming to ASTM D2122. 2. Pipe and fittings sixteen (16) inches in diameter and larger shall be polyvinyl chloride (PVC), AWWA C905, minimum thickness conforming to ASTM D2122. c. The size of each pipe segment between manholes shall be consistent. In the case where the depth of line or slope of the line exceeds the limits defined herein and the same size of pipe in C900/C905 doesn't exist with the size of downstream pipe (SDR 26 pipe), the C900/C905 14-41 pipe shall be increased to the next available size. The SDR 26 pipe shall be green. The C900/C905 pipe shall be green or white. (2) Pipeline insulation. For normal depth of bury and overburden, insulation shall be Dow STYROFOAM 60, or approved equal. For heavy traffic or other high -compaction service, Dow STYROFOAM 115 shall be used. (3) Manholes. a. Manhole bases, barrels and tops shall be precast concrete units conforming to ASTM C478. Concrete for manhole inverts and other similar items shall have a twenty -eight-day compressive strength of not less than three thousand (3,000) psi. All reinforcement required shall be standard reinforcement conforming to the requirements set forth in ASTM A615, Grade 40. b. All exterior surfaces of the manhole shall be coated with the manufacturer's epoxy coating providing a continuous waterproof coating without thin spots or exposed concrete surfaces. Where a manhole is installed in a high groundwater area, in addition to the factory - applied epoxy coating, the exterior of the manhole shall have a heavy coating of bituminous waterproofing material applied in the field. The bituminous coating shall be applied consistently to the below -ground exterior surfaces and over the top of the external joint wrap. c. The top section required for change of diameter shall be eccentric cone or flat slab if approved by the Town Engineer or shown on the Standard Details. The access step layout shall provide consistent spacing throughout the cone and barrel sections. To bring the manhole cover to the correct elevation, the adjustment section of each manhole shall be precast concrete grade adjustment rings. These rings shall be not less than six (6) inches wide and furnished in heights to allow for one -inch adjustment. Total adjustment height with grade rings shall not exceed eight (8) inches. d. Manholes for sewers of less than sixteen -inch diameter shall have a minimum inside diameter of four (4) feet for straight -through runs of pipe or for pipes entering at ninety (90) degrees to the out flow pipe. Manholes for sewers of sixteen -inch through twenty -one -inch diameter shall have a minimum inside diameter of five (5) feet for straight -through runs of pipe or for pipes entering at ninety (90) degrees to the out flow pipe. e. Where pipes enter a manhole at angles less than ninety (90) degrees from any other pipe or for pipe sizes larger than twenty-one (21) inches, the applicant shall consult the Town for the required manhole diameter requirements. f. Manhole depths shall not exceed ten (10) feet, measured from the pipe invert elevation to top of finish grade, without prior approval of the Town. g. Manholes shall be constructed and installed in accordance with Attachment A-39 — Standard Precast Concrete Manhole, Attachment A-40 — Shallow Precast Concrete Manhole and Attachment A-41 — Drop Precast Concrete Manhole. 14-42 (4) Manhole joints: Joints between precast manhole sections are to be sealed with Rub-R-Nek LTM by Henry Company or approved alternate gasket material. (5) External joint sealing. In addition to the gasket material used within the joints between sections of the manhole, an external joint wrap is required. The joint wrap shall be a self -adhered membrane consisting of two (2) waterproofing materials consisting of aggressive rubberized asphalt adhesive backed by a layer of high density cross laminated polyethylene as manufactured by Grace Construction Products or approved equal. The membrane strips shall be a minimum of twelve (12) inches wide. (6) Flexible watertight boot. A flexible watertight "boot" system shall be provided to seal around the sewer line entering the precast manhole base. Acceptable products include: a. PSX Positive Seal, as manufactured by Press -Seal Gasket Corp., Fort Wayne, Indiana; b. Kor-N-Seal, as manufactured by NPC, Inc., Milford, NH; or c. An approved alternative. The sanitary sewer pipe shall protrude through the manhole wall. Where a pre -poured invert trough is present in the manhole base, the pipe shall extend to that point. Where a pre -poured invert trough does not exist, the pipe shall extend a minimum distance of six (6) inches inside the interior face of the manhole wall. (7) Manhole covers. Manhole frames and covers shall be cast iron with the word "SEWER" cast on the cover. The frame shall provide a minimum clear opening of twenty -four -inch diameter unless otherwise approved, manhole lids shall be gasketed, unbolted lids per Neenah Model R- 1500 "Self -Sealing" or approved equal. If a gasketed, bolted lid is required by the Town, it shall be Neenah Model -1915-51, or approved equal. (8) Manhole steps. a. Manhole steps shall be injection -molded polypropylene encapsulating a one -half-inch diameter grade 60 reinforcing rod. and shall be M.A Industries step, Model PS -IPF, as provided by Amcor Precast, Littleton, CO, or approved equal. b. Manhole steps shall be installed in each manhole with equal spacing of one (1) foot on center in vertical alignment from the top step to the bottom step. The top step shall be installed within the range of one (1) foot three (3) inches minimum to one (1) foot eight (8) inches maximum from the top of the lid elevation. The bottom step shall be installed within the range of ten (10) inches minimum to one (1) foot three (3) inches maximum from the manhole bench. The precast manhole barrels shall be sized vertically to accommodate this step spacing with adequate distance between barrel joints and steps to provide the structural support required for safe ingress/egress. (9) Warning tape. Warning tape shall be installed continuously in the trench above the sewer line a distance of thirty (30) inches above the pipe. The warning tape shall be three (3) inches wide, green in color with the legend "Caution Buried Sewer Line Below" in black and extend 14-43 continuously in the trench. If any existing warning tape is damaged in construction activities, the contractor shall splice additional warning tape to each end to provide a continuous warning tape along the sewer line. Warning tape shall be installed on sewer service lines from the tap at the main to the edge of the right-of-way or easement. (10) Marker posts. Fiberglass reinforced composite marker posts shall be installed adjacent to each manhole located outside a paved road surface. The marker posts shall be a minimum of three and one-half (3%2) inches wide allowing for a three-inch decal to be placed on one (1) or both sides. The post shall extend four (4) feet above finish grade and include a minimum of eighteen (18) inches anchor depth underground. The marker posts shall be green in color. (11) Casing pipe. Steel casing pipe shall be installed at all state highway crossings, railroad crossings, waterway crossings and at major street locations and locations where the sanitary sewer passes under a significant drainage structure, retaining wall or other similar site structure as determined by the Town. Steel casing pipe shall be installed either as a bore casing or an open trench casing per the approved plans. The casing shall extend beyond the edge of shoulder, top of bank or the toe of slope a distance equal to one and one-half (1'/2) times the depth of the casing pipe, unless otherwise approved by the Town. The carrier pipe within the casing pipe, including the first two (2) joints outside the casing pipe on each end, shall be push -on single gasket C900/C905 PVC pipe and shall have retrained joints. Three (3) skids shall consist of a steel skid clamp with neoprene or PVC runners. Four (4) runners shall be attached to each skid at ninety - degree positions around the pipe. Reference Attachment A-25 — Bore Casing Detail. The steel casing pipe shall have fully welded joints to provide a smooth seamless transition through the casing pipe and be of the minimum size and wall thickness meeting the following requirements: Carrier Pipe Nominal Min. O.D. Casing Pipe Minimum Wall Thickness 4" 12" 0.188" 6" 16" 0.250" 8" 18" 0.282" 12" 22" 0.344' 16" 28" 0.406" 20" 32" 0.469" Trench -laid casings shall be installed per trenching standards and detail. (c) Pipeline installation. (1) At such time work begins to install a new sanitary sewer line into the existing sanitary sewer collection system, the contractor shall plug the new sanitary sewer line at the connection point to the existing system with a watertight plug. The plug and its installation method shall be acceptable to the Town. The plug shall remain in place until the project is complete and final acceptance is granted by the Town or the Town authorizes its removal. The Town will notify the applicant in writing at such time that the plug can be removed. The contractor shall be responsible to thoroughly clean and pump the water and debris from the line prior to removing the plug. 14-44 Water and debris from cleaning the line shall be properly disposed of by the contractor in a manner acceptable to the Town. (2) The sanitary sewer pipe shall extend through the manhole wall and shall be flush or slightly inside the interior manhole wall surface on each side (mid -point of the pipe). (3) The sewer system shall be installed in a thorough, workmanlike manner in accordance with the design documents that have been approved by the Town. The minimum bedding and backfill requirements shall be as shown on Attachment A-38 — Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail. (4) The minimum cover shall be seven (7) feet from top of sewer line to finished grade. Pipelines shall not be placed deeper than ten (10) feet without prior approval by the Town. A minimum of five (5) feet of cover will be allowed if approved pipeline insulation is provided, in accordance with Attachment A-38 — Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail. If insulation is installed, use approximately six (6) inches of a fine-grained material (i.e., Class 6/road base, sand or squeegee/pea gravel) for the pipe zone materials above and beneath the insulation to protect it from breakage during backfill. (5) If the bottom of the excavation is soft or unstable and, in the opinion of the Town, is not a satisfactory support for the pipeline, further depth and/or width shall be excavated and refilled to six (6) inches below the pipe outside diameter (excluding bells) with trench stabilization material, as specified in Article 5, Division 2, of this Chapter. (6) Each pipe length and fitting interior, interior surface of bells and exterior surface of spigots shall be cleaned of all foreign material before placing it in the trench and shall be kept clean all times thereafter. Each item must also be examined for cracks and other defects before installation. (7) Pipe shall be cut, only whenever necessary, to conform to location of manholes or connections. All cuts shall be straight, true and at right angles to the axis of the pipe, unless otherwise noted or directed by the Town Engineer. The cutting process shall leave a smooth end without damaging the pipe. All burrs shall be removed from the ends of cut pipe and the end chamfered and lightly rasped or filed. All tools used in cutting pipe shall be subject to the Town Engineer's approval. The manufacturer's requirements for lubrication and gaskets must be followed. (8) Pipe laying shall proceed upgrade with the spigot ends of pipe pointing in the direction of the flow, unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. Each pipe length shall be laid true to line and grade in such manner as to form a close concentric joint with the adjoining pipe and to prevent sudden offsets to the flow line. Pipe shall be laid in an unwatered trench and shall not be used for draining water from the trench. Pipes are to be kept clean by capping or plugging ends with a mechanical plug approved by the Town. (9) Full sections of pipe shall be installed whenever possible. Cut sections of pipe shall only be used as required to connect to wye branches or manholes at designated stations. Use of multiple cut sections of pipe between a manhole and a wye branch, a wye branch and another wye branch, a wye branch and a manhole or two (2) manholes is unacceptable and will be rejected. 14-45 (d) Manhole installation. (1) Manholes shall be constructed to conform to the detail shown in the standard details and shall be set plumb. The invert channels shall be smooth and semi -circular in shape, conforming to the inside of the incoming and outgoing sewer pipelines. Changes in direction of flow shall be made with a smooth curve with as large a radius as the size of the manhole will permit. Changes in size and grade of the channels shall be made gradually and evenly. Where differences in invert elevations exist, sloped flow channels shall be formed so that the sewage does not undergo a vertical drop. The floor of the manhole outside of the channel shall be smooth and shall slope toward the channels not less than one (1) inch per foot and no more than two (2) inches per foot. The top circumference of the base shall be finished level and smooth to permit obtaining a watertight joint. The manhole covers shall be set with their tops at the grades set forth in the standard details. (2) Manholes located within the street shall be raised to final grade with either asphalt surfacing installed adjacent to the manhole or with a concrete collar. If the manhole is set at final grade during the asphalt paving process the following procedure shall be followed: a. Installation of the bottom lift of asphalt shall be placed over the top of the manhole b. The manhole shall be exposed and set to its final grade at one-half ('/z) inch lower than the grade of the final street surface. Any void created in the bottom lift of asphalt by exposing and raising the manhole shall be filled with compacted hot mix asphalt prior to placement of the top lift of asphalt. Paving rings shall not be used. c. Installation of the top lift of asphalt shall be placed and compacted maintaining the required vertical distance from the street surface to the top of the manhole. The manhole ring and cover shall remain vertical and centered over the cone section. d. If a concrete collar is the selected method used to raise the manhole to final grade, it shall be installed after the top lift of asphalt is placed and in accordance with either Attachment A-29 — Structure/Manhole Concrete Collar Detail or Attachment A-30 — Optional Manhole/ Structure Adjustment Detail. Manhole tops without bolted, gasketed covers shall not be set at or below surrounding grade, except in paved roadways. The site shall be graded so that drainage is away from the manhole. e. Each joint of the precast manhole barrel shall have at least one (1) continuous gasket placed on the lower ledge before the barrel immediately above is lowered into place. Joints between the precast manhole barrel sections and the cast -in-place manhole bases shall use two (2) continuous gaskets and shall be wrapped externally using the external joint sealing material. In both cases, the surface of the precast barrels and/or the cast -in-place bases shall be smooth, clean, coated with a bituminous or epoxy coating and sound. The joint surfaces shall be cleaned to remove any concrete projections or dirt which may prevent a watertight seal from being established. The joints shall be prepared and the gaskets shall be placed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. £ External joint sealing wrap shall be applied to clean, dry, epoxy -coated concrete surfaces. The wrap shall be placed with the manhole joint centered within the membrane strip 14-46 and overlapped a minimum distance of eighteen (18) inches when wrapped around the manhole. The wrap shall be applied immediately prior to backfilling, so that when backfill is compacted, the earth pressure forces bituminous wrap into concrete surfaces. Temperature of manhole sections and of backfill materials must be above forty (40) degrees Fahrenheit from the time of applying wrap to the time of backfilling. g. New sanitary sewer lines entering an existing manhole shall only be connected if an existing sewer line stub -out is present or by core drilling a hole in the existing manhole wall suitable for installation of a flexible watertight boot. (e) Underdrains. Underdrains laid in the same trench as a sanitary sewer line are not permitted. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) See. 14-3-350. Flushing and leak testing. (a) Sanitary sewer line flushing and leak testing. (1) The following testing procedures are intended to determine if the sanitary sewer line meets the Town's minimum quality standards. Alternative procedures meeting or exceeding the intent of these procedures, as determined by the Town's Engineer, may be acceptable. In any case, however, proposed alternative testing procedures shall be included in the design plans and specifications submitted to the Town for review and approval. (2) The Town shall be notified no less than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the desired test time. (3) The Town shall witness all tests and verify the accuracy and acceptability of the equipment utilized. The Town will review the test procedures for any section that fails to pass any test and review the method proposed by the applicant to repair the failed section. The Town shall approve all repair methods. Following the repair, the section shall be retested. (4) Pipeline flushing. The pipelines shall be flushed as the work progresses, by means that are in accordance with good practice, to ensure that earth, sand, rocks or other foreign materials are removed from the interior of the pipeline. All debris flushed at the lower end of the new pipeline shall be caught and removed to ensure that the debris doesn't enter the Town's system. (5) Alignment and grade. Sewer pipelines will be checked by the Town to determine whether any displacement of the pipe has occurred after the trench has been bedded. The test will be as follows: a. A light will be flashed between manholes or, if the manholes have not as yet been constructed, between the locations of the manholes by means of a flashlight or by reflecting sunlight with a mirror. b. If the illuminated interior of the pipelines shows poor alignment, displaced pipe, earth or other debris in the pipe or any other kinds of defects, the defects, as determined by the Town, shall be remedied by the contractor. 14-47 c. The test will be repeated following completion of backfilling and any poor alignment, displaced pipe or other defects, as determined by the Town, shall be corrected at no cost to the Town. (6) Leakage testing by exfiltration. a. Tests for water tightness shall be made by the contractor in the presence of the Town. The contractor shall provide assistance to the Town in development of a detailed record of the testing program. The sewer line and connections shall not leak in excess of the following rate for a twenty -four-hour test period: Maximum Allowable Sewer Line Leakage Pipe Size (in inches) Leakage in GaUfoot/24 Hours 18 0.68 15 0.57 12 0.45 10 0.38 8 0.30 6 0.23 b. Each reach of pipeline between manholes shall be tested individually. Any individual reach that leaks in excess of the amount allowed in the previous paragraph shall be considered as failing, and shall be repaired and retested. At the discretion of the Town, the time for leakage rate test may be shortened to four (4) hours. c. The tests and measurement of infiltration or exfiltration shall be conducted in a manner as approved by the Town. The minimum head for the exfiltration tests shall be two (2) feet above the top of the pipe at its highest point in the test section. Sections shall be bulk -headed so that during any test the head on the sewer at its lowest elevation will not be more than ten (10) feet. This restriction does not apply to ductile -iron pipe or C -900/C-905 PVC pipe. d. The contractor shall repair the sewer in a manner that is satisfactory to the Town and re- test until satisfactory tightness is obtained. (7) Leakage testing by infiltration. Infiltration tests will be used if the groundwater table is likely to be one (1) foot or more above the invert of the finished sewer. Otherwise, exfiltration tests will be used. The allowable leakage rates are as tabulated in Subsection 14-3-350(a)(6)a. (8) Low-pressure air test. At the option of the contractor, low-pressure air testing of the installed sewer pipe in accordance with ASTM F1417 procedure may be used instead of the leakage exfiltration test. The following criteria and procedure shall be utilized, unless otherwise approved by the Town: a. Plug restraint. It is extremely important and essential that all plugs be installed and braced in such a way that blowouts are prevented. It is recommended that every plug be 14-48 positively braced and that no one be allowed in the manhole adjoining a line being tested, so long as pressure is maintained in the line. b. Relief valve. All pressurizing equipment used for low-pressure air testing shall include a regulator or relief valve set no higher than nine (9) psig to avoid over -pressurizing and displacing temporary or permanent plugs. As an added safety precaution, the pressure in the test section should be continuously monitored to make certain that it does not at any time exceed nine (9) psig. c. Plug design. Either mechanical or pneumatic plugs may be used. All plugs shall be designed to resist internal testing pressures without the aid of external bracing or blocking. However, the contractor should internally restrain or externally brace the plugs to the manhole wall as an added safety precaution throughout the test. d. Singular control panel. To facilitate test verification by the Town, all air used shall pass through a single, above -ground control panel. e. Equipment controls. The above -ground air control equipment shall include a shut-off valve, pressure regulating valve, pressure relief valve, input pressure gauge and a continuous monitoring pressure gauge having a pressure range from zero (0) to at least ten (10) psi. The continuous monitoring gauge shall be no less than four (4) inches in diameter with minimum divisions of one-tenth (0.10) psi and an accuracy of plus or minus four -hundredths (0.04) psi. f. Separate hoses. Two (2) separate hoses shall be used to: (1) connect the control panel to the sealed line for introducing low-pressure air; and (2) a separate hose connection for constant monitoring of air pressure build-up in the line. This requirement greatly diminishes any chance for over -pressurizing the line. g. Pneumatic plugs. If pneumatic plugs are utilized, a separate hose shall also be required to inflate the pneumatic plugs from the aboveground control panel. It. Laterals, stubs and fittings. During sewer construction, all service laterals, stubs and fittings into the sewer test section shall be properly capped or plugged so as not to allow air loss that could cause an erroneous air test result. It may be necessary and is always advisable to restrain gasketed caps, plugs or short pipe lengths with bracing stakes, clamps and tie rods or wire harnesses over the pipe bells. i. Plug installation and testing. After manholes have been tested for alignment and grade and a manhole -to -manhole reach of pipe has been backfilled to final grade and prepared for testing, the plugs shall be placed in the line at both manholes and secured. It is advisable to seal -test all plugs before use. Seal -testing may be accomplished by laying one (1) length of pipe on the ground and sealing it at both ends with the plugs to be checked. The sealed pipe should be pressurized to nine (9) psig. The plugs shall hold against this pressure without bracing and without any movement of the plugs out of the pipe. No persons shall be allowed in the alignment of the pipe during plug testing. The upstream end of the line shall be plugged first to prevent any upstream water from collecting in the test line. 14-49 j. Line pressurization. Low-pressure air shall be slowly introduced into the sealed line until the internal air pressure reaches four (4.0) psig. k. Pressure stabilization. After a constant pressure of four (4) psig is reached, the air supply shall be throttled to maintain that internal pressure for at least two (2) minutes. This time permits the temperature of the entering air to equalize with the temperature of the pipe wall. 1. Timing pressure loss. When temperatures have been equalized and the pressure stabilized at four (4) psig, the air hose from the control panel to the air supply shall be shut off or disconnected. The continuous monitoring pressure gauge shall then be observed while the pressure is decreased to no less than three and one-half (3.5) psig. The timing pressure loss test shall then commence at a pressure reading of three and one-half (3.5) psig or any convenient observed pressure reading between three and one-half (3.5) psig and four (4) psig. (Except as adjusted for groundwater as follows.) m. Air pressure adjustment. An air pressure correction, which must be added to the three - and -one-half psig normal test starting pressure, shall be calculated by dividing the average vertical height, in feet of groundwater above the invert of the sewer pipe to be tested, by two and thirty-one hundredths (2.31). The result gives the air pressure correction in pounds per square inch to be added. (For example, if the average vertical height of groundwater above the pipe invert is two and eight -tenths (2.8) feet, the additional air pressure above the pipe invert is two and eight -tenths (2.8) feet divided by two and thirty-one hundredths (2.31) or one and two- tenths (1.2) psig. This would require a minimum starring pressure of three and one-half (3.5) psig plus one and two-tenths (1.2) psig or four and seven -tenths (4.7) psig. The allowable pressure drop of one (1) psig and the timing in Table 1 are not affected and shall remain the same. In no case however should the starting test pressure exceed nine (9.0) psig. n. If the time shown in Table I for the designated pipe size and length elapses before the air pressure drops one-half (0.5) psig, the section undergoing test shall have passed. If the pressure drop occurs before the time shown in Table 1 elapses, the test shall continue to determine if the line maintains a pressure drop of one (1) psig or less within the time noted in Table 2. If the time shown in Table 2 for the designated pipe size and length elapses before the air pressure drops one (1) psig, the section undergoing that test shall have passed. 14-50 Table 1: Specification Time Required for a 0.5 PSIG Pressure Drop for Size and Length of Pipe Indicated for Q = 0.0015 1 2 3 4 Specification Time for Length (L) Shown Pipe Diameter (in.) Minimum Time (min:sec) Length far Minimum Time (ft.) Time for Longer Length (sec.) 100 ft 150 ft 200 ft 250 ft. 300 ft 350 ft. 400 ft 450 ft 4 1:53 597 1.90 1:53 1:53 1:53 1:53 1:53 1:53 1:53 1:53 6 2:50 398 0.427 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:51 3:12 8 3:47 298 0.760 3:47 3:47 3:47 3:47 3:48 4:26 5:04 5:42 10 4:43 239 1.187 4:43 4:43 4:43 4:57 5:56 6:55 7:54 8:54 12 5:40 199 1.709 5:40 5:40 5:42 7:08 8:33 9:58 11:24 12:50 15 7:05 159 2.671 7:05 7:05 8:54 11:08 13:21 15:35 17:48 20:02 18 8:30 133 3.846 8:30 9:37 12:49 16:01 19:14 22:26 25:38 28:51 18 8:30 133 5.235 9:55 13:05 17:27 21:49 26:11 30:32 34:54 39:16 18 8:30 133 6.837 11:24 17:57 22:48 28:30 34:11 39:53 45:35 51:17 18 8:30 133 8.653 14:25 21:38 28:51 36:04 43:16 50:30 57:42 64:54 18 8:30 133 10.683 17:48 26:43 35:37 44:31 53:25 62:19 71:13 80:07 18 8:30 133 12.926 21:33 32:19 43:56 53:52 64:38 75:24 86:10 96:57 18 8:30 133 15.384 25:39 32:28 51:17 64:06 76:55 89:44 102:34 115:23 Table 2: Specification Time Required for a 0.5 PSIG Pressure Drop for Size and Length of Pipe Indicated for Q = 0.0015 1 2 3 4 Specification Timefor Length (L) Shown Pipe Diameter (in.) Minimum Time (min:sec) Length for Minimum Time (ft.) Timefor Longer Length (sec) 100 ft 150 ft 200Jt 250 ft 300 ft 350 ft. 400 ft. 450 ft 4 3:46 597 0.38 3:46 3:46 3:46 3:46 3:46 3:46 3:46 3:46 6 5:40 398 0.854 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:42 6:24 8 7:34 298 1.520 7:34 7:34 7:34 7:34 7:36 8:52 10:08 11:24 10 9:26 239 2.374 9:26 9:26 9:26 9:53 11:52 13:51 15:49 17:48 12 11:20 199 3.418 11:20 11:20 11:24 14:15 17:05 19:56 22:47 25:38 15 14:10 159 5.342 14:10 14:10 17:48 22:15 26:42 31:09 35:36 40:04 18 17:00 133 7.692 17:00 19:13 25:38 32:03 38:27 44:52 51:16 57:41 (9) Deflection. a. All PVC sewer pipelines shall be tested for vertical deflection after placement and compaction of backfill. The method of testing shall be by deflectometer of the rigid Go/No-Go 14-51 type device. Alternative methods may be permitted only as approved by the Town. Maximum allowable deflection shall be five percent (5%) of the pipe diameter. Any and all pipe with vertical deflection greater than the allowable shall be excavated, removed from the pipeline, replaced, backfilled and compacted, as specified, and retested. b. The Town reserves the right to require the applicant to retest sewer lines after ten (10) months and up to twelve (12) months of service if the Town has concerns regarding the condition of certain sections of pipe. Sections selected for retesting will be based on the results of the initial tests, the outcome of the television inspection per preliminary television visual inspection test and deferred television visual inspection test, depth of cover or other technical factors. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs associated with such retesting. c. The Town may elect to waive the requirement for deflection testing for any or all of the lines if, in its opinion, the internal television inspection shows no construction irregularities and/or potential areas of concern. (b) Manhole testing. During the construction of the manholes, the contractor shall, in accordance with good practice, ensure that no earth, sand, rocks or other foreign material exists on the joint surface during assembly of the sections. The Town shall check each manhole to determine whether the manhole fulfills the requirements of the approved plans and the Town's standards. (1) Visual examination. The Town shall visually check each manhole, both exterior and interior, for flaws, cracks, holes or other inadequacies which might affect the operation or watertight integrity of the manhole. Should any inadequacies be found, the contractor shall make any repairs deemed necessary by the Town. (2) Leakage test. All manholes shall be tested for leakage, and all tests shall be witnessed by the Town. The leakage test shall be conducted prior to backfilling around the manhole and shall be carried out in the following manner: a. All lines leading into or out of the manhole shall be tightly plugged. b. The manhole shall be filled with water to a level at least two (2) inches above the uppermost step. The water shall be allowed to stand for two (2) hours to allow for normal water absorption into the manhole material. At the end of the two-hour stabilization period, if the water level in the manhole has dropped below the top step, additional water will be added to bring the level above the step, as before. Any visible external leakage or drop in water level noted within the one-hour test period shall constitute failure, and the contractor shall repair or replace the defective work and retest. (c) Preliminary internal television visual inspection test. The applicant shall notify the Town when the sanitary sewer will be cleaned and ready for the internal visual inspection test. Upon receipt of this notification, the Town will, within a reasonable time frame, contract directly with a company to perform an internal television visual inspection test of each segment of the sewer line. A CD record of this internal inspection observation will be made of the inspection observations prior to preliminary acceptance. 