Huerfano County 2.2011 - Division of Homeland Security and

Transcription

Huerfano County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan
Multi-Jurisdictional
All-Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan
FOR
Huerfano County
SITUATED WITHIN THE
State of Colorado
Version Date: March, 2011
John Galusha, County Administrator
Huerfano County
[email protected]
Plan Approvable Pending Adoption: 3/16/11
This Plan encompasses the Colorado jurisdiction of:
Huerfano County, Colorado
Unincorporated Huerfano County
Town of LaVeta
City of Walsenburg
Gardner Fire Protection District
La Veta Fire Protection District
Huerfano County Fire Protection District
This Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan represents the work of Huerfano County, the City of
Walsenburg, the Town of LaVeta and the Gardner, La Veta and Huerfano County Fire Protection
Districts. This report encompasses the best efforts of the plan’s participants to comply with
guidance from the State of Colorado, Division of Emergency Management, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Also, in accordance with FEMA guidance, it places additional
emphasis on the flooding hazard. While it is believed to be fully responsive to the requirements
of the state and federal governments, it is understood and acknowledged by all participants
that the disaster mitigation planning process is dynamic and requires periodic review, analysis
and amendment.
Page 1
This page intentionally left blank
Page 2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………4
Project Planning and Methodology………………................7
Community Profile……………………………………………………13
Hazards in Huerfano County………………………………………22
Risk Assessment………………………………………………………106
Hazard Mitigation…………………….....................................112
Plan Maintenance and Adoption………………………………….116
Appendices
Appendix A: Mitigation Actions……………………………………120
Appendix B: Plan Participation……………………………………132
Appendix C: Pubic Survey Risk Assessment………………….135
Appendix D: STAPLEE Sample Template……………………….138
Appendix E: Risk Assessment Data Collection Template…142
Appendix F: Hazard Maps……………………………………………144
Page 3
Introduction
Natural hazards such as wildfire, high winds and tornadoes, avalanche and severe winter
storms are typical occurrences of life in Colorado. These and other natural events regularly
impact our daily life in Huerfano County, Colorado, and sometimes quite severely. It is not
enough to focus solely on natural hazards in today’s world however, because human-caused
hazards such as gas leaks or spills, technology failures, random and hard-to-predict violence
and terrorism add a serious dimension to the natural threats faced by Huerfano County and
its residents. To assist in reducing the impact on safety, property and critical infrastructure
caused by these hazards, Huerfano County and its incorporated jurisdictions (sometimes
collectively referred to herein as ‘Huerfano County’) are updating and supplementing their
planning efforts through development of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan (“PDMP” or the
“Plan”) that follows. As part of this comprehensive planning process, the County is also
updating its current Emergency Management Plan.
The PDMP process requires that each jurisdiction included in and requesting approval of the
plan must document that it has been formally adopted. In this case, the communities listed in
the tables below have actively participated in the Plan development and have adopted the
Plan along with Huerfano County.
In conjunction with these communities, Huerfano County has previously implemented formal
and informal joint emergency response initiatives that have proved beneficial to County
residents. The County and these communities, specifically LaVeta and Walsenburg, have
elected to develop a multi-jurisdictional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan designed to leverage
their common characteristics and planning resources, and to better prepare for the variety of
natural and manmade hazards the community faces.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
To help protect the Nation from disasters, especially those considered to be naturally
occurring ones, the U.S. Congress passed the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, enacted as the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). With
this legislation the Federal government placed an emphasis on pre-disaster mitigation of
potential hazards. Most relevant to state and local governments under the DMA 2000 are its
amendments to Sections 203 (Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation) and 322 (Mitigation Planning).
Further guidance has been published in the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning
Guidance, published by FEMA in July, 2008, that includes a Plan Review Crosswalk,
consistent with the Stafford Act and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by
the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-264) and 44 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, and is inclusive of all amendments through
October 31, 2007.
Section 203 of the DMA 2000 establishes a "National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund" to support
a program that will "provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments
to assist in the implementation of pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures that are costeffective and designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of
property, including damage to critical services and facilities under the jurisdiction of the state
or local governments."
Section 322 of the DMA 2000 provides a new and revitalized approach to mitigation planning
by:
Page 4
•
Establishing a requirement and delivering new guidance for state, local and tribal
mitigation plans;
•
Providing for states to receive an increased percentage of Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) funds (from 15 percent to 20 percent) if, at the time of the declaration of
a major disaster, they have in effect an approved State Mitigation Plan that meets criteria
defined in the law; and
•
Authorizing up to seven percent (7.0%) of the HMGP funds available to a state to be used
for development of state, local and tribal mitigation plans.
Huerfano County applied for and received funds from the State of Colorado to support
development of this Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan and to comply with the DMA 2000. Through
the leadership of the County Administrator and Emergency Management Coordinator and a
voluntary team of Huerfano County emergency professionals and County residents, a
common plan for their county and incorporated towns has been prepared. This Plan, as
described herein, is known as the Huerfano County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan.
Purpose, Goals and Objectives
The essential purposes of this planning effort are stated below:
•
To protect life, safety and property by reducing the potential for future damages and
economic losses that result from natural and human-caused hazards;
•
To support future grant requests for pre- and post-disaster initiatives;
•
To speed recovery and redevelopment following future disaster events;
•
To demonstrate Huerfano County’s commitment to hazard mitigation principles; and
•
To comply with federal and state legislation and guidance for local hazard mitigation
planning
The most critical components of the Plan are a set of recommended pre-disaster mitigation
actions that help to reduce the potential negative impacts caused by the prioritized hazards.
Specific goals and objectives have been established to deliver tangible benefits to the County
through mitigation actions that have been justified and prioritized using accepted practices
and the methodology described in this document. Huerfano County and its participating
towns have formally adopted this Plan and established a process to periodically evaluate and
modify its goals, objectives and mitigation actions as part of ongoing Plan maintenance.
Scope of the plan
The Plan’s focus is on those hazards determined to pose the highest risk as indicated by
Huerfano County’s risk assessment. Priority is given to hazards with greater potential to
affect health and safety, impact emergency response capability or create distress to property
and critical infrastructures within Huerfano County.
Huerfano County carefully considered a variety of natural hazards and human-caused threats
pursuant to the planning process, and the hazards and mitigation actions detailed herein are
those prioritized by the County and its plan partners. Future versions of the Plan will reevaluate hazards and, if appropriate, prioritize new hazards and develop associated potential
mitigation actions documented in updated versions of the Plan.
Project Participants
The Plan leveraged the various skills and interests associated with the participating
jurisdictions. It was developed by a multi-disciplined group consisting of emergency planners
and responders, local government officials, and other subject matter experts within the
private and public sectors. Project participants represented Huerfano County, the Town of La
Page 5
Veta, the City of Walsenburg, as well as the Huerfano County, La Veta and Upper Huerfano
Fire Protection Districts. Residents within Huerfano County actively contributed to Plan
development by participating in the risk assessment and by providing valuable input to the
draft Plan. Subsequent versions of the Plan will seek to include an even broader set of
stakeholders while continuing its focus on public participation.
Huerfano County, its
participating jurisdictions and agencies provided important contributions to the Plan, and,
where appropriate, the Plan distinguishes information unique to each jurisdiction.
Authority
The Plan has been developed in accordance with current state and federal rules and
regulations governing local hazard mitigation plans, including:
•
Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, as enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106390);
•
Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, published by FEMA in July, 2008.
•
The State of Colorado, Department of Emergency Management, Office of the Governor.
The authorities for jurisdictions participating in this Plan have adopted the plan effective as of
the dates shown in the following tables.
Huerfano County PDMP Adoption Schedule
Jurisdiction
Adopting Authority
Plan Adoption Date
Huerfano County
Board of County
Commissioners
La Veta
Town Council
Walsenburg
City Council
Huerfano County Fire
Protection District
Board
La Veta Fire Protection
District
Board
Upper Huerfano Fire
Protection District
Board
The Plan will be monitored and revised periodically in accordance with legislation and rules
covering mitigation planning and as described in a subsequent section of this document.
Plan Organization
The Plan follows a format consistent with those adopted by FEMA and the State of Colorado.
The Plan includes sections covering:
•
Introduction
•
Project Planning and Methodology
•
Community Profile
•
Risk Assessment
•
Hazard Mitigation Strategy
•
Plan Maintenance and Adoption
•
Appendices
Page 6
Project Planning and Methodology
This section describes the hazard mitigation planning process undertaken by Huerfano County
to create a Plan and provide a framework for periodic Plan review and improvement.
Huerfano County and its towns are subject to many different human-caused and natural
hazards, but they generally share a common geography, demographic and economic base.
Huerfano County has implemented the planning methodology using a process based on widely
recognized best practices, guidance from FEMA and the Colorado Division of Emergency
Management, and input from the private sector and Huerfano County’s respective
constituents and emergency services professionals. Topics describing this process include:
•
The planning team and the project charter process
•
Plan coordination and team meetings
•
Hazards identification and prioritization, with additional emphasis on flooding hazards
•
Risk determination and impact on critical infrastructure
•
Identification and selection of mitigation strategies
•
Implementation of mitigation strategies
•
Plan maintenance and updates
This Plan was developed to meet requirements under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
(DMA 2000), but although the DMA 2000 mandates mitigation planning for natural disasters
only, state and local planners have been encouraged to include manmade hazards such as
various HAZMAT, methane gas leakage and terrorist issues into its planning model. Huerfano
County recognizes that planning for human-caused hazards will serve to increase overall
preparedness, and that an all-hazards approach is encompassed by this Plan.
THE PLANNING TEAM
Project participants
This Plan was developed using input from a cross-functional set of project participants
representing Huerfano County. Notwithstanding the expertise available, Huerfano County
planners understand that the plan’s undertaking required a substantial commitment and
additional resources to coordinate the effort. With funding through the Colorado Division of
Emergency Management, Huerfano County selected Coalfire Government Systems, Inc., a
Colorado company specializing in issues of risk management and emergency planning, to
provide planning guidance and prepare the draft Plan based on input from the project
participants.
As listed in the following tables, the project planning team consists of individuals representing
Huerfano County and their respective communities who have adopted the Plan. The project
approach requires the involvement of community residents, officials, including emergency
response professionals, and representatives from the private sector. The planning team
considered guidance from FEMA and interviewed a variety of stakeholders about possible
project participants. As this planning process continues, Huerfano County intends to broaden
participation to improve plan quality.
NOTE: The following tables should be expanded, deleted, revised or updated according to participation,
as appropriate.
Page 7
Huerfano County and Participating Jurisdictions
Project Participant
General Project Role
Huerfano County
County Administrator,
Huerfano County
Emergency Manager and
Director, Geographical
Information Systems, Huerfano
County
County Commissioner,
Huerfano County
Assessor, Huerfano County
Director, Planning, Huerfano
County
Director, LA/H Health
Department, Huerfano County
Director, Road & Bridge
Department, Huerfano County
Sheriff, Huerfano County
Fire Chief, Huerfano County Fire
District
Local Emergency Planning
Committee, Huerfano County
Fire Chief, Upper Huerfano Fire
Protection District
• Huerfano County Project Manager and sponsor for, and
attendee of, regular project meetings
• Coordinate subject matter expertise on mitigation planning
• Review and approve public survey
• Coordinate hazard identification and prioritization
• Coordinate identification of critical infrastructure
• Support the risk assessment and identification of mitigation
options and recommendations
• Collection of existing emergency and mitigation plans
• Coordinate public hearings for plan review
• Survey participant
• Review draft documents
• Survey participant
• Attend and support project kickoff meeting
• Provide land use information as available
• Participate in survey
• Provide data relative to county demographics
• Review and revise draft plans
• Provide planning information as available
• Mitigation action input
• Review and plan input
• Provide hazard identification and analysis support
• Analysis of hazard mitigation actions
• Attend and support document release to entities for review
and approval
• Review of draft documents
City of Walsenburg
City Administrator, Walsenburg
Chief, Walsenburg Police
Department
Director , Spanish Peaks
Regional Health Center
• Review plan
• Review plan
• Review plan
Town of La Veta (and La Veta Fire Protection District)
Mayor, Town of La Veta
Chief, La Veta Police
Department
Fire Chief, La Veta Fire District
President of the Board, La Veta
Fire Protection District
• Project planning and approval
• Provide hazard identification and analysis support regarding
landslide issues
Page 8
The Huerfano County Local Emergency Planning Committee contributed to the review,
guidance and approval of the Plan. These Local Emergency Planning Committee members
include:
Huerfano County Local Emergency Planning Committee
• Huerfano County Office of Emergency
Management
• Huerfano County Sheriff’s Office
• Huerfano County Ambulance
• Huerfano County Board of County
Commissioners
• Huerfano County Search and Rescue Group
• Colorado Forest Service
• City of Walsenburg
• Town of LaVeta
•
•
•
•
Walsenburg Police Department
Huerfano County Fire Protection District
Spanish Peaks Regional Health Center
American Red Cross, Pueblo Chapter
The State of Colorado, Division of Emergency Management, was consulted pursuant to the
State’s hazard mitigation planning efforts. Experts from government agencies and private
organizations outside Huerfano County also contributed to the plan. In some instances these
non-County expert resources contributed to this project as part of the Huerfano County
Safety Council. The non-County experts listed in the following table, however, provided
detailed input to the plan collected through a series of interviews, plan analysis activities and
plan reviews. These non-county experts are summarized in the following table.
Resources Not Employed by the County or Participating Jurisdictions
Contributing to the PDMP Development
Project Participant
General Project Role
Meteorologist, National Weather
Service
Captain, Colorado State Patrol
Regional Planner, Colorado
Division of Emergency
Management
Director, American Red Cross
Chris Hill, Consultant
Sr. Vice President, Coalfire
Government Systems, Inc.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide hazard identification and analysis support
Analysis of hazard mitigation actions
Review draft documents
Provide traffic data
Analysis of hazard mitigation actions
•
•
•
•
•
PDMP Consultant for project planning
Project kick-off facilitator
Draft Plan development
Hazard identification, risk Assessment and mitigation
guidance
PDMP Consultant for project planning
Project kick-off facilitator
Draft Plan development
Hazard identification, risk Assessment and mitigation
guidance
•
•
•
•
Community participation
Huerfano County recognizes that community members can provide valuable contributions
and, in some cases, special expertise to the hazard mitigation planning process. The
methodology used in developing this Plan attempted to maximize valuable public involvement
by utilizing two reliable survey techniques. Public comment was collected through both
hardcopy and web-based surveys to expand the potential for broader public participation. As
part of this process, the planning team also collected input from professionals in emergency
management, fire services, medical and health services, law enforcement, planning,
Page 9
government administration, community development, and others serving in the public and
private sectors.
The community’s opinions of the hazards most threatening to their environment were used to
help identify and prioritize hazards and direct mitigation efforts. Public involvement also
provided information that identified critical infrastructures subject to hazard impact. Sample
survey forms and tabulated survey results are attached to the Plan as Appendix C.
Project Initiation and team coordination
Project planning was initiated through a project charter meeting conducted in Walsenburg on
August 5th, 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce county officials and residents
to the planning team, assemble primary project participants and confirm contact information,
project activities, milestones, deliverables, schedules, roles and responsibilities. The meeting
resulted in a charter document created to guide Plan development.
As noted previously, the plan is formulated from the input from a large group of participants
and stakeholders. To accommodate various participant scheduling issues and provide an
efficient vehicle to manage the planning activities in a secure environment, Huerfano County
utilized a secure project portal accessible from the Internet. The project portal helps in
organizing planning activities and preserving project communications. It also assists with
issues of document retention and destruction. Portal access rights are developed based on
authority granted by the County project manager.
Below is a screen shot of the Huerfano County portal home page.
Page 10
Hazard Identification
The United States is vulnerable to a variety of natural hazards that sometimes seriously
threaten life and property, can cause lingering damage to critical facilities and the disruption
of vital services. Unfortunately events of a generally localized nature confirm that risks
continue to exist from human-caused hazards that range from car or military accidents to
domestic and international terrorism to bizarre random acts of extreme violence such as the
recent killings of legal immigrants studying for their citizenship tests in Binghamton, NY. The
planning team considered a comprehensive list of hazards and used risk assessment activities
to prioritize certain hazards for mitigation actions that would be appropriate for Huerfano
County.
Risk Assessment
A risk assessment was conducted to analyze hazards, determine loss estimates and establish
a supportable basis for the selection of acceptable mitigation actions. The risk assessment
encompassed these activities:
•
Public input - Using community surveys discussed previously in this section, citizens
provide input on hazards and hazard impact within the planning area.
•
Risk assessment – Based on subject matter expertise provided by emergency services
professionals within Huerfano County and experts in the private sector, hazards were
ranked and impact estimated.
•
Identification of critical infrastructure – Resources, facilities and services within the
planning area were evaluated for hazard impact and loss expectancy.
The outcome of these activities allowed Huerfano County to identify and profile hazards
affecting the county and the incorporated towns of LaVeta and Walsenburg. The planning
team used this information to determine vulnerabilities and provide the factual basis for the
mitigation actions selected.
Review of Current Plans, Studies and Reports
To validate potential mitigation options and to coordinate outcome from the Plan with existing
mitigation strategies and plans, planning studies, emergency planning reports, and other
documents currently covering prioritized hazards within Huerfano County were reviewed.
These existing plans and documents reviewed are summarized in the Hazard Mitigation
section of this document.
Mitigation Planning
The risk assessment process identified hazards considered a priority within Huerfano County,
and the planning team developed and documented goals and objectives to guide mitigation
planning efforts. The team also developed and evaluated strategies for implementing justified
and prioritized mitigation actions.
The Huerfano County PDMP team conducted research, reviewed plans and interviewed
experts to collect potential mitigation actions for these prioritized hazards. Potential
mitigation actions and strategies then were evaluated using the FEMA-recommended STAPLEE
methodology, which seeks to identify options acceptable and appropriate for the community.
STAPLEE evaluates mitigation options by comparing them to these criteria: Social
acceptance, Technical merit, Administrative support, Political support, Legal support,
Economic viability and the Environment. Mitigation alternatives were also evaluated for costbenefit and compared to current mitigation projects underway. The results of this process
defined the mitigation actions included with the plan submitted for adoption by Huerfano
County and their participating jurisdictions.
Page 11
Implementation strategies for prioritized mitigation actions were developed at a strategic
level to guide follow-on planning efforts. All targeted mitigation strategies were assigned
points of contact within Huerfano County.
Plan Maintenance and adoption
Inasmuch as the planning process is a dynamic one, Huerfano County will periodically review
the final plan and determine whether any significant changes have occurred that would
require modifications to proposed mitigation actions and the Plan document. As discussed in
the Plan Maintenance section of this document, the planning team has selected specific
timeframes and criteria and assigned roles for Plan review and update. It is anticipated that
the Huerfano County Communication Advisory Board will be responsible for the review and
update of the Plan. Public input is important to the development and maintenance of the plan,
and Huerfano County will continue to seek input from many sources, including residents.
Significant modifications to the Plan also necessitate adoption by the appropriate governing
bodies within the County.
Page 12
Community Profile - Huerfano County, CO
Geography
Huerfano County is
one of the 17
original Colorado
counties, also
known as the
original divisions of
the Colorado
Territory. Located
in the
southeastern part
of the state,
Huerfano’s main
population centers
are the county
seat, Walsenburg,
LaVeta and the
Village of Gardner.
All lie within
floodplains. In
1866, the southern
part of the county
was split off to
form Las Animas County.
In 1870 Huerfano was again divided apportioned and the eastern section became part of
Otero County, a smaller portion went to Pueblo County and another to Las Animas County.
Also in 1870, more changes led to part of southern Fremont County being added to Huerfano.
Huerfano’s neighbors today are Pueblo to the northeast, Las Animas to the southeast, Costilla
to the southwest, Alamosa to the west and Saguache and Custer counties to the northwest.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 1,593 square miles, of
which 1,591 square miles is land and 2 square miles is water. Since the County encompasses
two major physiographic areas, the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains, it includes a
variety of land forms, vegetation and climactic conditions. Elevations in the County vary from
5,280 feet where the Cucharas River exits the County, to 14, 345 feet at the summit of
Blanca Peak. The Sangre de Cristo Mountains ridge line forms the western boundary of
Huerfano County, while the East and West Spanish Peaks lie on the County’s southern border.
The Greenhorn Mountain is located on the northern border. From these high points, the
terrain slopes in an irregular fashion downward through subalpine and montane forests of
pine, fir, spruce and aspen to meadows, foothills, hogback ridges and grasslands that are rich
and vibrant in color and replete with wildlife. These in turn are etched with many streams,
arroyos and steeply cut canyons. In the central part of Huerfano County, massive dikes, sills
and intrusive rock formations highlight the landscape.
The two principal rivers in the County are the Huerfano and the Cucharas. They originate high
in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and descend to the plains. Near the northeast border of the
County, the Cucharas flows into the Huerfano, and that in turn joins the Arkansas River in
eastern Pueblo County. Most of the county’s population lives in these two river valleys, with
most residing in the city of Walsenburg, the town of LaVeta and the unincorporated towns of
Gardner and Cuchara.
Page 13
Huerfano County’s climate varies wildly, and ranges from mild to warm and sunny, to severe
snow and windy conditions in the wintertime. It is semi-arid and seasonally windswept in the
eastern part, but cool and moist at the higher elevations. Daily temperatures can vary widely
within the county. Annual precipitation ranges from a low of 10 inches a year in the eastern
edge of the county to forty inches or more in the Spanish Peaks. Above 10,000 feet, the
spring snowmelt provides the primary source of surface moisture, while below the summer
rains are the main source of runoff. Those rains often come in the form of violent storms.
Huerfano County and its surrounding area contain an abundance of beautiful sights and
locations that largely remains remote and unexplored. Each road leads to a number of scenic
destinations. One such notable locale that has been discovered is the Great Sand Dunes
National Park which has 130 square miles of sand dunes situated just beyond the western
border of the county.
Its location makes Huerfano County a gateway to the sights and natural wonders of the
region. Interstate 25 runs north and south and borders the mountains to the west and the
high plains on the east. Highway 160 stretches from the eastern plains of Colorado over
several scenic mountain passes, and from this road one can access the Great Sand Dunes
National Park, an alligator farm, the Denver & Rio Grande Scenic Railroad, and the Cumbres
Toltec Scenic Railroad, in addition to numerous historic sites. Along the way there are many
bucolic sites, including farms, valleys, ranches, lakes, and plenty of wildlife. Highway 12, also
known as the Highway of Legends, moves south from Highway 160 to La Veta, Cuchara and
ultimately to Trinidad, where the route ends. There are incredible views of mountains and
valleys, and this area enjoys an abundance of lakes and forests. Hunting, hiking, camping,
bike-riding, bird watching and many other outdoor activities are enjoyed by residents and
visitors to the area.