14-52 (d) Deferred internal television visual inspection test. A second internal television inspection of each segment of the sewer line shall be performed with the same format for labeling and stationing as the preliminary television visual inspection test. A CD record of this internal inspection observation will be made identical to that of the preliminary television visual inspection test. This deferred inspection is to be performed during the fourth quarter of the warranty period following preliminary acceptance of the sewer construction. If the deferred television inspection cannot be performed due to inclement weather and/or site conditions, it will be delayed until a future date when the weather and/or site conditions allow for a safe working environment to perform the inspection, as determined by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-360. Abandonment of existing sanitary system infrastructure. In order to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the existing sanitary sewer system, a watertight cap shall be provided for any sanitary sewer system main line being abandoned. Two (2) scenarios are outlined below to provide such watertight cam (1) If the sanitary sewer main line is to be abandoned from an existing manhole, the abandoned line shall be cut at an approximate distance of four (4) feet from the outside wall of the manhole and a factory -made cap glued onto the end of the pipe at that location. (2) If the sanitary sewer main line is to be abandoned from a mid -point location on an existing line, the line shall include an accessible manhole at the end of the line. Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Town. If the line is extended, it shall be tested in accordance with these Standards. All existing sanitary sewer system infrastructure being abandoned shall be physically removed from the site. The infrastructure shall not be abandoned in-place. Reference ties to constructed infrastructure associated with the abandonment shall be recorded and provided to the Town. The sanitary sewer system main line abandonment shall be approved and inspected by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012). Division 4 Stormwater System Design See. 14-3-410. General. (a) The Town has adopted the Grand County Storm Drainage Design and Criteria Manual, Chapters 2 through 10, as its storm water detention/conveyance standards. All drainage appurtenances shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the details from the CDOT M&S Standards, the CDOT Standard Specifications for Street and Roadways Construction and the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. All earth drainage ways shall have a minimum flowline grade of two percent (2%). This does not apply to designed sedimentation basins. Drainage ways including roadside ditches with side slopes steeper than four (4) vertical to one (1) horizontal (4:1) shall be treated with an approved rolled erosion control product and/or slope protection. All drainage ways shall be addressed by the Engineer of Record for appropriate erosion control and rip -rap protection. 14-53 (b) Rip rap for slope protection/erosion control shall be angular hard rock with size, depth and area coverage of rip rap in accordance with design requirements of the Urban Storm Drainage and Criteria Manual. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-420. Basic design policies. All new storm sewer system designs and related information shall be in accordance with these Standards. Any design standards not included within these Standards will be subject to the minimum standards set forth in other current publications found in Section 14-6-20 of this Chapter. In all cases, the more stringent standards and design criteria shall be applicable. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-430. Required easements. (a) Where the municipal storm sewer system is to be located out of the public right-of-way, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining easements required for the construction, maintenance and operation of the facilities. The legal description for the easements shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor in the State. Easements shall be in a form acceptable to the Town and shall be shown on the design and as -built drawings. The Town will not approve the design documents until all required easements have been deeded to the Town, unless an alternate schedule is approved by the Town. (b) The minimum width of easements for a single pipeline shall be thirty (30) feet. Temporary construction easements shall have a minimum width of forty (40) feet. Wider easements shall be required for deep sections of pipeline, multiple lines, steep terrain or where otherwise required by the Town. Easement widths for deep lines are determined using Attachment A-5 — Utility Easement Widths. (c) A rectangular -shaped utility easement shall be provided as needed to provide access around each storm sewer inlet for operation and maintenance tasks. The rectangular easement shall extend three (3) feet on each side of the exterior edge of the inlet. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-440. Storm sewer piping and manholes. All storm sewers shall be installed prior to any on-site construction. Storm sewer material may be either Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) or reinforced concrete box sections. Storm sewer manholes shall be precast concrete manholes; minimum of four -foot inside diameter. Culverts shall have a minimum inside diameter of eighteen (18) inches. Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and the precast concrete manholes shall meet all applicable and current ASTM, CDOT and AASHTO Standards. The installation shall meet CDOT M&S Standards and CDOT Highway Specifications. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-3-450. Storm sewer inlets. Storm sewer inlets shall be constructed of precast concrete of a size and configuration required to adequately handle the design storm water flows and the detail of the street/parking area in which they are located. All inlet grates shall be traffic rated and shall meet all applicable and current ASTM and AASHTO Standards. The installation shall meet CDOT M&S Standards and CDOT Highway Specifications. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-54 See. 14-3-460. Culverts. (a) Culverts are required at every natural flowline encountered and as conditions dictate (b) All culverts shall be installed prior to any on-site construction. Culvert material may be either Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) or reinforced concrete box sections. Culverts shall have a minimum inside diameter of eighteen (18) inches. Minimum roadway design slopes shall be maintained from edge of pavement to top of pipe. Roadway side slopes shall not be steepened to reduce culvert length. All culvert pipes shall terminate with a flared end section and connect to all drainage features to maximize flow capacities. Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) shall not be allowed within the right-of-way or dedicated easements. High -Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe may be used under driveways but shall not be used under public or private streets. Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and HDPE pipe shall meet all applicable and current ASTM and AASHTO Standards. The installation shall meet CDOT M&S Standards and CDOT Highway Specifications. (c) Installation. Culverts shall be laid at the grade required by the drawings and shall be installed in accordance with the following requirements: (1) The pipe shall be protected from lateral displacement by means of a pipe embedding material as specified in Article 5, Division 2, of this Chapter. The minimum cover shall be eighteen (18) inches for roadways and twelve (12) inches for driveway culverts. (2) The minimum grade of all culverts shall be one percent (1%). (3) Installation of multiple pipes will require spacing between pipes of one-half ('/2) the diameter of the pipe, one -foot minimum spacing and four -foot maximum. (4) Cleanout access to culverts shall be provided at least every one hundred fifty (150) feet for pipes twenty-four (24) inches in diameter or less and every three hundred (300) feet for pipes greater than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter. Cleanout access is required at every bend, vertical and horizontal. (5) All culverts shall be installed with inlet and outlet protection and flared end sections. Culverts shall be installed such that continuous sideslope grading can be maintained per the approved plans. This may include the installation of headwalls/ wingwalls/rip-rap and level spreaders to prevent soil erosion. Slopes immediately surrounding the culvert must extend to maintain typical section grades from edge of shoulder and shall not exceed 3:1 side slopes. (6) Driveway or street connections to a public street shall be constructed in such a way as to not impede the normal flow of drainage in roadside ditches, culverts, under -drains, bridges or other drainage works, or to cause drainage to flow onto or across the driving surface of a public street. In the event that such an impediment results in damage to a Town street, the Public Works Department will correct or remove the impediment and invoice the property owner for the costs of repairs to the road, including but not limited to labor, equipment and materials. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-55 Sec. 14-3-470. Bridge and box culvert design. (a) Vehicular bridges are to conform to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges requirements and specifications. All bridges shall satisfy HS20 load design ratings as minimum requirements. Plans are to be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State and are to be submitted to the Town for review and approval. (b) Clear deck width must accommodate the full width of the traveled lanes, pedestrian walkways, railings and shoulders of approach roads. Guardrail end sections shall be provided on the approach and opposing sides of traffic flow and shall comply with the CDOT M&S Standards. All bridges shall be designed for, and provide, conduits for all utilities. The waterway area shall accommodate the one -hundred -year storm event in accordance with federal, state and Town regulations. The plans must show the contour line of the one -hundred -year storm event. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) ARTICLE 4 Private Infrastructure Division 1 Street and Driveway Design Sec. 14-4-10. Basic design policy and permitting. All new street and driveway designs and related improvements shall meet the minimum standards within these Standards. Where access permits are required, they shall be posted and available for inspection at the work site at all times. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-20. Street and driveway classifications. Streets are classified according to function and ADTs. ADT generations are defined in Article 3, Division 1, of this Chapter. Functional classifications shall be established by the Town in accordance with the Street/Driveway Classification and Minimum Design Criteria table below. Private streets with higher ADT classifications than shown in the table below shall meet the requirements for public streets as defined in Article 3, Division 1. The applicant may be required to conduct traffic counts to establish or change existing street classifications. (1) Private streets. A private street has the same characteristics of a local street, in that its primary use is as an access to a limited number of single-family residences or multi -family units. The street shall be designed for a design speed of not less than twenty (20) mph. The typical cross-section for a private street is shown on Attachment A-9 — Cross -Section for Private Street. (2) Private shared drive. A private shared drive's primary use is access to a very limited number of single-family residences or multi -family units. The number of units or combination of units is limited by a maximum ADT of forty (40). The typical cross-section for a private shared drive is shown on Attachment A-10 — Cross -Section for Private Shared Drive. 14-56 (3) Individual driveway. An individual driveway is defined as a single driveway accessing only one (1) business, one (1) residence or a single -ownership property. All driveways accessing a Town street require an access permit. That portion of the driveway within the public right-of- way shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width unless topographical conditions dictate a larger width and/or radius to accommodate emergency vehicles. In mountainous terrain, where access is dictated by site topography, the driveway width within the public right-of-way shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. (4) Commercial driveway/parking lot drive lanes. A commercial driveway is a driveway accessing a common parking area where multiple businesses are located or a single business where large commercial vehicles enter and exit on a frequent basis. The typical cross-section for a commercial driveway shall be the same as that for a local street as shown on Attachment A-8 — Cross -Section for Local Street. All parking lot drive lanes shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet wide allowing for two-way traffic. Where angle parking and/or one-way drive lanes are proposed, the Town may consider optional proposals on a case-by-case basis. (5) Alleys. Alleys provide for limited access and will be subject to special review as appropriate to the land use plan. Street/Driveway Classification and Minimum Design Criteria Class Easement Width Roadbase Width Pavement Width ADT Shoulder Width Private streets 32' 32' 22' 200 5' Private shared drives 24' 22' 20' 40 — Commercial Driveways 36' 36' 24' varies 6' Alleys 20' 20' 16' min. N/A NOTES: 1. Increase for the minimum easement widths may be required by the Town to accommodate for on -street parking, drainage improvements, sidewalks, trails, excessive cut/fill slopes, intersections, clear zones or required snow storage. 2. All private streets and commercial drives shall include valley pans, ribbon curbs or curbs and gutter as detailed in Attachment A-11 — Curb and Gutter. 3. On the private street or commercial driveway sections identified above, valley pans or curbs and gutter shall be used when surface flow storm drainage is proposed at the edge of the street or drive. The ribbon curb shall be used along the edge of street or drive when storm drainage is proposed in a ditch section located off the edge of shoulder. 4. The private street shoulder width of 5 feet is measured from the flow line of the concrete valley pan to outside edge of shoulder to accommodate fire trucks. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-30. Street horizontal and vertical alignment. Street horizontal and vertical alignment shall conform with the requirements of Article 3, Division 1 of this Chapter. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-57 Sec. 14-4-40. Street cross-sections. Street cross-sections shall conform with the requirements of Article 3, Division 1 of this Chapter. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-50. Individual driveway cross-section. All individual driveways shall be surfaced with a minimum thickness of six (6) inches of Class 6 roadbase material, compacted to a minimum of ninety-five percent (95%) standard dry density with the moisture content of the material within two percent (2%) of optimum, to prevent loose aggregate from tracking onto the street surface. For this reason, paving of all driveways is encouraged. Driveway grades shall be minimized wherever practical. Driveway sections which extend uphill from the Town's street and have vertical grades within the right-of-way greater than five percent (5%) shall be paved. That portion of the driveway that meets these criteria shall be paved to avoid erosion onto the public street. The minimum thickness of the paved portion of driveway which extends into the Town right-of-way shall match the existing depth of the adjacent asphalt roadway, or a minimum of five (5) inches thickness, whichever is greater. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-60. Street intersections. Street intersections shall conform with the requirements of Article 3, Division 1. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-70. Pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities shall conform with the requirements of Section 14-3-80. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-80. Signage and striping. (a) All signs, striping, markers, delineators, signals and other traffic control devices must conform to the MUTCD and the Colorado Supplement to the MUTCD. No signs are permitted within the public right-of-way without the approval of the Town. (b) All required street identification signage and no parking signs shall be consistent with Fraser's current standard signage content detail and installation standards. Speed limit signs, stop signs, emergency turn around signs, striping and other traffic control devices shall meet current Town installation standards. All signage shall be installed by, and paid for by, the applicant following approval by the Town. The applicant should contact the Town for the current signage content detail and installation requirements. (cb) All sign sheeting shall conform to ASTM D4956-04 and the retroreflectivity requirements as defined in the MUTCD. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-90. Pavement design. Pavement design for streets, private shared drives and commercial driveways shall conform with the requirements of Article 3, Division 1 of this Chapter. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-58 Sec. 14-4-100. Grading. Slopes should be gradual at all intersections to allow for sufficient snow storage and not interfere with the intersection sight triangle. The maximum cut/fill slope requirement is three (3) vertical feet to one (1) horizontal foot (3:1). Slopes exceeding the 3:1 grade shall not be considered usable snow storage. Slopes shall be protected from erosion. Retaining walls for improvements on private property shall not extend into the public rights-of-way or easements. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-110. Structures. All driveways that utilize a bridge or box culvert to cross a waterway shall be designed and sealed/signed by a professional engineer, licensed by the State, and shall conform to the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-120. Culverts. All culverts shall be installed prior to any on-site lot construction. Culvert material may be either Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) or High -Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe with smooth interior wall. Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) shall not be allowed within the right-of-way or dedicated easements. Culverts shall have a minimum inside diameter of eighteen (18) inches and maintain a twelve -inch cover from the top of the pipe to the bottom of the asphalt pavement section. Any variation to this culvert size shall require a variance; see Section 16-4-30 of this Chapter. Minimum roadway design slopes shall be maintained from the edge of the pavement to the top of the pipe. Roadway side slopes shall not be steepened to reduce culvert length. All culvert pipes shall terminate with a flared end section and connect to all drainage features to maximize flow capacities. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-130. Revegetation, erosion and sediment control. See Article 5, Division 4 of this Chapter. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-140. On-site snow storage. Functional on-site snow storage shall be provided within the private property and shall not be placed within the street right-of-way or easements unless an off-site snow storage easement has been approved. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Division 2 Water Service Line Standards Sec. 14-4-210. General. (a) No service line may be connected to the public water system without prior approval from the Town. The applicant must provide adequate information describing the nature of the building or development to be connected, the proposed service line size, meter location and the proposed connection point of the service line to the main. A site plan showing the location of the proposed service line relative to other utilities on and adjacent to the property must be presented. The drawing 14-59 must show the location of buildings served and parts of the site that are to be paved or otherwise intended to be kept clear of snow and must also show depth of cover over the service line. (b) The sizing of water service lines shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Service line installation and maintenance is the responsibility of the applicant, including the costs thereof and for payment of actual costs of permitting, review and inspection provided by the Town. The service line, from the water distribution main to the point of connection to the building, is the responsibility of the owner of the property served. Repairs to the service line and obtaining the required permits are also the responsibility of the property owner. (c) Any service line construction or maintenance within the Town right-of-way requires an access permit from the Town. (d) All new water service facilities shall be in accordance with these standards and the International Plumbing Code as adopted by the Town, other applicable codes and generally accepted good construction practices. (e) Connection of any water service line between a structure and the water main shall only be made after the service line has been pressure tested, disinfected, inspected and approved by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-220. Potable water services. (a) Sizing. Sizing for potable water services shall be made in general conformance with AWWA Manual M22, Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters. When requested by the Town, the applicant shall, at its expense, furnish data, plans, calculations or other information as required for the evaluation of the service size. (b) Service connections. (1) Service connections shall be installed per Attachment A-34 — Water Service Line and Curb Stop and Attachment A-35 — Water Meter Assembly Installation. No connection between the water system of the Town and the water facilities of the owner may be made except in a public street adequate to accommodate this connection or in a location which provides adequate access for Town personnel and which is suitable for buried pipe. (2) Where parallel or approximately parallel to a structural wall, the service line shall be at least five (5) feet from the wall. Penetrations through structures shall be at right angles, or close thereto, through PVC sleeves, and shall provide flexibility such that the service line will not be damaged by settlement of the structures. (3) The water service shall be laid at uniform grade and in straight alignment. A reference mark shall be placed on the curb above the service line. (4) Water and sewer service lines shall have ten (10) feet minimum horizontal separation measured from outside edge of pipe to outside edge of pipe. Where this separation is impractical, the Town may permit other separation requirements in accordance with applicable standards. If a 14-60 water service line crosses a sewer main or sewer service, the water line shall be protected per Attachment A-23 — Pipe Crossing Detail. (5) The minimum cover shall be nine (9) feet from the top of the water service line to the finished grade. A minimum of seven (7) feet of cover will be allowed if at least two (2) inches of approved pipeline insulation is provided per vertical foot of cover less than nine (9) feet. The insulation installation shall be in accordance with Attachment A-18 — Water Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail and the requirements of Subsection 14-3-260(b). (6) Warning tape shall be installed in the trench continuously above the water line, a distance of thirty (30) inches above the pipe. The warning tape shall be three (3) inches wide, blue in color with the legend "Caution Buried Water Line Below" in black and extend continuously in the trench. If any existing warning tape is damaged in construction activities, a splice shall be made using additional warning tape tied to each end to provide a continuous warning tape along the water line. Warning tape shall be installed on water service lines from the tap at the main to the edge of the right-of-way, easement and/or shut-off/curb stop. (c) Cross -connections (backflow). (1) Cross -connections of any type that permit a backflow condition from any source other than the Town's potable water mains shall have a testable backflow prevention device in place of the type commensurate with the degree of health hazard posed. Each cross -connection may require a different type of backflow prevention device based on the degree of hazard posed as determined and approved by the Town. (2) Each user of the Town water system shall install and maintain testable backflow prevention devices on potentially hazardous service connections, as required by Article 12 of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations, (5 CCR 1003-1). All service connections within the water system must comply with Article 12, Colorado Cross -Connection Control Manual and the International Plumbing Code, as adopted by the Town. (3) Any hazardous cross -connection discovered shall be corrected immediately upon notice or the water service will be shut off. (4) All new water service installations will be inspected for compliance with these backflow prevention requirements. See Chapter 13 of this Code. (d) Pressure regulation. All services shall be equipped with a pressure reducing valve (PRV). The PRV shall be installed upstream of the water meter and be set for a downstream pressure not exceeding seventy (70) psig. (e) Water service line materials. Thaw cables may be appropriate and recommended for all water services to facilitate in thawing of a frozen water service line. Contact your licensed plumber for specific details. (1) Water service pipeline. The water service pipeline shall be Type K, soft copper conforming to ASTM B88, unless otherwise specifically approved by the Town. Fittings shall be brass or copper alloy. Connections shall be by compression type fittings. Flared fittings are 14-61 prohibited and shall not be allowed. Soldered joints shall not be permitted underground. Splice joints are discouraged in all water service line installations. (2) The Town may allow the use of polyethylene pipe meeting the requirements for water service lines as provided by the International Plumbing Code as adopted by the Town. All users of polyethylene pipe for water services are advised that this material is not conducive to line thawing procedures in the event that the service line freezes. (3) Corporation stops. Corporation stops shall be used for the connection of services, two (2) inches and smaller, to the water main. Corporation stops shall be brass and conform to AWWA C800. The inlet shall be standard AWWA corporation stop inlet thread, and the outlet shall be for compression type "K" copper service pipe. Corporation stops shall be Mueller H-15000, Ford F- 600, or approved equal, provided with an insulating coupling for potable service. (4) Curb stops. Curb stops shall be placed per Attachment A-34 — Water Service Line and Curb Stop for all services two (2) inches and smaller. Curb stops shall be brass and conform to AWWA C800. Connections shall be for compression type "K" copper service pipe. Curb stops shall be Mueller H-15204, Ford B-22 or approved equal. Curb stop operating nut shall be extended as necessary for the operator extension to be located twenty-four (24) inches to thirty-six (36) inches from the top of the stop box. Stop boxes shall have the base section and lid constructed of cast iron with an adjustable steel upper section. A bronze spring friction ring assembly shall provide a seal between the upper and base section and provide one (1) foot of adjustment. (5) Service saddles. Service saddles shall be used for all water taps on any pipe other than DIP (Ductile Iron Pipe). For DIP, three -quarter -inch taps may be made without using a service saddle on six-inch pipe. Three -quarter -inch and one -inch -size taps may be made without service saddles on eight -inch size of pipe or larger. All other DIP taps shall be made with a double strap bronze saddle, Smith Blair No. 357, Rockwell No. 323 or approved equal. (6) Yard hydrants. Yard hydrants are prohibited and shall not be used. (7) Stop and waste valves. Stop and waste valves are prohibited and shall not be used. (f) Water meters. (1) Meters shall be required on all connections to the Town's water distribution system. The applicant or property owner requesting service is responsible for the cost of the meter assembly and all labor and materials for the installation of the meter and appurtenances. See Attachment A- 35 — Water Meter Assembly Installation. (2) Meter locations must provide reasonable access for inspection and maintenance of the water meter assembly. Meter vaults or pits are prohibited. (3) The Town will provide Sensus water meters as a component of the water meter assembly. All parts of the assembly are required for a complete and approved unit. Components for the water meter assemblies available are: 14-62 * Greater than 1" Meter Assemblies: For meter assemblies larger than 1 inch, coordinate the meter assembly component requirements with the Public Works Department. (4) When determining the type of backflow assembly necessary, the following shall apply: for all non -health hazard applications, the Watts 007 Series shall be installed; for all health -hazard applications, the Watts 009 Series shall be installed. In all cases where a fire suppression system or irrigation system is present, it shall be considered a high -health hazard application. All other applications will be determined and approved by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-230. Construction. (a) General. The service line connection shall be constructed as shown in Attachment A-34 — Water Service Line and Curb Stop. All excavations for water service installations shall be adequately guarded with barricades and lights so as to protect the public from hazards, per existing governmental requirements. Utilities, streets, sidewalks, parkways and other public or private property disturbed in the course of work shall be restored to their original condition in a manner satisfactory to the Town. 14-63 314 " Meter Assembly Quantity Product Description 1 3/a" SRII Meter (ECR) 1,000 gal. read, w/cast iron bottom, bronze bonnet 1 3/0" #25AUB-Z3 Pressure reducing valve (watts) 1 V #007M3QT-S Non health -hazard backflow assembly (watts) or 1 V #009M3QT-S Health -hazard backflow assembly (watts) 1 3/a" CH88-333-9275 Meter setter, Ford Copperhom w/MIPT 2 V by close Brass nipples 2 3/" FBV-3 Brass ball valve, full port (watts) 1 510R MXU (transmitter) Single port, internal battery, teuehteadtouch read active I " Meter Assembly Quantity Product Description I 1" SRII Meter (ECR) 1,000 gal. read, w/cast iron bottom, bronze bonnet 1 I" #25AUB-Z3 Pressure reducing valve (watts) 1 1" #007MIQT-S Non health -hazard backflow assembly (watts) or 1 1" #009M2QT-S Health -hazard backflow assembly (watts) 1 I" CH88-444 Meter setter, Ford Copperhom w/MB'T 2 1" by close Brass nipples 2 1" FBV-3 Brass ball valve, full port (watts) 1 510R MXU (transmitter) Single port, internal battery, TeaelrltesdTouch Read active * Greater than 1" Meter Assemblies: For meter assemblies larger than 1 inch, coordinate the meter assembly component requirements with the Public Works Department. (4) When determining the type of backflow assembly necessary, the following shall apply: for all non -health hazard applications, the Watts 007 Series shall be installed; for all health -hazard applications, the Watts 009 Series shall be installed. In all cases where a fire suppression system or irrigation system is present, it shall be considered a high -health hazard application. All other applications will be determined and approved by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-230. Construction. (a) General. The service line connection shall be constructed as shown in Attachment A-34 — Water Service Line and Curb Stop. All excavations for water service installations shall be adequately guarded with barricades and lights so as to protect the public from hazards, per existing governmental requirements. Utilities, streets, sidewalks, parkways and other public or private property disturbed in the course of work shall be restored to their original condition in a manner satisfactory to the Town. 14-63 (b) Service line excavation, bedding and backfill. (1) All excavations required for the installation of a water service shall be open -trench work, unless otherwise approved by the Town. The services shall be bedded and backfilled in accordance with the minimum cover and/or insulation requirements of Subsection 14-4-220(b). The bedding and pipe zone material from the water main line to the curb stop shall meet the requirements of the bedding and pipe zone materials for the water main. Backfill materials shall be select native soils with six-inch maximum diameter rock. (2) The connection to the water main shall be made in the presence of and approved by the Town. The line, valves and fittings must be leak -free under line pressure. The trench of each service line shall not be backfilled from the building to the tap until the completed line is approved by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-240. Service line connection. The applicant for water service shall notify the Town when the service is ready for connection to the water main. The connection to the water main shall be made in the presence of and approved by the Town. The line and fittings must be leak -free under pressure. The service line shall meet the requirements of the Plumbing Code as adopted. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-250. As -built documentation. The applicant shall submit an as -built drawing showing the location of the point of connection, the curb stop and other related improvements relative to visible and reasonably permanent surface features, such as sewer manholes, building corners, property pins and/or power/light poles. If the service line is part of a subdivision development project, the as -built information shall be submitted in accordance with Section 14-2-120. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-260. Abandonment of existing service lines. In order to maintain the safety and integrity of the water system, a watertight cap shall be provided for any water service line being abandoned. Three (3) scenarios are outlined below to provide such watertight cap: (1) If the water main is located under an existing paved street and the service line between the corporation stop and curb stop is determined to be copper, in sound condition as determined by the Town, the service can be abandoned by shutting off the curb stop, cutting the service line approximately six (6) inches from the curb stop and silver -soldering a cap on the cut service line, utilizing silver -solder. (2) If the water main is located under an existing paved street and the service line is of noncopper material or copper in poor shape, the corporation stop shall be exposed and shut off. A cap or plug shall be installed at the corporation stop. (3) If the water main is located outside the paved street surface area, the corporation stop shall be exposed and shut off. A cap or plug shall be installed at the corporation stop. 14-64 The required scenario for service line abandonment shall be determined by the Town. In each case, the curb stop box and cover should be removed. Reference ties to the curb stop or corporation stop shall be recorded and provided to the Town. The water service line abandonment shall be approved and inspected by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Division 3 Sanitary Sewer Service Line Standards Sec. 14-4-310. General. (a) No service line may be constructed without prior approval from the Town. The applicant must provide adequate information describing the nature of the building or development to be connected, the proposed service line size and the proposed connection point of the service line to the main. A site plan showing the location of the proposed service line relative to other utilities on and adjacent to the property must be presented. The drawing must show the location of buildings served and parts of the site that are to be paved or otherwise intended to be kept clear of snow and must also show service line slope and depth of cover over the service line. (b) The sizing of sewer service lines shall be the responsibility of the applicant. When requested by the Town, the applicant shall, at its expense, furnish data, plans, calculations or other information as required for the evaluation of the service size. The service line, from the sanitary sewer main to the point of connection to the building, is the responsibility of the owner of the property served. Repairs to the service line and obtaining the required permits are also the responsibility of the property owner. (c) Any service line construction or maintenance within the Town right-of-way requires an access permit from the Town. (d) All new sanitary sewer service line facilities shall be in accordance with these standards and the Plumbing Code as adopted, other applicable codes and generally accepted good construction practices. (e) In cases where the sanitary sewer line is installed under a new street within a subdivision, the applicant is required to extend the sanitary sewer service lines to the property line prior to paving the street. This segment of the service line shall be pressure tested concurrently with the sanitary sewer main pressure test prior to paving the street. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-320. Sanitary sewer services. (a) Sizing/capacity. The size and slope of the building service sewer shall be subject to the approval of the Town, but in no event shall the diameter be less than four (4) inches. Minimum grade and slopes shall be as follows: 4" 2.0% normal; 1.0% minimum 6" 1.00% 8" 0.60% 14-65 (b) Service connections (1) Where parallel or approximately parallel to a structural wall, the service line shall be at least five (5) feet from the wall. Penetrations through structures shall be at right angles, or close thereto, through PVC sleeves and shall provide flexibility such that the service line will not be damaged by settlement of the structures. (2) Sewer and water service lines shall have ten (10) feet minimum horizontal separation measured from outside of pipe to outside of pipe. Where this separation is impractical, the Town may permit other separation requirements in accordance with applicable standards. If a water line passes within eighteen (18) inches vertical distance above a sewer main or service or if it lies within the minimum horizontal separation distance of the sewer main or service, the sewer service is to be modified to have "no bell" construction per Attachment A-23 — Pipe Crossing Detail. If a water line crosses under a sewer service, a twenty -foot length of C900 PVC shall be used for the gravity sewer line. Smith -Blair 229, Full Circle Collar Leak Repair Clamps, shall be installed on all sanitary sewer joints within the minimum horizontal clearance requirements, and no water line pipe joints shall be located within the minimum horizontal clearance requirement. (3) The minimum cover shall be seven (7) feet from top of sewer service line to finished grade. Service lines with less than seven (7) feet of cover will be considered by the Town with installation of two (2) inches of pipeline insulation installed for every one (1) foot of cover less than seven (7) feet. The Town shall review and approve all locations where pipe depths are less than seven (7) feet. In no case shall a sanitary sewer service line have a depth less than five (5) feet. Service lines shall be installed in accordance with the details per Attachment A-38 — Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding & Backfill Detail. (4) n..o installed , e fittings shall be , sed 4ir se 0 si4nneetians No-sWye tap saddles "es shall be are allewedinstalled for connection of each sanitary sewer service line to the sanitary sewer main line. Pre-installed Me fittings may be allowed on new sanitary sewer main line construction, as an alternative to saddles, for connection of the sanitary sewer service lines to the sanitary sewer main line with prior written annroval by the Town. Wve tan saddles shall conform as follows: For SDR 26 and SDR 35 PVC sanitary sewer lines: The wve tap saddle shall be a pre - manufactured 45° wye with gasket branch, gasket skirt and stainless steel straps (one strap on both the front and back of the Me tap saddle), Model YS0804, as manufactured by JM Eagle, or approved equal. The gaskets and straps shall be supplied by the manufacturer. Installation shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. For C-900/905 PVC sanitary sewer lines or vitrified clay sanitary sewer lines: The wve tap saddle shall be a flexible pre -manufactured 45° wye, Model TSW-4, with slip lock clamps and the Model TSPK-46 Pressure Kit for flexible saddle taps as manufactured by Fernco, or approved equal. The pressure kit includes bentonite tape (to be applied to the pipe interface with the sewer pipe), two reinforcing bars and two additional straps. Installation shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. exeept to elay pipe: 14-66 The hole cut into the-elay pipe shall be core drilled prior to placement of the saddle. If the pipe is damaged or broken, the applicant shall replace the broken or damaged pipe. Connection to lines larger than fifteen (15) inches shall be -be made using the above wye tap saddle assembles extension clamps.fnade using ..,.,,.., ing to or other method proposed by the . «,:,.....V,.. nen and All service line connections shall be approved by the Town prior to installation. The service line connection shall conform to the Attachment A-42 — Sewer Service Line Connection Detail. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.01" service lines shall be connected directly into a manhole. (5) Warning tape shall be installed in the trench above the sewer line. The warning tape shall be installed continuously above the sewer line, a distance of thirty (30) inches above the pipe. The warning tape shall be three (3) inches wide, green in color with the legend "Caution Buried Sewer Line Below" in black and extend continuously in the trench. If any existing warning tape is damaged in construction activities, a splice shall be made using additional warning tape tied to each end to provide a continuous warning tape along the sewer line. Warning tape shall be installed on sewer service lines from the tap at the main to the edge of the right-of-way, easement and/or cleanouts. (6) Each service line is to have a four -inch cleanout installed within twenty (20) feet of the building served, per Attachment A-42 — Sewer Service Line Connection Detail, Attachment A-43 Sewer Service Line Cleanout Detail — Unpaved Location and Attachment A-44 — Sewer Cleanout Collar Detail — Paved Location. Cleanouts are required for any forty -five -degree bend in service line direction and at intervals of no greater than ninety (90) feet. (7) Cleanouts located within paved areas shall be raised to final grade with either asphalt surfacing installed adjacent to the cleanout or with a concrete collar. If the cleanout is set at final grade during the asphalt paving process, the following procedure shall be followed: a. Installation of the bottom lift of asphalt shall be placed over the top of the cleanout b. The cleanout shall be exposed and set to its final grade at one-half ('V2) inch lower than the grade of the final asphalt surface. Any void created in the bottom lift of asphalt by exposing and raising the cleanout shall be filled with compacted hot mix asphalt prior to placement of the top lift of asphalt. c. Installation of the top lift of asphalt shall be placed and compacted, maintaining the required vertical distance from the pavement surface to the top of the cleanout. The cleanout shall remain vertical and plumb. If a concrete collar is the selected method used to raise the cleanout to final grade, it shall be installed after the top lift of asphalt is placed and in accordance with Attachment A-43 — Sewer Service Line Cleanout Collar Detail — Unpaved Location and Attachment A-44 — Sewer Cleanout Collar Detail—Paved Location. (c) Sanitary sewer service materials. 14-67 (1) Sewer service pipe shall be PVC and shall either be SDR 26 or C900 pipe. Where a different pipe material is encountered at the connection point to the sanitary sewer main, a flexible coupler shall be used. The flexible coupler shall be made of an elastomeric compound and shall be connected at each end with a stainless steel clamp. The coupler shall be leak -proof, root -proof and resistant to chemicals, UV rays and normal sewer gases. (2) The coupler shall be: a. Fernco, Part No. 1051-44; b. US Pipe Corp., Part No. 30552; or c. An approved equal. (3) When pre -approved by the Town, where sewer service lines of two (2) different pipe types are being connected together, the watertight connector fitting shall be a manufactured fitting specifically for connection of that size and type of pipe. (d) Grease interceptors. Grease interceptors shall conform to the specifications in the International Plumbing Code as adopted by the Town and this Code. Grease interceptor layout and detail shall be submitted to the Town for review and approval prior to construction or installation. (e) Oil and sand separators. Oil and sand separators shall conform to the specifications in the International Plumbing Code as adopted by the Town and this Code. Oil and sand separator layout and detail shall be submitted to the Town for review and approval prior to construction or installation. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-330. Construction. (a) General. The line shall be watertight and on a constant grade in a straight line, and not closer than five (5) feet from any structural bearing wall. No service connections shall be made during winter months from October 15th to April 15th without written approval from the Town. All excavations for sanitary sewer service installations shall be adequately guarded with barricades and lights so as to protect the public from hazards per existing governmental requirements. Utilities, streets, sidewalks, trails, parkways and other public or private property disturbed in the course of work shall be restored to their original condition in a manner satisfactory to the Town. (b) Service line excavation, bedding and backfill. (1) All excavations required for the installations of the sewer service shall be open -trench work, unless otherwise approved by the Town. The services shall be bedded and backfilled in accordance with the minimum cover and/or insulation requirements of Subsection 14-4-220(b). The bedding and pipe zone material shall meet the requirements of the bedding and pipe zone materials for the sewer main. Backfill materials shall be select native soils with six -inch - maximum diameter rock. (2) The trench of each service line shall not be backfilled from the building to the tap until the completed line is inspected and approved by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-68 Sec. 14-4-340. Service line connection. The applicant for sewer service shall notify the Town when the service is ready for connection to the sewer main. The connection to the sanitary sewer main shall be made in the presence of and approved by the Town. The line and fittings must be leak -free. The service line shall meet the requirements of the International Plumbing Code as adopted. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-350. As -built documentation. The applicant shall submit an as -built drawing showing the location of the point of connection, each clean outthe--sxrb--step and other related improvements relative to visible and reasonably permanent surface features, such as building corners, property pins or power/light poles. If the service line is part of a subdivision development project. The as -built information shall be submitted in accordance with Section 14-2-210. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-4-360. Abandonment of existing service lines. In order to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the system, a watertight cap shall be provided for any sewer service line being abandoned. Two (2) scenarios are outlined below to provide such watertight cap: (1) If the sanitary sewer main is located under an existing paved street, the service line can be abandoned by cutting the service line at the property line, and then gluing a watertight cap on the cut service line. (2) If the sanitary sewer main is located outside the paved street surface area, the service line can be abandoned by cutting the service line at the property line or at a location adjacent to the wye branch, as determined by the Town, and then gluing a watertight cap on the cut service line. The required scenario for service line abandonment shall be determined by the Town. Reference ties to the capped end of the service line shall be recorded and provided to the Town. The sanitary sewer service line abandonment shall be approved and inspected by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) ARTICLE 5 General Division I Other Utilities, Exterior Lighting and Landscaping Specifications Sec. 14-5-10. Underground dry utilities. (a) General. (1) All utility installations within the Town right-of-way shall require submittal of all required permits and approval by the Town prior to any installation activity. All utilities must be clearly labeled on the plans and shall include the type, size, height, etc. 14-69 (2) All utility facilities located on individual site developments, including but not limited to water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electric, telephone and cable television, shall be located underground throughout the development. Installation of any utility (including but not limited to transformers, risers, pedestals or connection boxes may be located above ground but must be adequately screened with planting material. (3-2) All dry utility lines shall be designed according to the governing utility requirements and standards. The applicant is strongly encouraged to contact all utility providers for their current design standards and requirements during the preliminary phase of development, to ensure that adequate easements are provided. (43) All access structures to buried dry utilities, such as manholes, valves and vaults located within public rights-of-way (such as streets, shoulders, sidewalks and trails), shall be traffic -rated and of heavy-duty construction, capable of safely supporting anticipated maintenance equipment and vehicular traffic. When a structure is located within a traveled surface, it shall be raised to final grade with either asphalt surfacing or a concrete collar installed adjacent to the structure. (54) If a structure is set at final grade during the asphalt paving process, the following procedure shall be followed: a. Installation of the bottom lift of asphalt shall be placed over the top of the structure b. The structure shall be exposed and set to its final grade at one-half (%z) inch lower than the grade of the final traveled surface. Any void created in the bottom lift of asphalt by exposing and raising the valve box shall be filled with compacted hot mix asphalt prior to placement of the top lift of asphalt. c. Installation of the top lift of asphalt shall be placed and compacted, maintaining the required vertical distance from the traveled surface to the top of the structure. The structure shall remain vertical and centered over the utility. (63) If a concrete collar is the selected method used to raise the structure to final grade, it shall be installed after the top lift of asphalt is placed and in accordance with Attachment A-29 — Structure/Manhole Concrete Collar Detail. (76) Structures located in the shoulder area of the right-of-way shall be constructed in accordance with Attachment A-27 — Manhole/StructureNalve Box Placement — Shoulder Area. ( -7) Service lines from all public and private utilities shall be stubbed out for each lot in such a manner that it will not be necessary to disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter, roadside ditch, sidewalk, trails and/or right-of-way/property lines when connections are made. (b) Installation. (1) All dry utilities installed within the Town right-of-way shall be installed in conduit or per the utility company specification. (2) The following are the minimum depths required within the right-of-way of the Town: 14-70 Utility Minimum Depth Water Based on Town Standards Sanitary sewer Based on Town Standards Electrical 4' Fiber optics 4' Gas ;4' Phone 3' T.V. cable 3' (3) A ten -foot centerline -to -centerline separation shall be maintained between the waterline and all dry utilities and between the sanitary sewer and all dry utilities, unless otherwise approved by the Town. (c) Bridge/culvert crossing. In general, utilities are not permitted to be attached to bridges and must be placed at least four (4) feet below the ditch or creek flowline as close to the right-of-way line as conditions permit. The utility must be continued four (4) feet below the flow line elevation for a minimum distance of at least ten (10) feet on either side of the ditch bank or twenty (20) feet beyond the historic high water line as defined by the Town FEMA Flood Insurance Study. This would generally permit future bridge and channel improvements without the necessity of relocating utilities. Where utilities are permitted to be attached to bridges due to overriding conditions encountered in the field, as determined by the Town, then such utilities shall be installed as approved by the Town. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-20. Aboveground utilities. (a) The location and installation of any aboveground utility structures, such as cabinets, risers, poles, pedestals or other appurtenances within the Town right-of-way, are subject to Town approval. (b) Aboveground utility structures shall not be placed to be in conflict with a pedestrian walkway or drainage way. Aboveground utility structures shall not be set less than ten (10) feet from the edge of asphalt or concrete of any Town street or within a ten -foot radius of any fire hydrant, unless approved by the Town. (c) In no case will an aboveground structure be permitted within the clear zone unless proper safety measures are in place (i.e., guardrail, steel concrete -filled bollards, etc.). (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-30. Exterior lighting specifications. (a) Commercial lighting for the Business District and all Mixed Use, Lodging and Commercial zoned planning areas in all Planned Development Districts. (1) All commercial luminaires (a fixture and its bulb) shall be Dark Sky Compliant, which means that all exterior lighting fixtures shall be hooded and/or shaded so that zero (0) light is emitted above a horizontal plane drawn through the lowest part of the luminaire and no more than 14-71 - Formatted: Strikethrough ten percent (10%) of light emitted at the eighty -degree angle. The industry standard for this terminology is full cut-off or fully shielded. Fixtures which are shielded by a structural element so as to meet the intent of a full cut-off fixture may be considered to be in compliance. (2) There shall be no single bulb intensity which exceeds two hundred fifty (250) watts. (3) Maximum height of fixtures shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet. (4) Light intensity at ground level shall not exceed two (2) foot-candles average within a maximum to minimum ratio of fifteen to one (15:1). (5) Fixtures located on buildings shall not be located above the eave line or above the top of the parapet wall. (6) A lighting plan shall be submitted on a site plan, indicating the location of each current and proposed outdoor lighting fixture with projected hours of use. The plan shall include a key to the proposed lighting that provides the following information: a. Type and number of luminaire equipment (fixtures), including the "cut-off characteristics," indicating manufacturer and model number(s). b. Lamp source type (bulb type, i.e., high pressure sodium), lumen output and wattage. c. Mounting height with horizontal distance noted to the nearest property line for each luminaire. d. Types of timing devices used to control the hours set for illumination, as well as the proposed hours when each fixture will be operated. e. Total lumens for each fixture and total square footage of areas to be illuminated. f. Surface finish/color of light pole, arm and fixture. (7) Lighting manufacturer -supplied specifications ('but -sheets") that include photographs of the fixtures indicating the certified "cut-off characteristics" of the fixture shall be submitted. (8) A photometric plan, including estimated foot-candle levels with maximum and average illumination, is required for parking lots with ten (10) or more parking spaces. Maximum iliuinaxseluminance levels should be expressed in foot-candle measurements on a ten -foot by ten -foot grid of the site. The grid shall include light contributions from all sources (i.e., pole - mounted, wall -mounted, sign and street light). Show foot-candle renderings a minimum of five (5) feet beyond the property lines. On the approved plan, it should be noted that no substitutions, additions or changes may be made without prior approval by the Town. (b) Street lighting (1) All luminaires (a fixture and its bulb) shall be Dark Sky Compliant, which means that all exterior lighting fixtures shall be hooded and/or shaded so that zero (0) light is emitted above a horizontal plane drawn through the lowest part of the luminaire and no more than ten percent 14-72 (10%) of light emitted at the eighty -degree angle. The industry standard for this terminology is full cut-off or fully shielded. Fixtures which are shielded by a structural element so as to meet the intent of a full cut-off fixture may be considered to be in compliance. (2) Street lighting on public streets shall be designed to address locations that receive heavy pedestrian or vehicular use in areas that are dangerous if unlit, such as roundabouts, traffic circles, intersections, ramps or abrupt changes in grade. (3) Street lights shall be a minimum distance of five (5) feet behind the back of the curb of the street, unless otherwise approved by the Town. If a sidewalk is proposed behind the back of curb, the street light shall be placed two (2) feet behind the back of the sidewalk. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-40. Landscaping specifications. Landscaping for the Business District and all Mixed Use, Lodging and Commercial zoned planning areas in all Planned Development Districts. (1) All developments shall be responsive to site and natural conditions and minimize disturbance to land and existing vegetation. The landscaping plan shall demonstrate that a reasonable effort has been made to preserve existing healthy trees, shrubs and topsoil. (2) Appropriate plant materials. Native and drought -tolerant plant species and seed mixes containing grasses and wildflowers are strongly encouraged, and noxious weeds and plants are prohibited, per the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (Section 35-5.5-101, et seq., C.R.S.). The utilization of the principles of Xeriscape landscaping is encouraged in order to conserve water resources. Bluegrass and other grasses requiring high consumption of water are discouraged. Ornamental nonliving materials, such as decorative rock, wood chips, mulch, brick and paving stones, shall be permitted to be incorporated into a landscaping plan. Landscaping designs should generally use a three-tier concept utilizing hardy, low -growing ground covers, medium height shrubs; and trees. The recommended Plant List for Fraser, Colorado, is available upon request. The Town shall review all landscaping plans. (3) Revegetation of disturbed land. All areas disturbed by grading or construction, not being formally landscaped, shall be mulched and revegetated with seeding mulch (straw -crimped in place or hydromuch, etc.). See Article 5, Division 4, of this Chapter. (4) Guarantee. Performance guarantees shall include the success of all landscaping improvements and revegetation for two (2) growing seasons after installation. Landscaping that dies within the two-year period shall be replaced and shall be required to live for at least two (2) years from the time it is replanted. (5) Obstruction of signs and fire hydrants. Vegetation shall be placed so as not to block sight distances from driveways, corners and intersecting streets. Fire hydrants shall not be obstructed by landscaping. (6) Wildfire defensible space. Creating a defensible space around a home and on property is an important step to take in order to protect your home and property from wildfire. Defensible 14-73 space is an area around a structure where fuels and vegetation are treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire towards the structure. It also creates an area where fire suppression operations can occur. (7) A landscaping plan shall include, at a minimum, the following: a. Site plan, preferred scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet. b. North arrow. c. Property lines. d. Locations of existing and proposed structures on the site. e. Location of all existing and proposed hard surfaces. f. Location of existing natural features. g. Table listing of botanical names, the common names and the planting sizes and quantities of all plantings. h. Description of seed mixture and rates of application. i. Identify which existing trees will remain and which trees will be removed. j. Location and description of landscaping improvements, such as earth berms, walls, fences, screens, lights, ground cover, planter boxes, water elements and other natural materials. k. Irrigation plans. 