Mining was once the engine that drove most of the growth of Huerfano County, especially coal
and silver mining. Although the mines are long gone, their legacy remains firmly etched in
the County’s history. Occasional and unwelcome reminders of that industry occur even today
when methane gas leaks from old mines breach their confines and create environmental
hazards. Nonetheless, coal was once king for many years in the County, and the heritage of
its coal mining towns is still celebrated to this day.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Huerfano’s population through July, 2007 is estimated to be 7,837 compared to a population
total of 7,862 in the census of 2000. During those same years the average household size
remained steady at slightly more than two.
In the year 2000, the county had 3,082 households with 1,920 families residing therein.
County population density was 5 people per square mile. The racial makeup of the county was
80.96% White, 2.75% Black or African American, 2.70% Native American, 0.39% Asian,
0.08% Pacific Islander, 9.41% from other races, and 3.71% from two or more races. 35.14%
of the population was Hispanic or Latino of any race.
Twenty-five percent of the 3,082 households had children under the age of 18, and 48% were
married couples living together. Approximately 10% had a female householder with no
husband present, and 38% were non-families. Nearly 33% of all households were made up of
individuals and 14% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. This latter
statistic becomes especially important in considering emergency response and evacuation
issues.
Page 14
The average household size of Huerfano County in 2000 was 2.25 and the average family size
was 2.85. The age of the population was spread out with 21% under 18, 7% from 18 to 24,
27% from 25 to 44, 27% from 45 to 64, and 17% who were 65 years of age or older. The
median age was 42 years. For every 100 females there were approximately 119 males, and
for every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 123 males.
The median income for a household in Huerfano County was $25,775, and the median income
for a family was $32,664. Males had a median income of $24,209 versus $21,048 for
females. The per capita income for the county was $15,242. About 14% of families and 18%
of the population were below the poverty line, including 24% of those under age 18 and 12%
of those ages 65 or over.
In 2002, the per capita personal income in Huerfano County had increased to $18,486. This
was an increase of 22% from 1997. The 2002 figure was 60% of the national per capita
income, which was $30,906.
HISTORY
The word “Huerfano” means “orphan” in Spanish. The county was named after the Huerfano
River, which originally got its name from the Huerfano Butte, an isolated cone shaped butte
located near the river. From the Huerfano County government website, some of the colorful
history of the area is described below.
Huerfano County first began as a crossroads in the American west years before the arrival of
European settlers. Taos Pueblo, a former major Native American trading center in northern
New Mexico, has existed for over 1,000 years. Trading routes spread out from Taos in every
direction, but perhaps one of the most used trailheads north from Taos into the San Luis
Valley, crosses east over the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and continues through the gap
between Rough Mountain and Sheep Mountain. From here, it follows Oak Creek to the
Huerfano River, continuing to the eastern edge of the Wet Mountains and then north along
both the Wets and the Front Range to the South Platte River. Here the trail forks, with one
branch heading north, and the other following the South Platte into Nebraska. In the past,
native tribes took this trail through Huerfano County. Near where the Oak Creek branches off
from the Huerfano River, a settlement called Badito was founded. Although the Zebulon Pike
Expedition in 1806-07 is recognized as the first American expedition to officially enter
Huerfano County, over 1400 Europeans are noted to have passed through Badito along the
way to Taos Trail. After Pike's expedition notified the Spaniards in Santa Fe of their arrival,
the Spaniards responded by building a fort along the southeastern edge of the Wet
Mountains, close to Badito, in 1819-20. During the Mexican Revolution in 1820, the Spanish
were forced to abandon the fort. Also during this year, William Becknell made the first
recorded traverse of the Santa Fe Trail from Missouri to Santa Fe and back. Although Becknell
didn't approach Huerfano County, he established a trail that brought thousands of travelers
west. A number of these travelers split off from the Mountain Branch of the Santa Fe Trail and
headed west, past Huerfano Butte and up the Huerfano, over Sangre de Cristo Pass and into
the San Luis Valley. Like latter day bootleggers or smugglers, this route was preferred by
traders heading to Taos who sought to avoid customs officials in Santa Fe. In the earlier days
of American governance, Badito was the main center of business and the official county seat
before Walsenburg became more established and the county offices were moved there. Badito
also declined as the fur trading industry began to shrink. Today, Walsenburg is the county
hub with roads heading cross-country in all directions. Due in part to the intersection of I-25
with US 160 and State Highways 10 and 69, over 4 million vehicles make the drive down Main
Street per year.
Some of Huerfano County’s towns are decribed in more detail below:
Page 15
Cuchara
The town of Cuchara is situated on the eastern slopes of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in
the heart of the Cucharas River Valley. The town is surrounded by the San Isabel National
Forest with its multitude of lakes, mountains and wilderness. On the east side of town is the
West Spanish Peak. The Cuchara River flows along the edge of town. Cuchara is located at an
elevation of 8,600 feet, and enjoys an average annual precipitation of 36 inches. Its terrain is
that of an alpine mountain
valley filled primarily with
aspens, ponderosas and blue
spruce. Temperatures in
January range from an average
high of 45 to a low of 10,
whereas in July, the daily high
is usually in the 70’s with a low
of 52. The population of the
town at the time of the 2000
census was 150.
As one leaves south from town, on Highway 12, also called the Scenic Highway of Legends,
some of the most spectacular aspen groves and wild iris fields in Colorado can be observed.
Crossing over the nearby Cucharas River leads to Bear Lake and Blue Lake. The highway then
winds through several switchbacks until it finally opens out at the top of Cuchara Pass, at an
elevation of 9,995 ft. At this point, Forestry Road 46 goes east and crosses Cordova Pass on
the shoulder of the West Spanish Peak and continues eastward through the Apishapa Arch,
Gulnare and Aguilar to I-25. About 8 miles south of Cuchara Pass is North Lake State Wildlife
Area, an excellent fishing area. A little further south is Monument Lake Park, a full service
facility on the shores of Monument Lake.
Gardner
Gardner, Colorado is situated in the Huerfano River Valley, about halfway between the Wet
Mountains and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Historically, it's hard to separate Gardner
from the original settlements in the Upper Huerfano
Valley. This area was first criss-crossed for years by
Ute, Comanche and Apache hunting parties and then
the Spanish Conquistadors and the French trappers.
A few groups of Americans periodically visited the
area, but actual settlers did not arrive until the late
1850's.
Gardner was founded along the route of the stage
line from Westcliffe/Silver Cliff to Walsenburg. When
Silver Cliff was a booming mining town the area was
heavily trafficked. Over the years however,
settlements in the Upper Huerfano faded away and
much of the area's business and population shifted to
Gardner.
In the late 1960's, the Gardner area became a popular refuge for hippies and those interested
in communal living. Many came from more urban locales however, and had no practical idea
of the realities of daily life in a very rural, semi-arid area. Libre is one community from these
Page 16
times that still exists but the lifestyle there is much different than that envisioned by the
idealists of the 1960s.
Today, Gardner grows slowly. It is an unincorporated town but operates schools that serve
students from the northern and western area of Huerfano County. Highway 69 is completely
paved and most of the road is part of the Frontier Pathways Scenic and Historic Byway. Just
north of Gardner is where
County Road 550 heads
west past Malachite, Red
Wing, Chama, and
Sharpsdale before
reaching the San Isabel
National Forest.
Surrounding Gardner are
various Forest Service
access roads leading east
into the Wet Mountains
and west to the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Southwest of town is the ARCO Sheep Mountain
CO2 Project.
La Veta
La Veta is situated on the
eastern side of La Veta Pass
through the Sangre de Cristo
Mountains and at the northern
opening of the Cuchara River
Valley. Just south of town is
the foot of the West Spanish
Peak. La Veta is surrounded by
the Great Dikes of the Spanish
Peaks, which are large, vertical
granite formations that
emanate outward from the
Spanish Peaks. The town today
is known throughout Colorado
as an artist colony, although
there remain many cattle
ranchers and an a few elk
ranchers. As of the 2000
census, LaVeta had 924
people, 429 households, and
251 families residing in the
town. The population density
was 748 people per square
mile. There were 552 housing units at an average density of 447 per square mile. The racial
makeup of the town was 92% white, with about 11% of the remainder Hispanic or Latino.
There were 429 households out of which 27% had children under the age of 18, 45% were
married couples living together, approximately 10% had a female householder with no
husband present, and 41% were non-families. Thirty-five % of all households were made up
of individuals and about 15% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The
average household size was 2.15 and the average family size was 2.79.
Page 17
In the town itself the population was spread out with 25% under the age of 18, 5.0% from 18
to 24, 25% from 25 to 44, 29% from 45 to 64, and 16% who were 65 years of age or older.
The median age was 43 years. For every 100
females there were 92.1 males. For every 100
females age 18 and over, there were 86.9 males.
The median income for a household in the town
was $29,342, and the median income for a family
was $35,156. Males had a median income of
$30,417 versus $21,691 for females. The per
capita income for the town was $18,489. About
15% of families and 16% of the population were
below the poverty line, including 24% of those
under age 18 and 15% of those ages 65 or over.
LaVeta is located at an elevation of 7,000 feet where it receives an average of about 18
inches of precipitation per year. Its terrain is that of an alpine mountain valley that abuts
mountains and high plains. January’s high temperature is about 48, with a low of 19. July
temperatures range from an average high of 91 to a low of 58.
The old La Veta Pass Train Station, now the new La Veta Town Hall
Walsenburg
The City of Walsenburg is the county seat and most populous city of Huerfano County. The
city population was 4,182 at the 2000 census. Walsenburg sits at an elevation of 6,126 feet,
and has an average annual precipitation of only 16 inches. The Walsenburg terrain is that of
an irregular plateau broken by numerous narrow fertile valleys in the east, rising to the
Culebra Range of the Sangre de Cristo in the west and the Spanish Peaks in the south.
January’s average temperatures are a high of 48 and a low of 19, while July’s average
temperatures range from a high of 91 to a low of 58.
Page 18
Walsenburg’s story can be
traced back 150 years when
waves of settlers from New
Mexico started moving into an
area know by the native Tribes
as Huajatolla, meaning
“Breasts of the Earth”. The
current name of Walsenburg
comes from Fred Walsen, a
local merchant who had
opened a trading post there.
Mostly because of Fred
Walsen, a large number of
Germans had settled in and
around the plaza by the
1870’s.
Fred Walsen opened the first
coal mine in the county just
west of town in 1876.
The Walsen Mine was the
largest and most productive
coal mine in Huerfano County.
During the latter half of the 1800's and early 1900's, this area produced over 500 million tons
of coal from various mines in the county. According to some historic references, the
population of the county reached as high as 20,000, but the mines became "nonproductive"
when Colorado began to enforce the state's mining safety regulations and with the
development of oil and natural gas as the fuels of choice.
Walsenburg struggled after the coal industry left, just like other mining towns in southern
Colorado and other states. Walsenburg had been on the upswing in recent years, adding new
businesses and a growing tourism industry. The recent loss of the private prison in
Walsenburg, discussed in more detail in the section about “Jail/Prison Escapes” below, has
added to the problems of the county caused in part by the recent economic recession.
As of the census of 2000, there were 1,497 households, and 881 families residing in the city.
The population density was 1,795
people per square mile. There were
1,723 housing units at an average
density of 740 square miles. The
racial makeup of the city was 75%
white, 5% African American, 3%
Native American, 12% from other
races, and 4% from two or more
races. Hispanic or Latino of any race
constituted 51% of the population.
There were 1,497 households out of
which 26% had children under the
age of 18, 41% were married couples living together, 14% had a female householder with no
husband present, and 41% were non-families. Thirty-seven % of all households were made
up of individuals and 19% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The
average household size was 2.25 and the average family size was 2.95.
Page 19
In the city the population was spread out with 21% under the age of 18, 9% from 18 to 24,
31% from 25 to 44, 21% from 45 to 64, and 18% who were 65 years of age or older. The
median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 133 males, and for every 100
females age 18 and over, there were 141 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $22,005, and the median income for a
family was $26,218. Males had a median income of $20,347 versus $19,020 for females. The
per capita income for the city was $11,562. About 20% of families and 21% of the population
were below the poverty line, including 26% of those under age 18 and 14% of those ages 65
or over.
Fire Protection Districts
Huerfano County has three fire protection districts. They are the Huerfano County Fire
Protection District, the La Veta Fire Protection District and the Upper Huerfano Fire Protection
District. The Huerfano County Fire District has the largest response area, including the City of
Walsenburg and the entire I-25 corridor. The La Veta Fire Protection District response area
includes the Town of La Veta, parts of the US Highway 160 corridor, and areas east and north
of the Town, including Cuchara. The Upper Huerfano Fire Protection District response area
includes Gardner and the northeastern portion of Huerfano County. The following map shows
the response areas for each district:
Page 20
COUNTY AIRPORTS
The Spanish Peaks Airfield, also known as the Huerfano County Airport, is located about 5
miles north of Walsenburg. The terminal building is considered small but adequate. The main
runway is paved and 4900 feet long and 60 feet wide.
Other airports in the county are Cuchara Valley at La Veta Airport, Golden Field, Gardner,
Johnson Field, Walsenburg, North La Veta Landing Field, La Veta, and Walsenburg Landing
Field.
DAMS
Huerfano County has a total of five Class I and three Class II dams. A Class I dam is one
whereby a failure results in the probable loss of life. A Class II dam is one that may
experience significant structural damage but not loss of human life. The phrase “significant
damage” refers to structural damage where humans live, work or recreate, or to public or
private facilities exclusive of unpaved roads and picnic areas. “Damage” refers to rendering
these structures uninhabitable or inoperable.
PRESIDENTIAL AND U.S.D.A - Declared Disasters
Huerfano County experienced a number of Disaster Declarations in the past 20 years,
including United States Department of Agriculture Disaster Declarations for drought and
Presidential Disaster and Emergency Declarations for a variety of other disaster occurrences.
The tables below list these declarations:
Huerfano County
Year
Type declaration
Disaster
2002
Presidential Disaster
Wildfires
2002
USDA Disaster
Drought
2003
Presidential Emergency
Snow
2004
USDA Disaster
Drought
2005
USDA Disaster
Ongoing drought, Crop
diseases, Insect infestations
2006
USDA Disaster
Drought, Fire, Heat, High Winds
Page 21
Hazards in Huerfano County
Colorado is vulnerable to a number of natural hazards that have the potential to seriously
threaten life and property. Damage to critical facilities and disruption of vital services caused
by natural hazards has a significant impact on the victim communities. In addition to natural
hazards, recent local, national and international events remind us that risks also exist due to
human-caused hazards. Such threats present themselves in many forms, ranging from
accidents on our roadways to domestic and international terrorism. One example of random,
unanticipated violence occurred in the town of Granby, Colorado in June, 2004, made national
headlines and resulted in the death of the deranged perpetrator and substantial property
damage to several buildings in the town. The section below discusses that incident and all
other hazards deemed to have a potential impact on Huerfano County. It further focuses on
those “priority” hazards facing the county as selected by a consensus of citizens and experts.
Those hazards expected to have significant loss potential are identified as Priority Hazards.
Other hazards with less potential impact or with fewer effective mitigation actions available
are discussed later in this section and are referred to as ‘Other Hazards’.
The determination of the Priority Hazards was made through a multi-step qualitative risk
assessment process. The qualitative risk tasks included numerous interviews and surveys of
emergency response and planning professionals, online and written surveys of county
residents and independent historical research, which drew information from many and varied
sources. Based on this process, five hazards were found to pose the greatest threats to
Huerfano County and were prioritized as discussed in the following section.
PRIORITIZED HAZARDS
Based on the risk assessment, the planning team prioritized these hazards for further analysis
and mitigation planning:
•
•
•
•
•
Wildfires
Winter Storms
High Winds/Tornadoes
Methane Gas
HAZMAT/Transported
Of secondary concern to the planning team were the hazards of Drought, Lightning and
Thunderstorms and Motor Vehicle Crashes. Flooding issues received special consideration by
the planning team as well. The team determined that the five top prioritized hazards posed a
greater overall risk to life, safety, critical infrastructure and vital services. Future iterations of
the PDMP will possibly include mitigation actions for hazards other than those prioritized by
this Plan.
Page 22
WILDFIRES
Huerfano County is not unique in the State
of Colorado for its exposure to the
devastating effects of wildfire. In fact, the
entire Rocky Mountain region has been
plagued with wildfires in the past several
years and this hazard consistently tops the
pre-disaster planning rankings as the most
severe problem facing the state’s counties.
The wildfire situation has been exacerbated
by the onset of severe drought conditions
for much of this decade throughout the
western U.S.
The wildfire threat as posed by three
classes of fire is described briefly below:
Surface fire: This is the most common
wildfire type and it burns along the floor of
a forest, moving slowly while killing or
damaging trees. Surface fires play an
important role in reducing low vegetation
and woody, moss, lichens and litter strata,
which helps to temporarily reduce the chance of such fuels leading to severe crown fires.
Ground fire: These fires, which are usually started by lightning or human carelessness, burn
on or below the forest floor. Ground fires reduce the accumulation of organic matter and
carbon storage, and contribute to smoke production during active fires and long after the
flames have ended. Ground fires can also damage and kill large trees by killing their roots and
the lower stems.
Crown fire: Such fires are spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the
tops of trees. Crown fires generally pose the largest immediate and long-term ecological
effect and the greatest threat to human settlements near wildland areas.
Wildfire in Colorado is topographically separated into three fire demand zones. The Alpine
zone is characterized by high altitude and primarily populated with spruce and fir. The
Montane zone is next, and is populated by ponderosa pine and aspen woodlands. At the
lowest but most densely populated elevations, the Pinon / Juniper zone is semi-arid and
includes scrub oak woodlands.
Homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses
and industries are all located within high fire hazard areas. Recreational demands in popular
mountain areas such as those found in Huerfano County place more people in wild lands
during holidays, weekends and vacation periods. Adding to the potential fire hazard are
residents and visitors who sometimes lack adequate education or preparation for a blaze that
can sweep through the brush and timber in a matter of minutes.
The 2002 wildfire season was particularly memorable because it was the worst in United
States history, with some 2.3 million acres burned, 2.1 million more than in 2000. Colorado
suffered terribly that year, with 4,612 wildfires that burned over 619,000 acres and cost
approximately $152 million in suppression costs. Approximately 81,400 people were
Page 23
evacuated and about 1,000 structures burned. In addition, nine lives were lost. Based on a
ten-year average, Colorado typically experiences 3,119 wildfires with a loss of 70,000 acres
per year.
History shows that many of Colorado’s wildfires are caused by lightning strikes from
thunderstorms that regularly pass through the state during the summer months. Huerfano
County experiences its share of such weather and, in fact, thunderstorms and lightning
strikes were ranked in the planning survey as one of the more severe natural hazards faced
by the county. Many of the subsequent storms fail to produce rain, and the lightning strikes
sometimes create small hotspots of fire that have the potential to grow into larger blazes.
The hotspots can spread over a large area and are very challenging for fire crews to locate
and control. They also strain the responding departments, fire suppression equipment and
supplies, and many times the hotspots occur deep within a forest and go undetected until a
larger fire erupts.
Wildfires – Huerfano County Profile
The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) estimated that about 15%, or more than 153,700
acres of Huerfano County’s total of 1,019,181 acres are at a moderate to high hazard of risk
to wildfire. According to CSFS, in 1999 there were 34 subdivisions totaling 210,000 acres in
the Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) area. WUIs are defined as the line, area, or zone where
structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or
vegetative fuels. This situation places Huerfano in the top ten of Colorado counties at
potential risk based on the number of square miles of undeveloped land in the wildland
interface.
Page 24
Page 25
AREAS OF CONCERN - LAVETA
The highest fire dangers are found in the Cuchara Valley. This includes the town of La Veta as
well as Cuchara. The severe drought of 2002 posed perhaps the gravest threat in the recent
past, but fortunately the area was spared from any wildfires during that time.
The county participates in the Emergency Fire Fund, which addresses the issue of wildfire
management and costs that exceed the resources of a county to deal with the situation alone.
The “Red Zone”, Huerfano County and nearby areas
Page 26
Some of the county’s wildfire-threatened acreage is at risk due to the presence of the
Mountain Pine Beetle as depicted in the map below:
Although not nearly as severe as the pine beetle threat experienced in several northern
Colorado counties, the map clearly shows the presence of this highly destructive force in
Huerfano County. Some information about the pine beetle and its capabilities is provided
below:
Mountain Pine Beetle
The mountain pine beetle (MPB) is historically the primary cause of mortality in the old, slowgrowing ponderosa, lodgepole and limber pines in Colorado. According to experts who have
studied the problem, this is the insect that causes the most significant damage to the state’s
low and mid-elevation pine forests.
The mountain pine beetle attacks and kills trees in a manner similar to a pest known as the
ips beetle. The MPB only produces one generation per year however, and it generally attacks
trees that lack vigor due to old age and crowding, drought, fire, mechanical damage or root
disease. During the early stages of an outbreak, attacks are largely limited to trees under
stress. As the beetle population increases, attacks often spread to healthy trees in the
afflicted area. The density and similar ages of many of Colorado’s ponderosa pine and mixed
conifer forests is a significant influence in the size and rate of spread of the current outbreak.
Scientists estimate that many stands are at least twice as dense as is desirable for natural
resistance to bark beetles, and MPB populations have nearly doubled each year since the mid
1990s. In 2005, over 425,000 acres of Colorado forests were infested with mountain pine
beetle, and in 2006 that figure rose to 660,000 acres. The situation, despite all the attention
it has received, appears to be worsening in many areas of the state.
Page 27
Wildfires in the second half of the 19th century, including several in the dry year of 1851,
were widespread in Colorado. Many lodgepole pine forests on the west side of Rocky Mountain
National Park and east of Grand Lake regenerated after the 1851 fires. In the late 1800s and
early 1900s, settlers harvested trees for mining, railroads and housing. The combination of
wildfires and human settlement activity led to large sections of forest starting over at about
the same time. These forests have since matured to a size susceptible to mountain pine
beetle attack. Lodgepole pines at about 80 years of age and older are highly susceptible to
the mountain pine beetle. Future landscapes will be vulnerable to another outbreak as
widespread as this one if a more balanced distribution of ages is not reached.
Forest researchers estimated in 2006 that the MPB had destroyed 7.4 million trees on 1.5
million acres of national forest lands in Colorado. Counties hit hardest were Jackson, Routt
and Larimer in the north; Grand, Pitkin, Summit, Park and Chaffee in the west, and Gunnison,
Saguache, Huerfano, Archuleta, San Miguel, Montrose and Ouray in the south and southwest.
Through 2008, it was estimated that Huerfano County had accrued over 26,000 acres of
damage to its ponderosa pine forests since 1996 as a result of MPB activity.
Once MPB successfully infests a tree it is doomed. Preventive spraying before attack may
protect individual high-value trees if done prior to the beetles’ normal flight time in mid-July
through September. At the landscape scale, thinning that reduces competition, improves tree
vigor and lessens fire hazard is an excellent option for mitigation and can be followed by the
reintroduction of fire where appropriate.
Mountain pine beetle trapped in pitch
The following risk map has highlighted yellow areas which illustrate existing development in
fire-prone areas (forested areas adjacent public lands that have been developed); all other
development is shown in red; public lands are shown in green.
Page 28
Wildfires - Historical Experience
Huerfano County was one of many Colorado counties included in the Presidential Disaster
Declaration of 2002 due to the severe wildfires experienced that year.
Event 1: On April 30, 2008, a resident lost two outbuildings and a vehicle when a wildfire
started after tree branches downed power lines. The fire consumed 300 acres of low grass
and brush about 5 miles north northwest of Stonewall between Monument Lake and North
Lake. Damage from the fire was placed at $30,000.
Event 2: A wildfire occurred in the summer of 2008 when a blaze, sparked by lightning, lasted
for over 3 days in an area north of Walsenburg. The fire burned approximately 80 acres at the
intersection of County Roads 120 and 103 near the Rock Spring Arroyo, and required the
assistance of firefighters from Pueblo and Pueblo West. An aircraft made at least one drop
over the fire, and a Hotshot firefighting team from Rifle also flew in to assist with the effort.
No homes were threatened in this incident, and there were no reported injuries and no
evacuations.
Event 3: A human-caused fire that started on private land tore through northeastern parts of
Sheep Mountain, and threatened several structures during June, 2006. The 100-acre Sheep
Fire was 20 percent contained after the second day of the blaze. Ground crews, along with
air support, were faced with rocky terrain and thick, burning brush, piñon and juniper trees.
Dry conditions mixed with low humidity levels and moderate winds made fire containment
difficult.
The fire broke out on private property about six miles southwest of Gardner and about 25
miles northwest of Walsenburg. It spread to some state and federally owned land the next
day. A natural gas plant in the area was threatened on the second day, but was out of danger
by the afternoon. Members of the Colorado Wildfire Academy were pulled from training
activities in Cortez to help in the effort.
In all, about 100 acres burned, and 80 firefighters participated in the containment effort. The
cause was determined to be human.
Page 29
At that time, Huerfano County had been under a burn ban since January 13, 2006, after the
human-caused Mauricio Canyon Fire destroyed more than 3,000 acres and five homes in
Huerfano and Las Animas counties.
Event 4: On January 8, 2006, two wind-whipped wildfires that came to be known as the
Maurico Canyon fire destroyed at least five houses in southern Colorado and forced the
evacuation of several hundred residents. No injuries were reported. The fires burned over
5,400 acres in Huerfano and Las Animas counties. Two-hundred fifteen homes were
evacuated in Las Animas County, but no number was given for Huerfano because deputies
had to go door-to-door due to the lack of a reverse 911-system.
Winds gusting up to 50 mph prevented authorities from using airplanes to drop slurry on the
fires. Two, 20-men federal crews were called in to battle the fires from a training event in
northeastern Colorado.
2006 – smoke clouds atop LaVeta Pass
WINTER STORMS
Winter storms pose dangers to Colorado residents that have long been recognized. Because of
the rural nature of Huerfano County, extended power outages present the greatest risk to the
county’s residents when winter storms strike. Travelers on major highways in the county also
face the risk of being stranded during severe winter storms.
Winter storms occur frequently throughout the state, and not just in the “high” country. They
vary significantly in size, strength, intensity, duration and impact in Huerfano County. Strong
winds create snowdrifts that block roads, create dangerous wind chill factors and sometimes
lead to the extended power outages that can become life threatening. The National Weather
Service issues a wind chill advisory when wind and temperature combine to produce wind chill
values of 20 to 35 degrees below zero, significantly raising the potential for hypothermia and
frostbite affecting health and safety. Hypothermia is the most common winter weather killer
in Colorado. Ice accumulation is also a hazard because it creates difficult and sometimes
dangerous travel conditions. It also impacts the safety of the more vulnerable elements of the
population such as the elderly and physically impaired.
Winter Storms – Huerfano County Profile
Winter weather storm systems from the northwest usually start in early November in
Huerfano County, and deposit large amounts of snow on leeward sides of mountain ridges.
Winter weather can continue in the highest elevations until early June. Low temperatures are
often below zero, and snowfall averages well over 100 inches in the higher elevations.
Page 30
High winds often accompany the area’s winter storms. These winds can produce sizable
snowdrifts that can cause residents and travelers to be stranded for hours in potentially life
threatening conditions. The problem is exacerbated by cell phone coverage that can be
limited in some of the mountainous areas of Huerfano County. Hypothermia and carbon
monoxide poisoning are also threats to some, especially those stranded travelers unfamiliar
with the area and unprepared for the conditions. Besides impacting transportation, winter
storms often batter and destroy utility lines and cause structural collapse. Sometimes the
repair and removal costs of storm damage are very significant.
Ice accumulation poses a hazard in Huerfano County during many winter storms, particularly
when it impacts some of the area’s main transportation arteries such as I-25, US 160 and SRs
10, 12 and 69, respectively. These are the most important corridors for the transport of
people and the provisions needed for the continuity of normal life. A blockage due to vehicle
crashes on these roads can cause major disruptions to Huerfano County and beyond. The
Thanksgiving Day 2004 rockslide that damaged and closed I-70 in the Glenwood Canyon area
provides a good example of the widespread problems that can ensue from a natural hazard
incident in a major transportation corridor.
The mountainous areas of Huerfano County that include such areas of beauty as the Spanish
Peaks, Sangre de Cristos and Wet Mountains are naturally impacted by severe winter storms.
Hikers, snowmobilers and snowshoers are sometimes trapped in the wilderness by sudden
climate changes. When these victims become stranded in remote areas, rescue personnel
themselves can be endangered and specialized equipment is sometimes needed for an
effective response.
Winter Storms - Historical Experience
In 2003, Huerfano County was one of 29 Colorado counties that experienced a Presidential
Disaster Declaration due to the massive winter storm of March 16-20. The insurance industry
estimates the blizzard of March 2003 was the most expensive winter storm from snow and ice
damage in Colorado history. The estimated price tag was at least $93.3 million from more
than 28,000 claims filed (102.2 million in 2006 dollars). Most of the larger carriers activated
their emergency catastrophe teams who specialize in handling disaster claims. This estimate
includes damage to homes and automobiles and excludes the large commercial building
losses resulting from the blizzard. The lion’s share of the damage was the result of wet, heavy
snow which caused roofs, porches, awnings, carports and outbuildings to collapse. Significant
damage from downed trees and limbs was also incurred, along with claims for wind, snow
melt leakage, food spoilage and out-of-pocket living expenses for people forced from their
homes due to storm damage. Most of the damage to motor vehicles was caused by the
crushing weight of the snow rather than by weather-related accidents.
In December 2006 two snow emergencies were declared by the State and President. The first
storm lasted from December 18-22; the second followed from December 28-31. The first
storm hit the Denver metro area and south hard, while the second pummeled the southeast
part of the state. Two counties in the southeast exceeded record snowfall at one station by
150%. Sixteen counties were designated for public assistance for snowfall for the first storm:
ten counties were declared for the second storm, including Huerfano.
Information about other significant winter storms that impacted the county is readily
available. Some of those are described below in some detail. Based on the collective
experiences of the planning team, it was estimated that winter storms, generally close I-25
approximately two to three times each season. Highway 160 is a major transportation artery
running through Huerfano County, but despite its occasional closure during severe winter
storms, county officials characterize the community as adequately prepared.
Page 31
The most common causes of road closures are drifting snow and ice.
Aside from the winter storm event of March, 2003, some other notable winter storm events
are listed below:
Event 1: On November 28, 2006, a winter storm moved across the Four Corners area and
then east along the Colorado/New Mexico border producing some heavy snow amounts across
mainly higher elevations of southern Colorado. Heavy snow accumulations occurred over the
higher reaches of the Sawatch Range in central Colorado, the eastern San Juan and La Garita
Mountains of southwest Colorado, and the Sangre de Cristos, Wet, and Rampart Range
Mountains and adjacent terrain of eastern Colorado. Some of the higher snow totals were
recorded at La Veta.
Event 2: On April 10, 2005, a powerful early spring blizzard caused snow drifts up to 8 feet
as well as closed schools, businesses and roads, including large sections of I-25 in southern
Colorado. Travelers were stranded at highways and airports until the storm subsided. Some of
the higher snow totals were accompanied by wind gusts up to 50 mph at times along with
visibilities under 1/4 mile. Twenty-two to 24 inches of snow covered the communities of
Cuchara and La Veta, while 28 inches of snow fell on Walsenburg.
Event 3: A blizzard event that began on October 24, 1997, and ended the next day caused
$1.2 million in damages over the affected area, which included the Upper Huerfano River
Basin and Walsenburg.
Event 4: On December 16, 1996 a winter storm dropped 8 inches of snow in Huerfano
County at both Walsenburg and Cuchara. The snowfall, along with rapidly dropping
temperatures and brisk winds produced very icy road conditions, and numerous traffic
accidents were reported in Colorado Springs and the rest of the broadly affected area that
included Huerfano County.
Page 32
HIGH WINDS/TORNADOES
Tornadoes are defined as localized, violently destructive windstorms occurring over land,
especially in the midwestern United States. They are characterized by a long, funnel-shaped
cloud that is composed of condensation and containing debris that extends to the ground and
marks the path of greatest destruction. The path of a single tornado can be dozens of
kilometers long, but tornados rarely last longer than 30 minutes. A tornado can move as fast
as 125 mph. Internal wind speeds can exceed 300 mph. Powerful tornados have lifted and
moved objects weighing more than 300 tons a distance of 30 feet and tossed homes greater
than 300 feet away from their foundations.
High winds may not be as fearsome as tornadoes, but their damages can be severe
nonetheless. Some of the specific kinds of high winds are described below:
Straight-line wind is the most common type of wind and, as the name suggests, it generally
blows in a straight line. Straight-line wind speeds range from very low to very high. High
winds associated with intense low pressure can last for upward of a day at a given location.
Straight-line winds occur throughout the US and its possessions as shown in the figure below.
Huerfano County is in the target zone of these winds.
Down-slope winds flow down the slope of mountains. These kinds of winds often have very
high wind speeds and frequently occur in Colorado. In the continental US, mountainous areas
are referred to as “special wind regions”, and are shown in the first figure below. Huerfano
County and its neighboring area lie in a special wind region. No model building codes provide
guidance on wind speeds in special wind regions.
Page 33
Page 34
High Winds/Tornadoes– Huerfano County Profile
Like many other areas of the state, Huerfano County is subject to frequent, often intense
gusts of high winds. Although they are not usually life-threatening, high winds can disrupt
daily activities, cause damage to buildings and other structures and increase the potential of
other hazards. Some areas with little ground cover experience intense gusts of dust and road
debris, which becomes a hazard for travelers and an occasional disruption for local services.
High winds in the winter sometimes cause complete whiteouts and create significant
snowdrifts and transportation problems. High winds can accelerate wildfires, which can cause
grave danger to firefighters, emergency response personnel and residences or other
structures which fins themselves in their path.
Damage to structures happens regularly because of high winds, but it is usually minimal and
goes unreported. Effects of the high winds may be seen in roof damage, cracked windows and
damage to trees and landscaping.
A tornado is a violent and extreme extension of the high wind hazard, and is characterized by
a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud extending to the ground. Tornadoes are most often spawned
in Colorado by thunderstorm activity when cool, dry air meets and overrides a layer of warm,
moist air. This forces the warm air to rise rapidly. Damage caused by a tornado is the result
of the excessive wind velocity and the wind-borne debris it creates. Lightning and large hail is
a frequent byproduct of these serious windstorms.
According to the National Weather Service, tornado wind speeds range from 40 to more than
300 miles per hour, and the most violent tornadoes have rotating winds of 250 miles per hour
or more and are capable of causing tremendous destruction. Tornadoes often cause the
greatest damages to structures of light construction such as residential homes and,
particularly, mobile homes.
Colorado ranks ninth among the 50 states in frequency of tornadoes, but only thirty-eighth in
the number of related deaths. Colorado ranks thirty-first in injuries and thirtieth for the cost
of repairing damage caused by tornadoes. When these statistics are compared to other states
by the frequency of tornado occurrence per square mile, Colorado ranks 28th and 37th,
respectively, for injuries per area and costs per area.
Between 1950 and 1995 Colorado experienced 1,161 tornadoes, which caused two fatalities.
The risk of death from tornadoes in Colorado in any one year is 1 in 49,715,910. Between
1950 and 1995 the state had 157 injuries involving tornadoes, and the total cost of their
damage was placed at more than $68 million.
Tornadoes have been reported nine months of the year in Colorado, with peak occurrences
between mid-May through mid-August. June is by far the month with the most recorded
tornadoes. Tornadoes occur at all times of the day, with more than half occurring between
3pm and 6pm, and about 88 percent occurring between 1pm and 9pm MDT. Some of the
topography of Huerfano County limits the occurrence of tornadoes in the area but they can
occur statewide, with the greatest number developing in the plains east of Interstate 25.
According to the state’s reports of Windstorm events, 16 reported incidents of high winds
occurred in Huerfano County between January 1, 1993 and July 31, 2000. No deaths or
injuries were reported, and damages totaled $1.7 million. More recently, on December 30,
2008, widespread damage occurred across the state after high winds reached speeds above
100 mph. State Farm Insurance, whose coverage accounts for about a quarter of the state,
said their claims alone topped $2 million dollars.
Page 35
Examples of high winds and tornadoes in Huerfano County abound, and the following are just
a few of the more recent or prominent ones:
High Winds/Tornadoes– Historical Experience
Event 1: On June 18, 2007, for the first time in more than 30 years, the San Isabel National
Forest-San Carlos Ranger District experienced a significant blowdown event. An extreme wind
event toppled spruce and Douglas fir trees in Custer and Huerfano Counties between Deer
Peak and the Greenhorn Mountains.
Event 2: On January 26, 1999, a swift moving weather system brought 3 to nearly 8 inches
of snow to Mineral County and nearby areas. In the southeast part of the area, wind gusts
between 60 and 100 mph occurred for several hours in the afternoon. In and around
Walsenburg, winds gusted up to 98 mph. Power was off and on in the Walsenburg area for
several hours, trees were uprooted and power poles were snapped off. Three semi-trailers
were tipped over, two on I-25 and one on Highway 160. One driver received minor injuries..
One roof was peeled off a house.
Event 3: On December 5, 1996, strong winds occurred from the Sangre de Cristo mountains
and east for most of the day, as a powerful jet stream moved across Colorado. Sustained
winds of 30 to 50 mph prevailed across the entire area before tapering off by late afternoon
of the 5th. Winds gusts of between 70 and 100 mph were recorded in the mountains west of
and into Colorado Springs. Extensive damage occurred across the Wet Mountain Valley.
Numerous power lines, smaller buildings, house and vehicle windows, and large trees were
destroyed or damaged. The Pines Ranch, 10 miles northwest of Westcliffe in the northwest
Wet Mountain Valley reported hundreds of large Ponderosa pines blown down and snapped
off. In Huerfano County, winds estimated at over 100 mph, damaged the Picketwire Lodge.
Event 4: On May 25, 1993, a tornado developed two miles southwest of the town of La Veta
and moved north to two miles west of La Veta before dissipating. The tornado touched down
periodically along its track. Two barns were destroyed and at least 20 pine and cottonwood
trees (up to 100 feet tall) were uprooted. Downed trees had to be removed from several
roads. Estimates placed damages at approximately $500,000. There were no deaths or
injuries.
A total of six tornado events were recorded in Huerfano County between 1950 and
2007. Two injuries have been documented along with $528,000 in property damages. The F1
level tornado in 1993 was responsible for about $500,000 of those property damages.
Page 36
TRANSPORTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (HAZMAT)
FEMA defines Hazardous Materials as chemical substances that, if released or misused, can
pose a threat to the environment or health. These chemicals are used in industry, agriculture,
medicine, research and consumer goods and come in the form of explosives, flammable and
combustible substances, poisons and radioactive materials. According to information from the
Colorado Division of Emergency Management, the Environmental Protection Agency sorts
HAZMAT into these categories: toxic agents, hazardous wastes, toxic pollutants, hazardous
substances and extremely hazardous substances. The US Department of Transportation uses
these categories: explosive; blasting agent; flammable liquid; flammable solid; oxidizer;
organic peroxide; corrosive material; compressed gas; flammable compressed gas; poison;
irritating materials; inhalation hazard; etiological agent; radioactive materials; and other
regulated material. These substances are most often released as a result of transportation
accidents or because of chemical accidents in plants or fixed-facilities. In Huerfano County,
transportation concerns have caused the county to consider this a priority risk.
According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), HAZMAT
transportation events are those which involve ground, rail, water, air or pipeline transport and
occur outside the boundaries of a fixed-facility. Also included as transportation events are the
releases which are discovered upon offloading at a fixed-facility, but which happened during
transportation of the materials.
HAZMAT incidents consist of the release of liquid and/or gaseous contaminants from fixed or
mobile containers. These can be caused by intentional terrorist attacks as well as by accident.
A HAZMAT incident may last for hours, days, or longer, depending on the nature of the
release. In addition to the primary release, explosions and/or fires can result from a release,
and contaminants can be extended beyond the initial area by persons, vehicles, water, wind
and wildlife.
HAZMAT incidents also occur as a result of natural hazard events such as floods, hurricanes,
tornadoes and earthquakes, which in addition to triggering a HAZMAT incident can also hinder
response efforts. For example, Hurricane Floyd in September 1999, caused communities
along the Eastern United States to be faced with flooded junkyards, disturbed cemeteries,
deceased livestock, floating propane tanks, uncontrolled fertilizer spills and a variety of other
environmental contaminants that caused widespread concern. This unhealthy scenario was
repeated in areas of Florida during the series of nearly constant hurricanes that struck the
state during 2004.
Hazardous materials in transport are especially vulnerable to sabotage or misuse and, in the
wrong hands, pose a significant security threat. The security of hazardous materials in
transportation poses unique challenges as compared to security at fixed facilities because of
the constantly changing environment surrounding a moving vehicle. Most hazardous materials
are frequently transported in large quantities, and once mobile, they are susceptible to theft,
interception, detonation or release. When transported in proximity to large population
centers, accidental or intentional acts can have deadly consequences.
The Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES) system, maintained by
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the US Department of Health and
Human Services, actively collects information to describe the public health consequences of
acute releases of hazardous substances. The only exception made is for petroleum when that
is the only substance released. Colorado is a participating state in this registry.
Page 37
In 2005, a total of ninety-nine transportation events were reported in the state. In 90 events,
only one substance was released; the remainder saw the release of two substances, and in
one instance, three substances were released. The most commonly reported categories of
substances released were paints and dyes, volatile organic compounds, “other” substances
not further described and acids. During this reporting period, ten events resulted in a total of
fifteen victims, of whom 3 died. The most frequently reported injury was trauma, and an
evacuation was ordered for one event.
Of the ninety-nine transportation-related events, 94 occurred during ground transport (e.g.,
truck, van, or tractor), 4 involved transport by rail and only 1 involved a pipeline.
Trucks were involved in eighty-nine of the ground transportation events. Of those, eighty
involved non-tanker trucks and 9 involved tanker trucks. The remainder of the ground
transportation incidents occurred during transport in vans, automobiles and “other”. Of the 4
rail-related incidents, 2 occurred from a tank car, 1 from a boxcar and 1 was described only
as “other”. The largest proportions of transportation-related events occurred due to releases
en route to their destination that were later discovered at fixed facilities (39), and from a
moving vehicle or vessel (33). The most common primary factor involved in the releases was
human error (68), with improper filling, loading or packing as the most frequently reported
secondary factor (43).
One Colorado incident in 2005 involved an evacuation and injuries when a truck containing
calcium carbide rolled over, releasing calcium carbide and diesel fuel to the environment. Two
responders were injured due to exposure to the calcium carbide and two residences
Page 38
were evacuated as a precaution. Another event involved an inhalation exposure to a police
officer when a box trailer was discovered leaking a gelling agent at a port of entry. The officer
was treated and released from the hospital. Decontamination on persons without injuries
occurred in three incidents. One individual was decontaminated after a collision with a mobile
methamphetamine lab, three responders were decontaminated on the scene of a broken open
tote of sodium hypochlorite and eight responders were decontaminated after responding to a
leaking tote of a hypochlorite solution.
Huerfano County reported one Transported HazMat incident in 2005.
According to HSEES statistics, for 2006, a total of 204 acute hazardous substances events
were recorded in Colorado. A total of 58 events occurred in fixed facilities, with the most
frequent taking place in Adams (100), Denver (24) and El Paso (10) counties.
Page 39
Of the 146 transportation-related events recorded in the state during 2006, 140 occurred
during ground transport (e.g., truck, van, or tractor), 4 involved transport by rail, and 2 from
a pipeline. Most ground transportation events involved trucks. The largest proportions of
transportation-related events occurred due to releases en route that were later discovered at
fixed facilities (83) and from a moving vehicle or vessel (31). Of the 146 transportationrelated events, 26 involved a release that occurred during unloading of a stationary vehicle or
vessel. A total of 215 substances were released in all events. The individual substances most
frequently released were paint, sulfuric acid, mixtures and sodium hydroxide.
A total of 76 victims were involved in 14 events. Of the 14 events with victims, 5 events
involved only one victim, and 1 involved two victims. Of all victims, 26 were injured in fixed
facility events and 50 were injured in transportation events.
Evacuations were ordered in six events. Of these, one-third were of buildings or affected parts
of buildings; another third were of a circle/radius, and the final third had no defined criteria.
The number of people evacuated ranged from 5 to 350 people, and lasted from one to
twenty-four hours in duration. None of the events that occurred in 2006 had in-place
sheltering ordered by an official.
The chief of the Huerfano County Fire Protection District advised that a few semi-trailer trucks
turn over occasionally, but there have been no significant hazardous materials spills as a
result. Huerfano County had no reported HazMat incidents in 2006 or 2007.