1. A statement providing that the owner and his or her heirs, successors and assigns will provide adequate maintenance for all site elements. in. Location of snow storage. n. Minimum size for all deciduous trees shall be one (1) inch in caliper. o. Minimum size for evergreen trees shall be six (6) feet in height. p. Minimum size for all shrubs shall be American Nursery and Landscape Association (ANLA) #5 sizing. q. The landscape plan shall include the contact information on who prepared the landscape design. A landscape plan drawn by a landscape architect or designer is preferred but is not required. (8) Landscaping requirements. a. Landscaped area: Fifteen percent (15%) of the lot area. 14-74 b. Tree requirement: Seventy-five percent (75%) of the landscaping area. c. Shrub requirement: Fifteen percent (15%) of the landscaping area. (9) Parking lot perimeter landscaping shall be required for parking lots with ten (10) or more parking spaces to minimize the visual impact of large paved surfaces. Pedestrian access to sidewalks and buildings should be considered in the design of the landscaped areas. Parking areas adjoining a street shall provide a landscape buffer between the street right-of-way and parking area. The landscaping may include a combination of plant materials (trees, shrubs and ground cover), earth berms, walls or fences, raised planters or other screening devices which meet the intent of this requirement. The landscaping plant materials shall include one (1) tree and two (2) shrubs for every twenty (20) feet of parking lot frontage. (10) Parking lot interior landscaping islands shall be required for parking lots with twenty (20) or more parking spaces to minimize the visual impact of large paved surfaces. The intent of the landscaped islands is to provide a measure of aesthetics to the parking areas without seriously inhibiting snow plowing and storage. The landscaping shall be evenly dispersed throughout the parking lot at a ratio of one hundred (100) square feet for every ten (10) parking spaces or fraction thereof. One (1) tree and two (2) shrubs shall be provided for every ten (10) parking spaces or fraction thereof. (11) Landscaping maintenance. a. Landscaping maintenance shall include irrigation, fertilization, pruning and noxious weed control. b. The applicant shall also submit suitable collateral to ensure the completion of the landscaping requirement. The collateral shall be no less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated cost of the plant materials. The collateral shall be in a form of a letter of credit, cash deposit or other such legal assurance as may be deemed appropriate by the Town and approved by the Town Attorney. This amount shall be retained by the Town until the plant materials have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years after installation. The Town may, during that time, draw upon the funds to replace plant materials which have died. The remainder of the collateral, if any, shall be returned to the owner of record upon the expiration of the two-year period. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Division 2 Trenching, Bedding and Backfill Sec. 14-5-110. Trench zones. The terms bedding zone, pipe zone and backfill zone shall refer to the trench zones identified in the Standard Drawings, Attachment A-18 — Water Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail and Attachment A-38 — Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding & Backfill Detail. (1) Bedding zone. The bedding zone shall consist of all material placed below the pipe invert or, when permitted, the native materials graded and prepared for direct placement of the pipe. 14-75 (2) Pipe zone. The pipe zone shall consist of all material placed above the pipe invert to an elevation shown on Attachment A-18 — Water Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail and Attachment A-38 — Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding & Backfill Detail. (3) Backfill zone. The backfill zone shall consist of all material above the pipe zone. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-120. Material. All bedding and backfill material shall have the approval of the Engineer of Record. All bedding and backfill material shall be free of frozen material, organic material and debris. The materials to be used in each trench zone are indicated on the Attachment A-18 — Water Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail and Attachment A-38 — Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding & Backfill Detail drawings using these materials are described below. All materials may be subject to gradation tests and compaction tests prior to approval of the use of that material. (1) Granular bedding material. When used in the bedding zone and pipe zone with Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP), sanitary sewer PVC pipe or waterline PVC pipe, this material shall be a clean, well -graded gravelly material and shall conform to the following limits when tested by means of laboratory sieves: Sieve Size Total Percent Passing by Weight %'t—l" 100 No. 4 70-100 No. 8 36-93 No. 16 20-80 No. 30 8-65 No. 50 2-30 No. 100 1-10 No. 200 03 Compaction of this bedding material is required utilizing mechanical tamping equipment within the bedding zone prior to installation of the pipe. Compaction testing shall be required. (2) Class 6 Aggregate (CDOT) backfill material. When used in the bedding zone and pipe zone with Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP), sanitary sewer PVC pipe or waterline PVC pipe, this material shall conform to the following limits when tested by means of laboratory sieves: Sieve Size Total Percent Passing by Weight %a" 100 No. 4 30-65 No. 8 20-55 200 3-12 14-76 Compaction of this backfill material is required utilizing mechanical tamping equipment within the backfill zone prior to installation of the pipe. Compaction testing shall be required. (3) Coarse aggregate bedding and/or backfill material. When used in the bedding zone and pipe zone with Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP), when sheathing is not required and sanitary sewer PVC pipe, this material shall be crushed rock or angular surfaced gravel and shall conform to the following limits when tested by means of laboratory sieves: Sieve Size Total Percent Passing by Weight V 100 '/a" 90-100 W. 20-55 No. 4 0-10 No. 8 05 Compaction testing may not be required for this material, at the discretion of the Town. (4) Select material. For use in the backfill zone, select material shall not be permitted unless authorized by the Town Engineer. This material shall consist of suitable material screened from the excavated earth having no rocks or stones greater in size than two (2) inches for DIP or RCP, three-fourths (3/4) inch for all other gravity flow pipe and one-half ('/Z) inch for all other pressure pipe. (5) Trench stabilization material. This material shall be a three -fourths -inch to one -and -one- half -inch uniformly -graded, crushed rock or concrete aggregate. (6) Backfill material. a. For use in the backfill zone, backfill material shall consist of suitable material from the excavated earth, meeting all the requirements of the specifications. b. No boulders over six (6) inches in any dimension shall be allowed in the trench backfill. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-130. Bedding and backfill installation. (a) Unless accurate results cannot be obtained, the compaction requirements shall conform to maximum dry density according to ASTM D698 standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort (Standard Proctor). When the ASTM D698 test is not applicable, the percentage compaction requirements shall conform to ASTM D4253 standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table (Relative Density). (b) In areas under roadways and in the public right-of-way, compaction tests shall be performed in the trench for the bedding and in the backfill zone one and one-half (1'/2) feet above the top of pipe 14-77 and in one -foot vertical increments to finish grade. Compaction tests shall be performed for each vertical increment noted above and at horizontal intervals of every one hundred (100) feet, measured along the centerline of pipe. Where water and sewer lines are located within an easement outside the public right-of-way, the Town will determine if compaction and compaction testing are required on a case-by-case basis following a review of specific site conditions. (c) The applicant is responsible for providing adequate materials testing and/or geotechnical engineering resources to provide the quality control requirements stipulated herein. (1) Bedding zone installation. Bedding material shall consist of the material on which the pipe is placed in accordance with the pipe trench details. Bedding material shall be placed to the required elevation of the pipe invert. Tamping equipment shall be used to thoroughly tamp the bedding material to a minimum of ninety-five percent (95%) standard dry density or to seventy- five percent (75%) relative density. The moisture content of the material shall be within two percent (2%) of optimum. (2) Pipe zone installation. a. After bedding material has been placed and approved and after the pipe has been installed and approved, the pipe zone backfill shall be installed to an elevation shown on the pipe trench details. b. The pipe zone material shall be as specified on the details and shall be placed and compacted in distinct, separate lifts not to exceed six (6) inches of loose depth; except that the first loose lift shall not be higher than the pipe centerline (springliaesprin line). Compaction shall meet the requirements of Paragraph 14-5-130(c)(1), utilizing T bars or mechanical tamping equipment. (3) Backfill zone installation. a. Outside of the public right-of-way and not under driveways, streets and parking lots. After the pipe zone backfill has been placed and approved, the trench shall be backfilled. All backfill above the pipe zone backfill shall be carefully placed in the trench in lifts no greater than eighteen (18) inches. Each lift shall be compacted by mechanical equipment to ninety percent (90%) of standard dry density. After the trench is backfilled to the ground surface, a loaded dump truck or loader placed in the trench line shall compact the backfill by its wheel load. No fewer than two (2) passes shall be made. If the backfill is depressed below the finished grade elevation, the depressed area shall be refilled and compacted. The backfill shall be mounded higher than the adjacent ground to allow for settlement. b. In roads, streets and parking lots and in the public right-of-way, backfill shall be carefully placed and compacted. Compaction shall be by mechanical tamping in eight -inch - maximum loose lifts using mechanical or hand tampers, weighing not less than twenty (20) pounds, or vibratory rollers. All other means must be approved in writing by the Town Engineer. All backfill shall be compacted to ninety-five percent (95%) of maximum standard dry density or seventy percent (70%) relative density. The material shall be within two percent (2%) of optimum moisture content. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-78 Division 3 Road and Trail Cut Standards and Regulations See. 14-5-210. Permit and regulations. (a) Generally. (1) An access permit application shall be submitted for driveway construction or other improvements within the public right-of-way prior to commencing any work within the right-of- way. An approved access permit shall be posted at the work site and available upon request at all times. (2) Work affecting any public improvement shall not be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless approved by the Town. (b) Boring/jacking. Where the installation of a utility improvement is underneath a surfaced area (i.e., roadways, trails, etc.), boring or jacking beneath the paved surface may be required at the discretion of the Town. Open -cut trenching is not allowed within a distance of ten (10) feet from the edge of any pavement. No water shall be used in boring and no tunneling shall be permitted. (c) Asphalt cuts. (1) All open cut road backfill shall be compacted in place to ninety-five percent (95%) of Standard Proctor density at two percent (2%) over/under optimum moisture. Compaction testing is the responsibility of the applicant. At the discretion of the Town, use of flowable-fill may be allowed to the bottom of the existing pavement section during construction. Sub -grades on all open cut roads within paved sections will require a proof of density test meeting the requirements of these standards. (2) All cuts made in asphalt, concrete or chip seal surfaces shall be made by mechanically cutting to a true straight horizontal and vertical line. The final pavement edge shall be cut one (1) foot wider than the top of the trench excavation and shall not be made until immediately prior to patching. All street surface patches shall meet and match the existing street surface and cross- section. (3) All excavations that are made in paved streets must be completely restored within thirty (30) days after acceptance of the sub -grade and backfill by the Town. Excavations between September 15th and October 15th shall be repaved within five (5) business days. Excavations within the right-of-way shall not be permitted after October 15th or prior to April l5th, unless otherwise approved by the Town. Temporary repairs may be made by tamping and rolling into place a cold mix asphaltic concrete. Such cold mix patches shall be removed and replaced by a permanent hot mix asphaltic concrete as soon as weather and availability of materials permit. (4) Replacement asphalt for streets and roads shall be CDOT Grade C, placed on compacted sub -grade, nine (9) inches full depth or existing thickness plus three (3) inches, whichever is greater. Replacement concrete shall be CDOT Class A/B, placed on compacted sub -grade, seven- inch depth or existing thickness plus two (2) inches, whichever is greater. The concrete patch shall be doweled in place. 14-79 (5) Replacement asphalt for trails shall be CDOT Grade C, placed on compacted sub -grade, six (6) inches full depth or existing thickness plus three (3) inches, whichever is greater. (6) Damaged pavement shall be repaired by appropriate methods as approved by the Town. In general, cracks are to be filled with the proper asphaltic product and the surface properly seal coated. An asphalt concrete overlay two (2) inches thick for the full width of the paved surface shall be required in those instances which, in the opinion of the Town, the riding quality or the appearance of the finished street has been impaired. Sub -grade failures caused by the applicant's operation of heavy equipment shall be rectified by reconstructing the sub -grade layers and replacing the sub -base, base and asphalt pavement within the damaged area and ten (10) feet in each direction from this damage area. In the event that asphaltic concrete base, soil cement or other base course materials are encountered during excavation, restoration shall be made in kind or as otherwise specified by the Town. (7) Streets completed in areas of excavated and backfilled trenches or cuts that show signs of depressions or evidence of failure which have not been repaired by the applicant after reasonable notice may be repaired by the Town at the applicant's expense. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-220. General policies. (a) Construction work shall be planned so as not to create safety hazards or maintenance problems or to obstruct drainage ways. The Town shall be informed forty-eight (48) hours prior to the start of construction and shall be notified when construction is completed. (b) No cleated or track equipment shall work on or move over paved surfaces without mats. Any damage to the pavement due to equipment operation shall be repaired immediately at the expense of the permittee. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-230. Traffic control. Adequate warning signs, barricades, lighting and other devices as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices shall be provided, and maintained by the applicant. A copy of the applicant's Traffic Control Plan shall be provided to the Town as required by the access permit application. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-240. Inspection and warranty. A minimum of forty-eight (48) hours' notice is required to schedule inspections, which are available Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and Friday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Connection to any public water or sewer mains is prohibited on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The Town will not make inspections during any period when climatic conditions interfere with making a thorough inspection, as determined by the Town. (1) Preliminary inspection. Upon completion of construction of all improvements, the applicant shall notify the Town and request a preliminary inspection. During the preliminary inspection, a walk through will be performed and a punch list of any deficient items will be provided to the applicant within ten (10) days of the date of the walk through. Minor punch list items, as determined by the Town, may be completed during the warranty period. Significant 14-80 punch list items, as determined by the Town, shall be satisfactorily completed prior to the start of the warranty period. If significant items, as determined by the Town, are noted during the walk through, the applicant shall satisfactorily complete the repair or replacement of those significant items and schedule a follow-up inspection with the Town. (2) Warranty. a. A twelve-month warranty is required for all street and roadway right-of-way projects. The warranty period shall commence upon written notice from the Town of satisfactory completion of the work performed under the approved access permit. b. If deficiencies are noted during the warranty period, the Town will notify the applicant of the deficiencies. The applicant shall correct those deficiencies within thirty (30) days of notification by the Town. (3) Final inspection and approval. a. Approximately thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the warranty period, a final inspection will be scheduled (subject to weather). b. Upon final inspection, if the Town finds the improvements are not substantially free of defects in materials and workmanship, final approval will not be granted. The applicant shall take such action as is necessary to correct any noncompliance and, upon correction of the same, shall request a follow up inspection by the Town. c. Upon final approval, the release of any financial surety may be processed. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-250. Emergency conditions. Unplanned wWork required in a Town right-of-way due to an emergency eventeenditiens, such as an existing utility line break or leak, which is believed to be anthe immediate threat to the loss of life or property, may be completed without issuance of an approved permit. . As soon as it is determined necessary for suchthat emergency work—is to be performed, the Town shall be notified immediatelyas seen as possib'-. Such emergency wor'-uewe. ,e. ., "' �s does not provide a waiver of any required permits or; design ander construction requirements in accordance with the Fraser Municipal Code. Any such requirements shall be addressed as soon as reasonably possible. Construction of utility lines to provide new service to customers does not constitute an emergency event and shall follow Fraser's access permit process.("fa. 24° 'a# , � Division 4 Revegetation, Erosion and Sediment Control Sec. 14-5-310. Introduction. (a) The purpose of establishing and implementing these erosion and sediment control and revegetation criteria is to prevent degradation to water quality, downstream properties and receiving waterways as a result of the site disturbance. 14-81 (b) The East Grand Water Quality Board Erosion and Sediment Control for Construction Activities Guidance Manual provides design requirements and best management practices. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-320. Regulatory requirements. All applicants/developers are responsible for compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, the Colorado Discharge Permitting System and any other applicable regulations. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) Sec. 14-5-330. Revegetation. (a) All areas disturbed during construction shall include, at a minimum, three (3) inches of conditioned soil suitable for establishing the required vegetation cover and to prevent soil erosion. The seedbed shall be properly prepared to be firm but not compacted for successful seed to soil contact and germination. Seeding shall take place within fourteen (14) days of grading operations. (b) The following seed mix shall be applied to all disturbed areas on public property, and is recommended for private property: Seed Mix Land Use % of Mix Species Variety Application Rate (lbs/ac) Dry land non -irrigated reclamation 50% Smooth Brome 10.0 50% Pubescent Wheatgrass 10.0 Totals 100% 20.0 NOTES: 1. The applied seed shall not be covered by soil thickness greater than 0.5" in depth. 2. To provide temporary erosion control prior to seed application, utilize surface roughening (on the contour or perpendicular to prevailing winds) and apply mulch. 3. Areas that require broadcast seeding shall be mulched and tackified. 4. Seed applied hydraulically shall include tackifier in the mix, as specified by the manufacturer. 5. Weed control in compliance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (Section 35-5.5, C.R.S.) and Chapter 7, Article 4 of this Code. (c) For acceptance of revegetation, the requirements shall be defined as follows: (1) Preliminary acceptance for revegetation shall be provided when the seed has germinated and there is visible surface coverage of thirty percent (30%) or more. (2) Final acceptance for revegetation shall be provided when the seed has germinated and there is visible surface coverage of seventy percent (70%) or more. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-82 Sec. 14-5-340. Rip rap. (a) Rip rap for slope protection/erosion control shall be angular hard rock with size, depth and area coverage of rip rap in accordance with design requirements of the Urban Storm Drainage and Criteria Manual. (b) Rip rap in drainage courses or at the ends of storm sewer pipes shall be installed such that the top of the rip rap mat is at the final grade of the ditch flow line, side slope or area to be protected. Rip rap extending above the final grade shall be reworked to provide an unobstructed flow line or side slope surface. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) ARTICLE 6 Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 14-6-10. Publications, references and design aids. The publications listed below are acceptable sources for design information not found in these Standards. These publications may be useful for variance request submittals. A publication not listed below may be used at the discretion of the Town. (1) A Policy on Geometric Design of Hi ways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)-1 Sixth Addition. (2) American Water Works Association Design Standards, (AWWA); 2011 Edition. (3) Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, (CDPHE). (4) State of Colorado Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems (CDPHE); Revised March 31, 1997. (5) State of Colorado. Design Criteria Considered In The Review of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (CDPHE); April 9, 2007. (6) Colorado State Forest Service Wildfire Safety website. (7) Colorado Supplement to the MUTCD; 2003 Edition. (8) Pavement Design Manual, CDOT; 2011 Edition. (9) Design of Pavement Structures, (AASHTO); Fourth Edition. (10) Erosion and Sediment Control For Construction Activities Guidance Manual, East Grand Water Quality Board (EGWQB); 2005. (11) Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria Manual, Chapters 2 through 10, Grand County, Colorado; 2006. (12) Town of Fraser Subdivision Regulations, Town of Fraser. 14-83 (13) Geographic Control Data Base, BLM. (14) Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, AASHTO; First Edition. (15) Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT<400), AASHTO; First Edition. (16) M&S Standard Plans, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); 2011. (17) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway Administration; 2009 Edition. (18) Roadside Design Guide, AASHTO; Third Edition. (19) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, AASHTO; Seventeenth Edition. (20) Standard Specifications for Street and Roadways Construction, CDOT; 2011 Edition. (21) Traffic Engineering Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); Sixth Edition. (22) Trip Generation, ITE; Eighth Edition. (23) FEMA Flood Insurance Study; Grand County, CO 8049CV000A; Town of Fraser; 080073, dated January 2, 2008. (24) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District; 2010 Edition. (25) Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov. (26) Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, www.cdphe.state.co.us. (27) Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, www.udfcd.org. (28) Erosion Control Technology Council, www.eetc.org. (29) International Erosion Control Association, www.icca.org. (30) International Stormwater BMP Database, www.bmpdatabase.org. (31) International Plumbing Code; 2009 Edition. (32) National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), www.nres.usda.gov. (33) Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), www.nwc.cog.co.us. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-84 Sec. 14-6-20. Variance review procedure. (a) Variances from these Standards, following a written request from the applicant, will be reviewed and considered to determine if the variance will produce a comparable result which is in the Town's interest and meets the objectives of public safety, function, fire protection, appearance and maintainability based upon sound engineering judgment. (b) Two (2) full-size twenty -four -inch by thirty -six-inch copies and one (1) electronic PDF format copy of the variance request shall be submitted in writing to the Director of Public Works. The response to the variance request will be completed in a timely manner and provided in writing. The request for variance shall include a description of the requested variance and the applicable sections of the Standards to which it references; detail of the variance, including applicable engineering drawings, site plans, descriptive reports, analysis and calculations; and any other applicable information. (c) Variances from these Standards may be granted by the Town Manager upon completion of the review and evaluation. An appeal of the decision may be made to the Board of Trustees. (Ord. 389 Part 1.1, 2012) Sec. 14-6-30. Definitions. Access permit means written permission from the Town in order to work within the Town right-of- way to construct and/or maintain driveways, sanitary sewer service lines and water service lines. Air Release Valve (ARV) means a waterline valve assembly installed at each high point within the water distribution system to release trapped air from the system. Applicant means the person responsible for the development and/or improvements being proposed; also referred to herein as developer. Arterial street means a public road serving a multi -family dwelling unit, more than one (1) single- family dwelling unit and/or commercial units and is maintained by the Town with an ADT of six hundred (600) or more. Augmentation water line means a water pipeline carrying augmentation water from a source point to a discharge point and, if Town -owned, shall be installed in a public right-of-way or easement. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) means the average twenty -four-hour volume, being the total number during a stated period, divided by the number of days in the period. Unless otherwise stated, the period is one (1) year. Backfill means material used to replace or the act of replacing material removed during construction; also may denote material placed or the act of placing material adjacent to structures. Base course means the layers of specified or selected material of selected thickness placed on a sub -base or a sub -grade to support a surface course. Board or Board of Trustees means the governing body of the Town. 14-85 Box culvert means a rectangular concrete structure typically used to either channel water or provide pedestrian access underneath a trail, street, railway or embankment. Bridge means a structure, including walls or abutments, erected over a depression or an obstruction, such as water, highway or railway, and having a track or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads. Clear zone is used to designate the unobstructed, relatively flat area beyond the edge of the roadway for the recovery of errant vehicles. Recoverable slopes are defined as 4:1 or flatter, and a nonrecoverable slope between 4:1 and 3:1. Collector street means a public street serving a combination of multi -family dwelling units, businesses and/or single-family dwelling units with a maximum unit count generating six hundred (600) ADTs or less, and maintained by the Town. Collection system means a Town -owned sewer pipeline carrying raw sewage only, and shall be installed in a public right-of-way or easement. Commercial driveway means a driveway accessing a common parking area where multiple businesses are located or a single business where large commercial vehicles enter and exit on a frequent basis. Commercial lighting means site lighting, including parking areas and driveways for commercial and business use, including but not limited to restaurants, office space, retail space, theatres, hotels, etc. Construction season means April 15th to October 15th, unless otherwise approved by the Town. Contour means a line, as shown on the plans, connecting points of equal elevation on a map of the land surface. Contractor means the entity working on behalf of the applicant to construct the utilities or other physical improvements. Corner sight distance means the necessary distance needed to accelerate enough so as to not slow the travel speed of other cars by more than ten (10) mph. Critical flow means a condition which exists at the critical depth; under this condition, the sum of the velocity head and static head is a minimum. Cross connection means any point in the water distribution system where chemical, biological or radiological contaminants may come in contact with potable water; also referred to as a reduced pressure or backflow condition. Crown/cross slope means, on streets, each lane of the pavement sloping separately or having a unidirectional slope across the entire width of pavement, almost always downward to the outer edge. Cul-de-sac means a local street open at one (1) end only and with special provisions for turning around (bulb, hammerhead, "T", etc.). 