When hazardous materials are not controlled due to improper use or accidents, they can
quickly create a dangerous and/or life threatening situation. Because of the mountainous
terrain found in some areas of Huerfano County area, the potential for accidents involving
transported hazardous materials is very real.
Page 40
Transported HAZMAT - Historical Experience
According to figures from CDPHE, Huerfano County reported six HAZMAT incidents between
the years 1993-2004, with four resulting in injuries. This experience contrasts sharply with
that of Adams County, which reported 1592 incidents during the same period. But as noted in
the Colorado HAZMAT route map below, Huerfano County is crisscrossed by official routes
which, combined with mountain terrain and periodic winter storms, create a regular potential
for transported incidents.
Page 41
METHANE GAS LEAKS
Natural gas is a gas consisting primarily of methane. It is associated with fossil fuels, in coal
beds, as methane clathrates, and is created by methanogenic organisms in marshes, bogs,
and landfills. It is an important fuel source, a major feedstock for fertilizers, and a potent
greenhouse gas.
Natural gas is often informally referred to as simply “gas”, especially when compared to other
energy sources such as electricity. Before natural gas can be used as a fuel, it must undergo
extensive processing to remove almost all materials other than methane. The by-products of
that processing include ethane, propane, butanes, pentanes and higher molecular weight
hydrocarbons, elemental sulfur, and sometimes helium and nitrogen.
Coal-bed methane is a form of natural gas extracted from coal seams. Coal-bed methane is
gas trapped in coal deposits. It is the same type of gas people might burn in their kitchen
range.
Explosions caused by natural gas leaks occur a few times each year. Individual homes, small
businesses and boats are most frequently affected when an internal leak builds up gas inside
the structure. Frequently, the blast will be enough to significantly damage a building but leave
it standing. In these cases, the people inside tend to have minor to moderate injuries.
Occasionally, the gas collects in concentrated enough quantities to cause a deadly explosion,
disintegrating one or more buildings in the process. The gas usually dissipates readily
outdoors, but can sometimes collect in dangerous quantities if weather conditions are right.
However, considering the tens of millions of structures that use the fuel, the individual risk of
using natural gas is very low.
At the beginning of this planning project, Huerfano County’s planning team provided
information about the county’s problems associated with methane gas leakages. During the
fall of 2008, those concerns received some much welcomed attention from Colorado
politicians. In October, United States Congressman John Salazar toured some of the sites
county residents claimed had been impacted by methane gas drilling operations. Incidents
including water wells running dry or becoming contaminated, and homes being evacuated
because of methane gas drilling operations were reported by residents. One dairy farm
reported experiencing contamination of water used for both livestock and corn crops. The
corn was used for feed purposes. The source of the problem was alleged to be water from the
Cuchara River contaminated with methane. Because of methane seepage into private water
wells, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ordered the wells shut down in
2007. Based on his own observations and findings, Rep. Salazar asked the governor of
Colorado to become involved in finding a solution to the problem.
Notwithstanding the well shutdown in 2007, some Huerfano residents continued to believe
that coal bed methane was migrating into their wells and that some are drying up as a result.
Farmers and ranchers also express fears that continued drilling for coal bed methane could
contaminate groundwater. Because of concerns over the dangerous buildup of gases and the
threat posed to some local drinking-water wells, the Walsenburg felt compelled to clarify that
its municipal water supply is still safe.
Providing some validity to the concern of many Huerfano County residents is a drilling
practice known as “fracking,” which is short for hydraulic fracturing.
As a common aspect of natural-gas extraction worldwide, fracturing operations inject water,
sand, and a mixture of chemicals at high pressure into rock formations thousands of feet
below the surface. The pressure-generated forces open existing fractures in the rock and
allow gas to rise through the wells. The practice makes drilling possible in areas that 10 to 20
Page 42
years ago would not have been profitable, including parts of Colorado, which accounts for
approximately 6 percent of all natural gas produced in the US.
Unlike traditional oil and gas drilling, coal bed methane operations pursue relatively shallow
coal seam strata that contain drinkable water as defined by the Environmental Protection
Agency. The process “dewaters” the coal seam, which removes the pressure and lets the
methane gas detach from the coal. The pressures in the coal seam can be as high as 300 psi
from the trapped water.
Once the water is removed, the methane migrates to the surface. This takes place through
the conduit of the methane gas well, but sometimes the gas escapes into domestic wells or
natural or induced fractures in the subsurface layers.
The main concerns of most Huerfano County residents center on the composition of the fluid
used in the fracking process. Most comes back to the surface, but some 30 to 40 percent is
never recovered, according to some industry estimates. The extracted water goes into an
onsite pond in some operations, and it is not supposed to percolate into the surface soil or the
areas that provide well water. The methane produced in the coal bed is supposed to go
directly into a pipeline that runs to the end users.
H
Herfano Coal-bed active gas wells map
In addition to the chemicals used in fracking, the general operation of the drilling process
uses diesel fuel as a lubricant during the drilling operation. Chemicals used in the cleaning of
Page 43
machinery may also pose another environmental problem.
The components of hydraulic fracturing fluid are proprietary, and energy companies rigorously
defend their intellectual property in order to maintain their competitive posture. Their trade
secrets are protected by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which exempted hydraulic fracturing
from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Along with the unknown makeup of the
chemicals, the other key question for determination is what happens to the injected fluid that
fails to return to the surface?
One researcher believes that 65 chemicals are probable fluid components, but some cite 200
as a more likely figure. One recommendation of recent research is that groundwater sampling
be expanded to determine whether these chemicals or their byproducts are present in areas
where hydraulic fracturing is practiced. Chemicals such as benzene, glycol-ethers, toluene, 2(2-methoxyethoxy) ethanol, and nonylphenols were identified in the fracturing fluids, and all
of these are reported to be linked in other research to various health disorders when humans
receive too much exposure.
Companies that conduct many of the drilling operations in Huerfano County are naturally
receiving much of the blame for methane gas leakage problems. One company was operating
fifty-six coal bed methane wells west of Walsenburg for several years when it was discovered
that local water wells were contaminated with methane. The problem grew so severe that
some of the residents claimed the methane amounts in their water supplies were high enough
for the water to catch fire. Several homes needed the installation of methane monitoring
devices to alert the owners to hazardous gas conditions. The Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission ordered those wells shut down in 2007.
Representative Salazar has recommended that the governor designate someone to be the
sole point of contact for all state agencies involved, and also asked for a comprehensive study
to determine exactly how much damage has been done.
Congressman John Salazar (right) examines
dead corn leaves with a Huerfano County farmer
who says methane gas drilling has contaminated
the water flow to his dairy farm east of
Walsenburg causing his corn crop to fail.
Methane Gas – Historical Experience
Event 1: One farm has had issues with water
quality affecting both livestock and corn crops.
The corn is used for feed. Approximately 300
acres of corn have allegedly suffered because
irrigation water from the Cuchara River has been
contaminated with water from drilling operations
at over 50 nearby wells. It is believed that the release water is high in bicarbonates which
releases salt, which negatively impacts the quality of crops.
Event 2: One resident, who owns property near the River Ridge Ranch east of town,
experienced an explosion on his property when methane in his water well ignited. His well had
functioned without incident for more than a dozen years when, in June, 2007, an explosion
occurred in the well house. The jolt of the explosion was felt by the resident and his wife at
Page 44
their nearby home. Since the explosion, he has set up methane gas monitors in his home,
and state officials have set up a ventilation system at the well. When the gas monitors
sound, the family has to turn everything off and evacuate their home.
FLOODING (INCLUDING FLASH AND SEASONAL FLOODING)
Floods are one of the most common hazards in the United States. Flood effects can be local,
impacting only a neighborhood or community, or very widespread, affecting entire river
basins and multiple states.
The following are some historical statistics about the state of Colorado’s flooding situation:
•
•
•
•
Flood prone areas have been identified in 22 cities and towns and in all of Colorado’s
counties;
Over 150,00 people are living in Colorado’s floodplains;
There are estimated to be more than 62,000 homes and 12,000 commercial industrial
and business structures in identified floodplains;
The value of this property, structures and contents is estimated to exceed 6 billion
dollars
Colorado Water Basins
Page 45
Of all the river basins in the state, the Arkansas River basin encompasses the greatest surface
area at more than 28,000 miles. The river basin includes 18 counties and extends over the
entire southeastern corner of Colorado. Elevation in the basin ranges from 14,000 feet at the
headwaters near Leadville to approximately 3,300 feet at the Colorado-Kansas border. The
major population centers of the basin are Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Huerfano County lies
within the southwestern section of the basin.
Floods are not all alike. Some may develop slowly over the course of a few days. But flash
floods can develop in an instant, often giving few, if any, warning signs. Flash floods can form
a formidable wall of roaring water that carries mud, rocks, and other sorts of debris, sweeping
away most objects in its path. Overland flooding can occur outside of a river or stream, like
when a levee is breached, but can still be destructive. Flooding can also occur when a dam
breaks, producing effects similar to flash floods.
Low lying areas near water or downstream from a dam are especially vulnerable and require
nearby residents to be duly vigilant and prepared. Even very small streams, gullies, creeks,
culverts, dry streambeds, or lowly situated grounds that seem harmless in dry weather can
flood. Every state is at risk from this hazard and Colorado is no different.
The Cucharas River is the source of drinking water for Cuchara, the Town of La Veta,
and the City of Walsenburg. The Cucharas River originates in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains
in southwest Huerfano County, Colorado. Its headwaters are located near Cucharas Pass
(9,941 feet) south-southwest of the town of Cuchara in the San Isabel National Forest land
which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service San Carlos Ranger District.
Obstructions, both natural and man-made, within the floodways impede floodflows, creating
backwater and increased heights. Debris washing downstream during floods often collects
against bridges, reducing the waterway openings and impeding the floodflow. This created a
damming effect and causes greater backwater depths with increased overbank flooding.
Water pressure on bridges and embankments can result in stress damage or destruction of
the structure involved. A pronounced increase in flow velocities usually occurs downstream
from obstructions, thus extending the flood damage potential.
Natural obstructions to flood flow along the streams include trees, brush and other vegetation
growing in channel areas. Manmade obstructions are the various bridges and their approach
embankments. Some of these concerns are present in Huerfano County, especially near
Cuchara.
Huerfano County Land Use
Growth and land use patterns in areas of the county raise concerns in the context of natural
hazard issues, including those of flooding. A brief summary of recent land use patterns and
projected growth follows:
The recent current pattern of land use in the Cuchara area includes a combination of medium
to medium-high density residential development along the floor of the valley in different
locations, with additional residential development extending to the west along Baker Creek. In
the recent past, about 750 acres of land in the Cucharas Sanitation and Water District was
planned for development. About 1,400 remaining acres includes land used for livestock
grazing and steeply sloped walls of the valley. Approximately one half of that area is believed
to be ill-suited for development due to severe slopes, soil instability problems and flood
hazards, leaving about 700 acres of land available for future development.
Page 46
The La Veta area has continued its upward trend since 1970’s population of 589 residents, to
924 in 2000, and 980 in 2006. It is projected that the current 27% growth rate will continue
or even accelerate. As a result, residents will have to confront many land use issues, but
flooding does not appear to be high on that list.
Walsenburg had a population of 4,182 according to the 2000 census. The 1990 census
population was 3,300 indicating a 26% increase in growth within the community over that ten
year period. The estimated population in July 2005 was 3,946, a decrease in numbers from
2000-2005 by 5.6%. Although it is unknown at this time what the future population trend will
be for Walsenburg, the Division of Local Government forecasts a population growth of 3%
annually in Huerfano County. Flooding is a moderate issue of concern for this town.
An important land use issue confronting the unincorporated areas, between the Cucharas
District and the town of La Veta and between the towns of La Veta and Walsenburg, is the
potential for divisions of existing ranches and other agricultural lands into large lot (35 or
more acres) residential subdivisions. Colorado law allows the division of property into lots
with a minimum of 35 acres without County review. The subdivision of such lots into smaller
parcels requires the approval of the Huerfano County Board of County Commissioners.
As these communities in Huerfano County, plan for the inevitability of future growth, they
must cope with issues of flooding. Some of the principles which must be weighed when
making such plans are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preserve and Restore Floodplains Where Possible
Be Prepared for Floods
Help People Protect Themselves from Flood Hazards
Prevent Adverse Impacts and Unwise Uses in the Floodplain
Prevent Adverse Impacts from Development and Redevelopment
Acknowledge the Values of Structural Flood Control Measures
FEMA provides further direction in mitigating flooding issues per a state guidance document
issued in August, 2007. The key section states that an analysis should include information
about the population affected by funding, the number of structures affected, the number of
critical facilities affected and the potential dollar loss associated with flooding. The projected
vulnerability associated with future development should be identified as it pertains to future
population, future number of structures and future potential loss. Shifts in population should
be considered, as well as land use changes and the impact of any mitigation projects.
Huerfano County NFIP Participation
Huerfano County, along with the Town of La Veta and the City of Walsenburg participate in
the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no repetitive loss properties in Huerfano
County. Since the County, La Veta and Walsenburg joined the NFIP, there have been a total
of two paid claims from flood events. The most current mapping of the regulatory floodplain
was completed in 1986. The following tables summarize their participation, including the
number of policies in force:
Huerfano County NFIP Participation Information
Category
Data
Category
Data
Date Joined NFIP
10/1/1986
10
CRS class/discount
N.A.
Number of Policies in
force
Insurance in Force
$1,186,200
Page 47
Huerfano County NFIP Participation Information
Category
Data
Category
Data
CAV date
N.A.
Number of Paid Losses
1
CAC date
N.A.
Total Losses Paid
$768.70
Date of Current FIRM
10/1/1986
Substantial Damage
claims since 1978
0
Town of La Veta NFIP Participation Information
Category
Data
Category
Data
Date Joined NFIP
9/29/1986
35
CRS class/discount
N.A.
force
Insurance in Force
CAV date
N.A.
0
CAC date
N.A.
Total Losses Paid
$0
9/29/1986
Substantial Damage
claims since 1978
0
$5,409,300.00
City of Walsenburg NFIP Participation Information
Category
Data
Category
Data
Date Joined NFIP
9/29/1986
61
CRS class/discount
N.A.
force
Insurance in Force
CAV date
N.A.
1
CAC date
N.A.
Total Losses Paid
$1,115.56
9/29/1986
Substantial Damage
claims since 1978
0
$4,744,000.00
*Source: FEMA Community Information System
Huerfano County Property Discussion
According to FEMA statistics from 2007, a total of seven hundred sixty-seven Huerfano
County residents live in a flood hazard area. While not a large number in raw terms, it
represents approximately 10 percent of the county’s current population. Additionally, 293
“one to four” family structures and 164 “other” structures are present in those flood hazard
areas. There are 40 “repetitive loss” structures present in the state, but none are located in
Huerfano County. A repetitive loss (RL) property is defined as any insurable building for which
two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program
within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently
insured by the NFIP. Currently there are over 122,000 RL properties nationwide.
FEMA maintains a Community Information System database which allows the agency to
calculate flood at-risk ratings for the entire country. Values are assigned to four factors which
collectively identify flooding risk. These factors include the county’s population living in the
flood hazard area, the number of 1-4 family structures present in those areas, the number of
repetitive loss structures and Class I and II dams present in the county. Based on these
factors and the values assigned to them, various sections of Huerfano County are considered
to be at a moderate risk of flooding.
Page 48
In 2008, Huerfano County residential property values were estimated at a total of
$433,525,427.
Total Building Loss by County based on HAZUS
*Source: State of Colorado Flood Mitigation Plan
Page 49
HAZUS-MH 100 year Floodplains in Colorado
*Source: State of Colorado Flood Mitigation Plan
The following table provides an estimation of potential losses for Huerfano County from a
100-year event to structures and contents in terms of dollars. The estimation was generated
through a Level 1 HAZUS study that the Colorado Division of Emergency Management
provided to Huerfano County. The study’s estimates are based on data from the 2000
Census. The study was conducted for the county as a whole and does not separate out
individual jurisdictions.
100 Year Flood Event Estimated Building and Content Losses
(Millions of Dollars)
Area
Building
Content
Inventory
Total
Residential
7.74
5.12
0.00
12.85
Commercial
0.88
2.50
0.06
3.43
Industrial
0.39
0.92
0.20
1.51
Others
.14
0.84
0.01
1.00
Total
9.14
9.38
0.27
18.79
The following table is the HAZUS generated estimate of “essential” facility losses. This is
again a county-wide estimate based off of the 2000 census. Individual jurisdictions are not
separated out.
100 Year Flood Event Estimated Losses to Essential Facilities
Classification
Fire Stations
Total
0
At least
Moderate
0
At Least
Substantial
0
Loss of Use
0
Page 50
100 Year Flood Event Estimated Losses to Essential Facilities
Classification
Total
At least
Moderate
At Least
Substantial
Loss of Use
Hospitals
1
0
0
0
Police Stations
Schools
3
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
La Veta
La Veta is one of the main population areas in Huerfano County that lies within a floodplain.
The Cucharas River has been described as creating a high risk of exposing the town of La
Veta to the risk of flooding.
The Cucharas (also known as the Cuchara River) has its headwaters on the eastern slope of
the Culebra Range of the Rocky Mountains. The river drains an area of about 735 square
miles and flows in a northeasterly direction for about 59 miles from its source to its junction
with the Huerfano River. The Cucharas River Valley is divided into three sections: (1) the
mountainous headwater section above La Veta, with deep and narrow gorges; (2) a
comparatively wide alluvial valley some 30 miles long below La Veta; and (3) a canyon
section through which the Cucharas River flows to its junction with the Huerfano River. The
headwater section of the Cucharas River above La Veta is very mountainous, reaching an
altitude of 13,623 feet above mean sea level. The mountain slopes are steep and rough and
support dense stands of spruce-fir, ponderosa pine, and pinon pine-juniper.
Middle Creek has its source in the Culebra Range west of La Veta and flows in an easterly
direction for about seven miles to join the Cucharas River just north of La Veta. The
watershed characteristics are similar to those of the Cucharas River.
Potential Impact
Population:
LaVeta had 924 people, 429 households, and 251 families residing in the town in 2000. The
population density was 748 people per square mile. There were 552 housing units at an
average density of 447 per square mile. Of the 429 households, 27% had children under the
age of 18, 45% were married couples living together, approximately 10% had a female
householder with no husband present, and 41% were non-families. Thirty-five % of all
households were made up of individuals and about 15% had someone living alone who was
65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.15 and the average family size
was 2.79.
Number of structures in floodplains: Small portions of four building lots in the Grandote Peaks
Golf and Country Club lie within the 100 year floodplain. Approval to build will require
approval of the Huerfano Board of County Commissioners.
Growth prospects:
The La Veta area has continued a slow growth trend since its 1970’s population of 589
residents. Those numbers increased to 924 in 2000, and 980 in 2006. It is projected that the
current growth rate will continue or even accelerate, despite the recent economic downturn.
Page 51
As a result, residents will have to confront many land use issues, and flooding is one of them,
although it does not appear to be the most critical.
Developments in the flood plains are primarily residential, but also include a mobile home
park, cabins and two motels. Some of these developments were located on the bank of the
Cucharas River. Transportation facilities crossing the streams and the floodplains are the
Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad and Colorado State Highway 12.
Past LaVeta Floods
Definitive data on velocities, magnitude, and duration of past floods in LaVeta are not readily
available. Two flooding events did occur in 1923 and 1946. The 1923 flood was reported as
being caused by the failure of the Mill Lake Dam, and was described as being "very bad"
in La Veta. The only particular damage that was remembered was that the railroad bridge was
washed out. The 1946 flood occurred during April or May. The highway bridge was washed
out and the railroad bridge was only saved by placing loaded railroad cars on the bridge. The
railroad bed at each end of the bridge was washed out however. It was reported that
considerable water from the Dyer Ditch flowed down Main Street (Colorado State Highway
12).
Walsenburg
The Cucharas River rises in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains about 35 miles west of
Walsenburg, and flows 62 miles in a general north-easterly direction through Huerfano and
Pueblo Counties to join the Huerfano River about 30 miles above its mouth. The Cucharas
River Basin is about 50 miles long and has a maximum width of about 20 miles.
Like LaVeta, Walsenburg also lies in the floodplain of the Cucharas River. In fact, the
Cucharas floodplain includes approximately half of the town and poses a high risk of flooding
to it. The chief of the Huerfano Fire Protection District reported that the northwest area of
Walsenburg was once considered at risk, but the runoff problem for that area was mitigated
when a nearby dam was constructed. However runoff volume sometimes threatens a bridge
in the area when the river rises significantly. According to the county assessor, flooding is a
concern along the Cucharas, but it has caused little property damage in her experience.
Existing developments on the flood plains in the Walsenburg area are primarily residential but
include commercial and industrial developments. Large amounts of the flood plains are rural
land. Although large areas of open space exist, limited flood plain development is anticipated
in the future because of the controls imposed by the flood insurance program.
A 1977 study showed Walsenburg was subject to flooding not only from the Cucharas River,
but also from Bear Creek, and the North Walsenburg Ditch. Although records did not indicate
that any large floods had occurred in the past, this report indicated that large floods are
possible in the future. Properties present in flood hazard areas included residential,
commercial, industrial and agricultural land.
In 1995, a study of flooding issues in Walsenburg concluded there were two primary issues of
concern facing Walsenburg. Findings were issued and recommendations for two distinct
projects were made. The first finding indicated a capacity problem with the existing Number 4
Ditch, also known as the Holita Ditch, along Colorado Avenue due to a storm drain that
provides an outlet to the ditch on the west end. Flooding along the ditch may occur during
storm events as a result of flow from the storm drain entering into the ditch. The peak flows
at the storm sewer outfall for various recurrence intervals were unknown at the time, and the
Page 52
city sought to address potential flood hazards by conducting a study that would lead to a
mitigation project.
The second primary issue involved a reservoir on the west side of the city that serves as a
flood control facility for Walsenburg. The reservoir is located on a ditch that receives storm
water runoff from a large drainage basin to the west of the city. The city was concerned over
the current FEMA floodplain delineation in the area of the North Walsenburg Flood Control
Dam overflow, and believed that the North Walsenburg Ditch had the capacity to handle the
flood flows if culverts at some of the street crossings were upgraded.
Upon completion of the field survey and collection of data, a feasibility study was
recommended to address the following topics: community description, community inventory,
description of problems and needs, project analyses and potential flood control solutions for
the Holita and North Walsenburg ditches.
Potential Impact
Population:
As of the census of 2000, there were 1,497 households, and 881 families residing in the city.
The population density was 1,795 people per square mile. There were 1,723 housing units at
an average density of 740 square miles. The racial makeup of the city was 75% white, 5%
African American, 3% Native American, 12% from other races, and 4% from two or more
races. Hispanic or Latino of any race constituted 51% of the population.