14-86 Culvert means a closed conduit, other than a bridge, which conveys water carried by a natural channel or waterway transversely under the roadway. Customer means any person, company, corporation, governmental authority or agency authorized to use the public water system under a permit issued or otherwise authorized by the Board of Trustees or the Town Manager. Design speed means the speed the roadway is designed to be driven, which is also a speed determined for design and correlation of the physical features of a highway that influence vehicle operation. It is the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specific section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern. Design vehicle means the maximum -sized vehicle that can reasonably be expected to travel upon the completed roadway. Developer means a person, firm, joint venture, partnership or corporation which is the owner or operator of land and which seeks to have land developed; also referred to herein as applicant. Drainage appurtenance means an inlet, storm sewer, curb and gutter, drain pipe, culvert, valley pans, etc. Driveway means a minor roadway connection that falls into three (3) categories: private, commercial and public. Dry utilities refers to electric, gas, communications, etc. Easement means a right to use or control the property of another for a designated, specific purpose. Engineer means the engineering firm or duly authorized representative (Engineer) designated by the Town to act on its behalf in all engineering -related matters. Engineer of Record means the professional engineer, licensed by the State, responsible for the design and whose seal and signature appear on the plan set. Erosion means the wearing away of land surface by detaching and transporting soil and rock particles by the action of water, wind or other agents. Grade means the rate expressed in terms of percent of ascent or descent divided by the length. Grading plan means a drawing showing an arrangement of contours intended to integrate construction and topography, improve appearance, retard erosion and improve drainage. Guardrail means a protective device intended to make roadways safer by reducing accident severity. Horizontal alignment means horizontal geometries for safe and continuous operation at a uniform design speed for substantial lengths of roadway, and shall afford at least the minimum stopping distance for the design speed at all points on the roadway. 14-87 Improvement Agreement (IA) means a written contract between the Town and the applicant, providing for construction of improvements, with collateral security to guarantee completion of such improvements. Individual driveway means a single driveway accessing only one (1) business, one (1) residence or a single -ownership property. Inspector means the Town Manager, Public Works Director, Town Engineer, agent, officers and employees of the Town or other person so designated by the Town Manager to perform inspections pursuant to these Standards. Intersection means a location where two (2) streets or roadways join at, or approximately at, right angles. Local facilities are those facilities generally designed primarily to serve individual subdivisions or plats. Examples include: the water distribution system, sanitary sewer collection system and storm drainage collection system. Local street means a public street serving a combination of multi -family dwelling units, businesses and/or single-family dwelling units with a maximum unit count generating four hundred (400) ADTs or less and maintained by the Town. Minimum turning radius means the radius of the outside of the outer front tire or overhang depicting the minimum turning path of the design vehicle. Oversize costs (sanitary sewer system): This item is applicable to part of the costs of a sanitary sewer collection system to be installed within, or for, a subdivision; that the Town has also assigned a trunk line function which results in the need for a larger pipeline. Oversize costs are the difference between the actual costs of the line size required by the Town and the line size required by the applicant; however, for purposes of determining oversize, the minimum line size shall be assumed to be eight -inch diameter for sewer. Engineering and inspection costs are assumed to be proportional to estimated or experienced construction costs. Oversize costs (water system): This item is applicable to part of the costs of a water distribution line to be installed within, or for, a subdivision; that the Town has also assigned a transmission function which results in the need for a larger pipeline. Oversize costs are the difference between the actual costs of the line size required by the Town and the line size required by the applicant; however, for purposes of determining oversize, the minimum line size shall be assumed to be eight -inch diameter for water. Engineering and inspection costs are assumed to be proportional to estimated or experienced construction costs. Incremental costs will be allowed for line fittings, valves, vaults and other appurtenances if a size increase is required. Owner means the land's record title holder or lessee with planning powers. Permit means written permission of the Board of Trustees authorizing connection to a water main or sewer main of the Town granting the applicant a license to use the water or sewer system or to receive water or sewer service from the system owned, operated or served by the Town. 14-88 Person means any individual, firm, company, association, society, corporation or group. Phasing means constructing the development in phases. Access, drainage and utility service shall be constructed with each phase and connect to the existing infrastructure in such a manner as to provide an adequate level of service as determined by the Town. Point of Curvature (PC) means the beginning of horizontal curvature, tangent to previous segment. Point of Tangency (PT) means the end of horizontal curvature, tangent to next segment. Point of Vertical Curvature (PVC) means the beginning of vertical curvature, tangent to previous segment. Point of Vertical Inflection (PVI) means a point of two (2) intersecting grades. Point of Vertical Tangency (PVT) means the end of vertical curvature, tangent to next segment or a multi -family dwelling unit. Potable water line means a Town -owned water transmission and/or distribution pipeline carrying treated potable drinking water and shall be installed in a public right-of-way or easement. Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) means a waterline valve assembly used to reduce pressure within the waterline by mechanical means. Private shared drive means a private shared drive serving a combination of multi -family dwelling units and/or single-family dwelling units with a maximum unit count generating forty (40) ADTs or less and is not maintained by the Town. Private street means a private street serving a combination of multi -family dwelling units and/or single-family dwelling units with a maximum unit count generating two hundred (200) ADTs or less and not maintained by the Town. Public Works Director means the Director of Public Works of the Town; also referred to herein as the Public Works Director. Pump back waterline means a water pipeline carrying nonpotable water from a lower elevation point to a higher elevation point for discharge to a designated point and, if Town -owned, shall be installed in a public right-of-way or easement. Raw water supply line means a Town -owned water supply pipeline carrying untreated raw water only and shall be installed in a public right-of-way or easement. Regional facilities means those facilities generally serving the Town's service areas as a whole. Examples include: water sources, water treatment plants and tanks, water supply, transmission and distribution lines, sanitary sewer trunk lines and waste water treatment facilities. Right-of-way is a general term which identifies a tract of land dedicated to the Town, usually in a strip, acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes. 14-89 Roadway means a portion of a traveled way, including pavement, curb and gutter and shoulders, designed primarily for motorized vehicular movements. The terms roadway and streets are used herein interchangeably. Shoulder means the paved or unpaved portion of a roadway contiguous with the traveled way for accommodation of stopped vehicles, for emergency use and for lateral support of base and surface courses. Sight distance means the distance needed for a driver to detect an unexpected or otherwise difficult -to -perceive information, source or condition in a roadway environment that may be visually cluttered; recognize the condition or potential threat; select an appropriate speed and path; and initiate and complete the maneuver safely and efficiently. Slope: Side slopes are defined herein as a specific horizontal distance for every specific vertical distance. As an example, a slope of 3:1 is a slope of three (3) feet horizontal to every one (1) foot vertical. Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) means the sum of the brake reaction distance and the braking distance. SSD is measured from the driver's eyes, three and one-half (31/2) feet above the road surface, to an object two (2) feet high on the road. Street Supervisor means the individual designated by the Town to be responsible for the day-to- day operation and maintenance of the Town street system. Streets means a portion of a traveled way, including pavement, curb and gutter and shoulders, designed primarily for motorized vehicular movements. The terms streets and roadway are used herein interchangeably. Sub -base means the layer or layers of specified or selected material, of designed thickness, placed on a sub -grade to support a base course. Sub -grade means the top surface of a roadbed upon which the pavement structure and shoulders, including curbs, are constructed. Super -elevation means the vertical distance between the heights of inner and outer edges of roadway pavement used to prevent vehicles from sliding outward, or to counteract all the centrifugal force of a vehicle traveling at an assumed speed or roadway banking. Survey plat means a plat map of a property depicting characteristics of the land, including but not limited to property comers, adjacent platted document detail, utility easements and other relevant information. Traffic control device means any sign, signal marking or installation placed or erected under public authority for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding. Vertical alignment means an element of road design intended to provide adequate sight distance, safety, comfortable driving, good drainage and pleasing appearance. Stopping sight distance requirements controls minimum lengths of crest vertical curves. 14-90 Water main means a Town -owned water transmission and/or distribution pipeline carrying potable water only and shall be installed in a public right-of-way or easement. Water service line means the privately owned water line extending from the water main to the customer's building and shall include the tap on the main, corporation stop, curb -stop valve and box and meter installation. (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-91 APPENDIX 14-A List of Attachments No. Title A-1 Approval Block A-2 As -Built Plan Submittal Block A-3 As -Built Plan Required Information (Street and Storm Drainage Systems) A-4 As -Built Plan Required Information (Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems) A-5 Utility Easement Widths A-6 Cross -Section for Arterial Street A-7 Cross -Section for Collector Street A-8 Cross -Section for Local Street A-9 Cross -Section for Private Street A-10 Cross -Section for Private Shared Drive A-11 Curb and Gutter A-12 Cul -de -Sac and Turnarounds for Streets A-13 Sidewalks and Trails A-14 Handicap Ramps A-15 Drive Cuts A-16 Fire Hydrant Detail A-17 Tracer Wire Detail A-18 Water Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail A-19 Polyethylene Wrap Detail A-20 Concrete Thrustblocks A-21 Mechanical Joint Restraint Details A-22 Length of Restrained Pipe A-23 Pipe Crossing Detail A-24 Pipe Encasement Detail A-25 Bore Casing Detail A-26 Locking Valve Box Detail A-27 Manhole/Structure/Valve Box Placement — Shoulder Area A-28 Valve Box Concrete Collar Detail A-29 Structure/Manhole Concrete Collar Detail A-30 Optional Manhole/Structure Adjustment Detail A-31 Air Release Valve Structure A-32 Underground PRV Vault — Plan View A-33 Underground PRV Vault — Section View A-34 Water Service Line and Curb Stop A-35 Water Meter Assembly Installation A-36 Water Well Meter House Elevations A-37 Water Well Meter House Floor Plan and Foundation A-38 Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding & Backfill Detail A-39 Standard Precast Concrete Manhole A-40 Shallow Precast Concrete Manhole A-41 Drop Precast Concrete Manhole A-42 Sewer Service Line Connection Detail A-43 Sewer Service Line Cleanout Detail — Unpaved Location A-44 Sewer Cleanout Collar Detail — Paved Location 14-92 14-91 These designs, plans, and contract documents are reviewed for concept and general conformance to the Town's minimum standards only, and the responsibility for design adequacy shall remain with the Engineer of Record. This review does not imply responsibility by either the Town of Fraser or the Town's Engineer for completeness, accuracy or correctness of calculations. The review does not imply that quantities of items indicated on the Plans are the final quantities required. The review shall not be construed for any reason as acceptance of financial responsibility by the Town of Fraser or any of the reviewing parties for additional items and additional quantities of items shown that may be required during the construction phase. Approved for construction within one (1) year of the earliest of these dates: By Town Engineer Date By Town of Fraser Date By East Grand Date Fire Protection District #4 Note. East Grand Fire Protection District #4 signature line shall only be required on projects extending or modifying Fraser's Water Distribution System. Approval Block THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Attachment A-1 Revised M mh 20121 14-91 These As-Built plans were prepared in accordance with the Minimum Design Criteria and Construction Standards of the Town of Fraser. The plans reflect the as-built conditions of the project incorporating all modifications, change orders and field adjustments made to the plan set approved for construction, last dated By Contractor Date By (Seal) Engineer of Record Date By Developer Date Approval of the As-Built Plan does not imply acceptance of the project. It only implies acceptance of form and format. It is the Developer's project team's responsibility to provide accurate complete As-Built information. Town of Fraser By Date As-Built Plan Submittal Block THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Attachment A-2 Revised 14-92 GENERAL NOTES: LOCATE: -STORM SEWER BENDS -INLETS -FLOWLINE ELEV. & INVERT ELEV -STORM SEWER MANHOLES -INVERT ELEVATIONS & RIM ELEVATIONS -ALL BUILDING PERIMETER DRAIN LINES. NOTE: -ANY KNOWN R.O.W. & EASEMENT INFORMATION -DISTANCES TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT & TO R.O.W. OR EASEMENTS -FINAL INVERT ELEVATIONS W/ BENCHMARK ELEVATION REFERENCED. -LENGTH, SIZE, MATERIAL & SLOPE OF LINE AS INSTALLED. -DISTANCES BETWEEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. -PERMANENT EASEMENT MONUMENTS & PROPERTY CORNERS (PC) WHERE USED FOR TIES -SERVICE STREET ADDRESSES. RIGHT OF WAY EDGE OF PAVEMENT MH RIM ELEV: MH INVERT ELEV IN: RIM ELEV: DIMENSION DIMENSION INVERT ELEV OUT: INVERT ELEV IN: q STREET INVERT ELEV OUT: ~ _T STM N�1FAE N-17 DIMENSION DIME SION - �I STORM INLET CLEAN-OUTTRANSFORMER D MENSI - EASE EN ® W11 TH 1743 ANYWHERE ST. I I I BUILDING BUILDING FENCE NOTES: PERIMETER DRAIN 1. DRAFT "AS -RECORDED" DRAWINGS TO SCALE. 2. TREES SHALL NOT BE USED AS AS -BUILT REFERENCE POINTS As -Built Plan Required Information (Street and Storm Drainage Systems) THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser a -'pt Licea 2p� Attachment A-3 Revised 14-93 ® LOCATE WATER LINE BENDS. ® LOCATE WATER LINE TEES & CROSSES. Q LOCATE ALL VALVES, SERVICES & MAINS. ® LOCATE ANY SPECIALTY ITEMS. (E.G. FIRE HYDRANTS. METER VAULTS, ARV VAULTS, PRV VAULTS, COUPLINGS, MANHOLES, ETC...) ® NOTE DISTANCES TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT AND TO R.O.W. OR EASEMENTS. ® LOCATE ALL SERVICE TAPS AND LINES. © NOTE ANY KNOWN R.O.W. AND EASEMENT INFORMATION. ® NOTE FINAL INVERT ELEVATIONS Wl BENCHMARK ELEVATION REFERENCED. m NOTE LENGTH, SIZE, MATERIAL AND SLOPE OF LINE AS INSTALLED. I@ NOTE DISTANCES BETWEEN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. Q NOTE NT MUMENS AD PROPERTY MCORNERSANENT A(PC)EWH ROENUSEDTFORNTIES. ® NOTE SERVICE STREET ADDRESSES. RIGHT OF WAY EDGE OF PAVEMENT TELEPHONE POLE NOTE: 1. DRAFT "AS -RECORDED" DRAWINGS TO SCALE. Z. TREES SHALL NOT BE USED FOR REFERENCE TIES. J H J F_ POLE - 1, - - E F F AN ®HERE ST. 81MD/NG I D �-TRANSFORMER WATER SERVICE SEWER SERVICE BUILDING FENCE -- Plan Required Information (Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems) THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser �f USS Attachment A-4 RevisedAAafelr-28 14-94 DEPTH OF COVER = H(FT) S' TIP. (WATER) 7' WR (SANITARY SEWER) MIN. SLOPE PER OSHA, 1.5:10 (H:V) TYP. J MAX. TRENCH WIDTH IS PIPE DIAMETER + 2 FEET UTILITY PIPE OIAMEIER. DIN) MINIMUM EASEMENT WIDTH = 30 FEET EASEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR DEEP TRENCHES 'TE 'F 'I TH ,.F,, -'FT I: 1 14 I:r' r �.F-,IFFI 1zFF[T Ne�Tnvuv SINGLE PIPE EASEMENT SLOPE PER OSHAZ WW 1,5:1.0 (H:h TYP. HS ( (.ATER...�VOIA..R, W (FT) — 9' TYR YFFN0' MNj. j SANITARY SE O(IN) MINIMUM EASEMENT WIDTH = 36 FEET --L MAX. TRENCH MOTH IS PIPE DIAMETER f 2 FEET FOR EASEMENT WIDTHS WHERETHE DEPTH OF THE WATERLINE COVER EXCEEDS 9 FEET OR THE DEPTH OFTHE SANITARY SEWER COVER EXCEEDS 7 FEET. USE THE FOLLOWING FORMULA AND ROUND LETO THE NEAREST FOOT. EASEMENT WIDTH = WS +WD+WW WHERE WS = PIPE OUTSIDE DIA(FT) + 1 FT + [(HS (FT) - 1 (FT)) x 1 5] WD = ACTUAL HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (EDGE TO EDGE), MIN. 10 FT WW = PIPE OUTSIDE DIA(FT) + 1 FT + [(HW (FT) - 1 (FT)) x 1 5] COMBINED SEWER & WATER EASEMENT Utility Easement Widths THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. ITown of Fraser Jg4Avq 2o t!5 I Attachment A-5 Revised Isar 14-95 14-96 Z O F 0 j Z J p� 0 0 I U N �L S P} IIF6 I: J1011 J hP�PI ILEI b Illl�ll�'N L) �I v U G� 1 ,7 If YP1PPP1 U ,� iIlllh�I�IIIiI�ll��llil c ��IIPYPIII II fll 1_JII III'I Y Y Illll}'pl6 k„!q JF 0” 01 �r .L„JI ,PL VIII, W II17P„IIVI;pl�', 51 Jll IIIIIYI If6 tirK;l m Illlll�lllll��il Jl NkIIUIIII°liu Z Ow N Lj W y0 Z (� (A L11 ul WZ h z_ M X00 I� p Z W (n YJ J2 �HZO ¢Oop }N� Ow4 Q O=1 5K O 0 r� N O O z x Q , DD ()3MN Ix z Q fti ri .., J -� v'i C) J Z OQ z K to � WQ Bo o IPPI.0 }Jd - 11 II II II,N (L vai a W w >- �. o m w��a a w J N I'I YL II II II l�S�IIIPIPI IIII6tPIJlIl III PI 114 liW III Jl UI IT f -O ,J Z W Z Q � wQ.J W Q ,�� III IIP III 1„IIIIP JIIII}PJP P111W r0 I< w LLI N tI�P}IIYPf -0k'II Lnl PlIuu: du 0 uIIF�IrFlllllt� fr� p¢ OU U Q haw J O �. ;II'rPFiIF�F�f LH IIIFI}I�FI J III "II W Q o Q G Z O Z IF�ItTFFIfVLIFI ,`rt�♦,WI III IIIIT �IP Illr 'i UPS ll f, pllY m U ((( All hP IP II h m trm"I oolh°o' S ° [ 'UI IU JIII, u`Il�lf. II PP 11ItL'I II}!PYPI JY II y� � u�liWW'JIWII}�'I 1I IIF,LF�I� IF°�I Pllf!-II�IIF O� Il � a11i, OI 71.GI. I�F,If' IIk ,I K � IIII�PIINP^II W n W � 1rY p.� liar Cross -Section for Arterial Street THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser -,J amuuW 20 lS Attachment A-6 Revised 14-96 60' ROW q 30' 30' EFERRED 0M �7 '2D�2 �Y 3R7FM RED 4:1 �M .�kUA.� i n ei i its � ri== e F Ii it a i CONDITIONED `i'ir•.r . SOIL ASPHALT* CONCRETE VftTr! 1p?"_ BASE COURSE" (5" MIN.) OR-A18B6 //-- (-TYPICAL)COLLECTOR STREET CROSS SECTION+V✓� GVffep, -FINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN & BASE COURSE THICKNESS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER NOTE: THE PAVEMENT WIDTH FROM TABLE 3.3 IS MEASURED FROM FLOWLINE TO FLOWLINE OF VALLEY PANS AS SHOWN ABOVE. Cross -Section for Collector Street THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser J 0'_4A v��. 20 (5 Attachment A-7 Revised Nfiurwh 2911 14-97 14-98 C) w v\ z 0 ~ �x Ldz J LJ� W N _. En OO u) v) 0 u) O Z ::) Q OO U Ld NO W0 LU Z N W U I I J 7� Q y vO Z m —w ro 0 rn z 0 ri Z U J O z �Q� L Lu W mL Q O O �J � Ld W wC5 cm) w< Vl 3 .. O ow ~w zw 0 11 K uj « m J U J a �OC', O% ZL¢ w W no min W =En COQ JWO _ < W cn (A Lj z a! rn wt�Z z } 0�3 - N���a QFz cV a } Sm +� cp NN J LJ a- QO av=iw w<J w mlw °° �Q U F- Ow ��> <Dcn O V J Ld LLj < <m a- Z L0 N N Q z_ Q U V w cn Vic, III'l •yup' D cn o ° w w �a Z j Cross -Section for Local Street THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Jav,v�2L,/5 Attachment A-8 Revised 14-98 32' R.O.W. i 16' 16' 10' UE & SSE 11' 11' 10' UE & SSE +� 2' � 10' 10' � 2' X 4' 2.07 2'07 ✓ 3 , M PX 4. 4: P MAX �.. /II CONDITIONED BASE COURSE*/ ASPHALT*/ SOIL CDOT CLASS 6 (5" MIN.) CONCRETE VftH-*1 G'TYPI A PRIVATE STREET CROSS SEC�IN �fL) C gr,, *FINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN & BASE COURSE THICKNESS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER NOTE: THE PAVEMENT WIDTH FROM TABLE 3.3 IS MEASURED FROM FLOWLINE TO FLOWLINE OF VALLEY PANS AS SHOWN ABOVE. Cross-Section for Private Street THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser 2 iS Attachment A-9 Revised 14-99 20' DRIVEWAY CONDITIONED SOIL 10' RR�p f 3.0% BASE COURSE 4:1 PREFERRED ASPHALT CDOT CLASS 6 (S MIN.) 3:1 MAX. (6" MIN) PRIVATE SHARED DRIVE CROSS SECTION Cross-Section for Private Shared Drive THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser cunlS Attachment A-10 Revised ICa[IZ17 41/2 11/2,. 6. 1 FL A 6, VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER RIBBON CURB SEE PLAN FOR CATCH OR SPILL 'W" VARIABLE (SEE PLANS) W/2W/2 7A, SLOPE 1 /FT. MAX SLOPE 1"/FT. MAX. 6' ' D 0, f a , 1 A L L 2" DEPTH WHEN USED AS A CROSSPAN IN AN INTERSECTION MOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER VALLEY PAN GENERAL NOTES I. ON CURVES 3 DEGREES OR SHARPER, CURBS AND/OR GUTTERS ARE TO BE PLACED ON THE ARC OF THE CURVE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS. A MAXIMUM CHORD LENGTH OF 10 FEET MAY BE USED WHEN THE DEGREE OF CURVE IS LESS THEN 3 DEGREES. LEGEND 2. CONCRETE SHALL BE 4000 PSI FIBERMESH. FOR RADII 1/a TO 1/4. 3. PROFILE GRADE OF CURBS AND GUTTERS SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE FLOW e " LINE. C.1/{ - j1/¢ m s' EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN ABUTTING EXISTING CONCRETE OR FIXED STRUCTURE. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE Y IN, THICK AND SHALL EXTEND THE FULL DEPTH OF CONTACT SURFACE. EXPANDING JOINT SHALL BE PLACED EVERY ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET MEASURED ALONG THE SIDEWALK AND AT ALL CHANGES IN DIRECTION. O GUTTER CROSS SLOPES SHALL BE )e IN./FF. WHEN DRAINING AWAY FROM CURB AND 11N./FT. WHEN DRAINING TOWARD CURB. Curb and Gutter THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser, Attachment A-11 Revised 14-101 STREET WIDTH BO' 32 60' NOTE 40' WHERE DRIVEWAYS ARE PROPOSED FROM 32 CUL-DE-SACS AND TURN AROUNDS, ADDITIONAL 16' MIN. SNOW STORAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE TOWN. R30' VARIES VARIES RIGHT-OF-WAY 120' MIN. 60 60 15' 40' 9 32' MIN. ?16'MIN. R30' VARIES RIGHT-OF-WAY R30' RIGHT-OF-WAY VARIES EDGE OF VARIES SHOULDER EDGE OF ASPHALT CENTERLINE VARIES Cul-De-Sac and Turnarounds for Streets THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS, REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser -ja-,A um / Zo fs Attachment A-12 Revised Maxewwrz- 14-102 VARIABLE (SEE PLAN) L 256 TO STREET f� 4" STANDARD jr 6' IN DRIVEWAY J \\ SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO APRON SECTIONS \MINIMUM DENSITY PER SOIL CLASSIFICATION, PER GEOTECH REPORT CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION NOT TO SCALE VARIABLE (SEE PLAN) 2% T� OSTREET \ SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM DENSITY PER SOIL CLASSIFICATION, PER GEOTECH REPORT DETACHED TRAIL SECTION NOT TO SCALE TRAIL SURFACING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF EITHER CONCRETE OR ASPHALT, ALTERNATE SURFACE MATERIAL MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE TOWN. GENERAL NOTES EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN ABUTTING EXISTING CONCRETE OR FIXED STRUCTURE. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE 1/2 IN. THICK AND SHALL EXTEND THE FULL DEPTH OF CONTACT SURFACE. EXPANSION JOINT SHALL BE PLACED EVERY ONE HUNDRED (10D) FEET MEASURED ALONG THE SIDEWALK (OR CONCRETE TRAIL) AND AT ALL CHANGES IN DIRECTION. Sidewalks and Trails THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser a"Aul :20 I5 Attachment A-13 Revised 14-103 SIDEWALK WIDTH B 2% SHOWN ON PLANS I 6' L 4" TOP OF 2% PAVEMENT A C (� iT CONCRETE �\ N� SIDEWALK CONCftER: \ r a�ocsniuN cues y5 SECTION B -B VITA 'Y 6 TRUNCATED 1 g �A DOME F & C 6" x 12" CONCRETE WIDTH OF SIDEWALK L e' PEDESTRIAN CURB 3' PmF5R0AN TOP OF SEE PLANS FOR CRDSSWAU( PAVEMENT eaDUS SIDEWALK RAMP 4• ' PLAN SIDEWALK 8 WING TRANSITION TRUNCATED DOME SECTION A -A 6' 6 6' TRANSITION RAMP TRANSRIDN 4'-8" 6 6" 4" CONCRETE 4" PEDESTRIAN CURB SECTION C -C GENERAL NOTES 1. AVOID PLACING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT, JUNCTION BOXES, FIRE HYDRANTS, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS IN FRONT OF RAMP ACCESS AREAS. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB TO BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE CURB RAMP. 3. TRUNCATED DOME SECTION SHALL BE CAST—IN—PLACE COLORED CONCRETE, CORE 10 STEEL, OR VITRIFIED POLYMER MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS AND DETAIL OF THE ADA REGULATIONS. Handicap Ramps THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Attachment A-14 'Red 14-104 EXPAN SI O JOIN NOTE: Cl JOINT NOTES: 1. CONCRETE DEPTH SHALL BE SIX (6) INCH MINIMUM DEPTH. 2. FIELD MODIFY THE APRON SECTION IF VERTICAL CURB IS NOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE DRIVE ENTRANCE. 2'.6" 4'.0" PAVEMENT DEPTH FLOWLINE I� 1"ffT 6" MIN. 6" MIN. EXPANSION JOINT HERE IF DRIVEWAY ABUTS CONCRETE BASE COURSE CDOT CLASS SECTION A -A (6" MIN) VERTICAL CURB DRIVECUT NOT TO SCALE Drive Cuts THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. ITown of Fraser -jgcw 2015 I Attachment A-15 Revised 14-105 w«0 kd210E § . ] 66k/N(` k 6 , ! . \! z §})F\; q . |§ »a ( « �gz z a!, e5) § /! \ .g! %`� &} � §��� '> �� \ \\k \�� \\ j £\2§ \�k ({\ / 12 -5c &|/© \ Ld )(§§ - ■E!■ z < < E - ye / § _ �,z ! a= WIN .6 _ � R 60" \ % /\ Lu} uJ §)Q®■e _ - ®N kmK�``0 /<! $ < «.. . §G`;�G !ce _ .0-.T /4 j \ Ld Ln rK /k , z „ z of Fire Hydrant Detail THESE DETAILS A_ PROVIDED FOR _.»._a a m.m_ as THIS DETAIL .____ MINI,_ _SIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER @ TOWN rE@2. MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL aINSTALLATION e__.ne Town Of Fraser -J��0fS Attachment A-1§ Revised w«0 SOLDERLESS, 3M TYPE CONTINUOUS LOOP 12—GAUGE DB4-6 LOW VOLTAGE STRANDED COPPER TRACER A DIRECT BURY SPLICE WIRE, WATER—TIGHT INSULATION KIT,OR APPROVED EQUAL. \ FOR DIRECT BURY Zf TAPE WIRE TO TOP OF PIPE PLAN VIEW EVERY 3 OR 4 FEET MAX. AND EACH SIDE OF EVERY JOINT, FITTING, OR VALVE TRACER WIRE BANDED TOGETHER TEST STATION, EXTEND TRACER WIRE 18" ABOVE PVC CAP 3" PROVIDE AMPLE TRACER WIRE AT TEST STATION Q O PLASTIC SHAFT FOR REMOVING WITH FLARED END COVER AND TESTING A "CP" TYPE COLUMN 4 4„ TEST STATION AT EACH FIRE HYDRANT. HEAVY C.I. COVER (LOCKING) WITH 4 - TERMINALS. TERMINALS. 4—INCH ID x 1'-6" SHAFT TESTING STATION 18" MAX. O� LENGTH 12° MIN. "ilk! T7 VALVE BOX TEST STATION AND BASE MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINT • '.:'e• •a- a ,°I a a SECTION A -A Tracer Wire Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser z2M� Attachment A-17 Revised Mar V51111 OPEN FIELD CONDITION STREET CONDITION MOUND BACKFILL TO 6" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT EXISTING GRADE 6.. . 17 0 La 6" BEYOND TRENCH Li o SAWCUT PAVEMENT a n r I \ \ BACKFILL ZONE w d SLOPE OR SUPPORT J TRENCH WALLS PER o OSHA REGULATIONS r= z_ In PLACE AND COMPACT PER o STANDARDS, "PIPE BEDDING °f I AND BACKFILL" GEOTEXTILE WRAP, IF REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS. LINES WITH LESS THAN 9.0' OF z ' COVER, PROVIDE 2" INSULATION BOARD STYROFOAM HI-60 OR I EQUAL (2" OF INSULATION FOR PIPE ZONE N +---.- -- -. _ W_.__. EACH FOOT UNDER 9.0' OF COVER), PER STANDARDS, 4" - 6" !/ �� I � t��` "PIPELINE INSULATION" PLACE AND COMPACT PER STANDARDS, "PIPE BEDDING AND 6" MAX. LIFTS /.j BACKFILL" BEDDING ZONE - 4" MIN. MAX. TRENCH WIDTH ® PIPE ZONE 24"+ PIPE DIAMETER, WIDTH OF INSULATION MUST NOT BE LESS THAN WIDTH OF TRENCH AT PIPE ZONE. NOTE: CLAY DAMS MAY BE REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY FRASER. Water Main and Service Line Bedding and Backfill Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser 2015 Attachment A-18 Revised 14-108 PIPE POLYETHYLENE TUBE STEP 1 POLYETHYLENE TUBE PIPE STEP 2 4 - PLASTIC PLASTIC TAPE POLYETHYLENE TUBE PIPE 4 - PLASTIC TAPE STEP 3 FIELD INSTALLATION -POLYETHYLENE WRAP STEP -I PLACE TUBE OF POLYETHYLENE MATERIAL AROUND PIPE PRIOR TO LOWERING PIPE INTO TRENCH. STEP -2 PULL THE TUBE OVER THE LENGTH OF THE PIPE. TAPE TUBE TO PIPE AT JOINT. FOLD MATERIAL AROUND THE ADJACENT SPIGOT END AND WRAP WITH THREE CIRCUMFERENTIAL TURNS OF TWO-INCH WIDE PLASTIC TAPE TO HOLD PLASTIC TUBE AROUND SPIGOT END. STEP -3 ADJACENT TUBE OVERLAPS FIRST TUBE AND IS SECURED WITH PLASTIC ADHESIVE TAPE. THE POLYETHYLENE TUBE MATERIAL COVERING THE PIPE WILL BE LOOSE. EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BE NEATLY DRAWN UP AROUND THE PIPE BARREL, FOLDED INTO AN OVERLAP ON TOP OF THE PIPE AND HELD IN PLACE BY MEANS OF PIECES OF THE PLASTIC TAPE AT APPROXIMATELY THREE TO FIVE FOOT INTERVALS. Polyethylene Wrap Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Attachment A-19 Revised 14-109 UNG -ACE TURSED 11 YA 22 %, 450 AND 900 BENDS UNDISTURBED SOIL TEE E NOTES: 1. BEARING SURFACES SHOWN IN CHART ARE MINIMUM. 2. BASED ON 150 PSI INTERNAL PIPE PRESSURE PLUSWATER HAMMER. 4",6",B" AND 12" WATER HAMMER = 110 P.S.I. 16".20" AND 24" WATER HAMMER = 70 P.S.I. 3. BASED ON UNDISTURBED SOIL 3,000 PSF BEARING CAPACITY AND VERTICAL BEARING SURFACES. 4. FOR HORIZONTAL PIPE FORCES. Concrete Thrustblocks BOND BREAKER IIll-Q BEARING SURFACE DEAD END BEARING SURFACE BOND BREA aLKER N BEDDING MATERIAL UNDISTURBED SOIL TYPICAL CROSS SECTION MINIMUM BEARING SURFACE AREA (IN SQUARE FEET) SIZE BENDS rEE OR PIPE 111 " 22V 45' 90 DEAD 6" 1.00 1 1.25 2.25 5.70 1 3.00 8" 1.00 2.00 4.00 10.20 5.25 1 D" 1.75 3.25 6.50 15.60 8.25 12" 2.25 4.50 8.75 22.40 11.25 14" 3.00 6.00 11.75 30.50 15.25 16" 3.75 7.50 14.50 33.70 19.00 18" 4.50 8.75 17.00 1 42.70 F2.00 20" 5.00 10.00 19.50 1 52.70 125,00 THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY, THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser '.ia�n) (S Attachment A-20 Revised 2 Id -110 14-111 NF DIP MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINT M 0.75 WEDGE DETAIL BOLT HOLE DETAIL DIMENSIONS NOMINAL NO. OF NO. OF K2 J F M PIPE SIZE BOLTS WEDGES INCHES INCHES INCHES INCHES D 6" 6 3 11.12 9.50 7.00 0.88 8" 6 4 13.37 11.75 9.15 1.00 1 10" 6 6 15.62 14.00 11.20 1.00 I, 12" 8 8 1 17.88 16.25 13.30 1.25 DIP NOTES: C-900/905 NOTES: 1.) AS MANUFACTURED BY EBBA 1.) AS MANUFACTURED BY IRON INC. (MECHANICAL 1100 SERIES), SMITH BLAIR BELL JOINT OR UNI -FLANGE (SERIES 1500) LEAK CLAMP 74) 2.) DIMENSIONS FOR 16" AND 20" 2.) DIMENSIONS FOR 16" AND 20" D.I. PIPE NOT SHOWN. D.I, PIPE NOT SHOWN. 3.) OTHER MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINT 3.) OTHER MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINT DEVICES MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE DEVICES MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE INSTALLATION. INSTALLATION. Mechanical Joint Restraint Details THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser --/cz,11 L",W Attachment A-21 Revised M 14-111 O 14-112 a0 J ON co d0 N OD N N J OBD J W O O O D D N (� Z LJ = m O_ W w CO W w m QQD] F- N N 0 z = w m Z W Z U m O zz�� Z a a W 3 W Ja� Jw d. S D o O w> �UX( a Q U S � � ~ Z <> W > II w� Z O a� > W w W >O j z m FL $1 N� w� �i w 3 0 Q } a w 25 �_"'k o w W 3 N N = 0pr Q�m7 C7 0 Q 00 N U� wZ Q Nw Z_ N w0 SZ O yF U O a ww w m W w ISI aw �w Q �o Q Q vi L� In- Zpw W o F- LJL p N W Q� O N OJ K N O D O pQW W S�O Z WQU J Ka( � Z R a �N U� W LL, ti ? owwoz > zd 3 WN a wz z0 m z z w (7 ooi ZELL ¢>xw J d om ww WOr 2?i�0�4- N � m 2 Op J N W6 KOW§ LH QGl aN O 0! K z � R O (ate N� F- a2 a OW �� U N �� >O WO dO V p z 6p W 7 U O m J� JK U ND V-F Q 4 W ZOZ N !7 a ui b n m C� O L'I J03 J J 1 N x LJ X J Z H Q W > m J J U' Q J ? � Z a J m Length of Restrained Pipe THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser �J a44 vad� ?- �s Attachment A-22 Revised Mei 14-113 FINISHED GRADE SANITARY SEWER OR NON -POTABLE �-r-DO NOT USE CONCRETE ENCASEMENT IF THE WATER LINE 15 BELOW THE SANITARY SEWER. USE ALTERNATE METHOD. NON -POTABLE LINE ABOVE '---- WATER: ALWAYS PROVIDE PROTECTION WATER LINE PROVIDE PROTECTION AS DETAILED BELOW IF THIS DIMENSION IS LESS THAN 1B" SANITARY SEWER OR NON -POTABLE CONCRETE ENCASEMENT MAY BE USED SECTION WHEN WATER LINE IS ABOVE THE SANITARY SEWER. NON-PDTABLE LINE (TYP) 10' MIN ADAPTER COUPLING (TYP)-WATERTIGHT FLEXIBLE COUPLING, PER ASTM C. 425, BANDED WITH TWO SERIES -300 STAINLESS STEEL BANDS. INSTALL DUCTILE IRON PIPE, PVC PRESSURE PIPE, OR CONCRETE ENCASEMENT AROUND SANITARY SEWER, OR NON -POTABLE IF REOD BY THE CLEARANCE CONDITIONS STATED ABOVE Wq �q [iNF ADDITIONAL ADAPTOR COUPLING, IF REQUIRED NOTE: ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE METHOD. WHERE THE PVC SANITARY SEWER LINE CROSSES ABOVE THE WATER LINE, INSTALL A SMITH-BLAIR 229, FULL CIRCLE COLLAR LEAK REPAIR CLAMP ON PLAN ALL SANITARY SEWER JOINTS WITHIN A 10' HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF THE CROSSING AND INSTALL A FULL LENGTH (20' MINIMUM) LENGTH OF DIP WATER LINE CENTERED OVER THE CROSSING. Pipe Crossing Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser ctott►ad �a f5 Attachment A-23 Revised 14-113 6" MIN. PIPE O.D. 6" MIN. SANITARY SEWER z OR NON -POTABLE LINE iD I i 6 0 � w a w d _z 42 z v io 3' MIN. CLEAR 4-N0. 5 BARS CONTINUOUS FOR 8" PIPE AND 6-N0. 5 BARS CONTINUOUS FOR 10" OR LARGER (TYP.). NO. 4 TIES AT 18" O.C. PIPE ENCASEMENT DETAIL NOTE: 1. CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE LEANER THAN 1 CEMENT; 2-1/2 SAND; 5 STONE AND SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 3,000 PSI COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS. 2. PLACE CONCRETE AGAINST EITHER SOLID FORMWORK OR UNDISTURBED SOIL. 3. USE GR. 40 REINFORCING BARS. 4. USE ONLY IF SANITARY SEWER IS BELOW THE WATER LINE. DO NOT PLACE OR SPILL CONCRETE ON WATER LINE. Pipe Encasement Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser f Attachment A-24 Revised 1P III—VEN IT IEHIE CASING END SEAL STEEL SKID CLAMP PU5H—ON SINGLE GASKET OR MECHANICAL JOINT DI CARRIER PIPE RESTRAINED NEOPRENE OR PVC RESTRAIN FIRST TWO THROUGH CASING RUNNER JOINTS OUTSIDE OF CASING PIPE STEEL CASING PIPE SLED DETAIL OVERALL PIPE 9 STEEL CASING PIPE JOINT DIMENSION NEOPRENE OR PVC RUNNER CARRIER PIPE STEEL SKID CLAMP go go, SKIDS 3 SKIDS PER 20' PIPE LENGTH _I 45 PIPE CASING DETAIL NOTE: TRENCH LAID CASINGS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO CONDUIT STANDARDS. Bore Casing Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser ow vay 2.6 Attachment A-25 Revised 14-115 U—BOLTS (2) AND LOCK BAR SHALL BE PROVIDED BY FRASER AT APPLICANT'S EXPENSE LOCK BAR WILL BE- EPADLOCKED PADLOCKEDHERE USING FRASER PADLOCK 24" MANHOLE RING AND BOLTED, WATER TIGHT COVER NEENAH MODEL / R-1916—D OR EQUIVALENT / 5" CLEARANCE / BOTTOM OF MANHOLE RING TO TOP OF VALVE BOX 2" I VALVE BOX INSTALL CONCRETE COLLAR CONCRETE COLLAR 1z" BELOW FINISH HMA GRADE, 12" MINIMUM THICKNESS Ya" BELOW FINISH CONCRETE FIBER MESH CONCRETE PAVEMENT GRADE 6" MANHOLE ADJUSTMENT RING SET ON CLASS 6 SUBBASE EMBED U—BOLT INTO CONCRETE Locking Valve Box Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser jCt44 Attachment A-26 Revised 14-116 DIRT SHOULDER EDGE 18' 16' GRAVEL 45" 45' 45" 45' PAVEMENT EDG ASPHALT PAVED ROADWAY MANHOLE/STRUCTURE/VALVEBOX PLAN rI,'7TO SCALE LIMITS OF 4000 PSI FIBERMESH CONCRETE FINISH GRADE PAVEMENT REMOVAL COLLAR 1' MINIMUM THICKNESS PAVEMENT 5' MIN, m; BASE COURSE OR PLOWABLE FILL COMPACTED SUBGRADE (SEE SPECS.) SECTION NOT 70 SCALE NOTES: 1. 'D' _ FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT OVERLAYS OR SURFACE TREATMENTS 2. 'D' - FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION 3. 'D' _ FOR CONCRETE STREET'S 4' THIS DETAIL APPLIES TO BOTH ASPHALT AND CONCRETE STREETS 5. RING AND COVER TO MATCH SLOPE OF FINISHED STREET Man hole/Structu reNalve Box Placement -Shoulder Area THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser �ahvav 2o�s Attachment A-27 Revised 1d-117 EXISTING PAVEMENT FIBER MESH CONCRETE. CONCRETE COLLAR i WATER i i - LID OPEN FIELD CONDITION STREET CONDITION CONCRETE COLLAR LIMITS OF EXCAVATION 12„ „D„FINISH GRADE z ,z PAVEMENT -BASE COURSE OR FLOWABLE COMPACTED (UBGRADE SEE SPECS.) FIBER MESH CONCRETE. NOTES: 1. "D” = FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT OVERLAYS OR SURFACE TREATMENTS 2. "D" = FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION 3. "D- = FOR CONCRETE STREETS 4. VALVE BOX MUST BE PLUMB AND CENTERED OVER THE VALVE NUT 5. THIS DETAIL APPLIES TO BOTH ASPHALT AND CONCRETE STREETS 6. USE FIBER MESH CONCRETE. NO REINFORCEMENT REBAR. Valve Box Concrete Collar Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser crywavy- Zo i5 Attachment A-28 Revised 14-118 EXISTING PAVEMENT -- CONCRETE COLLAR r 12,• LIMITS OF EXCAVATION FINISH GRADE FIBER MESH 12" CONCRETE COLLAR !1/ 8" MAXIMUMPAVEMENT FRAME HEIGHT ' '' a +7—BASE COURSE OR FLOWABLE FILL �— COMPACTED 8.. (SEE SPECS.) PRECAST REINFORCED SEALER CONCRETE ADJUSTING RINGS WITH APPROVED (TYPICAL) MASTIC SEALER— 4" MAX. NOTES: 1. A SEALER SHALL BE USED BETWEEN ALL ADJUSTING RINGS AS REQUIRED 2. DROP—IN RISER RINGS NOT ALLOWED 3. SET AND TILT RING AND COVER TO MATCH SLOPE OF FINISHED STREET 4. "D" = FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT OVERLAYS OR SURFACE TREATMENTS 5. "D•• = FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION 6. "D•• = FOR CONCRETE STREETS 7. THIS DETAIL APPLIES TO BOTH ASPHALT AND CONCRETE STREETS Structure/Manhole Concrete Collar Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser ctvt0 Zo (5 Attachment A-29 Revised I4-119 14-120 INSTALL CONCRETE CORE EXISTING SURFACE SURFACE INSTALL HDPE COLLAR O3 STEEL BRUSH CONCRETE SURFACE OF CONE PRIOR //",SUBGRADE TO CONCRETE INSTALLATION 7 PLACE CONCRETE TO TOP O OF HDPE COLLAR AND PAVEMENT AND AS INSTALL MANHOLE FRAME SPECIFIED AND COVER PLACE DOUBLE BEAD 4" MAX OF SILICONE CAULK PRIOR TO INSTALLING IL HDPE COLLAR 3 3' FASTEN HDPE COLLAR IN PLACE U5 O2 EXCAVATE SOIL FROM WITH SUFFICIENT FASTENERS CORE DRILL AREA TO SEAL CONNECTION TO CONE TO 3 -INCHES BELOW TOP OF CONE STEEL BRUSH CONCRETE SURFACE AT TOP OF CONE TO CLEAN DEBRIS FROM SURFACE 1'-6" MAX. TO TOP STEP EXISTING ECCENTRIC CONE LEGEND ® STEPS TO COMPLETE ADJUSTMENT NOTES: 1. "D" = �" FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT OVERLAYS OR SURFACE TREATMENTS 2. "D" = FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION 3. "D" _ FOR CONCRETE STREETS 4. THIS DETAIL APPLIES TO BOTH ASPHALT AND CONCRETE STREETS 5. RING AND COVER TO MATCH SLOPE OF FINISHED STREET Optional Manhole / Structure Adjustment Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Attachment A-30 Revised 14-120 I4-121 MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER ABOVE 5" MIN. 6" MIN. MANHOLE STEPS, ALIGN VERTICALLY 24" DIA, CI WATERTIGHT MANHOLE FRAME AND SELF-SEALING LID NEENAH R -1916-D OR EQUAL pLAR WITH "WATER' CAST IN COVER OPEN FIELD CONDITION STREET CONDITION CAST -IN-PLACE CONC. COLLAR SEE STANDARD DRAWINGS 4" MIN.; PAVEMENT AND _- SUBGRADE AS SPECIFIED 4" MAX. -3" MINT _ ... - 1'-8 MAX EXTERNAL JOINT SEAL / SELF -ADHERING MEMBRANE AS MANUFACTURED 81 .RUB'R-NEK GASKET GRACE CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, 12" WIDE, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 4'-0 DIA, MANHOLE STEPS, ® 12" O.C. COAT EXTERIOR WITH POLY -COATED STEEL MANUFACTURER'S EPDXY COATING PRECAST MANHOLE (ASTM C-478) WATER -PROOF BOOT KOR-N-SEAL OR EQUAL 0'-10" MIN TO I 1'-3' MAX PLACE BASE ON 12" OF COMPACTED 1-1/2" WASHED 8" MIN. ROCK FOR STABILIZATION. SECTION Air Release Valve Structure THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFERTO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser 210 !S Attachment A-31 Revised M I4-121 14-122 GATE VALVE AND VALVE BOX SWIVEL TEE DBL SPIGOT 90' MJ BEND DIP CONC THRUSTBLOCK I I CONIC THRUSTBLOCK MEGA LUG RESTRAINTS C—) 10'r8' SQUARE � CONIC. SLAB TIE RODS PRECAST CONIC VAULT DIP I FLOOR SLAB I FLANGED DIP AND BCC FLANGED FirnNGS MIN GATE VALVE 1C , PE SUMP WITH COVER GRATE DOUBLE SPIGOT GATE VALVE MEGA LUG U RESTRAINTS (TVP) _ CLAVALMODEL 30-01-� PRESSURE REDUCING VALV �� CLA�ICA M 90-01 O I 5.00 PRESSLRi GING VALVE IN. BYPASS GATE VALVE ANDCOUPLINGS BOLTED SLEEVE TYPE FLG PE VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING VALVE BOX 7-7 '. GATE VALVE I GATE VALVE DBL SPIGOT MIN. 20' HORIZONTAL 3'ar OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE MIN I OF PIPE I 6'P VENT PIPE CONC MASTIC AROUND THRUSTBLOCK PIPES AND RODS iTIPTHREADED TAP (ICAL OF 2) I TIE RODS GATE VALVE AND VALVE BOX CONIC - DBL SPIGOT THRUSTBLOCN. SWIVEL TEE 9D' MJ BEND PIPE I NOTES, 1, DO NOT PLACE SUMP DIRECTLY UNDER VAULT ACCESS, 2. PIPING FOR PRV AND VALVE INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE DIP. 7. LADDER RUNGS ARE REDO IN PRE-CAST VAULT. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN RUNGS, CLEATS, AND STEPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12AND SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH OF THE LADDER. Underground PRV Vault - Plan View THESE DETAILSARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser JC&VWCU ' Z-D� Attachment A-32 Revised 14-122 6'0 VENT PIPE I'IIId 32' MANHOLE RING AND BOLTED, WATER TIGHT COVER NEENAH MODEL R -1916—H OR SELF—SEAUNG STRIP EQUIVALENT g' STEPS. AT 12' D.C. GROUND UNE 1'-3' WIN TO POLY COATED STEEL. 1'-8' MAX 8' CONCRETE COLLAR /r...OLE Z OEXTENSION COLLARS LARS GATE VALVE AND VALVE BOX GATE VALVE AND VALVE BO CLA—VAL MODEL 90-01 ___ _ ___ PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE MASTIC VENT FLG LUG A iOUNO PIPES PIPE AND RODS (TYP) 3/4"CORP 5 OP NTH SHUTOFF, 3/4' HIGH VACUUM BRIEER AND 4' 0, STRENGTH D-200 PSI PFESSJRE GAUGE (TP IE RODS DP 90' 90' MJ BEND ht i. O.GC% FLOW BOL DIP 90' NJ BEND SLEEVE TYPE N FLC X SPIGOT 'O COUPLING GATE VALVE 3/4' HIGH NEGALUGS N STRENGTH (TYP) DOUBLE SPIGOT TE RODS 3 I/YGATE VALVE ADJUSTABLE 0'-10' MIN TO .IN SUPPORT 1'-3' MAX SUMP I ' COVER iV GRATE IF BOOR IS CASs IN PUCE #O REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE PLACED AT 12' OC BOTH WAYS BOTTOM OF FLOOR SLOPE 1/4' PER FT TOWARDS SUMP 24" NOTES: 1. SEE PLAN VIEW AND ADDITIONAL NOTES. 2. ALL PIPING WITHIN THE VAULT SHALL BE LEVEL 3. VAULT STRUCTURE THICKNESS DIMENSIONS MAY VARY WITH SITE CONDITIONS. VAULT TO BE BUILT TO WITHSTAND A MINIMUM OF H2O TRAFFIC LOADING. 4. STRUCTURE TO BE WATER TIGHT 5. APPLY EXTERNAL JOINT SEAL SELF ADHERING MEMBRANE AS MANUFACTURED BY GRACE CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS 12' WIDE OR APPROVED EQUAL, TO ALL EXTERIOR JOINTS. Underground PRV Vault - Section View THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser 44/ ifs Attachment A-33 Revised 14-123 NOTES: 1 - PLACEMENT OF CURB STOP IS TO BE ON THE PROPERTY/RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED). 2 - OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPAIRS EXTENDS TO THE CORPORATION STOP AT THE WATER MAIN. 3 - TOWN OF FRASER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE THAT MAY OCCUR DUE TO A LEAK ON A SERVICE LINE. THIS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE SERVICE LINE IS CONNECTED. 4 - IF THE DEPTH OF COVER IS LESS, USE INSULATION PER ATTACHMENT A-18. THE "GOOSE NECK" AT THE CORPORATION STOP MAY HAVE LESS COVER AND MAY REQUIRE INSULATION EVEN IF THE REST OF THE SERVICE LINE DOES NOT. 5 - NO COUPLINGS ALLOWED BETWEEN CURB STOP AND METER SETTING. 6 - NO LANDSCAPING (SHRUBS, BOULDERS, ETC.), RETAINING WALLS OR FENCES ALLOWED WITHIN 4 FEET OF THE CURB STOP AND METER PIT, AND NO TREES WITHING 10 FEET OF CURB AND METER PIT. 7 - ALL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF TEN FEET. OWNER'S SERVICE LINE AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPAIRS ROPERTY ONE 60' MAX DISTANCE VARIES P.L. TO METER COVER FOR CURB STOP SHALL BE INSTALLED k MAINTAINED LEVEL WITH THE ADJACENT GROUND. CURBING I I- PAVEMENT PE SELL BE ITTYPE a N rtOi i K COPPER m INSULATING COUPLING REQUIRED WITH METALLIC S WATER MANS. °1 v CURB STOP CORPORATION STOP TOP OF OPERATING NUT WATER LINE Water Service Line and Curb Stop THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY, THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser 20 .JcuiJWAO"' (tee Attachment A-34 Revised _ 14-124 SUPPLY TO STRUCTURE SHUT OFF/BALL VALVE SUPPORT OR BRACING REQUIRED FOR WATER SERVICE UNES (SUGGESTED METHOD) TESTABLE BACKFLOW PREVENTER TRANSMITTING UNIT TO BE CONNECTED TO OWNER SUPPLIED WIRING 3 -STRAND WIRE 18G SOLID 48 IN. MAX. FROM BASEMENT FLOOR COP PERHORN/SETTER -b WATER SERVICE W FCO FROM MAIN PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE SHUT OFF/BALL VALVE NOT TO SCALE ®= BALL VALVES NOTES: 1. PROVIDE CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED 4 FT. BY 4 FT, MINIMUM ACCESS TO THE METER ASSEMBLY. 2. COPPER HORN S/SETTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THE METERS ARE IN A HORIZONTAL POSITION. 3, A SECURE SUPPORT IS REQUIRED FOR COPPERHORNS/SETTERS, 4. METERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN CRAWL SPACES WITH LESS THAN 48" CLEARANCE, OR AS APPROVED BY FRASER, 5. PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO EXTEND WIRING FROM THE METERING UNIT TO THE TRANSMITTING UNIT TO BE LOCATED ON THE STREET SIDE, EXTERIOR WALL OF THE STRUCTURE AND NOT LESS THAN FOUR (4) FEET ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 6. WIRING SHALL NOT BE SPLICED. Water Meter Assembly Installation THESE DETAILSARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Attachment A-35 Revised 14-125 12"X18" LOUVER WITH SCREEN. PROVIDE MECHANISM TO CLOSE LOUVER IN WINTER METAL INSULATED DOOR STAINED CEDAR 3Y4" EXTERIOR 30 YEAR ASPHALT PLYWOOD 12 SHINGLE 14 ca z CORRUGATED METAL (INSTALLED VERTICAL) v 3" RECTANGULAR CAP i� o F WAINSCOT O QQO�O dOo d z O o b 0 CONCRETE FLOOR AN— FOUNDATION N FOUNDATION TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATION FRONT 30 YEAR ASPHALT SHINGLE ,--CORRUGATED METAL (INSTALLED VERTICAL) 1"X4" VERTICAL WOOD TRIM AT ALL CORNERS Q Q Q Q�O�O�OOgO< M0�106;��n NATURAL STONE�O WAINSCOT D 4'-0" CONCRETE FLOOR O AND FOUNDATION 5; TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATION SIDE LOPE TO DRAIN NOTES: 1. INTERIOR WALLS AND CEILING SHALL BE 3/4" EXTERIOR PLYWOOD PAINTED WHITE. 2. ALL WALLS AND CEILING SHALL BE INSULATED WITH R-19 FIBERGLASS, 23". 3. FRAMING SHALL BE 2" X 6" 24" O.C. WOOD FRAMING. Water Well Meter House Elevations THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser 20t�5 Attachment A-36 Revised MC Mul 14-126 ELECTRICAL DISCONNECT AND TRANSFER SWITCH EXTERIOR OF ELECTRICAL PANELS FOUNDATION INTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCT BUILDING FOUNDATION UNDERGROUND ---._WITH FOUNDATION A GRADE BEAM DIP TO AND PIERS. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CLEARWELL PER SITE CONDITIONS. ONCRETE PAD INTERIOR PIPING, VALVES,PUMP CONTROLS 42" X 36" X 6" FITTINGS AND METER - LAYOUT AS REQUIRED BY UNDERGROUND DIP FRASER v FROM WELL 131-7" TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 1 -4" a 4" STONE VENEER (PARTIALLY OVERHANG 3"CL.FLOOR SLAB GRADE BEAM) (TYP) REINFORCEMENT N p X" CHAMFER FINISH GRADE—, 2 -INCHES BELOW TOP OF CONCRETE TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL NOTES: 1. INTERIOR SHALL INCLUDE ONE FOUR BULB FLOURESCENT WITH LIGHT SWITCH, TWO SINGLE GANG OUTLETS, AND ONE 60" BASEBOARD HEATER WITH T -STAT; 120V. 2. INTERIOR COMPONENTS MAY BE REORIENTED TO FIT SITE, BUT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE FROM ENTRY DOOR. Water Well Meter House Floor Plan and Foundation THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. ITown of Fraser `Jcu�.L)I Town of Fraser 2 - Attachment A-37 Revised MSH 14-127 L 4" STYROFOAM INSULATION v UNDER SLAB OVER EXCAVATE ih PIER AND GRADE BEAM AND REPLACE REINFORCEMENT WITH COMPACTED BASE COURSE TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL NOTES: 1. INTERIOR SHALL INCLUDE ONE FOUR BULB FLOURESCENT WITH LIGHT SWITCH, TWO SINGLE GANG OUTLETS, AND ONE 60" BASEBOARD HEATER WITH T -STAT; 120V. 2. INTERIOR COMPONENTS MAY BE REORIENTED TO FIT SITE, BUT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE FROM ENTRY DOOR. Water Well Meter House Floor Plan and Foundation THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. ITown of Fraser `Jcu�.L)I Town of Fraser 2 - Attachment A-37 Revised MSH 14-127 OPEN FIELD CONDITION STREET CONDITION MOUND BACKFILL TO 6" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT _ --____-_---6_-_-____._-r___--__-� -rte - -r - -r--L---i I 6" BEYOND TRENCH CUT PAVEMENT BACKFILL ZONE I 7' MINIMUM, SLOPE OR SUPPORT UNLESS --------- ^--------- - TRENCH WALLS PER SPECIFIED OSHA REGULATIONS INSULATION PROVIDED -- -- T -- GEOTEXTILE WRAP, IF REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS z FOR 5' TO 7' COVER, PROVIDE 2" INSULATION BOARD. STYROFOAM f HI-60 OR EQUAL (ADDITIONAL 2" PIPE ZONE FOR EACH FOOT UNDER 7.0' 4" MIN. �� OF COVER), PER STANDARDS "PIPELINE INSULATION." 6" MAX. LIFTS I� 1 PLACE AND COMPACT PER �.r STANDARDS, "PIPE BEDDING AND BEDDING ZONE-4" MIN. I BACKFILL." MAX. TRENCH WIDTH ® PIPE ZONE FOR PVC IS 24" + PIPE DIAMETER, WIDTH OF NOTE: INSULATION MUST NOT BE LESS THAN CLAY DAMS MAY BE REQUIRED BY WIDTH OF TRENCH AT PIPE ZONE. SITE CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY FRASER. Sewer Main and Service Line Bedding & Backfill Detail THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY, THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser JAJ (S Attachment A-38 Revised 14-128 FLEXIBLE WATERTIGHT MANHOLE FRAME AND BOOT (TYPICAL) COVER ABOVE MANHOLE STEPS, ALIGN VERTICALLY \ f E SLOP P OPEN GUTTER AT UNIFORM (TYP.) - SLOPE, PIPE CAST IN INVERT, WITH TOP REMOVED, f __J MAY BE USED 5" MIN. 6" MIN, PLAN ASPHALT SURFACING OR CONCRETE COLLAR OPEN FIELD CONDITION STREET CONDITION CAST-IN-PLACE CONC. COLLAR 1'-3" MIN TO V-8" MAX PAVEMENT AND 6 MIN. SUBGRADE AS SPECIFIED 4 MAX. ECCENTRIC CONE cn PRECAST GRADE RINGS (SEAL WITH RUB'R-NEK) > 24" DIA. CI MANHOLE FRAME AND SELF-SEALING LID. NEENAH R-1500, z R-1915-G IF REQUIRED, OR EQUAL, = o J WITH "SEWER" CAST IN COVER Naw 4'-0" OR 5'-0" DIA. 12" EXTERNAL JOINT WRAP N.Y. w W n o 48"A 5" MIN. N w 60"0 : MIN. RUB'R NECK GASKET a N 0 Z PRECAST BARREL SECTION aoa w MANHOLE STEPS, AT 12" O.C. POLY-COATED STEEL FLEXIBLE PRECAST CONCRETE BASE WATERTIGHT SLOPE AT BOOT1"-2"/FT. 0'-10" MIN TO V-3" MAX 3" MIN. TO CORE I _ _ _ 0. D. -- -- 2/3 PIPE DIA. 8" MIN. PLACE BASE ON 12" OF COMPACTED 1-1/2" WASHED CONCRETE FILL SECTION ROCK FOR STABILIZATION, 6.,,. Standard Precast Concrete Manhole THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Attachment A-39 Revised r 14-129 FLEXIBLE WATERTIGHT OPEN FIELD CONDITION STREET CONDITION (SEAL WITH RUB'R-NEK) SLOPE TOP OF BENCH AT BOOT (TYPICAL) 1'-B" MAX. ASPHALT SURFACING -IN-PLACE CONC. COLLAR OR CONCRETE COLLAR 6 MIN. PAVEMENT ----- ASD 1/2" PER FT. SPECIFIED R -1915-G IF REQUIRED, OR EQUAL, MH FRAME AND COVER WITH "SEWER" CAST IN COVER ABOVE 12" EXTERNAL JOINT WRAP 48"0 5" MIN. MANHOLE STEPS, ALIGN 60"0 6° MIN. SLOPE P VERTICALLY (TYP.) OPEN GUTTER AT UNIFORM y SLOPE, PIPE CAST IN INVERT, WITH TOP REMOVED, 5" MIN. MAY BE USED 6" MIN, PLAN PRE -CAST GRADE RINGS OPEN FIELD CONDITION STREET CONDITION (SEAL WITH RUB'R-NEK) B" MIN. 1'-6" MIN TO 1'-B" MAX. ASPHALT SURFACING -IN-PLACE CONC. COLLAR OR CONCRETE COLLAR 6 MIN. PAVEMENT ----- ASD 2" MAX.-,_ SPECIFIED I` -PRE -CAST GROOVE SLAB TOP B" MIN. RUS'R NECK GASKET 24" DIA, CI MANHOLE FRAME AND SELF-SEALING LID. NEENAH R-1500, R -1915-G IF REQUIRED, OR EQUAL, WITH "SEWER" CAST IN COVER 4'-0" OR 5'-0" DIA. 12" EXTERNAL JOINT WRAP 48"0 5" MIN. 60"0 6° MIN. oj///-PRECAST BARREL SECTION I i� z MANHOLE STEPS, AT 12" POLY -COATED STEEL o FLEXIBLE SLOPE AT N iv WATERTIGHT 1"-2"/FT w BOOT 0'-10" MIN TO J 3MIN. V-3" MAX TO CORE I O,D' -- -- 2/3 PIPE DIA. • 8" MIN. PRECAST CONCRETE BASE CONCRETE FILL ,PLACE BASE ON 12" OF SECTION PLACE COMPACTED 1-1/2" WASHED Shallow Precast Concrete Manhole ROCK FOR STABILIZATION. THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser Attachment A-40 Revised Wricir-20$2 14-130 14-131 FLEXIBLE WATERTIGHT BOOT 5" MIN. - - (TYPICAL) 6" MIN. MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER ABOVE \ ` SLOPE\ MANHOLE STEPS, ALIGN VERTICALLY OPEN GUTTER AT UNIFORM SLOPE, PIPE CAST IN INVERT, WITH TOP REMOVED, 48"0 5" MIN. MAY BE USED 60"0 6" MIN. -- PLAN ASPHALT SURFACING OR CONCRETE COLLAR OPEN FIELD CONDITION STREET CONDITION CAST -IN-PLACE CONC. 1'-3" COLLAR 1'-8" MIN TO MAX. PAVEMENT AND SEE STANDARD DR NINGS SUBGRADE AS 6 MIN. SPECIFIED 4 MAX. FLEXIBLE PRECAST GRADE RINGS w WATERTIGHT (SEAL WITH RUB'R-NEK) BOOT > RUB'R ECCENTRIC CONE NECK (GASKET SEWER PIPE TEE 24" DIA. CI MANHOLE FRAME AND 1/2 PI E DIA. SELF-SEALING LID. NEENAH R-1500, a 3 CONC. DAM R -1915-G IF REQUIRED, OR EQUAL, N¢ WITH "SEWER" CAST IN COVER - a 12" EXTERNAL JOINT WRAP Ljj � N -- 5' 4'-0" OR 5'-0" DIA. DROP PIPE MI W Nw� . a Z) o COMPACTE wI z PIPE ¢BEDDING CON C. E ASEMENTLj PRECAST BARREL SECTION o'I MATERIAL n MANHOLE STEPS, AT 12" D.C. z SLOPE AT 2 1"-2"/FT. POLY -COATED STEEL 3" MIN. AT HIGHEST PIPE -i0'-10" MIN TO -- CONCRET� FILL V-3" MAX i -- -- 90' BEND 2/3 PIPE DIA. 8" MIN. PRECAST CONCRETE BASE 3" MIN- CLEAR (TYP. 3 SIDES) —6- PLACE BASE ON 12" OF Drop Precast Concrete Manhole COMPACTED 1"-2" WASHED ROCK FOR STABILIZATION. THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser --Janruawy ­:_�a (S Attachment A-41 Revised - 14-131 7' MINIMUM COVER, FOR 5' TO 7' COVER, FINAL PROVIDE 2" INSULATION BOARD. STYROFOAM GRADE HI -60 OR EQUAL (ADDITIONAL 2" FOR EACH FOOT UNDER 7' OF COVER). SEWER SERVICE a ANGLE MAY BE REDUCED IF REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM COVER. WITH PRIOR APPROVAL FROM FRASER. SERVICE LINE TO BE INSTALLED AT GRADE GIVEN IN SECTION 4 OF STANDARDS INSTALL WATERTIGHT CAP W/ 4" z 4" MARKER POST OR CONNECT TO BUILDING SEWER afy-&- A& SKp(u- go urej> Fort A1-4� CIO WN15c -colds. $TA LA=�D M6X PV ALI gi ALJ-owep wt T jA A RMOVA L FROG rXA51 FcrP, pvc-�5;.P4 SA API -Es -sem, pet YS o eco (J m LFA64iO c"/STlzAr & EN c -g N o✓Z /4 P� gYeA L /A ` AI'hit9dEs �nnni F TFF ono `> N; Sewer Service Line Connection Detail ADAPTOR COUPLINGS BEND AS REQUIRED SEWER MAIN SEWER MAIN THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. ITown of Fraser los I Attachment A-42 Revised ' x'002 Pt/c C c �c. I'70 J o'< Vcp SA pp (ex - -evope L -r5-�,,� 4- L'!' C'OAwPs, Arp '�sY� — �G P�eGssc�►?� ,err ���s � 0 2 /4I°ARoVv , PQUAL 14-132 CONCRETE COLLAR 12" g m I 4" CLEANOUT ADAPTER FITTING THREAD PLUG I 4" PVC RISER 4"-45' BEND PIPE MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED i FOR SITE CONDITIONS G F / i MIN. SLOPE PER STANDARDS 7 PROVIDE WATERTIGHT PLUG IF CLEANOUT IS AT END OF NOTE: LINE. SEE ATTACHMENT A-44 FOR SEWER CLEANOUT PAVED 45' WYE AREA COLLAR DETAIL Sewer Service Line Cleanout Detail - Unpaved Location THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser 6 (5 Attachment A-43 Revised M 14-133 EXISTING PAVEMENT CONCRETE COLLAR CLEANOUT LID PROVIDE HEAVY DUTY C.I. FRAME AND LID, NEENAH R-1792 CL OR EQUAL LIMITS OF EXCAVATION CONCRETE COLLAR FINISH GRADE o 12" 1' MINIMUM THICKNESS PAVEMENT z BASE COURSE OR FLOWABLE FILL a COMPACTED SUBGRADE --"— (SEE SPECS.) NOTES: 1. "D" _ �" FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT OVERLAYS OR SURFACE TREATMENTS 2. "D" _ �" FOR H.M.A. PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION 3. "D" _" FOR CONCRETE STREETS 4. CLEANOUT MUST BE PLUMB 5. THIS DETAIL APPLIES TO BOTH ASPHALT AND CONCRETE STREETS Sewer Cleanout Collar Detail - Paved Location THESE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR STANDARDIZATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH MAY REQUIRE UPGRADING FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. REFER TO TOWN OF FRASER MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. Town of Fraser -20 Attachment A-44 Revised (Ord. 389 Part 1. 1, 2012) 14-134 � 7 1 MEMO TO: Mayor Smith and the Board of Trustees FROM: Catherine E. Trotter, AICP, Town Planner DATE: January 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Grand Park is requesting an extension of time for execution of all plat documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park- Filing 2. MATTER BEFORE BOARD: Grand Park is requesting an extension of time for execution of all plat documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park- Filing 2. ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Resolution 2015-02-02 extending a five year extension for the execution of all final plat documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2 in accordance with the Final Plat Phasing Plan, the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Reception # 2011005609 and Resolution 2015-02-03 extending the approval of the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C, Lot 11A & Tract A and Lot 11 B & Tract B final plats. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Previously, the TB approved a final plat phasing plan for The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2. The plats were to be recorded within five years from June 4, 2008 unless an extension was approved by the Town Board. Although five years from June 4, 2008 has come and gone, Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 2015-02-02 authorizing an additional five year extension for execution of all documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, in accordance with the Final Plat Phasing Plan, the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Reception # 2011005609 and Resolution #2015-02-03 extending the approval of the Village at Grand Park - Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C, Lot 11A & Tract A and Lot 11 B & Tract B final plats. BACKGROUND: On June 4, 2008, the Town Board approved the Village at Grand Park Final Plan and Final Plats, Filing 2A -2E with several conditions, one being that: "any plat not executed and recorded within five years of TB approval shall expire unless an extension is approved by the Town Board". On June 15, 2011, the TB adopted Resolution 2011-06-04, approving a minor plat amendment, a revised final plat phasing plan, with several conditions, one being that: "any plat not executed and recorded within 5 years from June 4, 2008 shall expire unless an extension is approved by the Town Board". (See recorded Final Plat Phasing Plan the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Reception #2011005609). Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com On February 15, 2012, the TB approved three resolutions approving the following final plats and required execution of all documents within 90 days of the adoption of the resolutions. The Village at Grand Park, Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C (see Resolution #2012-02-04) The Village at Grand Park, Filing 2, Lot 11A & Tract A (see Resolution 2012-02-05) The Village at Grand Park, Filing 2, Lot 11 B & Tract B (see Resolution 2012-02-06) Within this 90 day period, Grand Park requested a one year extension of all documents relating to the final plats referenced above. On May 2, 2012, the TB adopted a resolution (see Resolution 2012-05-02) extending the approval of the three final plats below to April 30, 2013. The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 11A & Tract A The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 11 B & Tract B Fast forward to 2015: Grand Park is preparing their development plans for the Village this summer. The applicant would like to finalize three of the Final Plats for Filing 2: The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 11A & Tract A The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 11 B & Tract B Staff discussed various options with Grand Park and we have agreed that it makes the most sense to ask for an extension of time for execution of all plat documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park- Filing 2 and to also re -approve the three final plats referenced above. This will get all the plats on the same recordation schedule and easier to track in the future and will re - approve the three final plats referenced above with the same conditions that were previously imposed. As such, there are two resolutions in the packet for your review and consideration. Resolution 2015-02-02, extending the approvals for execution of all final plat documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, in accordance with the Final Plat Phasing Plan, the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Reception # 2011005609 for a five year period Resolution 2015-02-03, extending the approval of the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C, Lot 11A & Tract A and Lot 11 B & Tract B final plats. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Town Board could opt to approve an extension of less than five years. Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com 2. Alternatively, the TB could opt to not extend the time period for execution of all plat documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2. The applicant would then be required to reprocess all plats associated with The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 2015-02-02 extending the approvals for execution of all final plat documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, in accordance with the Final Plat Phasing Plan, the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Reception # 2011005609 for a five year period and Resolution 2015-02-03 extending the approval of the Village at Grand Park - Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C, Lot 11A & Tract A and Lot 11B & Tract B final plats. Town of Fraser PO Box 370, Fraser, CO 80442 office 970-726-5491 fax 970-726-5518 www.frasercolorado.com FINAL 'PLAT PHASING PLAN THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK -FILING 2 A PART OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TOWN OF FRASER, COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO SKEET 1 Or Y o ICAMa+ i-E�� oEscmRnnx+: B �r caaor n ne we s,� r ewB.a o ae u�wK�r erM ,wem satW ru. 1 xx sw,. n*••,r .nv. aa,w.x o, nv �s 1 nocE wu�. �..sn• w+.. m,»ec v ,n.r �, m . ra,rr oe a«..,ws: °nr�:.row ,. ,,Ka.w.. ,a ,cam+•�, Me ��., ' ivaa snm, mnie• us, .: os+wa rs ,n» rm."w •ar. +m *ore swm �e�v.