There were 1,497 households out of which 26% had children under the age of 18, 41% were
married couples living together, 14% had a female householder with no husband present, and
41% were non-families. Thirty-seven % of all households were made up of individuals and
19% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size
was 2.25 and the average family size was 2.95.
Page 53
Growth prospects:
Past Walsenburg Floods:
Little evidence of serious flooding in Walsenburg could be found from research. Nearly 75
years ago, local citizens reported that flooding occurred on August 6, 1936 when a railroad
bridge collapsed and, along with trees and other debris, plugged the river channel, causing
substantial damage to Walsenburg and the immediate vicinity. The storm that caused the
floodinq also caused serious flooding along the Huerfano River that runs a few miles north of
Walsenburg.
Page 54
1907 Cucharas River flood, Walsenburg
The Colorado Office of Emergency Management conducted a brief survey several years ago,
which was updated in 2007 with certain plans. Huerfano County indicated that it had
floodplain regulations in effect at that time.
The following communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program: the
unincorporated areas of Huerfano County, the town of La Veta, and the City of Walsenburg.
As a condition to participating in the program, each participant has committed to restrict the
building of structures in the flood-hazard areas delineated by FEMA FIRM (Flood-InsuranceRate Map) panels. This approach helps minimize the each participating community’s
vulnerability to flood damages to existing structures, and its restrictions prohibiting new
construction in unincorporated flood plain areas offer county residents additional protections
from the hazard of flooding.
According to NOAA, flash floods in the United States are responsible for more deaths than any
other thunderstorm phenomena. On a year to year basis in Colorado, only lightning is
deadlier.
Flash flooding is often the byproduct of the occurrence of very heavy rains falling in a short
period of time over a small geographic area, all of which combine to cause normally small
streams to turn violent. Flooding as a natural hazard is
a problem for Huerfano County, and the terrain in some
the area increases the potential for severe flooding.
Seasonal flooding occurs in mountainous areas of
Huerfano County during the spring when the mountain
snow pack starts its melting process. Heavy rainfall
sometimes combines with that runoff and causes some
rivers and streams to swell out of their banks. These
seasonal floods can begin as spring runoff appears
Page 55
following the first daily warmup. If the warming trend persists in a basin where the snow pack
has elevated water content, serious flooding can ensue. The total duration of snowmelt floods
is usually over a period of weeks rather than days. They yield a larger total volume in
comparison to other varieties of floods in Colorado. Peak flows are generally not as high as
flows for the other types of floods. A single cold day or cold front can interrupt a melting cycle
and cause the rising water to temporarily decline and stabilize until the cycle begins anew.
Once snowmelt floods have peaked, the daily decreases are moderate, but fairly constant.
Snowmelt flooding typically occurs in May, June, and early July.
Some flooding can be predicted by weather reports, but many times smaller flash floods are a
result of a microburst system, which overwhelms both natural and constructed drainage
systems. Such failures often cause excessive damage to towns, industry and farms in the
floodplain areas. Emergency services, transportation, power, water and wastewater services,
business and hazardous materials storage can be substantially disrupted, which can affect the
population located in or near the flooded area.
Huerfano County has one hundred reservoirs, five Class I and three Class II dams. The dams
have emergency preparedness plans in place.
Damage to Huerfano County’s Class I and II dams could prove to be severely disruptive and
even deadly to county residents, as well as to others. Class I and Class II dams are defined as
follows:
Page 56
Class I:
A dam shall be placed
in Class I when
failure would result in
probable loss of
human life.
Class II:
Significant damage is
expected, but not
loss of human life.
The phrase
“Significant damage”
refers to structural
damage where
humans live, work or
recreate, or to public
or private facilities
exclusive of unpaved
roads and picnic
areas. The term
“damage” refers to
rendering these
structures
uninhabitable or
inoperable.
Cucharas Reservoir Rehabilitation
The Huerfano-Cucharas Irrigation Company provides irrigation water to farmers in the
Arkansas valley. The company was organized in 1944 and owns and operates the Cucharas
Reservoir, which is located east of Walsenburg. The dam has a capacity of more than 35,000
acre feet, is 145 feet high rock fill dam that has been enlarged several times since its original
construction in 1914.
In May, 1987, and while the reservoir was full to the spillway crest, the dam developed
extensive seepage. Immediate action was taken to lower the water level and avoid a
complete failure. It was determined that some of the upstream concrete had failed and was
allowing large quantities of seepage flow to occur through the embankment. Portions of the
concrete facing were repaired in 1987 and 1988, but seepage again occurred and the
reservoir was drained to its present restricted height of 100 feet or 7,500 acre feet of storage
capacity. The dam has performed adequately at this level of restriction and has only had
moderate seepage since then. The spillway is however deemed inadequate and the condition
of the embankment and foundation is unknown. Additionally, the silt level in the reservoir has
significantly accumulated, but that condition appears to have been adequately remediated.
The dam’s storage restriction has been in place since 1988, with a deadline of October 1,
2010 to either rehabilitate it or replace it with a new one. Failing to implement either of these
solutions would cause the dam to be placed in a “zero no-storage restriction” status, followed
by an order to breach the dam and remove it as a hazard. While structural issues with the
present dam embankment make permanent higher reservoir storage infeasible, the dam has
been adequate for the past 23 years at the current restricted level. Consequently, and after
Page 57
weighing its alternatives, the company decided to rehabilitate the existing dam to permit a
reduced level of storage at 7,500 acre feet. The rehabilitation project involves lowering the
spillway, replacing outlet gates, installing a satellite monitoring system and updating the
dam’s Emergency Action Plan.
Some possible solutions to issues of flooding in Huerfano County are set out below, and are
also noted in Appendix A. These potential solutions incorporate some of the principles noted
above.
Impoundment:
Impoundments are projects that store flood water. There are many variations in the design of
impoundments and each site presents a unique set of issues to be worked through. The
primary goal of an impoundment project is to control flooding, but other benefits include
erosion control, sedimentation, wetland development, stream flow maintenance, water
supply, lake improvement and recreation. Costs may be prohibitive however, and other
possible negative effects may be obstruction of fish migration, interruption of riparian
corridors, unnatural stream flows, conversion of wetlands and other vegetative changes.
Because of the potential negative impact of an impoundment project, site selection and
design are critical. Flood control benefits must be balanced with land use rights, economic
impact, and social needs, among other things, prior to the commencement of an
impoundment project.
Some of the best candidates for flood impoundment include sites that are drained or poorly
drained wetlands, flood prone croplands, irregularly shaped fields or areas of farmland that
have proven difficult to tend.
Acequias
An “acequia” is a Spanish term derived from Arabic which means irrigation ditch or canal.
They are actually more sophisticated than the description suggests in that they are
engineered canals that carry water from a river or stream to distant farmlands. Based on the
flow of gravity, acequias move water in a snake-like pattern following the contour of the land,
turning slightly up a hill or around large trees and boulders to control the flow of water. The
acequia system is the oldest water management system in the United States and traces its
origins to the water systems of medieval Europe and northern Africa.
Page 58
Flooding – Other Historical Experiences
Huerfano County’s experience is that of frequent but not usually deadly flooding events.
Event 1: On July 23, 2008, two miles east southeast of Farisita, heavy rain from a slow
moving thunderstorm produced flash flooding near mile marker 17. No injuries or property
damage were reported.
Event 2: On July 19, 2007, heavy thunderstorms caused Highway 69 around mile marker 11,
about 8 miles east of Gardner, to close due to flooding. Heavy thunderstorm rain also
produced several areas of flash flooding over sections of southern Colorado. No property
damage or injuries were reported.
Event 3: On July 25, 2006, heavy thunderstorm rains and subsequent flooding caused road
damage about 2 miles southeast of La Veta.
Event 4: On July 16, 2004, a thunderstorm with very heavy rain caused flash flooding about
10 miles northeast of Walsenburg. Severe erosion occurred on area gravel and dirt roads.
Event 5: On July 6, 2002, rainfall of 1 to 3 inches in a short time frame caused flooding of
irrigation and other ditches as well as areas of deep water in parking lots in the vicinity of
Walsenburg.
Event 6: On August 29, 2000, heavy rain caused some small stream flooding as well as road
flooding approximately 17 miles northwest of Walsenburg.
Event 7: On May 1, 1999, the most significant river flooding along the Arkansas River since
about 1965 was caused by widespread and persistent rainfall, especially along the eastern
slopes of the southeast mountains. Widespread rainfall totals in excess of 8 inches in 40 hours
Page 59
was recorded, while some locations received in excess of 13 inches of rain in 48 hours. The
heavy rain event led to widespread river flooding, especially along the Arkansas River as well
as the Fountain Creek watershed. By the morning of May 2nd portions of northern La Junta
were under 5 to 6 feet of water, which damaged or destroyed over 250 homes and
businesses. Nearly 100 other structures were damaged or destroyed. Many irrigation ditches
in southeast Colorado sustained damage to channels and gates. Agricultural lands were swept
away, and the channel of the Arkansas River was significantly altered in many locales.
Significant flooding occurred between Rocky Ford and La Junta along the Arkansas River.
There were numerous roads washed out and bridges destroyed by the flood waters. Huerfano
County was not as severely impacted as some other areas, but overall property damage was
placed at $4.2 million, while crop damages totaled $3.6 million.
Event 8: Going back to the early part of the 20th century, on August 6, 1908 while driving
across a dry arroyo, John Wondergern, a sixteen-year-old boy, was caught by a flood of water
in a dry arroyo near Maitland. The water came down in a wall six feet high, drowning John.
His more fortunate younger brother was spared only by being washed into a wire fence from
which he could seek safety.
Other Hazards (not ranked as “priority”)
To conform to FEMA’s guidance for PDMP development and to consider as many potentially
relevant hazards as possible, the Huerfano County planning team reviewed a comprehensive
list of hazards in addition to those prioritized above. The other hazards considered by the
planning team include natural and manmade hazards and are set forth in some detail below:
ASTEROID/COMET IMPACT
Asteroids are rocky, metallic objects that orbit the Sun but are too small to be considered
planets. They are also known as minor planets, and those measuring less than ten meters
across are called meteoroids. Asteroids range in size from Ceres, which has a diameter of
about 1000 kilometers, down to the size of pebbles. Sixteen asteroids have a diameter of 240
kilometers or greater. They have been found inside Earth's orbit to out beyond Saturn's orbit.
Most are contained within a main belt that exists between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.
Some have orbits that cross Earth's path and some have struck the Earth over the years. One
of the best preserved examples is the well known Barringer Meteor Crater near Winslow,
Arizona.
Comets and asteroids have sometimes been grouped together, and a few objects have ended
up being dual-listed because they were first classified as minor planets but later showed
evidence of cometary activity. Conversely, some and, perhaps, even all comets are eventually
depleted of their surface volatile ices and become asteroids. A further distinction between the
two objects is that comets typically have more eccentric orbits than most asteroids. Actually
most "asteroids" with notably eccentric orbits are probably dormant or extinct comets.
The night skies of Huerfano County are generally devoid of the light pollution often found in
more densely populated, highly lit areas. Meteor viewing is a somewhat routine pastime as a
result. Despite the thrill of witnessing a meteor flash, hazards varying in degrees of severity
are posed by some of the objects entering earth’s atmosphere. The main concern faced by
Huerfano residents is about the damage that can be done when a large celestial object
impacts the county. The likelihood of such an incident may be relatively small, but the
discovery in June, 2004 of a new, “near-Earth object”, known as “2004 MN4” a 320 meter
Page 60
wide asteroid, caused astronomers to refine their initial calculations from one chance in 170,
to a greater one that the stone object, will hit the earth as soon as April, 2029. Also known as
Apophis, further investigations have since shown this asteroid will pass harmlessly by, but at
a distance of between 15,000 to 25,000 miles.
In March, 2009, it was reported in March, 2009, that a 200-foot wide asteroid zoomed past
Earth at an altitude of 40,000 miles, swerving just far enough from the planet to avoid total
destruction. Called “2009 DD45”, the space body was discovered by Australian astronomers.
Although 40,000 miles seems like a safe distance, it's only about one-seventh of the way to
the moon and less than twice as far into space as most satellites orbit. Had 2009 DD45
slammed down onto the Earth, it would have exploded with the force of a large nuclear blast
somewhere in the Pacific Ocean west of Tahiti. Astronomers believe this asteroid is likely to
return for another series of near misses since it appears to be drawn in by our planet's
gravity. An astronomer at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, said the last rock "as
large or larger than this to come this close was in 1973 and the next time will be in 2029
when Apophis makes its close approach."
253 Mathilde, a C-type asteroid measuring about 50 kilometers (31.1 mi) across
An earthly impact with such objects would be cataclysmic. They would act like huge, violently
destructive missiles, and would carry the potential to cause massive destruction and loss of
life. Based on the estimated size of Apophis, it is estimated that a strike on land would
destroy an area about the size of Texas. If the asteroid hit water the resulting tsunamis would
be larger than anything ever experienced. Some scientists state that even if the asteroid
misses the earth in 2029, its gravitational effects may be such that it develops an “orbit
match up” with our planet which brings it close again in the years 2034 through 2038, and
possibly even later.
An impact by even a 1 kilometer or greater diameter object could have serious global
environmental consequences and societal ramifications, and a 3 kilometer asteroid could
threaten the future of human civilization. Because of uncertainties of location, it is reasonable
to assume that unprecedented global consequences would result even from a smaller impact.
Beyond that, impacts by much smaller asteroids, approximately 100 - 200 meters in size, are
much more likely and could trigger a regional catastrophe of a magnitude that governmental
agencies are ill-prepared to deal with. “Near Earth” objects of less than 30 meters diameter
cannot cause significant damage on the ground, although psychological reactions to an
unexpected blast in the upper atmosphere the equivalent of 1 megaton of TNT could have
serious adverse consequences.
Despite the discovery of 2004 MN4 and 2009 DD45, and some evidence that future serious
impacts with Earth are highly likely, there are no credible forecasts of asteroid strikes in the
Huerfano planning area. Furthermore, there are no known mitigation strategies that Huerfano
Page 61
County could undertake on its own and, for that simple reason, asteroids and comets
represent a hazard beyond the scope of this planning effort.
AVALANCHE
An avalanche is a rapid flow of snow down a slope, triggered by either natural causes or
human activity. Typically occurring in mountainous terrain, an avalanche can mix air and
water with the descending snow. Powerful avalanches have the capability to entrain ice,
rocks, trees, and other material on the slope; however avalanches are always initiated in
snow, are primarily composed of flowing snow, and are distinct from mudslides, rock slides,
rock avalanches, and serac collapses from an icefall. In mountainous terrain avalanches are
among the most serious objective hazards to life and property, with a tremendous destructive
capability due to the potential capability of carrying enormous masses of snow rapidly over
large distances. Avalanches often occur on grades steeper than about 20 to 30 degrees and
can reach speeds of 200 miles per hour. They can exert enough force to destroy buildings and
uproot large and healthy trees.
A powder snow avalanche
Avalanches are a significant threat as
development and recreation increase in
Colorado’s mountain areas. Data show the
incidence of avalanches has increased, as have
the number of people affected by these events.
Information from avalanche accidents shows
that they occur in about one-third of the states,
and most frequently in much of the West where
they are the most lethal form of mass
movement. Mortality prompted by snow
avalanches exceeds the average mortality due
to earthquakes and all other forms of slope
failure combined on an annual basis. On some
instances, avalanches affect a significant sector of the public, involve a number of private
organizations and require cooperation and action by government agencies at the federal,
state and local levels. The avalanche hazard causes economic loss to residents, businesses,
transportation systems and government agencies and can have a negative impact on the local
economy of the affected area.
From 1950 to 2007, Colorado experienced more than double the number of avalanche-related
fatalities as Alaska, the next most dangerous state. In the Sangre de Cristo range of
Huerfano County, conditions conducive to avalanches have occurred during the winter as a
result of heavy snow accumulation on steep slopes.
Page 62
The Sangre de Cristo area of Huerfano County exhibits susceptibility to avalanche activity.
Some visitors travel into the backcountry ill-equipped and without an adequate appreciation
for the dangers that avalanches pose. The rescue and recovery of those caught in avalanches
is sometimes a labor-intensive process and a dangerous task for the emergency personnel
Page 63
involved. It is not uncommon for the number of rescue personnel acting in an avalanche
response operation to far exceed the number of people who are caught in the avalanche.
Fortunately, such efforts have not been a frequent requirement of Huerfano County
emergency personnel, and there have been no reported avalanche-related fatalities in the
county between 1950 and 2007. As a result, participants in the survey conducted pursuant to
this planning effort did not see the need to rank the avalanche threat to Huerfano County as
one requiring priority status.
DISEASE OUTBREAK
The potential for an outbreak of disease in Huerfano County appears to be no greater or
worse than that facing any other largely rural county in the state of Colorado. The hazard is
one rarely experienced, but it poses an insidious risk to the residents of Huerfano County if it
ever does strike. All persons who reside in the area are theoretically at some risk of falling ill
in the event that a disease outbreak occurs. Damages and losses that might accompany a
human disease outbreak are primarily limited to effects on human populations and health,
and would typically leave structures, utilities or transportation largely unaffected. Impacts on
public health and safety facilities might occur, but some buildings, furnishings and belongings
that come into contact with a diseased person may need to be destroyed should they be
deemed infectious.
In addition to the human losses associated with a disease outbreak, other damages or losses
associated with an outbreak or outbreaks would most likely include economic losses
associated with work absences or a loss in productivity due to disease; adverse impacts on
hospitals and other health care facilities and staff, and the fear and emotional anxiety that
would accompany a severe outbreak. The economic impact also depends on the attack and
fatality rates of the disease, its duration, the behavior and preparedness of households and
businesses, as well as the capacity and preparedness of health care systems. All of these
factors are relative unknowns at this time, but they can be influenced through plan
preparation and public education.
Supply and demand will also affect the economy during a disease outbreak. The supply side
will be affected by social isolation and quarantine, absenteeism, the disruption of essential
services, telecommuting, and caring for sick family and friends. The supply side will also be
affected by disruptions in transport, trade, payment systems, and major utilities services. The
demand side will be affected by decreased spending and investing, much as we are
experiencing on a nationwide basis during the current economic recession. If a severe
pandemic like that of 1918 occurs, the long term impacts will influence tourism and exports,
and trade and transportation restrictions may be enacted. In short, the global financial
system will be severely damaged.
A pandemic of influenza, or flu, occurs when a new flu virus rapidly spreads from human-tohuman and country-to- country around the world. A new virus can spread rapidly because
most people lack the requisite immunity to ward it off. Pandemics are not simply especially
bad flu seasons, and in fact, they are not seasonal at all. Pandemics can happen any time of
year. The difference between a pandemic and an epidemic is stark. An epidemic is an
outbreak of a disease that occurs in one or several limited areas, like a city, state, or country.
Once the disease spreads beyond the borders of several countries and affects many countries,
it has reached pandemic proportions.
As we have come to learn, pandemic influenza is not a new threat to man. Historically, there
have been a number of such outbreaks, and many experts believe we are soon due for
Page 64
another. Avian influenza has moved across the world, and it kills more than 60% of its
victims. The Avian Flu or Bird Flu is of concern now; specifically the H5N1 virus. This virus
has infected many birds in Asia, and has had a 100% fatality rate in chickens. Ducks and
geese are an incubator for the disease, and pass the virus along to other birds. When the
virus adapts and finds the ability to efficiently transmit from human to human is when
concern about pandemic influenza is raised. The emergence of a new virus also means that
new vaccines must be developed, and this process can take months to years to prepare and
distribute.
Further mutations in currently circulating strains of Avian Flu could launch new infections in
human beings, and if that happens, hundreds of thousands if not millions could be in jeopardy
and many countries would be affected. While work has been underway to prepare for such a
biological event there is more to be done because of the belief that a widespread pandemic
influenza event could destroy the security of the nation. In the last century, several
pandemics of influenza occurred, with the largest, most damaging one occurring in 1918.
Influenza is a highly contagious respiratory virus that is responsible for some 36,000 deaths
in the United States each year. Approximately five to twenty percent of the population is sick
with the flu each year, and it is estimated to cause over 200,000 hospitalizations annually.
Every year the influenza virus makes natural minor changes in the genetic pattern as the
virus replicates. This is called “Antigenic drift”. An annual flu shot is needed because of this
yearly mutation, and the newly mutated virus has the potential to start a pandemic outbreak
of influenza.
During the 20th century three pandemics occurred. The 1918 “Spanish Flu” killed
approximately 40 million people world wide and 675,000 in the United States. This particular
flu virus was so potent that it even killed healthy young adults, which is rare. In 1957-58,
the “Asian Flu”, killed approximately 4 million people worldwide and 70,000 in the US. In
1968-69, the “Hong Kong” flu killed approximately 4 million people worldwide and 34,000 in
the US.
In those years, and especially in 1918, citizens and the country were more self-sufficient,
traveled less and by slower means, communication was considerably slower, there were fewer
people and they had a narrower range of contacts, households were larger and stockpiled
food. And much like the people of the Middle Ages in the time of the bubonic plague, they
were largely unprepared for such outbreaks of disease.
In 2009, people move about much more rapidly and communicate constantly. Increased
population generally means more personal contact. Households aren’t as crowded, but very
little stockpiling of food and supplies take place, with impulse or “on-demand” buying being
more typical. There are more elderly immune-compromised people in the population.
Globalization, increased drug resistance, and climate change are among the factors
contributing to the growing threat from various infectious diseases. The preparedness for
such horrific diseases is better, but still requires improvement.
Some other major disease threats currently facing the United States include such diseases as
severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA), which is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. More than 90,000
Americans have been infected by MRSA. Approximately 3.2 million Americans have hepatitis C
infections, which causes an estimated $15 billion a year expenditure for health-care.
HIV/AIDS is another disease which affects about 1.2 million Americans. Also, re-emerging
diseases, such as measles, mumps and tuberculosis, which were thought to be nearly
eliminated in the United States pose a threat too.
Page 65
Communicable diseases that are monitored by the World Health Organization include both
familiar and some exotic threats such as anthrax, avian influenza, Crimean-Congo
hemorrhagic fever (CCHF), dengue hemorrhagic fever, Ebola hemorrhagic fever, hepatitis,
influenza, Lassa fever, Marburg hemorrhagic fever, Nipah Virus (NiV) Infection, Plague Rift
Valley fever, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), smallpox, tularemia and Yellow
fever.
Several reasonable planning assumptions can be made about a pandemic scenario:
•
Localities must be prepared to rely on their own resources to respond, at least initially.