• wr. , m,..� v raae ,a,; '.R,�"`M`.a u :.• w1 vr'u"s 00�....°n aaf �. m . rar a Bc ewar w:r, ,..ae so .csmx• .,wr-o-,... w.. o-srwa a * � �I nYxi aM,irrs CER�IFlChTf �y rcan 4iE ECR A PRbY RY 11,E TONN 90AR[I �wrM�r �Br RaiEs: t 1 'a ;dam �E44NP .___ waac euewer � CRFP1r KAI.. TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION NO, 2011-06-04 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR PLAT AMENDMENT, REVISED FINAL PLAT PHASING PLAN, THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK -FILING 2. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby approves a minor plat amendment, revised Final Plat Phasing Plan, The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2 with the following conditions: 1. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of each final plat. 2. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 3. Any plat not executed and recorded within 5 years from June 4. 2008 shall expire unless an extension is approved by the Town Board. 4. Payment of all applicable fees 5. Execution of all documents within 90 days of the date of adoption of this Resolution. If such conditions are not satisfied, the approval provided by this resolution is no longer valid. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 15" DAY OF JUNE, 2011. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: (SEAL) Town Clerk TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02-04 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, THE VILLAGE AT GRAND P/ 2, LOT 10 & TRACT C. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF Tl FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby approves the Final Plat, The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C with the following conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents within 90 days of the adoption of this Resolution. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required Improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street, Tract C as a "dedicated public right -of way." 10. Add a "1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west edge of Market Street (Tract C). If such conditions are not satisfied, the approval provided by this resolution is no longer valid. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO BY: S17 Mayor ATTE (SEAL) Town Clerk TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02-05 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK — FILING 2, LOT 11A & TRACT A. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby approves the Final Plat, The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11A & Tract A with the following conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents within 90 days of the adoption of this Resolution. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, note #14 should reference Lot 11A. 10. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street Tract A as a "dedicated public right -of way." 11. Add a "1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west and southwest edge of Market Street (Tract A). If such conditions are not satisfied, the approval provided by this resolution is no longer valid. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO BY: �J Mayor ATTEST: (S E A -L) Town Clerk TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02-06 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK — FILING 2, LOT 11 B & TRACT B. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby approves the Final Plat, The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11 B & Tract B with the following conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents within 90 days of the adoption of this Resolution. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street Tract B as a "dedicated public right -of way." 10. Add a "1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west edge of Market Street (Tract B). If such conditions are not satisfied, the approval provided by this resolution is no longer valid. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO BY: Mayor fl i ATTEST: (S EA L) Town Jerk April 26, 2012 Sent Via E-mail Town of Fraser Attn: Jeff Durbin P.O. Box 120 Fraser, CO 80442 Re: Town of Fraser_ Resolution Nos. 2012-02-04, 2012-02-05, & 2012-02-06 Dear Jeff, Please accept this letter as a request to the Town of Fraser Board of Trustees to consider an extension of time for execution of all documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park — Filing 2 Lots 10, 11A, and 11B final plats. Resolution No. 2012-02-04 pertains to Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C Resolution No. 2012-02-05 pertains to Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11 A & Tract A Resolution NO. 2012-02-06 pertains to Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 1113 & Tract B The Resolutions were approved on February 15t1i, 2012 and provided for 90 days from the resolution date to execute all documents. Grand Park respectfully requests the Board of Trustees extend the date for one year to April 30, 2013 for the execution of all documents relating to the final plats referenced above. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincere ' ZiDPSCOM'.'�'' '��.,, President �lNS'I'MIUTI ON .71:1:1("1... 11-!.6 +15'.13 15,�;g"G i.�r��1.:& �.a�t :f 1;i 'ki`1°."1k i"• 1'��1�h. �.:�.)l,i,31i?��,ti;D Itit-�,5�r TOWN OF FRA,SER RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05-02 A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK — FILING 2, LOTS 10, 11A and 11 B FINAL PLATS. WHEREAS, Grand Park has requested that the Board of Trustees extend the date for execution of all documents relating to The Village at Grand Park, Filing 2 Lots 10, 11A and 11 B final plats to April 30, 2013. WHEREAS, the Fraser Board of Trustees has reviewed said request for an extension and has decided to extend the date for execution of all documents relating to The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lots 10, 11A and 11B Final plats to April 30, 2013. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby extends the Final Plat, The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C with the following conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents by April 30, 2013. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street, Tract C as a "dedicated public right -of way." 10. Add a "1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west edge of Market Street (Tract C). The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby extends the Final Plat, The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11A & Tract A with the following conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents by April 30, 2013. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, note #14 should reference Lot 11A. 10. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street Tract A as a "dedicated public right -of way." 11. Add a "1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west and southwest edge of Market Street (Tract A). The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby approves the Final Plat, The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11 B & Tract B with the following conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents by April 30, 2013. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street Tract B as a "dedicated public right -of way." 10. Add a "1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west edge of Market Street (Tract B). If such conditions are not satisfied, the approval provided by this resolution is no longer valid. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 2nd DAY OF MAY, 2012. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN� FRAS , COLORADO BY: �- Mayo ATTEST- �jo P, AC? iA {S E A L) Town Clerk TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-02-02 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FIVE YEAR EXTENSION FOR THE EXECUTION OF ALL FINAL PLAT DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK -FILING 2 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLAT PHASING PLAN, THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK - FILING 2, Reception # 2011005609. WHEREAS, Grand Park has requested that the Board of Trustees extend the date for execution of all plat documents relating to the Village at Grand Park, Filing 2 for a period of five years to February 4, 2020. WHEREAS, the Fraser Board of Trustees had reviewed said request for an extension and has decided to extend the date for execution of all final plat documents relating to the Village at Grand Park, Filing 2 for a period of five years to February 4, 2020. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby approves an extension for execution of all plat documents relating to the Village at Grand Park, Filing 2 for a period of five years to February 4, 2020 with the following conditions: 1. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of each final plat. 2. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 3. Any plat not executed and recorded by February 4, 2020 shall expire unless an extension is approved by the Town Board. 4. Payment of all applicable fees. If such conditions are not satisfied, the approval provided by this resolution is no longer valid. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015. (SEAL) BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO BY: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk January 28, 2015 Sent Via E-mail Town of Fraser Attn: Jeff Durbin P.O. Box 120 Fraser, CO 80442 Re: Town of Fraser Resolution Nos. 2011-06-04, 2012-02-04, 2012-02-05, & 2012-02-06 Dear Jeff, Please accept this letter as a request to the Town of Fraser Board of Trustees to consider an extension of time for execution of all documents pertaining to the Village at Grand Park — Filing 2 Lots and Final Plat Phasing Plan. Resolution No. 2011-06-04 pertains to Village at Grand Park — Filing 2 Resolution No. 2012-02-04 pertains to Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C Resolution No. 2012-02-05 pertains to Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11A & Tract A Resolution No. 2012-02-06 pertains to Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11B & Tract B Grand Park respectfully requests the Board of Trustees extend the approvals for a period of five years to February 4, 2020 for the execution of all documents relating to the final plats referenced above which are in conformance with the approved and recorded Village at Grand Park — Filing 2 Final Plat Phasing Plan recorded in the Real Property Records of Grand County at Reception #2011005609. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely/ President MAIN j.. FFIG..I , 9711 , "i ,�i:': j0 F`'A r� 3' ('�nr a "'A-41 KFAI, F'O'A'I`h 0FFK*,F, -JANh1".>..€C1`Bµ1 .! 10,11:1UT' �'� I- ', {103 F'L ctF..�- 1 V02''4_1+R Iimm (I x)1.,[IRAL.1(.1 1141,1"Ke' to (Dc < :E co m --I C) n m a v r � O -I 7 p -4 ❑ m c o Sm D --A - --I --I --I --A --j --I --I m --A --A �--A --A rn � � m N � ❑rt s 0 o= D 'I S m? S S S S S S S S S S S OS S S S p S S S r C a Q«❑ m m Om OOm m m m Om m +p m m Cl) p (DJ a 0 Z rt t t y a - O m O A A A A A A A A A A A A A coA A A A A A a< CZ Z rta ❑ m 0 (D - ❑ p C O r tp rt° j`< Z A 14 Z Z (n A J Z A J Z Z N A 14 (n M N N A- Z N Cp N 0\n a ° D. (n -< 3 '� 0 D o N S`v� a s N v C O v - J C O J C o v v C O v :, rn v = W 0) CD 0 ❑ = P Z 0 rt a -i (n 7c O O 0 O ❑ .+ V P W P rt 0 cn + v P cn + N P (O rt (O O +� < C5 (7 N N N OC O 2 rrt .TOI r T` Q= 0 n�� N O �� O a) O o� � o� O � O o� O D W O � O � � � �� ° p � A .Z7 r+ Z D -0 D O O m a❑ W -m W W _m _m W W _m 0) W _� Cn ❑ to m rt CD rt= O !n Z N X D A p co 0 D m Ol -0 rt° j '� ,� j '� Q� j '� ,� .p ? '� (❑ C m P h CO CD M D �• O a = C 0 ° O N D N O - ❑ C7 C C t❑ ❑ - t❑ ❑ t❑ ❑ " t❑ ❑ �-�• t❑ = rt d r+•j m a m �, O C m- a 55 z o- ❑ p 0 C ? m_ m o m CD o m m o m o r*i m o ❑❑ Co ° m ❑ cn n °o 3-1D� m o A rt �,U❑a m ° ° J ° rn° N o (D °o amm om CD <..�7t< cn ❑ � co 0 m a ❑ -n J to cn (n t° O 0 '° cr 0) 0 t° CA j O t❑ N ° to s (O `< rt O 0- =3 cn�- O CAO - ❑ 0s ❑ m N Cn cn rt n 0 0= � m (D S O � (D s o O S O (n � S (,� � � O rt � N , O 0 0 � I 0 -D c a o a a L+ p m O p o p m -ti p CD o o o m Ln m s S 'Q s o (o to ° a M p r =3 n N a m w� °= O -, O❑ 0 - h CSD O❑ m O - CCD 0 CCD o❑ CD O O (�D Cn m m O O j �, rt N m D 7 Z m D y t❑ (n A❑ °- O CSD 0 m f0+- m m rt m (p m (Pp (p �` ° m ,..r 0❑ CD I00 (aD O O �• a G7 a r CD a 0 Q 77 -1❑ (JO 'O•r 00 A rt rt rt 00 A rt 00 A �+ rt +-r cn A ,..r frtr (T A Ort ti+ a rt O O A a3N� m ❑, p .�.�� Z a0 a -o-, P rt -: O O : O 0 _: O O 00 O0 C3 0 0 _' O W O - ❑ I C rt O ❑ `L � o r ° r- O (n rt < v CD a-0 ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑ (n � ❑ 0 m M n M 0 (n CD O A -• _ _ -0 = ❑ W ❑ ❑ ❑ O O ❑ � to `< d � to OCA O ° O - S aA "0 aA aA -0 = A a 0. N NZ O❑ oto Z m w O A Q-+ m O p N O O -O CSD A n �< to O Q O tT l tT l O °- O = c O• a- c �- 'p' c (n 3 ❑ (moo � O- �! ° °- C) 7 -� ❑ 3 m O ❑ rt CD < ❑ < rt < ❑ < = > " O O a O = 3 r+ rt O Tl 0 '� 0. m - m '� (SD m rt ❑< m =< m O CD `< m O C t❑ rt O tp rt _ = m 0 = N ❑ m Ln to O W �i O m Z (n ❑ i�° - rt = ❑ Q m O 'h O t° O t❑ O O� ❑• rt c0 rt' = rt O 0 °rt' CJi A rt ❑ Q S rt S❑ m m 0 A (A A A A 0- O to O C °- O O ''„ C 0) Ort O c C Da rA C 7c Sj ap O QCD -C, QM < QM QCD D �•S QS p m S W f �_S O = O ^v J co C7 t❑ O ❑_ _ Z < ❑ < rt_ t❑ m < O m ,..� a m � m n O N m - � C \ r a ❑ rt m = CD = m C = m m m rt _ C t❑ .N -r Q 00 j tp' C7 < C) ° N o ° c (D O m fi CCD .rt+ M CD rt CL a .rtr j C tI] CD t❑ 0 (n �, N M 7' W. N a !n �< O O C7 r"'O '� TI a rt a rt °" rt CD rt Q S (D a fSr C ,•+ N O `< r•r C 0 . -�O O D a0 CD j ? �0a- r m 2: ort '<0-0 0 CD O m AA P O rm ❑ ° ❑rt '°°� Um oM OaC O A 0 rt ° z A A' 0 0 7mQ0 z S 7 S7 S0 --o O 0 �C O O O O O 0 'D -- O 0.OaO3A o`< -0 i N m O 0 p ❑ rt r(70� C (, O CD OO7a Srt art �rt of AO So ❑O NrtN S z��0 O =j' CD m a 0 �`a❑ ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑ S ❑ OS ti' ❑ 311 O r � rt CD M A (D t (1) rt 7 rt 7 rt 7 ❑_ ❑ j 0 O 0 Z rt 0 r S O t❑ t❑ t❑ rtt❑ a= ❑ O❑ rt = .Z7 = O O C D �3�<- 0 3m -i vm CT or m o a-_ stn CD CA = nl (n � D ❑ m N tT ° m= m= m= ° = m t❑ a m S Co. !n rt C") _ O= . -a rt O ❑ A ❑ A ❑ A (D A S I ❑ O rt= O=r 0_ m N m O C (n l y� o f �< ❑ S m< 0 `< to � rn � -1 ❑= 0 0 fi< C C O 0� � pnND c o (ND a O A 1 t N° 0) N❑ Z° CSD m JS SS < ZW O .-0 m -i 0- -� = 0 rt- N m CD O (D Cn 5 ❑ 7 O❑ m❑ ,� (D 3 Z m a rr rt' 3 S O > > _° Cn 7 A ❑ C 2 CIl 0 z m cn <: m v, a o m m N o oW t❑ rn t❑ oW t❑ t° �' `< �' � -I Om v, Q0 (n `�•Ws° ❑m Cn❑ o❑ Cn❑ N❑ rnS Pt° N m (n*2 W o c00m� _ cAi�g� �� rn� �� �� rno rn° a❑ ❑ m- 3 0 o ❑ m ❑ ° m ° - ❑ (o l< G7 00 cn0 rm*i m D0 M p o 3 c� a a �a a �a N(o 0 o a P z(n= o rn(mT1 Z tc c�< N a❑ �(n Orn0 stn O(D �❑ W �c Z00(D m N0 0 m ❑ m A `< O aa 0)0 m0 OHO C0O `� (OtA (1(m 200 Ln C -D a j0 fi ❑ = S � �❑ O0 "O CD rt`Z C7 C7 !n ° `< m -p M S ",m -r 0O r° cO rt 0O m cn C) to o O p rt 7 a CD rt C7 r* p Q = 00 - .+ 0 O C a r• ,< t❑ P O P 0 W CCDD < rt ❑ N O ❑ CD rt O =�ov -a <,ao 0CDa- ma<<o a�3 5 o m m �c 0 m 0 1-3 O ::�E z � OD L' D :ECX) --I(n a v o —� �D -71 K o () co m �, T z C D A 0_70 N 0 ®� ®� ® N D CD :3D m O (D (n 3 m S p CD rnr�� O 2 C to 0 (Z O N 0 P 0 r G� O I I Z D 1-0 (D Q� ? Ln G) � rt O� S � O O X ti (n Q Q- O 0 0 O ❑ (D N Ln 77 (D (D TO C) Cf) �-3 n (n � ❑ DN 0 o m0. tG O 00= D nZ� oC:: 'o r CD 0 n 0 CD Nm m •' 1 Oa 3 a (ToDQ o N� mcn Z m S v�� D C] P 00 ❑ (y^l) (n rt Q (D �� � r — 0 O (n S 73 + zr 00 r z iD p (� N o 0 N 0 e, moo(DQ ,• NQo ORoN coCA -Ti N—o0 $ 00 Wv JN (D O V 0 o v o C4 co D �,�� C;� �-3 r M < O O Q ,-,- Q 0 <• 0 O 0 c CD (D N J fA ° I � U o Q O Q cn 00 O C4❑ h X- (r 0o Wco O C ° C o y O 3 D ❑ o < M (D Q ( 0 0 0 CC/) N ��m O F71 CD 0 C: oQCD O N (1 1I I O r+ O r+ T - 0 V CD CSD (OD CD Q (Z ZT 0 o ° O iZ (Z F CD �O D I—I O M 0 cDi D N-1 ��, -0 S m W o X N O N CD c ZN 0 (D C700 1I -° w m O rn m mo ma m 0 0 0 P N m W ❑ N m N ❑ C A o"O ❑u m 0u �O '�v a �� -0 O-0 u O�..i �..i 0 = to �..v ° °v A aA S❑ D Du (❑n �..i A �..i OSc �< S� A ❑ rt nnn0� O O Z ❑ --I A �'SN� (n 3 m < rr�O O ��m m O ❑ rt= _ dm � m D i rt CO o ° m ��vcn ❑ �.� �� O 0 3 0'D ° m D m m p❑ o (0 3 S 0 o 3° m❑ 3a� o aa- 3 N> >? ❑ to rtt� a 0-3 7 �? °-rt° 7 ° N a n ? _0 N-0 _ ❑• m 00 = f CD m a to = 0 _0.O -r a O O d O C) a C a O `< S M w° a O O a = O a ❑ A O rt Q rt D. C ❑ 0 7 0 7 OD m 7 Q O .� r+ _ _ -p 3 0 C U O -O D CD N e- ❑ o rt t❑ = N (D O O ❑ t❑ Q cn O O❑ I m _ CD O l< = rt m m = = D ❑ A ua O A O = = N M 0 S + 00 = ❑ Zr+ (�' < I O M ❑ + m rt O N_ �. Z 7 = + rt = 0 0 (nn 00 = O 3<(� a r° gm o m_. I o .+m �mX m��m o o- C-,-1ac D❑_ =N Sv`< rt�a 3 ? =m o0 M 0 ❑ O 7c rt 7 C n T rt❑ O ❑ 7- C n N A c° Oo 3= fi j rt ❑- s_ �_+ I d m0 m O= C7 to m O 3 J❑ S d 0 - O art _<. 0 O �-°• t° to rt 0 a Q Cn -II ❑:3 OL W� Q S O< S= CO rt� Q• fr 7 ❑• CD, O n O i 0 (D a) � a 0 S O 0 O (A O m CD Cl 0 00 D '•r ❑ < _ _ ❑ m < rt� („i fA = m 3 3 Cp O 3 to - C to -p _ m m O •O m 3 �, ❑ � a = m t❑ atn O O (D t❑ CD a N S n N m a s m ° rt❑ ar+ 0 m ❑ _❑ °'� C I (<D Sot❑ 0❑ m 3 O ❑ m 0 ❑ C U = 0 m o C 3 0 `-' .� -_ �< 7 m �< D 0 O 7 m❑ a -D O O a Q I m n m ❑- A -0 rt = '•�- �, N A- Cj �O = _0 M Cl) 7 O m "O tD _. to �. S 3 °_ "' ❑ 3 rt A m w a <, 7-. _ 5. 0 m a CD _. I O� O O rt ❑ n O a i < t05. 0❑ (3D D o m CaD 3 CD N .Nr 7 S O ,� 7• O (OA cn' ry CD CD � N C 3� � C a N 0� tp M= D a A I "O N�❑ � ". rt � Om A0 to ?• O O MO, �O a °' �)rt D m CSD rt m S Q m O a A N 3 _0 rt0 C F 'art < rt<• rt I '"'t❑ I m- = O"O Srt O _N rtt❑ 3 S rt rt C) O O O 0 O rt O O S �, N O O O 0 I S I = a (D S ❑ rt C C 0 S O ❑ ❑ rt 77 (A �. ❑ < 7 ❑ d N CD fi N N (°A S O O O0 •Op 3 �. ❑ " r. N ❑ 3 m - O l O 'D y- CD r+ rt (A 3 c a r rt Ul r A= W A t❑ 7 CD I O I 0 O a= < S -• .C+ (n (�i►Y\J��1]C r a S - ❑ r 0 '� ❑ S rt a _< 3 _0 .+ CD = I A O ❑ .+ - CA = (D A C O 3 O Ci (D t❑ t❑ Ci co t❑ Cn tAp (D O (D (n S 3 to N a I O �, pj O ❑ ,� CD .y, CD rt ❑ MD = (n vi' y 0 .Z) = S (D to CD O t❑' (gyp CD n . O c C I -OO O 7 O rt ❑_ I i ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ (D '� ❑ .Ni O S �-� CoA °o c °gym o a ��'CD 0 rn �° M o� (n Wo- a❑° m= I �m a° rt�m�0 j �� �' �rto� ❑o moo= 3 0 �° in J ❑ A Q A j CT .•+ C7 rt,< _ �. C f+ ❑ O ❑ ❑ t❑ n 7 7 I ❑ -0 CD 0 .� '_� T. Ort rr yi D. S rt< ° M 0 a� 3 m m ,=-r m 3 (On m s l a� 3 U- (a7 a(OA I ZO A A OL m O G7O N to m A m Oma r. O c 3 t° �<�t❑ o �'• c cn m +-• n ❑ o o I'D o ❑ m _ a� m I=v ao 0o v, m to < = rt l a a ata m tT o o rn� `� a= rt 0 n 3 o m e `�� ❑ o o s� ❑ N� vi o '-'• a o a❑ m❑CD ° C • O A ❑ O O S CD rt 0= m �< = A rr rt a D -a CO m m C S 0 g Q A = �` = O CD 0 O ti. O m = = A tD n ❑❑ rt 0 3 O S rt< O t❑ m (� m "O `G m a❑ to 3 m CD .r n A °• S 0 m❑ 00p0 ° A a °' ° S =O O M S O r+ O O ❑ A 0 ❑ m -� C) tp rt C to 3 S ❑ _. ° C- = m m N I 3 s Z m D O ❑ rt ❑- _- ' O S 0 (A ❑ C ❑ °' N .� S '� CND �` 0 �' = CD 7 0 7 rt j U 0 O = ❑ m (❑ 3= O O 3 C m O 3 C O 7-A S❑�•C CD to O a C rt= = n� O O C to A A m C� O I CA N o S"C7 a N C O C Orr ❑-< S� a,,l mt0 C �, j m _ ❑ to A ❑ a 3 = �vrt m -Nm CD O -h m O m ° t❑ ° O rt i❑ ❑ -0 ❑ -' o rt Cb m a- p , (D = CCD A m O N❑ O 1 �< m ^ ❑ ti; (n c 1 = = m r! _ ❑ (D - ❑ o r+ a m M ❑ ❑ ❑ a D ❑ A -^ CD ❑ a vJ C rtrr n a rt0 I rt- ❑- m _ 0 a= j 3 O Cn CD-0<rt O `< D- '+�°" ❑to 0V-- 3 3 N 7 ❑ .+ O ^ =_ M to a0 X = O D rta CL (A am 0 tp d -0 to❑ S _ (WZ m rt = • S O° O ` J t❑ O rt - (A n O °" S D Ort 7 O O N❑ °= 0 (p ❑ S S co M< m S 0 A° S a 0 O+ O< ° O= rt❑ S O _rt CD O = m T. _ C •+ .•+ to CA a m = m m ° ° '� m O O O 3 r+ O `G A ❑ M S to S rt❑ A t❑ O d❑ t❑ - Stn m m C CA Gi N _ _ `'� W tT0 a I m O+ O A= CD mp C O m 0+ O < tp m F rtm m C rtO OrtrtQ rta= cp N OS CD C rt CO -0 ° O 0 = m m < <' A _ CD = ❑ to ❑ N �< rt a N 00 CD to x N S 0 ❑ X0 to C fA to m "O CD A C rt-_ (❑A m t0•) C 0 ❑� S � ❑ W � O m c 3 O m O S CD �� O❑ ° (,D AO � r+� M rt C S a O O f O A (D ❑< a A m O �< a s = O O m %0 a = S O m to O !n rt O �+ J C rt m j ❑ a 3= (�J7 (A 'D r+ t=n a 3 Z N rt O rt to N m � mm ❑ N A = C Cn 3 N 0 t❑ t❑' A a m a C O m •+ C C rt W CO a `� 7 O a (<D -p rt to N C ` (D ,S.r AO -mp a N (3D m m m ❑- (SD m < O. O-2 7' a p O 7 rt ❑ (AD (�D N °- S 3 O C � j 3 (� O C , O == N O (A p O m A C = `� 0 7 0 y, = rAr 7 m= �° D O m a A_ ?. CD i = a 0- 3 U (AD O D a CTO < h a m C - O .. W = O �• O a a 0 N .Or a A a rt 0 fi n rt X' 0 m CD rr 0 rt N 0* n O 0 �, d m o= a I a a CCD (71� 3• m rt 0 a O z ^ C En CD ❑ c tet❑ m m CO �' O tmn (n 0 c as ? <v am = o �= r° �'v I o D_c ;❑ m e o m �0 < �c 7 DO S oma = -I -I a -3 xcm a0tw _� f.C� CCCD C ❑ O `< �Oartrt I �0 r°OZ=�rt� W❑� OD CD SO O rt �� to 3 m tort a co to m =� m 0- rt� = a 0 rtN ao a o w s A x v? I rn a o 0O wo N)= I `< o (D ma ° �3 M gu,(°n - C❑CD ❑-❑-0o� Sm a= S ��a - m °3Pxxcn -DCA N' m` i an 13 s U S Co t❑ ❑ _ _ ❑ r0•r to ,•+ ❑ m rt m CaD m TI m m 'O 13 "O N O N'O I .•+ O Z m m A m Ti Ch �! 0. -• O m ❑ N 7 Ul V m 0 �� rt m 0 x- 0 =� O A = 5-.= Zr _ N _ ❑ I m o D� ul Ot❑ O p c to iV � • A ❑ 0 O ❑ ^ S a ❑ rt tL] t� ❑ _ "O 7 m = m fA = '. ❑ rt D ° _ m O m 00 + �1 5.0 rt O _ O= c ` J rt ❑ O C '� = N O to ° (Jt 0 0 n rt ClD m m to = a -. rt CA I _ 00 a0-0 3 s O �' N a C7 OS n (SD ❑ rt 7 tp' S N m CO AO �_ N -0 u K co a C m O °' Gi Ort `< �• rt 0❑ AO O OZ ❑ c D C rt (b S O S `< = to = ❑ Cl) 0- 0- ❑ O a CA N 00 O. rt N .� O (I1 3 � 0° (i° I� _° \ otom <o m A c• _ =0 Cci0mm `< a -1a a L4 --4 3 ami 30 (.i CD co ri C (!j 'O m m rts X rt0 < .r _ _ °' (D i rta0 s m 0 _ rtm aO WOm = C-0 a rt 7 U N =; CD 0 D ,� s l rt m 0� N m CD (.,,� to '^ CJl 0 m ❑ g m rr <- .•+ �. 3 a s a ort >> I m '•r ,+ O �. ❑ N O 0 .+ C a m 0 o Ut v/ (<D C to = 0❑ O�t❑ 7 0 C 0 m s a3 0 0 rtC °- m < CD O Q mh O .�3". �� rn M" 0= O C 0= CO < c a (=A o C m ❑ m rt �'tC `< °❑ o' mtC (O<0 _ o o so D a = Mm zypo m phi o a m o Fq O N `G m "O �_ 0 °rt m D� rt '•r (ap C m t`<o y rt rt 7 rt O � l0 N m I O G7 O A - O= ° Q ❑ -p m "O c a .+ O S m "C O O _0 a '•�• m CD to 0 j I m D C) v= O N= O C rt CD co ofi ° ° rt3� rn-vmi� 0a3(�1rt3 t0A(3p v� 00��3 n ❑3�tn �rt �ao�0m oo� �a ❑o N _S O < m❑ ❑ rn t❑ ❑- S m m❑ ❑ a t❑ to CD .�+ 7 m 0 S S I O CD-• ❑' 7 -� m❑ _ 3 m m a C �. _ (p m a m a to to m m rt = ❑ O Ort 0 m CD =-0= < a N 3= rt rta O Sa N c �O O NJ _ m 0 I p❑ rt0D (nom rn `< m M rt ? N= O O m❑ °• O m O N t❑ S❑ p O� to 7 rt0 CD ~ _ <_C I Z�_+m Ort ❑t❑ a to rt ? W A ❑ i•C rt c = (b (A "O ,tea _m C �tD CbC aO S ❑ ❑ I O OSS rtrt O O M O rt t❑ �l ° CD t=' m +� 3 m❑ 3 -u SO (D I N❑ 0 O Om O Co rt C O= CD O = N m m - d CSD U rt O m A rt -• rt ,� l t❑ m dJ '� " O N �. rt 0 (n S O ❑ •+ 0 A❑ O_ O� h S o m (n 0 3 c N 31 0 3 ❑= m �- T O ❑ pm 3 �A c C tp 3 00 O 0 Ol n (lD O= 7 ° `G a' m< N C .�+ rt❑ m rn rt Z �' rt I O C („ i C < F ChD = M C a rt "O 3 3 a m ❑ .� A �' t❑ S ❑_ t❑ ❑ A c O S -_ D O O (n 3 0 (O �<, �< fA rt rt 0 M m a+c tin = ❑ v tT 0 m m � m my ° _ = o �o- 3 O to rt ar< a m 0 to = =OO N A rt Oti. 0 O t❑ O a 0 m h w-2 CD = O O ° W M m a❑ =mS o' 0 0 0 � ~ N O c z NORTH < II tm m tm mfi o o 0 J 0 II ern g96 0 li r0 II o I 11 I 1 0CP W O I=l ollo�o: vo 0 M«g� S�N 'Po e �CA 0 0. °'o�Vv 'a?WWo �0 rq `ppgp`9�5 �NJ CT "CP � �0 �Ii mm 0-0. 0Z31 _ C3 Ln 14 �-3 g y ,oo g£dl0Ml,_17 o �-�tNCD o VNWo�O m4sj g \ \ , o `r ' 0 o n~ m ` \ n � r Cr �z wrn =o'er II �. 0•� N DNo �p cu m Zgov UAL 5 ��I �, o �n 9 .5 tn�1 � _ 0• mm D 9 �r cn z z I� ZO N OD � M II cs rno o jµ90' \ p0 �6 lWyW U) I! rnoo ,, 0 a ;0 r- \ crw NdN3lN,5 � � J w 0 W rn o , , it cr 30 N01S Z N �O•!oil 3„ -' �n 0Ov m O \ T ON _ WO / _ W (A D 0 T a zOP , � � � o0 aci. D LT O K) CD 10 95 D Dao N -.W \w 390��� LL �—A � 1-3 o_ 7 NV1 FT1 1-3 z � �' o> �o -Az= N \ c? N O / o N /b r 0 � I� \ �• \ �Dcr m _n N \\ ZZ C-) —A 0%\ D z��ti w N , J\\ p I v O\ - i O C/) 001 [ J io �o z \\ �', jG 6 t N �'�����; i /, , - ' ” 1900 jJ00 ls098 90 \ ffi o , �c, 60° w \i i NpI1d �0-6dM Z�0 NldlNO' , -' NiN01�103 -' �7cDnDM, o \ 0 M 70 o0 I t9 UQ..9[N N3035 , , - Cf) n w �Z `�pg�,s Moi Z��> •S• n00al 0 \ N •6Z 0-V cno II \ o 00 N cp \ , C.4 2 W "/ o E. LINE NW1/4, SW1/4, SEC. 28 v S00'16'59"E 1329.64' W. LINE NW1/4, SW1/4 SEC. 28 NJ _ co -n ^(nZ DC(n Z (� NZ (no0)O > O O v N -0\ O N 0 N N i m.. (D . o N \ �' c Oo 00 ,;Po0 < =3 Ily�r, o pm 0 Q) �� 2 0 n� m ��� Ox V) O O O Z W o a za) o i�D (D n n -e i Ujrri � Ln D N pp � U1 _ U3 �c N N m O m 0 d �l U)0\O N 0 10y�1 o d�� 101 0- o s_ 0 � 101 N n � M,.99,6£.tiON __ ---------- ----- _ _ _ - - ------ - - - - - - ,L8'8 t8 E. LINE NW1/4, SW1/4, SEC. 28 0 CID N00'04'25"E 1330.75' MF M ^ 0)� (n (n (7 1 n zri00 N_- —' * m Q Q •S• 0 2 z ? 2 fn CJ�N o mo -0 -1 IyMN "yam C) � LTI O * m z 0* ZD U) C z D CID to c CO 7 m O A co s 0 N W f+ Z O m c O S C (7 S O S 0 7- S S S (D S S S 7- S � c 7- S O -h O J a r 0 7 0 m _< p ° a S ° m m (D m CD m (D m A (D (D (D CD CD m (D (D Ct° O m 7 W (CD D< I= OC C7 (zT'I Z � 7 O A n rt ° m A m A m A 0 7 A A A A A A 0 m N co Z �_ a G7 -• m °• O N (7 7 m 0 ° 3 ° rt II ;U CD ;p (D M (D CD rt m CD ° (D (D m (D CD ,+ O ° A 3 m° fi5 K N 3 z ° rt D� � c z 7 a`< D Zl (n (° (7 Om C7 m 0) (D �° (D (A r z r z r Z N � J Z A �I Z Z Cp (n O � ? \ (7 a a � N � C r �N � 5 7� NCO N� N(n O O N 7 O Cn 00 Z. �� rN+O� (n 3 0 D O a 7 N 7 J + �I ° S O c p 0 o N 7c CD O Zl ° ° -C j � C) -� (T C) i° CP p CIC 7 O N (n O ° O CD0 300 O = r- :D r T. �2 mc�< Oc0 OW Orn W � � rn � � W rn OmO�+-"o rt7 3 rt D N CD o z D v D O m m a o CD m N m N m o Ui m o ° m N o (A N cli D n p rn a Z rt C o Z Cn � z :U (- S M 0 0 rn v .� •A v o O '� p? 7 '� •A °? (] co O° ,+ c C 0° CD aC -0 OL X O A° O D (D m OC "� rt° c ,+ m ° m �_ °_ d m m° j a (SD O ITI �T1 -`2 3 DLn 00 c o c° M D �° O O m Om ? o D(CD m ° O° ° O D0 Z�m A m 0 Z ° C Cp m GJ 7 Gr 7 m O A m O 0 rt L7 co (n ° a S (O (n N C y to N (n O S J m 0 t o a (D S° (n ° 7 W O to 7 to N CD N rt J + Cn rt Z A -„ p o I n O O p O ° O S a° m O (n Np Np O S (O S O O I G7-0 O a �. CCD p r ,..� (D O m 0- a m 0 a rt c N O m m O Q CCDD O Q CrtD O -- ,� m N N p 7 Z m 7- (D c (D a m O_u 0.0 C) .+ (D (D (D (D rt CD CD I m 7 N a a a CD 0 D (n (O N 0° O o S m0 J CCl)rtD `+ 3 A y Q A (D �Q rt O CD m CCD rt 0 c r m a CD 0 C 7-, (O ° O rt a p ° � p r+ "��' `< p C r CD �` O N O N m CD CD O N O O - 0 — ° ^ oo CO h7 m :3 CD --- z a0 O SSC n '"'• j o rt C7 ° 7 ° 3 > tln 7- CD\ `J S rt r N Z D O CD N � rt(D 'p CD m C7 to S �• ° -0 7° ° m to (CSD m m (�co Om p00 r -"O N SCD °m� N ? m c j• ac O N h DONOz DO �! f+ CD z G7 m to O p art 7 N S C S N 00 L4 a s O< 3 O c O p < 3 (CD m CD p N CD C<D rt CD O (n 0 NSD 7� D am 3 �3�p ^ O N S+ to rt O O p Oo�U!� O� Z ° Ro O '� 0 .;u (D -p m m S C O m 0 O '�` W CD 0 C I D (n O rt 0 7 O 3 m Q 7' '� j• j° m O m S '" r °• rt C '-� C S 00 -`� ° t•A 0 rt p °- f°° C m r ' `G 7 O S 7 m S < S S C `L v rt m Dp 7� 7 C >r r �7 a° r m a m ° m < m Nm^3 N v (� c C ° W n �n ° a N ° 7 r o (T m C 7 ° (A D i m 00 ° C S 7 _ r 0 a- O (D Cn 7 m 7° �, << �. '� a m C (p m 7 m < � `G m (7 (D °° rt O 0- m rt CD m rt C O a p1 a A D CD (° N CD 0 C O O rt a I U1 0 a- , 70� O 0 O 7 rt -0 rt �p rt a 0° CT° p +�lo\ N S C O 0 m 0-1 �, a d ° O O p° N 3 (D z CS 0 ? rt,< rt 0 7 r N O ° rt .Z�1 a r2 a- ° I OCD -n N CD CD° S S 7 7 o O CD 0 C C 2 r+- rt ? �° Ort 0 O. p CD 7 m ° f+ a m G 7 fmaN (Do ro r °crtm �G m °� �o I amt°° o r 0. co r 0 0 7 A p A ° n `< A CD D c�D r� < D S p rt -h Z' N r+ Z D O O �' O CD -° a ° CD p o 0 a -zi D r m (p O p r O� S rt CD (� 0�0z Ti3rt0 7� CD CD CDa m ,atn 0m r7 N A Sto CD CD �rA 7 C .CC100�z r- CD,o 7 Nod �� CD co D 00� °� oNiz r<rCN -00 n a7 mc? Gm-7G� D (no �' C ���. -<-�-I N° ° CD m� 0- CD z.Zl G7 z O <. Z S N O m pnND C p °- C7 c n o zD M O 67 N° c..�0 zCD C4 N (A ° m Lo rta ;O1 A p ° �O miCD ZO Z > °�° co rt° .N) < 3 ? O r7 O D (j _G 0 0 N (A W rt 0 7 `� j < to D T. p (n O n c ::g O C j 00 S S -. ° (D Tl D I a ° O a- n 0 W .Z] CD CD 7- 7 0 -1 G7 T. .T] TI W ° �< 0 a 7 F. 0)m �rta,� °N o 0 :3 CD F _ Z (D° rnN o 00 C < v a (n O CD z c m c 7 N ° F;-; C0D N m 7°° O G7 z °� O j N) O �cn + �� A joa� O �' m� a0� n Z Z 7 Orta S((DD c (° S I O CD N CD 0fro m\ O r ° r+ m`< CD _0 rt�1 O ?a 7 S O 7- A a CD 7• _. (mD m CD rt O rt < O C O rt O CCD N. a O `< CD 3 S o- °a m s 3 Cp O K m rt :3M3� 0CDv <•ao am W CDrt CD CD ° 0-° O a mm 00 3 = rt° C m m S S r+0 j CCD (D C C 1-3 CO C z � D a v o -� M �D -71 K � oo � n N m m rn���,� � � D o CD rnoc (D TTI z C D A Q N Q ®� ®� ® N D //D/n c O O a Cl) CDo cD D (D V l m 0 (D fiCD o = 3 m �' �0QnN'Ei OJ00 -0 G) O Z D �� O (D —Z 7 Cn m rt c /V T O m 0 f QQ —CD CD�r CCD 10 a-71 Nzr -i (D Q m 0 0 CD ::F CD 0� D W N (D ZO O N O ` J NO O cD D (D na 9 D_ 5 0 < `ODD1­3 J0 0ytU) O CD r- CD D0 N N ° CD O -o Q CD N O0 D Q N 7 Q oLn O z r m 00 r - N p rr O p 0 N 0° V /v _CD ° z O> 3 rn N.+O^N �� N Q/ CD a Q O 0 (D (D va Z -Ti I M v m v, U m rnn \��Q �W� (D < CD ��o�Q a Q 0< (D O h c OST _ (p CD 2 O 1 NCO rt v .< CD CD 0 , 0 CA ° Ox \ CD G7 Q_ I D O T NO 00m ° V l 7 (A ° LJ QO c 0 C -r o _ a `F C fZ ° CD D (3D fi Q (D N D D� 1-3 rn T =< Q �- ° � m ° I ' 1 VJ CD c7 °-1Cy A O Q = �V ^ T I O r+ 0 71 ZT =r V CD CCD ((D CD l ) Q o 0 ° ° OO QZY Q F CD �O N r D I -I O (7 -0 D f ° m ° (n o z (A (O 000 �I v (n 7• m 0) _0 _0 (n M ° m 0 G7 G7 +� -1 CD W ° N (A N D m S C S (n W ^ CA x N 7 CD m 7 p m O v p v i C° m O� °° CD 7 m 7 S C C (] � i 0" 7 O (D Co v ° rt v a C .° -p v 0 7 C (n C C A a 0 =-a En 0 o c -O A O '� ^ ^ ^ o C v ° Cj �' S N C '� (T O (D C ° rCr -I a -1 D rt O < m CD � 0 7 7 m CD m '+ co ° A �c7 C7 W D Ov ° z c o ��'D < D c O m 3 3� a° 3 -0 hal aa7 3 7 ° 7 ° CD N Q vvv (ND , a C S - f 7 0° O (D a (D O° 7 r+ m m CCD O C (D 7 r— OC �^ S m 0 C CD (A 7 (n < CDCD a3 �0 �' �= 0 °� ° N 7 (n f v N -0 7 'TI 1 - a`<(° 7 N ° o ° ° ° �fl o (n -0 =3 ° FA a m 7 O O A Ort o W 7. C O C j -n �• to Cp -O S 0 '" f+ l -� o rn° C c 'v O m 'v `< U CCD ° 0 rt 0 a j a rt m m o° O_ (S to O I 0° o (] '� (D O `< 7- CD NJ Z° 7(D C T 7 ° 7 ° 0 (CD 3 O j 7 rt� W (D ° S_� r+ 00 7 ° rt0 p_CD OO (D zg (hD ON N O C D° 7° 0 7 rtrt�� �0 `� O j CD ° co r° rn � 77 °_ m 7c m � � m CD I ° moo O m � � o CD ° �OJo� � > ° c rt o � a .=' 7 I rn 0 -n (D (a h� a 3 7 J CD (] S O c G (] (o 7 .� O d (°A 7 rt S O C S o W m O t° O Z) O 7 7 (D rt CCD C S I a-0 CD � CD G 7 00 m c N 3 Cn O CD +_CD O Q rtCD a m CD 00 CD (CD ° Q m O< CO .7r� rt 7 °-N X O 0 CD i OCD CA —CD a0 C o p m O O 7 c Wr'(°nrn 7 rt �(n� rtu (ACD Lo a `<m 3 SCD �o a� N N m o- eco a°c I <vo(°° fl7D Sao ° En u -0c FD m 0 C 7- °'3 o C"0 N r+ —7 om l< DO O C 7 m 0 CDC C ° a_@ (A (D aS I (D m -,000-0 .+ � ,+ �• °°3 v(o r+ aCD 33 (7n (o m °• aio m mrn °rn CD 3`° ° rna 0 - -to(°A3 am I °� �°fi ° 0 7 a m (° < m ° m S m lS m m rt 7 Zr-1 rt 7 = 7 C m C C 7 m 0 m m 7° C 1 3 ^' fl�<� O `< 0 O (n �p O CD to 3 c° m c (n <(A Co 7 .r -° I m O 7 O S 7 (n 7 r+ f°. CD a O 7 m m 7 O m S C '� O a 0 W 'p h 7 rt O O m to 7- 3 ° C7 C rt O ° C rt O -0 ° m m O CD C rt__ rtm m S — m 0 m O N I �S I fiNafl 3 m 7 �_-+ m N c S O 7N �,O 11 G 7 — O �a m fi O< CD -I S O m -°O 3 �.rtO rt CD O C -O ° 7 I m I O�7 m< �+ c .+ of 3 A a r 7 ,. (n (n r r+ — 0 7 0 (° 7(D �, m C 7 I 0 p I 0 0 p a 7 _ ZrS 5° rt Cn — o 3 o n a m (o c n ° 7 �' c rn o Imo m a '< 3 N v rt I (n m 7 m m 7 CD �G m m T, m C f/1 _ ° CD I r+ C� CSD m N rt m a ti, S (p �" (D O (D N 3 rt (] irt• (n \ y �m m p A '7+N 3 (aO 7 Ort �a N 7 S7 O A rt \ 7 (] SCD S� A I O_ ° (°A f) ° Cl) O �mc ° v0 s ui 0 > > m o 777a 3Nm �� rn rt°-° (n �� a�a m�T. En � o o r�o7om I � (D-0CD °o A°� 3 m � ° r �G ° m �1 0 a S S 0 7 3 m S m rt •+ O O '� C �. C rr ° O C _• (° C7 ° 7 (n Z O° C CD 0 O m p° CD fA 7 S in m O (p `< m t° O p 3� _am C 3 fi m (D '- m a° 7 0 m A C D a0 m - A aa(n I O 3p a0 X07 m 7 a p �_ m it ,.. C C 3 C `< -p t° O 7 �• 7 C (A m fi S A° C N 7 C (D I c 7 -O a, (] (A _ C CCD m N ,^^ (D rt 7 C° m m° C -° (° a 7 r+ N O 0 f+ �° �' O m c _rt ° O � rt'"� �� ° I N y p '= a° 7 p 7 m O �� O c V I a a S a (O 7 m lT O° m 7 7 ° 7 A S C to S 0 7 m_ I �< a C O rt CD m S rt m �< 7 0 f+ mr d (A m CD S 7 m N O ti j O m 7 7 A (O 0 N O _ _ a CO) O m O ° m a a - O `< '�< o CO i° A (D CO ° CD o o `� m CD �' ° c w o- 3 m 3 S0 A = fi m 3 00m 3 CD 3�zrn Dm o rtas ° ° CD ED o so ° ° ° �' ° _am fi'� r° m� h �� (n o m rt° v° N c o m(n 3 � ;o3 � (D o 3 c o �(D =5°l< C a a 7 m �, o o h= 7 ° -0 (n o° rn 0 -°• m° �, o 1 rt Zr o av a m •c m ort a G (Tc Q Cic m c° c �, o m ((� (° O ° m C A O N° F rt (o ° r°+ a rt (n p m 3 7 [] ° O '+ J .+ ma C)- N CCD m CD , C A m C° 7 p O~' (n 0 7 7 r7+� a CD 7 0 a7 ° 3 0 m N° �O o CD CD CD a 0h << CL art0 , (A 00 CDa(° O�I�a� 3 ° (°ii c C T m 7 h cn n a e� (n I ° C rt -0 7 7 Cp �. rt — rt 77 m T. •-' �, m _(° ° m O) - 3 (p 7 ° rn S rr v p 7 7 (A CD a m X O 7 (L] m ° f] 7 \(0 O 7 O c� a �, (A m� S rt 7° I N W Z m rt 7 �• S (° + rt C] N 0 a (n (p ° O ° (D S O a 0 °< rt - (D !n O C S D '.+ 7 O m cO p< m _ S S a N m 0 7 7' O rt— O N m o (n 7 7 7 7 c CCD ° 7 m >c m (C '� C ''•' A� CA a rt° 7 i m� CD m CD °_ 0 rt rt m CD a 7° C 0 0 0 3 r+ O `< W \ C I '� m CO 7 m (D O m S p C 0 CD a r — ° Zr O (A CS -p N (n 0" C Cn m to rt p O a mm° rt c<< -0 x A to7 7 °to A N C + C. ,< +a N 00 (D(D 7- m to + 2 x CA O0 0 (n 7 (D CD O fi o° G 0.° ti (D O p CCD O O S cn m a 0 3 a 7 (SD En m 7 °� O rt fi ° S ° 0 L C rt m -O W m C — �: 7 C ° O— 3 m rt C (n m 0 O to 0 CD N C ° 3 C �' rt O O 0 (0D to rt m -O N a t° ° 00 ° c S m m n (A 0 O Ul o� ° 7<CD c- -° 3m rn 7(° s °w CD a m o an 3 CD mrnov c o or.oaa oo° 7°0 Mm0�) mS el pN (n c rn ,� CO •°< 0 am v rtc m m� - m `� ° v o a °•m --I -u °'= m a "c 7 ° I m rn 7�c� cmi oa vo CD o c W O 7 7 O a d (°A a c r7+ o (°A n X rt UJ .7-r rA-r 0 m ° `< a CSD rt 7 7 a I CD a a r! -m° cn c 7 �' CCDD c °_ a (] Q z O m (n A (A m ° rt y G7 rt O S O m m 7 T. 0 rt ti. O (D I art ° a te .-r (° _ CD N rt rt 0 C m° 0 CA m m A O C S 7 N m a 3 -Ti O O O S 0 7 rt `G I 0] 7: m ° (CD O f -9O S T. m a 7 C 0 N a c x 7 m m N� rt C Ul 0 m 7 7°m = r+ `< fair: I CD a Z rte. W oo N S • O rt 7 co 3 CD m r7+ ° a O to = S (0D CA a -0 l? U �. (Sp 7 7 rt a 0 a O N S 7 c X S 3 I CC a .°rr 7 0Z N W 0 N j I D O `i O m Cn - ° O'a _0 ° C m a 7 S ° C m O C m 0 N I o N. 0 O a A C ,... (D ti. 3 S m A I CD 7 rt°° N (O C CD -O m CD rt 7 a 3 w x I -O p L O m i 13 S m vi _S,tn o ° 7 OL toCrtm p C°- �° m m m TIm (DO 13° Nc NV N3 I NO Zm V C (7 N A 0� rt m 7 �. w° N j O A =n S _. 7 �. C �; ° C 7 ° I m p D� C -n O(° �` 0 O c OC (n N ° O O (] S a O rt (° (° "O C ti 7 m 7 (A 7 fi ° rt D O 7 m O m 00 rt (n _ O 7 C rt "O (n O C r' 7 CD (n (n (mA Ut 0 (CD a rt m m m ED N 7 a _. I' .+ co C Co CD O (p 7 CO a a a 3 7• c N C S 3 CD (,Ar O W. chD m m 0° C v fi p a O° m A 3 S O C C O n+ 0 O N W I O c ° o crtD OC rt + (] C7 ° m O 7 t° O- m O `•< C p C p .° O ° ,� CD ao 7• o aS o 7 �, 7 A -� �_. °m v m(n moo. m�CD (of O a r m m S a A c. rt7 =� o -° am 7 .� CD 3 a�W o (.4 ° (n v 3 a m m CD \ p <° m 7Aym a m CD A3 CD rtrt �; f.° G F 7= a O m Sg C �,a0 rt 7' I '+_ 0 m (CDL C) 7 LO _ m �` (''! Co S CD O S rx+ <- '"� ,..t rt 3 a CD O .r W to I �. S �'I (D ..+ p rt "O. '•+ N O N CD 7 C — N (n Lrl 0 c A -m c �m o c Dv �a ° 3 7 7 w Da m �' 0 0 �0 o O am o f rn po :1 to p C c p 0S a oo c CD _<. ° rt 7 7 v rn _ c .+ O a 7 `_� m D' CD �. 7 (O `< C C � m �? m (° < C - '�° o m m rt I '+ C o O a p O � S 7 ° O c to rt° (A° C m O ° fi C M 7 ° O S� 7 a 0 S O p m CO K: C m h TI 0 m ? d �� fi m o� rt �. m p N �� rt (nr j (n+ O N Ort m N m N O O I 0� m N 7 O C m a p to (CD CO o O O+3� 7(co A0 CD ° ° 3 c,�rt3 (°� 07 cn °°� W3 N A °m(°s •+rt I �a<(O0 �°7 Ma ° o N < m ° CD - (] (A (° °• ' S m ° a C° (O m = S a IV N c ° (n 7 r' 7 m° ZrI o m-• 7 O m° 7 N rmr arta rtSa m m h N m a c 2E m m o Nrt ° _ �� O m m 1 7 ° rt�7 NC in_a N S m 7(D O O m° °• O m-0 Cl) CCD (° 7' °° O� N 0 7 ti. � 7 << I Z� r7r m Ort O� a 3 p rt O N A O o C° 7 C? OD N 3 a m CD (n (O 00 CD a o �• S 00 7• .+ S f 0 7 rt *,a -, (n m o-1 ° m m 0 rt �(° CD cc �o C) I m CD N� 3 7 7 A S 7 S T. m C (] 7° 7 rt 3 (] m C m 7• m CD N° 0 0 0 rt C o ° m m (°- 6L CD rt 0 CDC rto y, m sm o rtrr o o o r'o m I O� 3 0m No ° 3 c N 0 C C (7 -p 7� ° `G �. m< 3 (n CCD a '+• N p° rt 3 :3r+ (D 7 ° p N O i 00 3 0p l rt 30 CD CO el -0 dam ° A m m mrt a(° ° 0C 3 o tnC c7 01 37Wa m° ° m P_ m°3 7 CD _? (Dm yam° m CA CC7 oN �° �,� rt° 3 3 c (A a m =3 * � -m :E m my 7 7 ° 7 ° 7 ° ° foto 3 o rrtr "O \ a 0 3 ° 0 cn -° rt 0 rt 2- 7 7 ° 0 7 c •< rt 0 7 0 C m 7 m o°? m o \c rt s �� fic m o 0' o as rtC4 - rn c° ° 7 a o a< ° m m a - a m W 0 `< (n _0 o _ CD co -1 0 N W f+ (D a -a r -� D c Wm �0 0 c o Z CD CO y z 0 n.v0 o o CD s' 00 0 0 Cl) -0 CD G7� D< = C 0 m Z 7 m A �• '+ A A A A A °• Z C 0 a 0-• m a 07° m 0 3 D rt rt 7 O o ma o 0 O N ° n 3 z (D m� II m (Dm m m m rt� z rt 3 .+ 5 N o m CD *- rn z fi 4 Z N 0 Q- 0.1< D C to 0-1 m n (D ,.r O 00 CD o\- p (1 -I �. �: ,•+ (n D O 0 r �+ N to < D cD � O (n OD 0 (n �� G� C O A O N 77 CD m C) 0x ° O a p O) 0 D J (JI 7 O rr p p D pto rtDN 3<o Z D r- :3 p m= maim cn Ui rnm O N CD CDas 3 rt CD -0 D m •0 7 C V� D r 7 c O D N (D rT1 Zp CCj 0 D N m -0 OA p .� -hs ,••• O D m CD a 0 0 cv a as o cn O N o . 0 o o ? ° rtN Oa 3 I D� o c A mCD < z vD O 00 c- M CAD Wm - D n P m m m o D CD ? O N 77 � '� O cn C 0 a CD �• (0 � V rt 0 �< 't � O a N o l a ° i O c°n O D 0 �aap r° cD = O I W ? o a�. O ?1 CD �. (aD K Tm-I -u 1 -u c a O d 0 (D -^ ? 7 O ,.,. CD ED zm cmc n a m m-0 o� o C �° I m j 0000 � -n- CD 0 (1 0 a (D ,A.,. D Cl) tD (n A p n. ? � O CD (0 A rt rt ° O to r a cD -1 7 rn N rt o rr D 0 m N (D rt N -p A C CD a m Q T. CCD rt C.7 O O - O I D: O ao' o CD :3 m fi� .�.�.� z av ° sv� 0 ° "• O N =: Z O N rt< 'o CD `< -a CCD S O D D to (D a Oo -t 0 N sm D CL CD --c ° > -000 Z D 0 o Q -•j < 3 z0 0(D cnv° 0 0 CD 3 D < 5' v m � (D? m - a�Wo �3m y �CD 3 +300 ° c am o 0 0 owl orn Z N a C �r 7iM a CD `< (D CD m p W c N A C A �a o Q m o _s rt �.� D rn �O � 3- c -4 i cn� 0 Z CD 3 D(n °l< = C �° �M'aa m z t° m o rt =r.m N -p 0 C �. D `G O C7 cD C a C CA (D rt J (D U 00 O a N W CD to N 7 (D a C -Ti rt rt m N �. O p 0 D O C) • '� rt 0 W C D \ N Q rt •� ? fA•r 0 _0 rt O a D m p S sr �C O A CD O C C G7 rt A S _`< f•r 3 a c rt rt a z 0--0 CCD I O Q Ort J (D S O S CS 7 2 :3 pCD CD ? c Z O rt O O (n (D 7 CD �. D rt a O O C Z ,3•r I 7-1 D o C a N (CD (T r Q r D c •A -r N G7 !] a rC)vK » o o a0 � c)`< � p CD Wm =r `< m s � Z r-<� O• 1-1 (D -CO a 0 a m0 o D a OC 0 r (D S rt CD r�^ D000Z T13 A -r° 7U r CCD rta COn 0 i (0D �7 j 0) vJ Co. 2 N rtC O 7 O Na ? CD O fi� mm or m W Cl, `< o 0= r+� to -0zco . mrCN o ap p c s a- (D C 00 N Oo 0 m `< � `< U (p < (D 7 (n Z Cn OZN� �—iv' o CD m 0 c 0' a N �N ° o M arty. o rt� to ? 3 rt �. 3 C CD tp O z m N Z CD C a ' ' CD CD (D O CD CD O Z 0 m op N (n,Wrt° 0 D < rrrt O< f _� m C 00 � S ,... -. D CD C O 7 a m A CD (D �' 7 n UI to S 00 { t� ^ tmn �c rn 6. O 3 � (D a 0 Z CD Cp o)m Z c 0 c C -0 av `D zU, CD (Nn 0 am,t0 <rn m c p �a OWN .+ C CD C �< O D-1 C Z Z O 0 , cnrr < D 7° a 7.r 0 C N\ O D 0 O_ �'�G (S CD c to S I W0 CD -p-c �G N r S0 0 f+ A i CD CD ° CD C? Ort 0 7 () C S 0 Q m 7 p < 0 C O rt< C to l 1 S v-a`m s 3' m CD O '< N (D rt :3CD 3 -o m CD -0 :5. 6- C1 CD O C CD rt ACD p 3(D m 0- CT -n O D 5 0 3 = rtm m ? rt �rt0 j CCD (D CD C C 1-3 O Lsl z � OD L' D a v o -A K �D :ECX) --10 N co m (D �, --1 -71D o CD (Do c TTI 1� A Q-70 N 0 D c O O a 0 N D a m C) D N V J N 3TI p (D -i rn A a 0 N O� 0 G) I I Z D 1� O (D z "IQ,tQ 0 (JI C) fi a /V O O m Q Q l �r CD a v-71 X Cl) (n Q 0 m Z 0 C:( 0 .N+�S W� ^ V) 0 (D ZO -i (D p 0 l ) ( (DO (D <n D a 0- (D <D O I ' 1 ° 7 rn `GO 0 r D O CC y Dt00 D v CD --I r CD n o (D m o 3 m v`.._. D O-1 0)0-P 00 rt r 0 N rt CZ (D ,.°r 00 r Lj O O N S �' h DO z (DD p (� Oo 7 O> N 3 (D CD .-r O N r MCD a !Z 0 0 0 (D O N ly r- Cl) c7D - U ,j(D O ^ v p WAG D O r -r CD O Z C (D Q (D m I m t° CD o Z N J Co << CD 0 Q . oo o x O � Q W N 0T O CJ7rNr Q (n aD D D_Z3 CTO Wumi Q 0 D c O 30* o CD o 1-3 .-r -O 00 `G D z K p 0 . O =3 17Z 0 r�i P =0 X I l F71T (D N ET ;0 V 0 O -) Z A oQCD O = N -71I O r+O r+ T � 0 � V CD CSD N CD Q0 Q ZY 0 o ° O !? (D F CD �O D I—I O C C (7 -0 rr D- D (D D rn C O Z C (D 000 -�I U CA s (D O -0-0 Ln m O C M000-4 C CD (A O N m N D CDCD=r c=r(nW ..CxN � CDS CDZ3OCDO " 0.. .. ComD" DD" cDZmZ3CC`. CD O:. Av S0� -O O- D v C CD CO D rt v (1 C .0 -0 v o 7 C C C C A a A 7• D D D ° C A o C "O A D '� nnn O C v° A 'SNC rtM O O C 0 rCr -I a -i D rt D < (D m O D D O CD fD rr CO DA �G) (�00DA�nG7 m Z� o ��'D <D c O m 33� ao 3 vrra3 aa� 3�_ ° ?o O< N CD Q vvv (CD 0 f] C S -0 a f 7 O OC D CD a CD O° 7 rr m (D CCD O C (D 7 C- ° fi S m A C CD O C CD 0-3 �. 0 rn 7 7° ° N D (1) f 'a N "O TI 000 CD I n- a� to 7 y Ort D I m a m ti, fl O y -0 fi A O (SD a N a CD 7 0 D A 0 rt W -2. C O C j -n �• C m -O (T 0 rr rr l -� ° m p C C -O O to 'v 0 O rt 0 a ? a rt C p 0 D O CS C O I 0 0 0 0 rt OD (D O K 7- CDNJ Z D 7 0 C T 7 0 7 D A (CD O rt� C (D D __� rr 00 7 D rtA D.CD OA CD Z0 ChD ON N O C Dal° 0 7 rtrt�� '� �0 `� 0 0 j CD a t- CSD 0 m 7c N n m CD I 0 C 0 O CD n CO 0 OJo 3 7 7 CD e C rt a ,-. E 7 I ((DD m TI (SD a- u; fi C a 3 7 J CD O S O C G D tp a' � � D rr O d (0A � rt W 0 (n C S 7 W CD O � O� 0 0 j CD N r+ CCD C S I a U (mD G 7 � to m Cmj (°D 3� W 0 (D rr _ O CD O D .C+ CJ CD CD 0• a OJ0 C CCD D Q CD O< (D ,0_r 41z •+ 7 0_ N O A CD C i O CD CO - CD C a 0 CS O p o (A OS 7 v Wr't°n rt 0 N m rt� (A a `< mEn 3� CD � o aw (n COcm o' e c o a° c I< v otn° fl7D 3 ao o CD N _� 7 ai CD 0 C S a 3 O C ... A N ,•+ - t° 7 m l< D O o C 7 (D C C D a-00 ° CD a (T I - 0 C 0 O a A .+ rt _ C D rt a A - O D <" 7 m A A o O A O< 7 °° 3 -0 to r+ d 3 3 fi� t0 � OC m 0• ai vi CSD N N D 3 tD N CJ atD CCp m O m I O N C .+ CD O •+ t< O O F �, CD a tD CD CD 0 (D S C O D a S i rt O a A �n 3 C 0 CD m .C -r rt C < rt CO 0 I 0 ,a i m 0 O -a S° C a rt t7 l r= -r - O 0 D C `-r p- 'O D CD y, m O CD -0 rt h :3 (D m S �. CD O N O N I S I 7 a C (D 3 O rt ,� C0 En to SD C A ]� 0 ` �, n- CO- D O • Z. 7 ] < D rr O C ,•+ N D 3 - r+ �G _v S O a 7 �) a D O N O N `r D 0 7 0 CD : C- 0 a -• CA CD .+ <= CD C S O C -p 3 �. D I CD I O -U 7 (D G '� _ c o C -0 _rt Vl 3 a r- C zy Cn C o r i O '� - rr A 0 0 A rt tD rr a m �< 7 CD �, _0 rt CD C 7 I CD O I DOD a .0r = Ca S rt CD Ln - O 3 O mCi a (D to to C) ? tD N N N � � C 0 O CD a- 0 CD I N °� S m rt -0p a I ti, • fi D rt CD CD — 3 x � rt. O to � N CD A : CSp 3 fi D t�co CD Ort e- N 7 =r O A rt \ 0 0 m rr Cl) CT � A I O_ 0 0 0 D (CD D (A 00 3 0 v O S ui rJJ dl 3. C0j 7 rt CCD 0 777 a S N (CD 3 a• rt o -O Cn .N+`G a l a 0 C�'41 (� a -h a r+ O r �. 0 7 CD I (D 0 0 C D a A D r': - CD •--� A CLS S A 7 3 (D u (D rt •+ O O '� C �. C rr D o C -• t0 C) D 7 CA Z C° C m rr O CD 0` CD (n 0 S in J D o CD CD t0 _O D 3 _a CD C 3 fi CCD (D . r CCD a 0 7 o m A C D a 0 m - A a a (n I p 3 a CAD a O - 0 7 C a p -0 (D 0 •_ 1 T C C 3 C �G -p lD O �• 7 C Cn CD fi S A D C CO 7 C CD I 7-O a C D 0 _ C CCD 0 N CD rt V 7 �• CD CD 0 7-, C - 0 tD CL =3 rt N o A r+ �° �' c 0� ,C_� o O � �'"� �� D I N- y p '= a D � p 7 CD D CCD � c - C rt 3 �+ (D N O ti. O p (D 7 O A to N CD (p 7 D O c (n U A a 0 CO 0 D m O D CD a a _ 0 D . r a 0 (D CD S C '� 0 t0 (D to .Cr Con (D S CD rt G7 O- I v 0 a S 7 0 S �• s O �< .+ CD ° C A 0 C D p D 0= 0 C C S 3 rn 3 S n° A S C f+ m m 3 00 CD 3� z N D C r+ a °° D. O o rt e- C �. 0 O CA a C Cn Ci (p ,� a m D - -• D C a CD N I C C=D) (D A C m _ ' S C —• f sp ° D m rt rt m 0 �� ° o rn rtC v m F ° o CD- 3� 003 � 0 3 c O "'5� a a o C Q- 0 CO- ] OA v C 0 a fn. A �. � m° rn) p I (� N o � v a C� "c CD CD CO ort a G CS `c Q m� m tD 'o CD j m O -O C C ° ° CAD O m °. D i tD .A+ 0 0• m ,t i Cn i 0 0 0 0 �+ 0Jp N a= Np h N 7 (CD A m o CCn 0 O 0 D cn ] D 7 >> C 7 CD (D D O G C D a (D D W C1 D O a 0 0 0 c C A C 0 el n a eA CO I .�+ a CD O a 0 0 3 O rC•r CD -p -_ .C+ 7-, O _. C l< art O rt to 4� 3 ° (D O m T.• '� C m CD CD CD D- n o 'O 0 D C1 CD �` O C "O D O (D tD N T` a CS S �` 0 (D _ W Z CD CD rt j rn S D t0 0 rt ?- CD fn n O a tL] CAO D 7 CCD \to D 0 7 0 tD CO a ..+ En (D �< (D � S CD D rr 0- 0 0 N o 3 m O_ rt 0 S (D • Q N O C S D rt 7 O CD tp 0< CD _ S S a C m A 0 S A rt O N CCD 3 U) 0 7 ,� 7 7 (CD 0 7 CD (CD U rr C .+ (n � Cn a '� 0 C 0 f CD � m CD to (D 0 A rt rt CD CD (1 0° c O O O 3 r+ O l< CD C 7 (D CD �) O m S o C A m a r - o CSD O w CT -0 NUI O C to CD (n rt p O a CD m C rt AO << x A � (n 7 7 0° ° N C rt C rt`G + a N 00 (D CD 7' C C ° rt x co zy O \ (n n c (n. ('n tD m O n e 0< 0. ti. (D n c O CCD 0 '< C) W cn m 0CD . OL 0 m C m a °' � a 0 �t0° CD tT D Q O C A to .+ CD -O C CD C - C: 7 D O C n 0 D rt 0 - (n '0 7 a 3 n �° 3 p rt tb C O 0 Stn (D A ° (D ZT 1--` O0 C 0 (D A 7 C N (D 3 CD O 0• t- A m tD (n CO 7 (D (D rt C r+• rt 0 O (.11 o D Z m _0 3 0ch s a N O CD CSD a Q (>o rn p O e- 0 a a D 0 7 0 C A '� a S ° N (n to rn CD o a a n Y ? N A a con 3 Om < C C rt .+ D N N a C W i 7 O (D Cn 'D `� c .mr CD r=+ -O rt O p CD (D �. CD m °) N a '� C 0 0 I j CD CD 3 '� A O Q p 0 OCD C • e (p O 7 0 N v_) CD p O (D A C 7 p 7 D 7 D � ca 7 n C SA •(D a a rr(D OD7 m rt< fi a a CD z n CD c Wj ° tD O N m CCD C (n 0 (D D O (n A ci 0 rt m ?° v a m 0 0 o a 7 r" 7' Q I a .C+ a 7 D `c S j �' m e m O � _C 0 TI (7 to 3� 0 C co mp CD A (D 0 CCD (n 3 a (CD (CD m 0 -Ti a D_ o O Cp `G I 0-0 217' a Zt_D < C • �I 7 D O T 77 CD a D C N X 7 (n (D �, rt to 7 0 C a rt 7 0 p rt e• I < CD r O Z ;u �. W o _ 00 (D C O A 7 a CD to CD = (T A rr a S D O rt a- A 0 ? A X or 3 I CD (1 p 0 m O N 0 0 I r* o Q 3 CD �1 (n 0 - 0 o m D - ma _0 CA c m m n-_ =� * �° o to m ° c vmi °x C j -°0 (n `rte Np (Dc'a� �a� �3 ° ? S s C to 0 7 0 7 0 m -0 •� CD (D r+ 0 a R'I 3 CD '0 -o a O N'O-- U)I rr _ 0 Z m m (i C A O tD fi rt a ,..r a C 7c C j p C) rt rt S rr 0 0 O rt .+ 7 �I C C C rt O C 0 0 7 C D I (D N c O -• OtD 0 f+ 0 O N � D O D \ S C 7 CD 0 D CO "O C S �° S (n (n a rt + I 0 A D.< UI 0 0 O OCD O 00 C - to O• C a D rt tD (D° C CA (D 7 m C m 0 r+ D D CD rn _ p 0 c rt _ "0 (n 0 C rr 0 Cp w N cn t°n (CD rt CD (D y D a -. I• '� to C COCD 00 � OD a a C1 3 S c I i N O O S CSD 0 (h j C S ChhD (D to A D C v h C a -O a A 3 fS O C C O A rt 0 0 O N (+') O O c 0 O C1 0mrtD OC rt 00 S a S O 0 7 t0 C O -_ 0 O _. `G Q o ° m° C O. CSD C Lri C? p 0 `c �° a C r Con CD C CD �• d C 7 0 (D a- a CD .< 7 CD S rt C o 0D J 3 a CD C S Cl) C. CD U C O F N° 0 0 3 Q 7 A CD '•r a 3 I ,Or CD �, a W tb N :0 (D A 3 m 0 (.+ Co 00 r) -O (D m ,� rr rr O G - 7- a (D f C C a o _ A CD a O W 0 m D L o (ri rt (T m D ? rx+ < - rt f.r 3 p_ (D O rr C ° I �. S (D to ..+ O '�'0. ,••. N O N Cn 7 C - Ul '^ Ul O C j 0- CD C CD 0 c D-0 �, a 0 3 >> (n D f- (D C' CD o A m n O CJI a m o f O tJ / (n p o C co 1 t0 � p C c� o ° S 0- m O O rr c m CD < D rt 0 S -p CD p a c rt O a 0` CD CD �. 7 tD C C i � i CD tD C fr rr a CD m rt I ,+ C O a p Q= Q'J s �J 7 U) o C to �,D ••+ 5j• c (D 0 D fi C CD 0 a 0 S a D a M S o p (D CDK i C m �Cr TI C:) (D /ems "0 ? a n e0 OL CD D? ,Crt ,+ CCDD O C _fin rt Cr j rt O CD 0 (D m m CO O O I 0 0 m A - OC CD CD 0 0 C � -p O A CD O 3 S CD j o 0 p 'O a C CD 0 rt 0 I (D D C) �I z a N rt -1 Oa C + m D y o r3 3y � o D 3 �,, r 3 to 3 v� o o (3 0 D 3 av, I pop CD �D_ s D o ° "1 < CD D CD ' 0 (n tD 0 - S m tD D a t0 to �"� CD (n rr CD t0 S S rt a < (D . 0 a N c o ° rt 0 CD p s I o m-• ° v m o IV CCD (D a- 0 �? a m (D h N (D a Q c p CD CD O N rt co p m m I 7 p D •r 7 N C tn° `< _a m CD a O C 3 A 0 0 a 0 C C 7 rt 0 CD C 0 (D D •� 0 G I z C 7 S rt -• m A S CD :3 (D O CD D O (D (D N tp S C D 0 O-0 co p 7 ti. - I T. .+ m O .+ O t0 a 3 (n .+ �' oc :E (a °mac?oo(nv 3a (�D ornt°c°� w' a°�� oa I ° OD =r rnfi o 0 7 "O 7 A S '� N C D t� O (D rt p CD 3 CJ ,� tD C tD tD I O C) I (D C C N 0 3 sm 7 S 3 7 C rt 3 D (D C S m m N p C O O rr C O D l CD m tD - O COLD a rt C �. •+ O (n CD SCD 0 •"' •+ C) rt O CD 0 w 3 0 (CD N O 3 C N C C C) U j 0 `G �' (D < 3 Cl) rt c N C° 'Cr 3 :3r+ 7c N �, 7 O p N 0 i 00 3 Ap l rt c j 30 CD 00 C el -0 O a m D ,t A (D CD (D rt ata D A C 3 O (n C G7 O� I 3 c W a (D o (n rt CD 0 d CD 0 3 C 0 CD CD (D m C a rn D m S- i D C O N (D can `G,`G rt A PL -• 3 c N S 0- i 0- - (D 7 CD CD "0 0 7 D 0 f o- 3 +` p 3 rt.o a (D 7 rt t< 3 a A D -0 rt n rt m .< 0 7 j 0 0(j C •< rt o 7 o C CD j CSp 0 7 \7 ,C -t s A rAr CD O UN y as '�C4-2cn fi N ~' C D 3 a o a�< ° m m a - a m W0`< ° v E _ TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-02-03 A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK — FILING 2, LOT 10 & Tract C, Lot 11A and Tract A and Lot 11 B & Tract B FINAL PLATS. WHEREAS, Grand Park has requested that the Board of Trustees extend the date for execution of all final plat documents relating to The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2; and WHEREAS, the Fraser Board of Trustees has reviewed said request for an extension and has decided to extend the date for execution of all final plat documents relating to The Village at Grand Park -Filing 2; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has previously approved the final plats for the Village at Grand Park -Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C, Lot 11 A & Tract A and Lot 11 B & Tract B; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has previously extended the final plat approvals for the final plats referenced above via Resolution No. 2012-05-02. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby extends the Final Plat, the Village at Grand Park - Filing 2, Lot 10 & Tract C, with the following same conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents within 30 days of adoption of this Resolution. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street, Tract C as a "dedicated public right -of way." 10. Add a "1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west edge of Market Street (Tract C). The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby extends the Final Plat, The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11A & Tract A with the following conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents within 30 days of adoption of this Resolution. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, note #14 should reference Lot 11A. 10. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street Tract A as a "dedicated public right -of way." 11. Add a 1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west and southwest edge of Market Street (Tract A). The Town Board of Fraser, Colorado hereby approves the Final Plat, The Village at Grand Park — Filing 2, Lot 11 B & Tract B with the following conditions: 1. Payment of all applicable fees 2. Execution of all documents within 30 days of adoption of this Resolution. 3. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) shall be provided prior to recordation of the final plat. 4. The SIA required improvements and collateral associated with those improvements shall be subject to Town Engineer and Attorney approval prior to execution and the schedule for completion of said improvements shall be within one year of execution of the SIA. 5. Provide an updated title commitment. 6. Provide 911 mylar and electronic copy of the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. 7. All revised documents to be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney. 8. On sheet 1 of 2, add reception # and date for the PDD of the Village at Grand Park Lot 12A in notes #4 and #5. 9. On sheet 2 of 2, label Market Street Tract B as a "dedicated public right -of way." 10. Add a 1.5' sign and maintenance easement" along the west edge of Market Street (Tract B). If such conditions are not satisfied, the approval provided by this resolution is no longer valid. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY 4, 2015. (SEAL) BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO BY: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Town of Fraser Sales Tax Report - Actual Collections Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Budget Amt +/- 2(111 mi? IRAmt +/- % +/- mi? q(l13 IR Amt +/- % +/- 9013 ?n14 It Amt +/- % +/- $139,733 $135,024 -4,709 -3.49 $135,024 $154,698 19,674 12.72 $154,698 $166,660 11,962 7.18 $132,193 $144,032 11,840 8.22 $144,032 $148,979 4,946 3.32 $148,979 $146,266 -2,713 -1.85 $159,740 $150,273 -9,467 -6.30 $150,273 $171,102 20,829 12.17 $171,102 $177,000 5,898 3.33 $110,982 $118,196 7,214 6.10 $118,196 $109,023 -9,173 -8.41 $109,023 $114,311 5,287 4.63 $77,649 $84,564 6,915 8.18 $84,564 $87,347 2,783 3.19 $87,347 $81,854 -5,493 -6.71 $114,2681 $131,359 17,091 13.01 1 $131,359 $119,942 -11,417 -9.52 1 $119,942 $121,906 1,964 1.61 $142,320 $209,054 66,734 31.92 $209,054 $220,039 10,985 4.99 $220,039 $228,451 8,412 3.68 $191,380 $128,839 -62,541 -48.54 $128,839 $121,671 -7,168 -5.89 $121,671 $134,432 12,761 9.49 $108,044 $115,404 7,360 6.38 $115,404 $119,707 4,302 3.59 $119,707 $120,712 1,005 0.83 $90,443 $88,338 -2,105 -2.38 $88,338 $96,456 8,118 8.42 $96,456 $96,058 -397 -0.41 $106,888 $106,965 77 0.07 $106,965 $117,709 10,744 9.13 $117,709 $110,314 -7,395 -6.70 $171,1821 $178,196 7,015 3.94 1 $178,196 $188,083 9,887 5.26 $188,083 $0 -188,083 #DIV/0! $174,816 $174,237 -579 -0.33 $174,237 $0 -174,237 #DIV/0! $1,544,822 $1,590,245 45,423 2.94 $1,590,245 $1,654,756 64,511 4.06 $1,654,756 $1,497,964 -156,792 -9.48 $1,550,000 $1,550,000 0 0.00 $1,550,000 $1,600,000 50,000 3.13 $1,600,000 $1,650,000 50,000 3.03 -$5,178 $40,2451 1 $40,2451 $54,7561 50,000 3.13 $54,756 -$152,036 50,000 3.03 -0.33 2.601 1 2.601 3.421 1 3.42 -9.21 Town of Fraser Sales Tax Report - Adjusted Collections Prev Yr Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Budget Amt +/- ?nl 1 ?(l1? IRAmt +/- % +/- mi? mvi It Amt +/- % +/- q(l13 2014 T, Amt +/- % +/- $139,733 $135,024 -4,709 -3.49 $21,722 $10,012 -11,710 -116.96 $10,012 $10,297 285 2.77 $132,193 $144,032 11,840 8.22 $137,782 $154,926 17,144 11.07 $154,926 $162,516 7,590 4.67 $159,740 $150,273 -9,467 -6.30 $141,872 $146,589 4,717 3.22 $146,589 $152,456 5,867 3.85 $110,982 $118,196 7,214 6.10 $164,692 $173,553 8,861 5.11 $173,553 $172,377 -1,176 -0.68 $77,649 $84,564 6,915 8.18 $101,628 $108,934 7,306 6.71 $108,934 $110,774 1,840 1.66 $114,268 $131,359 17,091 13.01 1 $82,457 $85,539 3,082 3.60 1 $85,539 $84,621 -918 -1.08 $142,320 $209,054 66,734 31.92 $124,870 $122,603 -2,267 -1.85 $122,603 $124,151 1,548 1.25 $191,380 $128,839 -62,541 -48.54 $142,786 $148,427 5,641 3.80 $148,427 $155,474 7,047 4.53 $108,044 $115,404 7,360 6.38 $190,176 $202,817 12,641 6.23 $202,817 $146,926 -55,891 -38.04 $90,443 $88,338 -2,105 -2.38 $114,569 $115,474 905 0.78 $115,474 $129,587 14,1131 10.89 $106,8881 $106,965 77 0.07 $85,853 $99,529 13,676 13.74 $99,529 $143,229 43,700 30.51 $171,182 $178,196 7,015 3.94 1 $107,022 $112,116 5,094 4.54 1 $112,116 $105,556 -6,560 -6.21 $174,816 $174,237 -579 -0.33 $174,237 $0 -174,237 #DIV/0! $1,544,822 $1,590,245 45,423 2.94 $1,550,000 $1,550,000 0 0.00 $1,590,2451 $1,654,7561 64,511 4.06 $1,654,756 $1,497,964 -156,792 -9.48 -$5,178 $40,245 $1,550,0001 $1,600,0001 50,000 3.13 $1,600,000 $1,650,000 50,000 3.03 -0.331 2.60 $40,2451 $54,7561 1 $54,756 -$152,036 0.011 0.01 2.601 3.421 1 3.42 -9.21 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 Q 0 1.25 W a 1.00 O i LL 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 Month of October Influent z? o D E Q z z? o D R Q z z? o D E Q z z? o D E Q z z? o D E Q z z 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 Q 0 1.25 cc W a 1.00 O i Lj- 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 Month of November Influent z? o D R Q z z? o D R Q z z? o D E Q z z? o D E Q z z? o D R Q z z O S LL O S LL D O S LL D O = LL D O = LL O 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 Q 0 1.25 cc W a 1.00 O i Lj- 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 Month of December Influent z? o D R Q z z? o D R Q z z? o D E Q z z? o D E Q z z? o D R Q z z O S LL O S LL n O S LL D O = LL D O = LL O 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 INFLUENT FLOWS UPPER FRASER VALLEY TREATMENT PLANT Date Day Influent MGD GCWS#1 Influent Flow WPR Influent Flow TOF Influent Flow 1 -Oct -14 Wed 0.488 0.189 0.107 0.192 2 -Oct -14 Thu 0.492 0.204 0.119 0.169 3 -Oct -14 Fri 0.5 0.204 0.11 0.186 4 -Oct -14 Sat 0.526 0.214 0.15 0.162 5 -Oct -14 Sun 0.509 0.21 0.175 0.124 6 -Oct -14 Mon 0.442 0.176 0.12 0.146 7 -Oct -14 Tue 0.427 0.168 0.16 0.099 8 -Oct -14 Wed 0.426 0.165 0.121 0.14 9 -Oct -14 Thu 0.417 0.16 0.136 0.121 10 -Oct -14 Fri 0.447 0.168 0.143 0.136 11 -Oct -14 Sat 0.484 0.191 0.131 0.162 12 -Oct -14 Sun 0.486 0.18 0.123 0.183 13 -Oct -14 Mon 0.429 0.151 0.08 0.198 14 -Oct -14 Tue 0.43 0.142 0.076 0.212 15 -Oct -14 Wed 0.436 0.159 0.076 0.201 16 -Oct -14 Thu 0.431 0.144 0.076 0.211 17 -Oct -14 Fri 0.44 0.154 0.073 0.213 18 -Oct -14 Sat 0.471 0.155 0.082 0.234 19 -Oct -14 Sun 0.473 0.164 0.086 0.223 20 -Oct -14 Mon 0.421 0.142 0.076 0.203 21 -Oct -14 Tue 0.42 0.142 0.069 0.209 22 -Oct -14 Wed 0.404 0.136 0.07 0.198 23 -Oct -14 Thu 0.401 0.14 0.069 0.192 24 -Oct -14 Fri 0.433 0.147 0.07 0.216 25 -Oct -14 Sat 0.421 0.144 0.052 0.225 26 -Oct -14 Sun 0.403 0.154 0.052 0.197 27 -Oct -14 Mon 0.396 0.149 0.047 0.2 28 -Oct -14 Tue 0.384 0.141 0.043 0.2 29 -Oct -14 Wed 0.394 0.143 0.042 0.209 30 -Oct -14 Thu 0.391 0.14 0.042 0.209 31 -Oct -14 Fri 0.393 0.133 0.042 0.218 AVG. 0.439 0.162 0.091 0.187 MAX 0.526 0.214 0.175 0.234 MIN 0.384 0.133 0.042 0.099 INFLUENT FLOWS UPPER FRASER VALLEY TREATMENT PLANT Date Day Influent MGD GCWS#1 Influent Flow WPR Influent Flow TOF Influent Flow 1 -Nov -14 Sat 0.412 0.138 0.051 0.223 2 -Nov -14 Sun 0.409 0.138 0.049 0.222 3 -Nov -14 Mon 0.417 0.135 0.042 0.24 4 -Nov -14 Tue 0.394 0.131 0.043 0.22 5 -Nov -14 Wed 0.407 0.134 0.046 0.227 6 -Nov -14 Thu 0.405 0.13 0.045 0.23 7 -Nov -14 Fri 0.421 0.145 0.044 0.232 8 -Nov -14 Sat 0.461 0.161 0.053 0.247 9 -Nov -14 Sun 0.454 0.152 0.054 0.248 10 -Nov -14 Mon 0.419 0.133 0.045 0.241 11 -Nov -14 Tue 0.426 0.133 0.047 0.246 12 -Nov -14 Wed 0.415 0.132 0.037 0.246 13 -Nov -14 Thu 0.403 0.136 0.037 0.23 14 -Nov -14 Fri 0.442 0.15 0.046 0.246 15 -Nov -14 Sat 0.482 0.172 0.05 0.26 16 -Nov -14 Sun 0.484 0.161 0.043 0.28 17 -Nov -14 Mon 0.431 0.134 0.034 0.263 18 -Nov -14 Tue 0.431 0.126 0.035 0.27 19 -Nov -14 Wed 0.442 0.14 0.035 0.267 20 -Nov -14 Thu 0.466 0.149 0.037 0.28 21 -Nov -14 Fri 0.487 0.165 0.04 0.282 22 -Nov -14 Sat 0.547 0.19 0.045 0.312 23 -Nov -14 Sun 0.523 0.2 0.048 0.275 24 -Nov -14 Mon 0.499 0.183 0.039 0.277 25 -Nov -14 Tue 0.493 0.186 0.044 0.263 26 -Nov -14 Wed 0.546 0.195 0.046 0.305 27 -Nov -14 Thu 0.621 0.242 0.065 0.314 28 -Nov -14 Fri 0.655 0.251 0.064 0.34 29 -Nov -14 Sat 0.638 0.243 0.127 0.268 30 -Nov -14 Sun 0.533 0.188 0.127 0.218 AVG. 0.472 0.162 0.051 0.259 MAX 0.655 0.251 0.127 0.34 MIN 0.394 0.126 0.034 0.218 INFLUENT FLOWS UPPER FRASER VALLEY TREATMENT PLANT Date Day Influent MGD GCWS#1 Influent Flow WPR Influent Flow TOF Influent Flow 1 -Dec -14 Mon 0.463 0.156 0.097 0.21 2 -Dec -14 Tue 0.451 0.146 0.07 0.235 3 -Dec -14 Wed 0.473 0.161 0.056 0.256 4 -Dec -14 Thu 0.469 0.172 0.046 0.251 5 -Dec -14 Fri 0.522 0.2 0.056 0.266 6 -Dec -14 Sat 0.586 0.208 0.055 0.323 7 -Dec -14 Sun 0.565 0.218 0.074 0.273 8 -Dec -14 Mon 0.495 0.164 0.062 0.269 9 -Dec -14 Tue 0.495 0.175 0.058 0.262 10 -Dec -14 Wed 0.492 0.147 0.06 0.285 11 -Dec -14 Thu 0.49 0.162 0.062 0.266 12 -Dec -14 Fri 0.529 0.168 0.072 0.289 13 -Dec -14 Sat 0.571 0.198 0.089 0.284 14 -Dec -14 Sun 0.559 0.197 0.089 0.273 15 -Dec -14 Mon 0.508 0.145 0.064 0.299 16 -Dec -14 Tue 0.514 0.172 0.073 0.269 17 -Dec -14 Wed 0.513 0.171 0.073 0.269 18 -Dec -14 Thu 0.495 0.176 0.067 0.252 19 -Dec -14 Fri 0.566 0.212 0.083 0.271 20 -Dec -14 Sat 0.681 0.264 0.121 0.296 21 -Dec -14 Sun 0.703 0.287 0.133 0.283 22 -Dec -14 Mon 0.679 0.285 0.116 0.278 23 -Dec -14 Tue 0.679 0.294 0.119 0.266 24 -Dec -14 Wed 0.701 0.319 0.124 0.258 25 -Dec -14 Thu 0.726 0.325 0.164 0.237 26 -Dec -14 Fri 0.836 0.325 0.164 0.347 27 -Dec -14 Sat 0.91 0.355 0.21 0.345 28 -Dec -14 Sun 0.929 0.376 0.228 0.325 29 -Dec -14 Mon 0.885 0.371 0.193 0.321 30 -Dec -14 Tue 0.911 0.371 0.193 0.347 31 -Dec -14 Wed 0.947 0.419 0.189 0.339 AVG. 0.624 0.237 0.105 0.282 MAX 0.947 0.419 0.228 0.347 MIN 0.451 0.145 0.046 0.21 Indicates Values Resulting in a Permit Violation First Day of 30 Day Avg mg/L Influent Flow 30 Day Avg mg/L Effluent Flow TSS Percent # of 7 Day Removal Violations % Influent BODS Effluent E. Coli 7 Day Geo # of 7 Day #/100 mL Violations Daily Min. pH Effluent BODS BODS Percent the Year 1/1/2014 30 Day Avg MGD 30 Day Max # of Daily MGD Violations 30 Day Avg MGD 30 Day Max # of Daily MGD Violations 30 Day Avg lbs/day 7 Day Avg lbs/day 30 Day Avg mg/L 7 Day Avg mg/L 30 Day Avg mg/L 7 Day Avg # of 7 Day mg/L Violations Removal % Permit Limit 2.499 2.499 2.499 2.499 5600 7.09 report 660 30 45 >85.0% January 0.549 0.786 0.549 0.786 880 912 208 220 2.55 2.70 98.8% February 0.553 0.739 0.553 0.739 1141 1444 264 312 3.60 6.00 98.6% March 0.664 0.765 0.664 0.765 1355 1710 271 324 3.25 3.30 98.8% April 1.527 3.8 1 52 97.5% 921 930 111 150 2.45 2.50 97.8% May 1.373 1.735 1.373 1.735 550 632 49 51 1.70 2.00 96.5% June 0.909 1.278 0.909 1.278 669 781 86 116 2.20 2.70 97.4% July 0.690 0.884 0.690 0.884 944 1015 164 180 2.30 3.10 98.6% August 0.545 0.722 0.545 0.722 870 1125 199 229 5.40 9.20 97.3% September 0.440 0.535 0.440 0.535 639 871 186 240 4.15 5.30 97.8% October 0.439 0.526 0.439 0.526 591 669 172 200 1.35 1.60 99.2% November 0.472 0.655 0.472 0.655 683 839 188 216 1.55 1.70 99.2% December 0.624 0.947 0.624 0.947 943 1028 239 249 1.75 1.80 99.3% 30 Day Avg mg/L Influent TSS 7 Day Avg # of 7 Day mg/L Violations 30 Day Avg mg/L Effluent TSS 7 Day Avg mg/L TSS Percent # of 7 Day Removal Violations % 30 Day Geo #/100 mL Effluent E. Coli 7 Day Geo # of 7 Day #/100 mL Violations Daily Min. pH Effluent pH Daily Max. # of Daily pH Violations Permit Limit 671 671 30 45 >85.0% 111 222 6.5 9.0 January 507 588 5.0 5.0 99.0% 1 3 6.64 7.09 February 660 5.0 5.0 99.2% 2 3 6.52 6.98 March 479 533 5.0 5.0 99.0% 2 13 6.55 7.10 April 235 352 5.0 5.0 97.9% 3 50 6.51 7.78 May 102 114 5.0 5.0 95.1% 1 1 6.71 7.32 June 152 200 3.8 5.0 97.5% 1 2 6.52 7.14 July 266 292 5.0 5.0 98.1% 2 21 6.63 6.99 August 365 370 6.0 7.0 98.4% 1 2 6.71 7.13 September 380 465 4.0 5.0 98.9% 1 1 6.64 7.03 October 546 577 5.0 5.0 99.1% 1 1 6.79 7.25 November 339 450 5.0 5.0 98.5% 1 1 6.57 7.28 December 445 496 3.8 5.0 99.2% 4 180 6.62 7.75 30 Day Avg mg/L mg/L Effluent Ammonia Daily Maximum # of Daily mg/L mg/L Violations 2 Year Avg mg/L mg/L Daily Max mg/L Effluent TIN 30 Day Avg mg/L 2 Year Avg mg/L TIN Removal % Effluent Temperature Daily Max MWAT °C °C Permit Limit varies 15.7% varies 1.80 varies 22.1% report report report March report report January 5.6 0.14 11 0.43 NA 0.19 16.84 10.75 7.65 54.9% 13.1° 12.2° February 4 0.70 13 4.30 NA 0.50 16.37 10.32 7.78 61.2% 11.0° 10.2° March 2.5 0.53 20 1.20 NA 0.73 9.32 7.31 6.23 68.0% 11.20 10.20 April 13 0.23 22 1.70 2.0 0.16 9.06 6.37 5.96 20.6% 9.20 8.7* May 13 0.05 23 0.05 1.9 0.09 7.76 5.64 5.97 -104.9% 9.70 9.0° June 17 0.05 30 0.05 2.6 0.06 13.66 10.17 9.65 -26.3% 12.70 12.5° July 20 0.05 54 0.07 2.1 0.48 5.58 4.40 5.07 71.7% 16.8° 16.0° August 17 0.14 53 0.38 2.0 0.10 18.84 9.39 7.88 49.9% 17.0° 16.4° September 15 0.10 43 0.22 1.8 0.09 13.41 9.86 10.66 25.0% 16.5° 16.00 October 12 0.05 24 0.05 1.8 0.09 17.47 12.96 14.68 19.8% 15.9° 14.9° November 8 0.05 14 0.06 1.1 0.11 17.67 12.02 14.29 36.1% 14.50 13.90 December 1.6 0.78 12 3.50 NA 0.61 10.98 6.85 9.16 70.1% 12.8° 12.3° Plant Capacity Hydraulic Organic % % Effluent TN 30 Day Avg mg/L Effluent TP 30 Day Avg mg/L Permit Limit report report report report January 22.0% 15.7% 8.24 1.80 February 22.1% 20.4% 10.86 1.75 March 26.6% 24.2% 9.48 2.45 April 61.1% 16.5% 7.52 0.43 May 54.9% 9.8% 6.01 1.65 June 36.4% 11.9% 10.45 1.09 July 27.6% 16.9% 6.65 2.00 August 21.8% 15.5% 13.34 4.90 September 17.6% 11.4% 13.69 3.05 October 17.6% 10.6% 15.28 3.20 November 18.9% 12.2% 14.37 4.75 December 25.0% 16.8% 5.94 1.60