The effect of influenza on individual communities can be 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, adding to further strain on the health care system.
•
Outbreaks can be expected to occur simultaneously throughout much of Colorado and,
possibly, the entire country. This will prevent shifts in human and material resources that
usually occur in response to other disasters such as flooding.
•
Of those who become ill with influenza, approximately 50% will seek outpatient medical
care.
•
The typical incubation period (interval between infection and onset of symptoms) for
influenza is two days.
•
Persons who become ill may “shed” 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.
Some reports estimate that at least 170,000 Americans die each year from infectious
diseases, and that number will very likely increase dramatically during a major disease
outbreak. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that anywhere from 90 million to 200
million people could become ill from the flu in the next pandemic in the US alone, and they
estimate that up to 1.9 million deaths could occur. Casualties of this magnitude would simply
overwhelm the health care system in the United States.
DISEASE OUTBREAK – Historical Experience
Page 66
The Colorado Department of Health and Environment maintains statistics about diseases that
pose a threat or have impacted Huerfano County in the recent past:
One case of MRSA was reported in 2008.
In 2007, Huerfano County experienced one case of chronic Hepatitis B, and ten cases of
chronic Hepatitis C. Two individuals in the county contracted influenza which required
hospitalization and one case each of viral meningitis, pertussis and West Nile virus were
reported.
In 2006, Huerfano experienced 13 cases of chronic Hepatitis C, six cases of influenza that
required hospitalization, five cases of varicella (chicken pox), and one each of hantavirus,
chronic hepatitis B, legionellonis (Legionnaires’ disease), salmonellosis and STEC (the toxin
producing e.coli)
Fortunately, no major disease outbreaks have occurred in the state in recent memory, but
many experts are worried that the nation and, indeed, the world are overdue for an outbreak
of pandemic flu. Interestingly, the first national risk assessment conducted recently in Great
Britain described pandemic flu as the most serious threat facing that nation, one even greater
than that posed by terrorism.
Notwithstanding some of the ominous warnings being sounded by health experts in the past
decade or so, Huerfano County’s planning team believes this threat should be ranked as a
non-priority one.
DROUGHT
Drought is a normal climate feature that occurs almost everywhere. Its features however vary
from region to region, and the definition of a drought depends on differences in regions,
needs, and perspectives. As an example, drought in Libya might occur when annual rainfall is
less than 180 millimeters, but in Bali, drought might be considered to occur after a period of
only a week without rain. In the most general sense, drought originates from a deficiency of
precipitation over an extended period of time, resulting in a water shortage for some activity,
group, or environmental sector. However it is defined, drought cannot be viewed solely as a
physical phenomenon due to its potentially far-reaching effects.
High temperatures, high winds and low humidity can worsen drought conditions and can
make areas more susceptible to wildfire. Human needs, demands and actions sometimes
hasten drought-related impacts. Droughts are generally categorized as one of four types:
•
Meteorological
•
Agricultural
•
Hydrological
•
Socio-economic
Briefly, meteorological droughts are typically defined by the level of “dryness” wherein actual
precipitation is less than the normal amount of precipitation over a certain period of time. As
the name implies, agricultural droughts are based on deficiencies in soil moisture with regard
to the demands of plant life. Emphasis tends to be placed on factors such as soil water
deficits, water needs based on differing stages of crop development and water reservoir
levels. Hydrological drought is directly related to the effect of precipitation shortages on
surface and groundwater supplies. Human-based factors, such as changes in land use,
sometimes impact the hydrologic characteristics of a basin. Lastly, socio-economic drought is
Page 67
the result of water shortages that limit the ability to supply water-dependent products in the
marketplace.
Drought has always played a prominent role in Colorado’s history, and it is one of the most
destructive of all natural hazards. Unlike some other natural hazards, its onset is slow and
silent but the effects can linger for years. Geographically, drought can occur locally, regionally
or statewide. The impacts from drought are non-structural and generally affect the economy
and environment of the afflicted area. A drought event can be a short term or multi-year
event, much like the drought that severely affected Colorado in the past several years.
Scientific studies have shown that Colorado has experienced drought periods lasting ten years
and longer. Research suggests that multi-year droughts typically have one peak year that is
more dramatic and more devastating than all of the others. Recorded information suggests
that 2002 was the peak year of the most recent drought event.
The risk of drought is generally uniform across the Huerfano County area and will track
conditions in the rest of the region. Annual precipitation is fairly consistent across the county
with variations occurring with the change in topography from mountain to valley floors.
Different areas of Huerfano County receive an average precipitation ranging from about 10
inches at the county’s eastern edge to 36 inches or more in the Cuchara area. With such
levels, any real decrease in moisture over a prolonged period of time can negatively impact
the region. Along with individuals and families, local industries such as tourism, farming and
recreation can be disrupted at a parcel level by the effects of a drought.
According to its land use plan, Huerfano County has a problem with water availability due to
problems of in terms of time and space. What this means in essence is that the most
abundant water supply isn’t located in an area of the county where it is most needed. The
Page 68
upper portions of Huerfano County enjoys the most plentiful supply of water, whereas
irrigated land is found primarily in the lower part of the county. The water supply is generally
considered adequate, and sometimes excessive during the spring during the early stages of
the growing season, but is generally deficient by the time of the late growing season as
summer comes to an end. In times of drought, the issue of the distribution of water
resources can cause great hardship on local farmers.
Throughout Huerfano County, the amount of rain that falls can vary wildly from year to year,
producing periods of flood and drought on an alternating basis. Maximum annual amounts of
precipitation can be nearly three times greater than the minimal annual precipitation as
recorded in the county’s measuring stations. Networks of irrigation ditches and small
reservoirs alleviate some of the seasonal and annual variations, but the county’s agricultural
production remains largely dependent on natural climate patterns. The county has substantial
groundwater resources but it is of uneven quality and has been in greater demand due to
continued development over the years.
Snow depth and water content measurements taken at the principal snow course measuring
stations in Huerfano County can exhibit similarly broad fluctuations. The annual stream flows
on the Cucharas and Huerfano rivers have exhibited variations ranging up to 1,000 percent.
These are the county’s two main rivers and, as a practical matter, the extremes in flow
measurement represent the difference between flood conditions and periods of severe
drought.
Huerfano County was declared a disaster area on several occasions by the USDA due to
drought events occurring between 2000 and 2008. In 2008, agricultural values for Huerfano
County lands were assessed at $6,811,861, a far lower number than the putative values.
DROUGHT - Historical Experience
Event 1: 2008
Huerfano County was one of several counties in Colorado designated as primary natural
disaster areas by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) because of losses caused by
drought that occurred between January and September, 2008.
Event 2: 2005-2006
Huerfano County was twice designated as a primary natural disaster area by the USDA due to
a combination of drought, fire, high winds, heat, insect infestation and crop diseases during
this period.
Event 3: 2003
Drought and insects were the major causes for Huerfano being designated as a natural
disaster area by the USDA during this year.
Event 4: The Drought of 2002
The severity and impact of this drought deserve an expanded discussion.
That year’s drought actually had its beginnings in the fall of 1999. After a very wet spring in
1999 and a soggy August, precipitation patterns reversed and the fall of 1999 was very dry
across most of Colorado. The winter of 1999-2000 remained dry with below average snow
Page 69
accumulation and significantly warmer than average temperatures. The mountains west of
Huerfano in southwestern Colorado were especially particularly hard hit by a shortage of snow
for winter recreation and summer water supply. The winter was followed by a very dry spring
and early summer in 2000 over northeast Colorado and the South Platte watershed, and
drought conditions emerged shortly after. By then, the entire western United States was in
the midst of a severe drought that resulted in the most severe wildfire season on record. The
hot summer of 2000 continued the pattern.
Page 70
The 2001 water year was not as severe but was still relatively dry. While spring and summer
precipitation was close to normal, hotter than average temperatures for the second summer
in a row resulted in high evaporation rates and continued the depletion of soil moisture and
surface water supplies. This weather background set the stage for the next year, which
became infamously known as the drought of 2002. Beginning in September 2001, storm
systems became more infrequent and precipitation sparse. Much of western and southern
Colorado, including Huerfano County, received less than half the normal amount of
September precipitation and temperatures were several degrees warmer on average across
the state. Later fall weather patterns were promising but precipitation levels proved to be
disappointing, and the pattern continued that way until late November. Only then did
significant snow fall. Dry powdery snow blanketed a large area and was quite deep in the
mountains by the end of the month. Snow pack water content remained below average
however, and this late November snowfall was the only significant stormy period for the year.
In fact, many areas of the state picked up less than half the December average and east of
the mountains only a few millimeters of moisture were measured. January, 2002 brought
seasonally lower temperatures and above average snowfall for the southeastern plains of
Colorado, but such precipitation east of the mountains typically does little to replenish overall
water supplies. Southwestern Colorado was the driest portion of the state with many locations
in the San Juan, Animas and Dolores watersheds receiving less than 10% of the 30- year
average. The snow pack water content by the end of February, 2002 was only 80% of
average at best in portions of northern Colorado. Southern Colorado was even worse where
the snow pack water content was measured at only about 40-50% of average. March storms
did not contribute the significant wet snows that Colorado spring snowstorms typically
produce. Furthermore, the storms nearly skipped southeastern Colorado completely. Most of
the state was very dry with nearly half at less than 50% of average. By the end of March, the
statewide snow water equivalent, as a percent of average, was a mere 52% and all portions
of Colorado’s mountains were far below average. April brought the reality of drought as none
of the usual spring storms that dump heavy and widespread precipitation materialized.
Almost no precipitation fell in eastern Colorado, and mountain precipitation was also virtually
nonexistent. To worsen the situation, April temperatures soared to record highs, especially in
the mountains, and mountain snow melted or evaporated at an alarming rate. Relative
humidity on several afternoons often fell to below 10%. Fire danger, which is generally at low
levels through early June, was already high by mid April, and the first severe forest fire of the
season ignited near Bailey on April 23rd. Persistent strong winds also occurred and were
accompanied by higher than average temperatures. Farmers had to use supplies of irrigation
water earlier than normal, and that resulted in premature depletion of the already limited
water supplies. May was even worse than April for precipitation, and only the northern Front
Range area received significant moisture. At a time of year when Colorado’s rivers and
streams are normally roiling, there were only occasional glimpses of a normal spring
snowmelt runoff. Irrigation water demand was high, but it was clear that supplies would not
last through the growing season and counties and many municipalities began to face the
possibility that available water supplies might not meet the typical summertime demand.
Many areas implemented strict water conservation regulations. More forest fires broke out as
Page 71
June and July brought relentless
summer heat. Vegetation that
normally grows lush and tall during
the spring barely greened up. By
June, relative humidity often
dropped to less than 10%, and
bans on outside burning were
enforced statewide. Temperatures
routinely climbed above 100
degrees at lower elevations east
and west of the mountains. Little
precipitation fell for the entire
month over western Colorado. To
the east of the mountains, a few
thunderstorms occurred and some
local areas enjoyed respectable
rainfall amounts. Parts of far
eastern Colorado, for example,
reported more than 10 centimeters
of rain in June. But with the
persistently high temperatures, frequent strong winds, and low humidity, the rain barely
greened the native vegetation. Winter wheat crop conditions continued their rapid
deterioration, and ranchers sold or moved all or parts of their herds in response to the poor
range conditions and high cost of feed. The most severe fires of the season broke out in June,
including the Hayman fire southwest of Denver. That blaze quickly grew to be the largest
documented forest fire in Colorado. Wildfire smoke could be seen almost every day, but as
humidity rose later in the summer, fires spread more slowly, and some were successfully
extinguished. July is normally the most lightning prolific month of the year, but in 2002
thunderstorms were few. This helped the fire situation by reducing the number of natural
ignitions. Some locations enjoyed showers and thunderstorms during July, and a few localized
areas, mostly in or near the mountains, ended up with near average rainfall for the month.
But most areas remained dry. The eastern plains were parched with most areas reporting less
than 30% of their average July precipitation. Even where irrigation water held out, crops
withered under the stress of heat and low humidity. Many area water supplies dried out,
irrigation was curtailed, and crop failure ensued. By late July, Colorado was in a serious
drought, and this condition was pronounced in Huerfano County. Furthermore, drought
conditions were not limited just to Colorado, but extended over much of the Great Plains and
Rocky Mountain States.
By mid-August, the drought situation was being compared to the great Dust Bowl of the
1930s. As the month drew to a close, a subtle change in weather patterns brought a round of
spring-like thunderstorms loaded with hail and high winds to portions of eastern Colorado.
The hail did little damage, however, since so few crops were still growing in late August. For
the state as a whole, August precipitation was still below average, but unlike previous months
some large areas of eastern Colorado received heavy rains. More than double the August
average was observed from eastern Weld County down to northwest Kit Carson County.
Humid and stormy weather continued into September and, for the first time since August
2001, the majority of Colorado received above average rainfall. Temperatures were still
warmer than average, but with the cooler air of fall, frequent showers and a few soaking
rains, grass actually began to green up a bit. Parts of Colorado accumulated at least double
the average monthly rainfall. Even the bone-dry areas of southwest Colorado received some
much-needed moisture with some areas reporting more than 10 centimeters of moisture for
the month. With cooler weather and the growing season ending, the worst of the 2002
drought had passed.
Page 72
The severity of the drought had a devastating effect on the state and local economies.
Colorado’s economy suffered an estimated $1.1 billion impact on agriculture, tourism and
recreation. Ranchers in southern Colorado sold 80% of their herds due to lack of water,
outfitters estimated recreational visitation was down 40% and fishing licenses sales were
down by 93,000. This decline had a $1.8 million impact alone on the state’s Division of
Wildlife.
Within Huerfano County, drought effects were visible in more than the agricultural sector.
Numerous summertime visitors to the area come for camping, hiking, fishing and outdoor
activities. Many of the visitors are in-state residents of Colorado, and they enjoy a variety of
campgrounds for long weekends and brief getaways. The drought of 2002 caused the region
to go into a full fire ban and many campgrounds and forest areas were closed to the public.
These measures predictably deterred many would-be tourists from the region and their tourist
dollars were spent elsewhere.
EARTHQUAKE
An earthquake is the motion or trembling of the ground produced by a sudden displacement
of rock in the Earth's crust. Earthquakes occur as the result of crustal strain, volcano activity,
landslides, or the collapse of caverns, and the affect can be massive. Earthquakes can
sometimes be felt over hundreds of thousands of square miles, cause damage to property
measured in the tens of billions of dollars, result in loss of life and injury to hundreds of
thousands of persons and cause major social and economic disruptions.
Colorado is a region of minor earthquake activity, although there are many uncertainties
about that characterization because of the short time period for which historical data is
available. According to the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), Colorado’s earthquake hazard
and risk has historically been rated lower than most knowledgeable scientists in the state
consider justified. As a result, local emergency managers are generally unaware of the size
and consequences of an earthquake that could occur in the state. FEMA’s HAZUS 99 study
gave the state an estimated Annualized Earthquake Loss (AEL) of $5.8 million, which ranked
Colorado 30th in the nation.
The northwestern and southwestern corners, and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in the
south-central section of the State, have had no activity in historic times. Eastern Colorado is
nearly aseismic, with just a few epicenters in the Arkansas and Platte River Valleys. Most
shocks in the history of this State have centered west of the Rocky Mountain Front Range.
Earthquakes in Colorado, 1867-1996
Page 73
More than 500 earthquake tremors of
magnitude 2.5 or higher have been
recorded in Colorado since 1867. More
earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 to 3
probably occurred during that time, but
went unreported because of the
sparse distribution of population
and limited instrument coverage in
much of the state.
For comparison, more than 20,500
similar-sized events have been
recorded in California during the
same time period. The largest known
earthquake in Colorado occurred on
November 7, 1882 and had an
estimated magnitude of 6.5. The
location of this earthquake was in
the northern Front Range west of
Fort Collins. Relative to other western states,
Colorado’s earthquake hazard is higher than Kansas or Oklahoma, but lower than Utah, and
significantly lower than that of Nevada and California. Even though the seismic hazard in
Colorado is low to moderate, it is likely that future damaging earthquakes will occur, and it is
reasonable to expect future earthquakes as large as the one of magnitude 6.5. Calculations
based on the historical earthquake record and geological evidence of recent fault activity
suggest that an earthquake of magnitude 6 or greater may be expected somewhere in
Colorado every several centuries.
Although no specific information was located for earthquake activity in Huerfano County,
nearby areas have some identified and suspected fault areas, some of which are located in
Costilla County.
The following information is derived from DOLA’s Earthquake Evaluation Report based on the
HAZUS 99 study:
Page 74
Huerfano County HAZUS 99 Earthquake Loss Estimate
Population
7,862
%
Growth
since
1990
County
size
(sq.mi)
30.8%
1,578
Inventory
value
$1,983.50 M
Faults
within
county
Alvarado;
Bear Creek;
Farista
Faults;
Greenhorn;
Ilse; La Veta
Faults West
(LC),
Westcliffe
(LC), Wet
Mountains
South (LC)
Historical
Earthquakes
None
Faults
analyzed
for county
Goodpasture
N Sangre de
Cristo
Previous
Studies
None
HAZUS Risk
Goodpasture
M6.0 – 0 fatal,
$3.7 Million
(-0.18%)
N Sangre: M7.5
– 0 fatal, $37.8
Million (-1.9%)
M6.5 – 0 fatal,
$2.3 Million
(-0.1%)
Page 75
EARTHQUAKES – Historical Experience
Event 1:
In the early morning hours of October 4, 2008 a 3.4 magnitude earthquake was experienced
in the Trinchera Peak area. The epicenter was first marked as being about 4.16 miles
southwest of Trinchera Peak. The epicenter was later determined to be about 12.3 miles
southeast of East Spanish Peak, and about 5 miles south of the town of Gulnare. No damage
occurred, but the quake was felt in Gulnare and also in Cuchara.
Event 2:
In October 1966, a southeast Colorado tremor rocked a 15,000 square-mile area of the State
and bordering New Mexico. Minor damage, in the form of broken windows and dishes and
cracked walls and plaster, occurred at Aguilar, Segundo, Trinchera, and Trinidad.
Event 3:
According to the website kmitch.com/Huerfano/news, during March, 1925 an unusually
pronounced earthquake was reported at Pueblo and along the Greenhorn range as far west as
Rosita. No other details were forthcoming about the tremor.
It is difficult to accurately forecast the timing or location of future damaging earthquake
activity. Over the years seismic activity has been detected in and close to Huerfano County,
but no significant events have been recorded to date. It is largely for that reason that this
potentially destructive hazard is considered by county residents and experts as a relatively
minor threat.
Page 76
LANDSLIDES/ROCKSLIDES
Landslides, including rock fall and other debris flow, exist as a natural hazard in almost every
state in the United States. They are a serious geologic hazard, and sometimes present a
threat to human life. More often they result in a disruption of everyday services, including
emergency response capabilities. Landslides and rockslides can and do block transportation
routes, dam creeks and drainages and contaminate water supplies. When these hazards
affect transportation routes they are frequently expensive to clean-up and can have
significant economic impact on the affected area.
FEMA describes debris flows, sometimes referred to as mudslides, mudflows, lahars, or debris
avalanches, as common types of fast-moving landslides. These flows most often occur during
or after periods of intense rainfall or rapid snow melt. They typically start on steep hillsides
and liquefy and accelerate to speeds of about ten miles per hour. They can exceed thirty-five
miles per hour in more extreme cases. Debris flows have a consistency ranging from watery
mud to a thick, rocky paste that can carry large items such as boulders, trees and cars and
damage road surfaces. Flows from many different sources can combine in channels, and
increase in destructive power. These flows continue and grow in volume with the addition of
water, sand, mud, boulders, trees and other materials it picks up on its descent. When the
flows reach flatter ground, the debris spreads over a broad area, sometimes accumulating in
thick deposits that can cause significant destruction in developed areas.
Wildfires sometimes lead to destructive debris-flow activity. In July 1994, the tragic
wildfire on Storm King Mountain, west of Glenwood Springs killed fourteen firefighters. It also
stripped the slopes of vegetation, and the heavy rains that followed in September caused
numerous debris flows from the mountain, one of
which blocked Interstate 70 and threatened to dam
the Colorado River. A tragic situation was also made
worse two months later because of the debris flow.
Rock falls, sinkholes, subsidence, swelling or
expansive soils and debris flows are all considered
geologic hazards related to landslides.
The Texas Creek Boulder Field is one of the most
interesting such fields in the Sangre de Cristo Range.
The feature gives the impression of a moonscape. A
portion of the massive boulder field lies at 11,500 feet, high in the Texas Creek drainage.
The Texas Creek Boulder Field is a prime example of landslide topography. Cabin-size
boulders are common on the east flank of the Sangre de Cristo Range, northwest of
Westcliffe, Colorado. Composed of sandstone and conglomerate, the huge boulders represent
numerous rock falls and rock slide events, during the last 50,000 years of earth history. Rock
falls and rock slides are the dominant types of landslide features in the upper Texas Creek
area, where huge blocks of sandstone and conglomerate have slid and tumbled downslope.
The blocks were derived from nearby exposures of Late Paleozoic Sangre de Cristo Formation.
A landslide scar is visible near the head of the valley, providing evidence of where some of
the blocks tumbled from the local bedrock.
Page 77
Contributing factors that promote landslides are present at the head of the Texas Creek
Drainage. These include inclined bedding that slants 25 to 30 degrees downslope, steep
topography, and a source of moisture from snow melt to saturate rock masses and lubricate
bedding planes and fractures within the bedrock. Fortunately, this spectacular field is
remotely located in high wilderness area and poses no threat to any population center in
nearby Huerfano County.
The state’s most recent Landslide plan did not identify any areas of unusual susceptibility in
Huerfano County. Colorado’s plan compiled the identified areas of vulnerability into different
priorities described in three distinct categories or tiers based upon the severity 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.
Overall most of Huerfano County is considered a “low” level landslide hazard area according
to the state map as set forth below.
AREA OF CONCERN: LaVeta
Notwithstanding the relative freedom from harmful landslides enjoyed by most of the county,
one specific area has been identified as a potential threat to life and property. That is the area
immediately above the “Tourist Train”, as it is popularly known, in LaVeta.
The Rio Grande Scenic Railroad features several routes that serve communities in the San
Luis Valley area, including LaVeta to the east. Two of the train routes, the LaVeta
Mountaineer and the Ft. Garland Limited include stops in LaVeta. The former climbs historic
Page 78
La Veta pass, which is the highest point in which a standard gauge train crosses a mountain
pass in the United States at an elevation of 9,242 ft. This train features daily departures from
Alamosa and runs seven days a week from Memorial Day through about October 17th. It
winds through country ranging from agricultural flatlands to colorful foothills to cliff-sided
mountains, much of which is inaccessible by motor vehicle, on its way to La Veta. A two-hour
stop for lunch allows passengers to relax in the park, do some shopping and gallery-browsing,
or have lunch at one of La Veta’s local restaurants and cafes.
On weekends and all concert dates, the Ft. Garland Limited leaves La Veta at 10:00 am for a
round trip to Fort Garland. Powered by a diesel-electric, the LaVeta to Fort Garland train
allows two hours for lunch and a visit to historic Fort Garland. In 2010, this train will provide
transportation on all concert dates for the “Roots and Boots” concert series, open air concerts
high in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains that are only accessible by train.
Huerfano County experts report areas of landslide activity above the Rio Grande’s tracks in
the LaVeta area, but so far no large incidents have been experienced.
Rock falls and landslides have tended to be minor in nature on this line as a result of the rock
formations and alignment. The most common ones are single rocks coming off the cuts into
the ditching alongside the track. The ditching has been successful in stopping the falling rocks
that have broken loose and tumbled down to the area of the train. The most rock fall prone
area is described as that running from Fir Eastbound at the tunnel approaches and the big
cut/ day lighted tunnel.
No incidents of significant impact operationally or financially have occurred in recent memory,
nor have any injuries to passengers occurred. As a precaution, all passenger trains are
preceded by an inspection vehicle. The most frequent bits of rock fall during breakup when
frost comes out. The railroad line also takes a proactive approach to identifying and tracking
rocks in motion. In the event of an incident, the rocks are broken up manually with hammers.
Sometimes backhoes are used.
Although landslides and rock falls are considered a potential threat to the train, the problem is
minimized to a certain extent by the simple fact that any particular stretch of track is
occupied by a passenger train under the busiest conditions for only about 30 seconds out of a
24 hour day, and then only on those days that the train actually operates. Furthermore, the
passenger train runs only after a preceding run is made by the inspection train.
Page 79
LIGHTNING/THUNDERSTORMS
According to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA), lightning is a
gigantic electrostatic discharge between the cloud and the ground, other clouds, or within a
cloud. Scientists do not understand yet exactly how it works or how it interacts with the upper
atmosphere or the earth’s electromagnetic field. According to many experts in the field of
natural hazards, lightning is the most dangerous and frequently encountered weather hazard
that people experience each year. It is the second most frequent killer in the United States
(floods and flash floods are the number one cause of weather related deaths in the US), and
lightning typically kills more people annually than do tornadoes or hurricanes. It should be
noted that those averages experienced a one year exception in 2005 caused entirely by the
rampant devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
The annual national thirty year average of lightning-related fatalities is 44. Despite better
education and awareness, the ten year average number of fatalities between 1997 -2007 has
risen to 62 annually. Many more are injured annually, and unfortunately, those who are
struck by lightning and do survive are often plagued with a variety of long-term, debilitating
symptoms, including memory loss, attention deficits, sleep disorders, numbness, dizziness,
stiffness in joints, irritability, fatigue, weakness, muscle spasms, depression, and an inability
to sit for long.
Lightning is the leading summer weather-related killer in Colorado. Hikers and climbers in the
mountains of Huerfano County who are caught in lightning storms are in particular danger, as
are children or even adults playing or relaxing in open areas. While lightning frequently
accompanies thunderstorms, the presence of a thunderstorm is not necessary for lightning to
occur. Lightning can strike as far away as 10 miles from any precipitation. Tourists or visitors
Page 80
to the region are sometimes surprised by the rapidity with which a thunderstorm can build in
the mountains, and they can easily be caught unprepared in a storm.
Late spring and summer thunderstorms will appear quickly and depart rapidly, but sometimes
leave behind evidence of their brief existence. Heavy rains can trigger another hazard, flash
flooding, which can wash out roads and disrupt transportation routes. Lightning often sparks
isolated fires, or “hot spots”, that leave firefighters scrambling to contain before they spread.
Hailstorms derived from thunderstorms are serious threats in Colorado and often cause
damage to structures and property in the impacted area.
In Colorado, cloud to ground lightning flashes occur nearly a half a million times annually.
With all the outdoor activities available to residents and visitors in the state, it is surprising
that the state doesn’t average more than three fatalities and 15 injuries on an annual basis.
Notwithstanding the comparative
frequency of lightning strikes in
Colorado, Huerfano County is not
considered an especially high risk
area as are, for example,
sections of El Paso and Larimer
Counties, or even areas of
moderate risk such as sections of
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Douglas, Elbert, Fremont,
Jefferson, La Plata, Las Animas,
Lincoln, Mesa, Moffat,
Montezuma, Park, Pueblo, Rio Blanco, Routt, Grand and Weld Counties.
The following map estimates number of cloud to ground lightning flashes (in thousands) that
occur annually in Colorado’s counties.
Page 81
According to the National Weather Service, eleven people were injured by lightning strikes in
Huerfano County between August, 1994 and July, 2006.
LIGHTNING – Historic Experience
Event: On August 3, 1994, six people in a car at Lathrop State Park were injured when
lightning struck the vehicle.
Page 82
In a related matter, thirty-five hail events have been recorded in Huerfano County between
1968 and 2003.
VOLCANIC ERUPTION
It is estimated that more than 75 percent of the earth's surface above and below sea level,
including the seafloors and some mountains, originated from volcanic eruption. Emissions
from these volcanoes formed the Earth's oceans and atmosphere, and volcanoes can also
cause tsunamis, earthquakes and dangerous flooding.
A volcano is an opening, or rupture, in the earth’s surface or crust, which allows hot, molten
rock, ash, and gases to escape from below. Volcanic activity involving the extrusion of rock
tends to form mountains or features resembling mountains over a period of time.
Volcanoes are generally found where tectonic plates diverge or converge. A mid-oceanic
ridge, for example the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, has examples of volcanoes caused by divergent
tectonic plates pulling apart. The Pacific “Ring of Fire” has numerous examples of volcanoes
caused by convergent tectonic plates coming together. By contrast, volcanoes are usually not
created where two tectonic plates slide past one another. Volcanoes can also form where
there is stretching and thinning of the Earth's crust such as in the African Rift Valley, the
Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field and the Rio Grande Rift in North America, and the
European Rhine Graben with its Eifel volcanoes.
Volcanoes can be caused by mantle plumes. These so-called hotspots, such as those found in
Hawaii, can occur far from plate boundaries. Hotspot volcanoes are also found elsewhere in
the solar system, especially on rocky planets and moons.
There are more than 500 active volcanoes in the world, more than half of which are part of
the Ring of Fire, the region that encircles the Pacific Ocean. More than fifty volcanoes in the
United States have erupted one or more times in the past 200 years. The most volcanically
active regions of the nation are in Alaska, which is currently quite active into the early part of
2009, Hawaii, California, Oregon and Washington. While the danger area around a volcano
typically covers a radius of approximately 20 miles, some danger might exist as far as 100
miles away.
The beginning of the Tertiary period (65 to 1.8 million years ago) coincides with the birth of
the Rocky Mountains. The event is known as the Laramide Orogeny (orogeny means
"mountain building"). The cause of the Laramide Orogeny extends back more than 200 million
years. At the end of the Triassic period, the great super continent known as Pangea began to
break apart, and North America began to separate from Europe. Far to the west, the North
American crustal plate began colliding with and over-riding the Pacific-Farallon Plate. The
collision between the two plates caused the crust to buckle and fold. The folding began in
California and gradually moved eastward until it reached Colorado some 60 million years ago.
During the Tertiary period, the stresses caused by the colliding plates to the west forced
several crustal "wedges" upwards, forming the Colorado Front Range and the southern Rocky
Mountains. In some areas, the mountain building was accompanied by volcanic eruptions.
The uplift and volcanism of the early to mid-Tertiary period established the highland that
would serve as the headwaters for the Gunnison River. Snowmelt from the Sawatch Range to
the east, the West Elk Mountains to the north and the San Juans to the south provided an
ample supply of water to what would eventually become the Gunnison Basin. Geologists
believe that the modern Gunnison River became established in its current course about 10 to
15 million years ago, just after the last eruptions in the San Juans and West Elks. This
Page 83
coincides with the beginning of a period of rapid uplift of the Great Basin and Colorado
Plateau provinces that lie between the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada Range in California.
Of more specific interest to Huerfano County are the Spanish Peaks. Uplift of the Black Hills
and the Central Texas Uplift began as the continental interior was raised and the last
Cretaceous sea was displaced some 65 to 70 million years ago. These stood well above the
surrounding plains long before any sediments from the Rocky Mountains began to accumulate
at their bases. In southern Colorado and northern New Mexico, molten rock entered the
sedimentary layers between 22 and 26 million years ago. The Spanish Peaks were formed at
this time from hot magma that domed up the surface layers but did not break through. The
magma has long since cooled and solidified and been exposed by erosion. Elsewhere the
magma reached the surface, forming volcanoes, fissures, and basalt flows. A great thickness
of basalt flows accumulated between about 8 and 2 million years ago at Raton Mesa and Mesa
de Maya. Volcanism in the area has continued intermittently, and the cinder cone of Capulin
Mountain in New Mexico was created by explosive eruption only 10,000 to 4,000 years ago.
Part of the Spanish Peaks area lies in Huerfano County, and extends into Las Animas County.
The Peaks are considered one of the best exposed examples of igneous dikes known. These
dikes were formed when molten igneous material was forced into a fracture or fault before
becoming solidified. There may be over 500 such dikes in the area.
A few years ago the US Geological Survey (USGS) evaluated volcanic activity potential across
the country for the first time many years, and rated the Dotsero crater on the east end of
Glenwood Canyon, which erupted as recently as four thousand years ago, as a moderate
threat for its potential to hurl volcanic ash into the skies at such an altitude as to pose a
hazard to airplanes flying through the heavily trafficked area.
Dotsero Volcano
While the threat of such an eruption of Dotsero is not
deemed imminent, perhaps not even a concern for
several generations, the USGS reports that any
volcano which has been active in the last 10,000 years
could become active again.
Eruptions of volcanoes pose hazards that include
lateral blasts, which are sideway explosions that can
launch large chunks of rock at very high speeds for
several miles. These explosions can kill by impact,
burial, or heat and may have enough force to knock
down entire forests. Most of the deaths caused by the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption in
Page 84
1980 were a result of lateral blast and tree blow-down. Additionally, molten lava flow can
cause property destruction, injury and death, and the gases emitted from a volcano can pose
a severe health hazard to those who breathe them.
Lava Flow, Kilauea, Island of Hawai’i
HUMAN-CAUSED HAZARDS
FEMA considers "manmade” hazards (also referred to as “human-caused) to include those of
a technological nature as well as ones involving terrorism. These are different from the
natural hazards reviewed above in that they arise from human activity. In contrast, while the
risks presented by natural hazards sometimes may be increased or decreased as a result of
human activity, they exist in nature and are not inherently or intentionally created by
humans.
The term "technological hazards" refers to the origins of incidents that can arise from human
activities such as the manufacture, transportation, storage and use of hazardous materials.
To distinguish from intentionally-caused or terrorist events, this definition assumes that
technological emergencies are accidental and their consequences unintended. The term
"terrorism" refers to intentional, criminal, malicious acts designed to further a political or
social agenda.
Human-caused hazards reviewed for this plan run the gamut from the catastrophic to
relatively benign or limited in limited in scope. They include such hazards as potentially
catastrophic Weapons of Mass Destruction events; widespread flooding caused
unintentionally, motor vehicle and airplane accidents, hazardous materials spills and prison
breaks. The following discussion reflects the relative ranking of these hazards by Huerfano’s
survey participants:
AIRPLANE CRASHES
Periodic airplane crashes are an unfortunate fact of life in mountain and rural regions.
Colorado’s often unpredictable and occasionally violent weather and beautiful, but rugged
terrain often creates a hazard for air travelers, especially those who attempt to negotiate the
mountain in smaller craft. Although research dating back to 1991 revealed a number of
airplane crashes in areas surrounding Huerfano County, the recent history for the county itself
did not reveal a large number of aviation incidents.
Huerfano County features a number of small airports. The Spanish Peaks Airfield, known as
the Huerfano County Airport, is located about 5 miles north of Walsenburg. The main runway
is paved and is 4900 feet long and 60 feet wide. Other airports are Cuchara Valley at La Veta
Airport; Golden Field in Gardner; Johnson Field, Walsenburg; North La Veta Landing Field, La
Veta ; Walsenburg Landing Field, Walsenburg North.
Page 85
According to Federal Aviation Administration records, Huerfano County has experienced four
accidents, two with fatalities from 1991 to 2009. None of the accidents occurred in the past
10 years.
AIRPLANE CRASHES – Historic Experience
Event 1: On July 06, 1999 two people were killed when a Cessna 182J, entered into
instrument conditions shortly after takeoff from the Cuchara Valley Airport. The pilot was not
instrument rated and had no instrument experience. A witness observed the aircraft exit the
base of an overcast cloud layer at high speed in a steep dive, and it impacted the ground and
disintegrated with a scatter pattern that extended for 1,900 feet. The airspeed indicator was
recovered with the needle jammed at 190 miles per hour. Factors leading to the crash were
the pilot's inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological conditions, a low ceiling, her
failure to maintain control of the aircraft and lack of instrument experience.
Event 2: On July 26, 1998 , a Beech H35, crashed with two fatalities just below LaVeta Pass.
The non-instrument rated private pilot and his passenger were en route from Buckeye,
Arizona, to Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The plane had landed and was refueled in Alamosa and,
according to the lineman who serviced the airplane, the passenger was apprehensive and
expressed concern about the weather conditions. Other pilots had attempted to fly through La
Veta Pass and were forced to turn back because the pass was obscured. The lineman said
that the weather looked ominous when the plane departed. It had been raining intermittently,
the sky was overcast and the mountains to the east were obscured. The airplane was found
four days later on the south face of Mount Maestas at about the 9,000 foot level, just below
La Veta Pass. No mechanical malfunction was detected from an examination of the wreckage.
Subsequent investigation blamed the crash on the pilot's poor judgment by intentionally flying
into instrument meteorological conditions without proper certification. Other factors included
his failure to obtain a weather briefing, and the existing weather conditions that included
clouds, rain, and limited visibility.
Event 3: On January 1, 1994, a CESSNA 177RG crashed about 11 miles northwest of LaVeta
leaving two occupants seriously injured, two more with minor injuries and one uninjured. The
pilot had entered LaVeta Pass at an altitude of about 8,000, when he encountered turbulence
and downdrafts as he neared the summit. The airplane failed to generate the necessary lift
and stalled. Moderate to extreme turbulence was reported in the area. The cause of the
accident was determined to be the pilot’s improper decision to enter LaVeta Pass at an
inadequate altitude, which compromised the plane’s ability to climb. Turbulence and
downdrafts were contributing factors as well.
Event 4: On December 01, 1991 three occupants of a CESSNA T210M escaped injury after
the pilot was forced to put the plane down due to a mechanical problem. Shortly after takeoff
from LaVeta airport, the pilot heard a “clunk” and lost manifold pressure. He reversed course
back to the airport, but was forced to land on a snow-covered highway. The subsequent
investigation revealed that the number one connecting rod had broken at the end of the
crankshaft. There were also issues with oil blockage, a lack of lubrication and high heat
distress throughout the engine. The cause of the incident was determined as the failure of the
connecting rod due to a lack of lubrication.
Although a few Heurfano residents who participated in the planning survey for this project
rated airplane crashes as a significant manmade hazard for the county, nearly twenty years of
history belie that notion. While plane crashes are certainly a tragedy for those directly
impacted, the scope of these has been such that this hazard was not officially ranked as a
significant one
Page 86
ARSON
According to the United States Fire Administration statistics of 2005, Colorado ranked as the
second lowest in fire-related deaths per capita with a rate of 5.6 per million population, a
slight increase from two years before. Only the state of Hawaii had a lower fire-related death
rate.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program defines arson as any willful or malicious burning
or attempting to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building,
motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another. In 2007, 14,197 law enforcement
agencies reported 64,332 arsons. Arsons involving structures (residential, storage, public,
etc.) accounted for 42.9 percent of the total number of arson offenses. Mobile property was
involved in 28 percent of arsons, and other types of property such as crops, timber, fences,
etc. accounted for 29 percent of reported arsons. The average dollar loss due to arson was
$17,289. Arsons of industrial/manufacturing structures resulted in the highest average dollar
losses, an average of $114,699 per arson event. In 2007, arson offenses decreased by
almost 7 percent when compared with arson data reported in 2006.
Notwithstanding the low fire-related death statistics cited above, at one time in the 1990’s
arson was a significant problem in Colorado, with a rate that at the time was the third highest
in the country. The chart below shows the most recent statistics compiled for the state as of
2007:
Property Classification
Number of
Offenses
Value of
Property Loss
Single Occupancy Residential
Structure
111
$1,792,797
Other Residential Structure
40
$2,644,612
Storage Facilities
22
$221,655
Industrial/Manufacturing
Facilities
1
$3
Other Commercial Structures
18
$44,161
Community or Public Structures
54
$253,799
All Other Structures
53
$430,062
Motor Vehicles
223
$966,311
Other Mobile Property
5
$2,253
All Other Property
568
$546,020
Grand Total
1,131*
$6,901,
In all of Colorado in 2007, 308 arrests were made for arson, with 204 of those arrested, or
66%, being persons under the age of 18.
Arson is the single greatest cause of fires in records repositories throughout the United
States, and because records centers represent government, they may be targets of planned
or random violence. In some cases, the arsonist is someone known to the center’s staff.
Page 87
While arson is an issue of concern both nationwide and as well as in Colorado, the Colorado
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reports only a few incidents of that crime in Huerfano County
from 2005-2007:
According to the CBI, the Walsenburg Police reported two arson events in 2007, while the
Huerfano County Sheriff and LaVeta Police reported none. The Huerfano Sheriff had one event
and one arrest in 2006, and the Walsenburg Police also reported one arson event and an
arson arrest that year. Walsenburg also reported one arson-related event in 2005. While
these numbers are fairly low, it does not mean that the planning team should ignore the
issue. Effective multi-hazard preparedness by county emergency responders is vital to
reducing or eliminating the loss of life and property during any significant fire event, including
incidents of arson.
The chief of the Huerfano County Fire Protection District advised that he recalled four or five
arson events in the past few years, including incidents targeting a residence, an apartment
house and a car. There have been no commercial buildings targeted by arsonists. He
attributes the arson events to the local drug trade. No civilians were hurt in these events, but
a couple of firemen suffered minor injuries.
Despite the relatively few reported arson events in Huerfano County, the two incidents
described below occurred in Walsenburg during 2008:
ARSON – Historic Experience
Event 1: During November, 2008, a three-alarm fire destroyed two empty houses in
Walsenburg in late November. By the time the first firefighters arrived on scene, the blaze
was already out of control according to the fire chief. The fire started in an abandoned
building that was known locally as a vagrant’s hangout. High winds gusting as much as 20
miles an hour pushed the fire into the next door house within minutes, and a nearby occupied
duplex was evacuated and suffered only minimal smoke damage. Businesses nearby had no
damage, but the two houses that caught fire were a total loss.
La Veta and Gardner Fire Departments both sent three members each to assist. Walsenburg
responded with ten firefighters and three engines on scene, most of them staying for 12
hours in the freezing cold and dark.
Arson was immediately suspected, and the CBI was called in to investigate.
Event 2: In February, 2008, an apartment building in Walsenburg was destroyed by fire
under suspicious circumstances, and three people were left homeless as a result.
According to the police report, a flammable liquid was poured underneath the front door of
the apartment and then set ablaze. The building, an old Victorian house that had been
converted into five apartments, had been evacuated by the time Huerfano County firefighters
arrived. An occupant told investigators he heard footsteps in the foyer just minutes before
smoke began pouring into his ground floor apartment early in the morning. Another resident
called 911 when smoke began filling her apartment, which is across the hall from the subject
residence. She told investigators that she heard footsteps outside her door as well.
Only three of the apartments were occupied at the time of the fire, and no injuries were
reported. All residents told authorities that they had no idea who would have targeted their
building for arson. The fire consumed the foyer and much of the east side of the building, and
Page 88
the entire east portion of the building was rendered structurally unsound. The Colorado
Bureau of Investigation was called in to investigate.
CIVIL DISTURBANCE
Potential losses and damages associated with civil disturbances historically have been
associated with looting, rioting, vandalism and personal injuries. Most major episodes of civil
disturbance that have resulted in death, injury or the destruction of property have occurred in
large cities with major socioeconomic problems and social justice issues. College campuses
and nearby areas are sometimes the site of protests or bad behavior, such as that associated
with parties or sporting events. In Colorado, the occasional riots on the “hill” in Boulder come
to mind, as do the annual protests associated with the Columbus Day marches in Denver.
Fortunately, this past year saw some events with the potential for violence conclude
peacefully. The Democratic National Convention was successfully held in Denver with virtually
no disturbances or arrests. Another potentially combustible situation was the nearspontaneous tax day protest held on April 15th, but that event was a model of citizen protest.
Annual or occasional events such as music festivals or rock concerts attended by large
gatherings of youth create a venue for spontaneous civil disturbances, but available data does
not accurately predict the potential for such occurrences in Huerfano County. Law
enforcement and civil authorities must rely on their experience, observation and reliable
intelligence sources to develop and analyze relevant information in advance of the incident.
Local officials may acquire information about issues of concern in the county that could result
in future disturbances. For example, it is easy to imagine an area of new development
becoming a target for anti-growth protesters. Huerfano County does not currently have such
inviting targets under development that would normally attract that kind of unwanted
attention, but activists and extremists in many environmental and animal rights movements
sometimes prefer more rural areas for the cloak of anonymity they seemingly offer. Such
individuals or groups probably pose a greater threat as domestic terrorists or arsonists than
as catalysts for civil disturbance.
Civil disturbances are a minimal risk faced by Huerfano County. It is not one that rises to a
level of priority for the planning team. Popular social events sometimes require private
security, and promoters or sponsors usually hire off-duty sheriff’s officers or local policemen
to provide such protection. Since the promoters draw from the existing ranks of law
enforcement personnel, this practice does not add additional numbers of security forces to
those already available through the sheriff’s office and local departments. There could be a
sudden need for additional law enforcement personnel in the event of a civil disturbance, but
resources from adjoining counties should be readily available to meet the demand.
EXTREME ACTS OF VIOLENCE
Extreme acts of violence are unfortunately seen in news headlines all too frequently and
examples of these tragedies are too readily available. Mass murders and school shootings are
the most notorious, eye-catching events and they are not confined to our national borders.
Just recently, a small town in southwest Germany became the site of the largest secondary
school shooting when a 17 year old killed 15 and took his own life. As a German politician
sadly remarked in the aftermath of the rampage, “We need to recognize that there is no such
thing as absolute security." Columbine taught us that assumptions that “it can’t happen
here” are unwise, at best.
Page 89
But such violence is not confined to school settings. Difficult to predict and hard to mitigate in
advance, extreme or random acts of violence can severely impact a community and leave
long-lasting effects. One memorable example occurred in the United States and was caused
by the Washington, DC snipers in 2002. During a period in the fall of that year, a 17 year old
roamed the metropolitan Washington, DC area with another man and randomly killed ten
people and wounded several others with high-powered weapons. The pair literally terrorized
the region, while much of the press and local citizenry, still mindful of the 9/11 attacks,
speculated that the snipers were part of a plot planned and executed by foreign terrorists.
Much closer to home here in Colorado we had Columbine, an event that occurred nearly 10
years ago. Another more recent event that drew national attention happened in Grand County
in June, 2004. In an almost surreal incident, Grand County resident Marvin Heemeyer, a local
businessman, used his skills as a welder to equip and armor a 50-ton bulldozer in order to
exact a personal vendetta on the town of Granby. During his siege, which lasted many hours
and caused the evacuation of residents and the closure of town roads, Heemeyer thwarted
repeated attempts by law enforcement officials to end his act of rampage that had been
triggered by an adverse zoning decision. In the hours before he committed suicide, Heemeyer
destroyed or heavily damaged buildings that included Granby's town hall and library, a
concrete batch plant, a bank, the town's newspaper offices, an electric cooperative building, a
store, an excavating business and a house owned by the town's former mayor. More than 200
rounds of ammunition were fired in vain by law enforcement in an effort to stop him.
Fortunately nobody was injured in the incident. The bulldozer used to carry out the rampage
has since become part of Granby lore, and is known as “Killdozer.”
The Columbine shootings, Heemeyer’s act of vengeance and the DC sniper case were clearly
very serious incidents and had the potential to create even more damage and bodily injury.
These acts are unpredictable but in a way, foreseeable; symptoms of the random manmade
threats seemingly facing some unfortunate victims on a regular basis. While nearly impossible
to predict and difficult to stop before someone is harmed, emergency managers everywhere
have to ask, “What if an incident like these happens in my community?” And how does one
mitigate against acts as bizarre and well-planned as Columbine, Killdozer and the DC snioers?
Planning and training for known threats and hazards is difficult enough, but planning and
training for the unforeseen, while difficult at best, is a challenge faced by many of our
emergency responders in these times. The best preparation for random incidents is to seek a
broad level of preparation through regular planning, training and exercising.
FLOOD DUE TO HIGH FLOW EVENT BREACH BY INTENTIONAL OR INADVERTENT
HUMAN INVOLVEMENT
Dams have proven to be attractive targets in times of conflict, and they are considered by
many security experts to be inviting targets for terrorists. The terrorist's desire to create
chaos by destroying a dam may be difficult to realize though since it is not a simple task.
Given their imagination and persistence however, it is a concern that must be addressed.
Great sums of money have been spent since 9/11 on dam assessments and security and law
enforcement and counterterrorism and counterterrorism experts are acutely aware of the
problems posed by these targets.
Huerfano County is the home to some 54 dams, five of which are categorized as Class I
dams, and three that are considered Class II. Class I dams are defined as those in which
failure would result in the probable loss of human life. Class II dams are those in which
significant damage can be expected, but not loss of human life. “Significant damage” means
structural damage to areas where people live, work or play, or to public or private facilities
exclusive of unpaved roads and picnic areas. “Damage” specifically refers to rendering the
affected structures uninhabitable or inoperable.
Page 90
Terrorism is only one of the threats posed to dams. Threats range from simple human
mistakes to operational mismanagement to unnecessary oversights, all of which can
potentially cause dam failure. These risks can act in combination with other hazards to
aggravate the possibility of failure, and should be included in the risk analysis of any
significant dam. For example, different pieces of mechanical equipment, manhole covers and
rock riprap are sometimes attractive to trespassers and vandals. Dirt bikes and all-terrain
vehicles can severely degrade the vegetation on embankments, and worn down areas lead to
erosion and more serious problems such as instability of the dam slope face.
Although not necessarily a human-triggered event, the consequences of a major landslide into
a water reservoir can be very serious. Landslides can cause sizable wave action or even
displace reservoir water, causing it to overtop and otherwise de-stabilize the dam.
One such event occurred in Vajont Dam in Italy in 1963 when the combination of a third
drawing-down of the reservoir coupled with heavy rains triggered a landslide of about 260
million cubic meters of forest, earth, and rock, which fell into the reservoir at speeds up to
68 mph. The resulting displacement of water caused 50 million cubic meters of water to
overtop the dam in a wave estimated at 250 meters in height. Despite the force behind the
wave, the dam's structure was largely undamaged as only the very top area of masonry was
washed away. However, the tsunami-like wave caused by the landslide totally destroyed the
village of Longarone and the small villages of Pirago, Rivalta, Villanova and Faè, killing 1,450
people. Many other nearby small villages were largely wrecked. Deaths were estimated at
between 1,900 and 2,000 people in total. Damage was also caused by the air displacement
created by the immense "splash" in surrounding villages.”
So although research into Huerfano’s experience with dam failures yielded no historical
experiences, given the consequences of a catastrophic dam failure, this may be a hazard for
Huerfano County officials to examine more closely when considering future mitigation
activities.
Another human activity that poses a risk is the tendency for people to create communities
near or below dams. The construction of residences, buildings and other structures in the
potential flood zone creates new risks, and will most likely create increased risks in the future.
Notwithstanding these potential perils, the hazard of a human-caused high-flow event is
considered low by the Huerfano County planning team.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (HazMat) – FIXED INSTALLATIONS
Fixed facilities are defined as organizations that store hazardous waste at their facility as well
as all hazardous waste sites.
Fixed-facility hazardous materials events can occur inside or outside of buildings, but always
within the facility premises. Also defined as fixed-facility events are situations such as
offloading of transportation vehicles where an employee of the facility or transportation
company drops a box, for example, or punctures a container with a forklift. These differ from
transportation events such as releases which are discovered upon offloading at a fixedfacility, but which happened during the transportation of the hazardous materials.
Other examples of fixed-facility events include, but are not limited to, HazMat problems that
occur at industrial sites, farms, schools, private residences, hospitals and others.
Page 91
For more than a decade, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has
maintained a record of its HazMat surveillance activities. Statistics available from the most
recent report of the Colorado Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance, indicate
that between the years of 2002 - 2005, Colorado experienced 261 fixed-facility events.
During 252 events (97%), one substance was released. Two substances were released in
approximately 1.5% of the events, and one event involved the release of sixteen
substances.
During this period, 42 events (16% of all reported events) resulted in a total of 177 victims,
of whom 2 (1%) died. Employees (91) accounted for the largest group of those injured,
followed by the general public (37) and students (30). Victims sustained a total of 295
injuries or symptoms. Some victims had more than one injury or symptom. Of all reported
injuries or symptoms, the most common were respiratory irritation (110), trauma (46) and
eye irritation (43). Seventy-seven (44%) of the victims were decontaminated.
An evacuation of the facility or area was ordered in 31 (12%) events. The most common
primary factor involved in the releases was human error (109. or 42%). Improper filling,
loading or packing was the most frequently reported secondary factor (32, or 22%). The
counties with the most frequent number of fixed-facility events were Adams (89), Denver
(25), El Paso (23) and Jefferson (22).
These same statistics indicate that Huerfano County reported no HazMat events between
2002 and 2005 at a fixed-facility, and the survey respondents did not rank this hazard as a
priority one.
JAIL/PRISON ESCAPE
The problems and crimes associated with population growth in both the state and Huerfano
County over the past few decades can create the need for increased law enforcement services
and facilities to house the growing inmate population. Housing pressures on current facilities
continue to increase, and sometimes lead, at least in part, to increased incidences of jail or
prison escape. These events, while not frequent, can understandably create heightened
tension and fear in nearby communities.
The Huerfano County Correctional Center (HCCC) is a level III state facility located just east
of I-25 in Walsenburg. It houses medium custody offenders and has a capacity of 752 beds.
HCCC houses offenders for the Arizona Department of Corrections and employs approximately
190 staff members. Level III facilities are described as those which generally have towers, a
wall or double perimeter fencing with razor wire and detection devices. The perimeter of these
facilities is continuously patrolled. Generally medium classified level inmates and lower levels
may be housed in a Level III facility, but inmates of generally higher, or more violent criminal
classifications, are not incarcerated therein.
Page 92
Huerfano County Correctional Center
The pressing inmate housing needs of other states have impacted Huerfano County. In an
effort to relieve the critical shortage of beds and overcrowded conditions that ensue, the
State of Arizona contracted for prison beds in other jurisdictions beginning in 2002. HCCC is
one of three prisons in other states chosen by Arizona to house up to 2,100 inmates. The
relocated Colorado inmates have gone to private prisons in Crowley, Bent and Kit Carson
counties.
In calendar year 2007, a total of 44 incidents occurred at the HCCC, including six assaults on
staff, 12 other assaults and 21 fights. Between the years of 2004 – 2007, no escapes were
reported from HCCC.
Huerfano County itself has a county jail located in Walsenburg. The jail was built in 1986 and
was designed to hold 60 prisoners, who are generally those serving sentences or awaiting
sentencing, and who cannot afford to post a bond for their release.
Huerfano County Courthouse and Jail, Walsenburg
Page 93
An expansion of the existing facility is possible in the future, but is most likely limited to a
vertical addition because of the construction of a judicial center on the grounds nearby.
A recent state law requires all law-enforcement officers to report to the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) any suspected illegal immigrant who is
arrested. The overall Huerfano County jail population ranges from 30 to 45 inmates at any
given time, and generally none are illegal aliens. Compared to some other Colorado counties,
illegal aliens are not an unusually high percentage of the inmate population, but it does add
to increased pressure on detention facilities when the turnover rate of inmates housed is
slowed by such indefinite holds.
The sheriff’s office reported a total of 21 employees in the year 2007.
Employee Total Numbers
Number of Officers
Number of Civilians
21
9
12
Huerfano County sheriff’s office and crime-related statistics as provided by the Colorado
Bureau of Investigation are provided below for 2007:
Reported Offenses
Number Months Reported 12
0
Murder/Manslaughter
0
Negligent Manslaughter
0
Forcible Rape
0
By Force
0
Attempted
1
Robbery
1
By Firearm
0
Knife/Cutting Instrument
Other Dangerous Weapon 0
0
StrongArm
21
Assaults
0
Firearm
1
Knife/Cutting Instrument
Other Dangerous Weapon 1
2
Hands/Fist/Feet
17
Other Assaults
7
Burglary
2
Forced Entry
5
Unlawful Entry
Page 94
0
Attempted
107
Larceny/Theft
15
Motor Vehicle Theft
15
Auto
0
Truck
0
Other
0
Arson
Total Number of Offenses 151
In addition to the offenses reported by the Huerfano County Sheriff’s Office, the Walsenburg
Police Department reported 169 offenses in 2007, including 44 assaults, 32 burglaries and 85
larcenies. The LaVeta Police Department reported 6 offenses that year, consisting of 5
assaults and 1 burglary.
Reported Arrests
Adult
Murder
Juvenile
0
0
Non Negligent Manslaughter
0
0
Manslaughter By Negligence
0
0
Forcible Rape
0
0
Robbery
0
0
Aggravated Assault
3
0
Burglary
0
0
Larceny
1
0
Motor Vehicle Theft
3
0
Other Assaults
4
2
Arson
0
0
Forgery
0
0
Fraud
2
0
Embezzlement
0
0
Stolen Property
0
0
Vandalism
0
0
Weapons
1
0
Prostitution
0
0
Other Sex Offenses
0
0
Drug Violations
4
0
Gambling
0
0
Other Family Offenses
5
0
DUI
6
0
Page 95
Liquor Law Violations
0
0
Drunkenness
0
0
Disorderly Conduct
0
0
Vagrancy
0
All Other Offenses
101
Curfew Violations
Runaways
Total Number of Arrests
130
2
In addition to the numbers arrested by the Huerfano County Sheriff’s Office, the Walsenburg
Police Department arrested 271 adults and 43 juveniles during 2007. The LaVeta Police
Department also arrested 11 adults that same year.
An issue related to jails has recently caused a cloud on Huerfano County’s economic future.
It was announced in March, 2010 that the town's second-biggest employer, the Huerfano County
Correctional Center, was set to lay off 188 employees and close its doors on April 2, making the area’s
prospects for an immediate financial rebound unlikely.
Walsenburg businessman Joe Kancilia was quoted in the Denver Post as saying "The economy
of this town is zilch. The prison closing down is going to hurt." Walsenburg is one of many
small Colorado towns where privately run prisons drive the economy. But many states,
including Colorado, are cutting their contracts with private jailers.
Corrections Corporation of America announced it would close the Walsenburg prison after
Arizona said earlier this year that it was withdrawing all of its 700 inmates from the facility. In
late March, the last inmate was set to board a bus headed for a newly constructed stateowned prison in Arizona. It is believed that the Huerfano prison, just east of Interstate 25,
will remain closed until CCA enters a contract with Colorado, or with another state overflowing
with prisoners and enough money to ship them to Walsenburg.
Walsenburg stands to lose up to $300,000 a year because of lost utilities, taxes and fees paid
by the prison, according to city administrator Alan Hein. The city had laid off a fifth of its staff
of 50 since November because of recession-related budget shortfalls. Last week, Hein laid off
five more employees, including two police officers, because of the prison closure.
Huerfano County will lose $135,000 a year in payments it received from the prison that it had
used to buy two sheriff's department cars the past year. The county also used prison
payments to contribute $500 a month to the nonprofit business that runs the Fox Theater, the
only movie theater in town.
Page 96
188 jobs leaving: The Huerfano County Correctional Center in Walsenburg was slated to
shut down April 2. The last inmates at the privately run prison were scheduled to leave at the
end of March for a newly built facility in Arizona.
JAIL/PRISON ESCAPE - Historic Event
In 2000, a man being held on charges of stabbing his girlfriend 50 times and abandoning her
in a ditch escaped from the Huerfano County jail. The man bore a tattoo that read, "1Surenos-3" on the back of his neck, indicating a gang affiliation.
MILITARY ACCIDENTS
Military accidents of all kinds were another hazard considered by the planning team, but little
evidence is available to indicate these kinds of incidents should receive priority treatment.
Recent military accidents include the December, 2008 crash of a Marine jet in a San Diego
neighborhood that killed four members of a family. Then in March, 2009, an F-22 crash in the
California desert took the life of the test pilot, but fortunately no others.
Closer to home, one notorious incident occurred in Colorado and received nationwide
attention because of the mysterious circumstances surrounding the event. In April, 1997 an
A10 Warthog, flown by Captain Craig Button and carrying four 500-pound bombs, veered off
course from a training mission in Arizona and was tracked by radar and visual sightings to the
vicinity of New York Mountain in Eagle County.
Residents near the flight path and crash site reported hearing loud explosions and seeing
heavy smoke. The debris of Captain Button’s plane was subsequently found on the side of a
12,500-foot peak about 15 miles southwest of Vail. At the time of the incident, only two years
removed from the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, rumors were rampant
that Captain Button’s plane may have been hijacked by terrorists or, perhaps, was willingly
turned over to radicals. The onboard presence of bombs and the suspicious fact that the plane
had veered as much as 800 miles off-course in southwestern Colorado only added to the
concerns. After a lengthy investigation the crash was officially ruled a suicide.
Events such as these are spectacular and command headlines for a time, but are rare and
difficult to specifically mitigate. The Huerfano County planning team accordingly ranked this
category low on their list of area hazards.
Page 97
MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES (Single and Multi-Vehicle)
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), in its annual report on mortality, includes
automobile crashes under the very general category of Unintentional Injuries. Fatalities due
to motor vehicle traffic crashes comprise a significant proportion of all fatalities due to
unintentional injuries, especially at younger ages.
While vehicle crashes are not considered a natural hazard, nature’s contribution to the
problem cannot be ignored and sometimes can be quite substantial. A combination of typically
severe Colorado winter weather, especially in the mountainous areas, topography and wildlife
habits has combined with the characteristics of the county’s rural roads to cause crashes to
be considered as a hazard for the area. Snow plowing can be a dangerous undertaking in bad
weather, and following a snow plow too closely on a slippery day can be dangerous, too. That
happened in January, 2009 when a driver from Colorado Springs rear-ended a Colorado
Department of Transportation snow plow on Interstate 25. The driver of the snowplow was
unaware of the situation and dragged the motorist’s vehicle nearly a half-mile before being
alerted by other drivers. The incident happened at mile marker 64 on I-25 in Huerfano
County, and fortunately no one was injured.
According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Colorado suffered
642 traffic fatalities in 2003, 667 in 2004, 606 in 2005, 535 in 2006 and 554 in 2007. This is
a welcome trend. As seen in the chart below, Huerfano County’s traffic fatalities during those
same years were 9 in 2003, 4 each in 2004 and 2005, 6 in 2006 and 5 in 2007.
Traffic Safety Facts
2003-2007
Fatalities by Person/Crash Type
Fatality Type
Fatalities
Fatalities Per 100,000 Population
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Total Fatalities
9
4
4
6
5
113.3 51.74 51.39 76.56 63.80
(1) Alcohol-Impaired Driving
(BAC=.08+) Fatalities
1
1
0
2
1
12.58 12.93 0.00
(2) Single Vehicle Crash
Fatalities
3
2
3
4
5
37.75 25.87 38.54 51.04 63.80
(3) Large Truck Involved
Crash Fatalities
3
1
1
0
1
37.75 12.93 12.85 0.00
25.52 12.76
12.76
Page 98
Fatality Type
Fatalities
Fatalities Per 100,000 Population
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
(4) Speeding Involved Crash
Fatalities
1
3
1
2
0
12.58 38.80 12.85 25.52 0.00
(5) Rollover Involved Crash
Fatalities
6
2
3
5
2
75.51 25.87 38.54 63.80 25.52
(6) Roadway Departure
Involved Crash Fatalities
9
3
3
4
4
113.3 38.80 38.54 51.04 51.04
(7) Intersection (or
Intersection Related) Crash
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Passenger Car Occupant
Fatalities
1
1
1
0
2
12.58 12.93 12.85 0.00
Light Truck Occupant
Fatalities
8
3
2
5
1
100.7 38.80 25.69 63.80 12.76
Motorcyclist Fatalities
0
0
0
1
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.76 0.00
Pedestrian Fatalities
0
0
0
0
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.76
Bicyclist (or Other Cyclist)
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.52
Other more detailed statistics compiled about Huerfano County were made available by the
Colorado State Patrol (CSP) and have been provided in spreadsheet format to the county.
These provide an insight into the number of crashes on the roads patrolled by the CSP, which
are the more heavily trafficked ones in the county. Only those crashes with fatalities are listed
above.
Within the CSP, each of the six district commanders selected the “most dangerous” stretches
of state or federal highways in their territory based on the historical number of fatal and
injury crashes, as well as the causes of such crashes. There were 18 such targeted highway
segments, also called “highway safety zones”, named in 2008. The CSP did not include any
of Huerfano County’s roadways within its most dangerous stretches of highway for the year.
MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES (Single and Multi-Vehicle) – Historic Experience
Recent Event: The Colorado State Patrol investigated a fatal car crash in Huerfano County
that occurred during March, 2009. The State Patrol reported that a 1-year-old girl was ejected
and killed in a rollover accident on I-25, near milepost 55, about five miles north of
Walsenburg. Authorities said there were five passengers in the 1997 Ford Expedition when it
rolled, and an adult female and the 1-year-old were ejected from the vehicle. Those two were
reportedly the only ones not wearing seatbelts. The 1-year-old was pronounced deceased at
the scene. Alcohol and drugs are not suspected in this crash.
TERRORISM – INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC
Terrorism is defined in the United States Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of
force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
Page 99
When terrorism strikes, victim communities will almost certainly receive assistance from State
and Federal agencies operating in concert with the existing National Incident Management
System (NIMS). While the FBI is the lead investigative agency, FEMA is the lead agency for
supporting State and local response to the consequences of terrorist attacks.
Terrorism is often categorized as "international" or “domestic”, and the distinction refers not
to where the terrorist act occurs but rather to the origin of the individuals or groups
responsible. For example, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
was an act of domestic terrorism, whereas the attacks of September 2001 are considered
international because of Al-Qaeda’s involvement. For the purposes of consequence
management, the origin of the terrorist is less important than the results of the attack on life
and property. Thus the distinction between domestic and international terrorism is not as
relevant to effect mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery actions as it is to assist
the counterterrorism investigator’s understanding of the groups behind the threat.
Although the militia movement has been around for many years, it gained notoriety in the
wake of deadly standoffs at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993. The
movement garnered further publicity following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, although
it was erroneously linked to that terrible act. At its peak, the movement had hundreds of
groups and thousands of members. But the Murrah bombing created backlash both from
within and outside of groups, and right-wing militias experienced some decline afterward.
Many experts believe the current economic crisis and proposed expansion of the government
will cause a resurgence in their numbers and popularity, and this concern was recently voiced
in a report issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) monitors the militia movement and reports that it has
undergone a revival in some areas. It is not believed that Colorado is one of those states with
an active group, but it difficult to believe no activity is taking place given our state’s history,
its natural beauty and remote locations which prove to be so attractive to such groups as they
conduct their clandestine meetings and activities. The ADL provided two recent reports about
both domestic and international terrorism activities.
In March, 2009, an undercover operation termed “Red Swastika”, resulted in the indictment
of five white supremacists in Omaha, NE. Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) arrested the men on drugs and weapons charges in February,
2009.
During the undercover investigation, authorities allegedly purchased numerous firearms,
including assault rifles, pistols and a Taser, some which were reportedly stolen, as well as
over 5,000 rounds of ammunition and narcotics from the men.
The charges ranged being a felon in possession of a firearm to conspiracy of possession with
intent to deliver and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
The suspects allegedly told the undercover ATF agent that they were members of the United
Aryan Soldiers white supremacist gang. Some of the members had originally met each other
in prison, which is common among these types of groups. One of the suspects was affiliated
with the Creativity Prison Ministries, an offshoot of the white supremacist Creativity
Movement.
Another recent, very high profile case resulted in the December, 2008 conviction of five men
in Camden, New Jersey on charges of conspiring to murder members of the U.S. military at
Fort Dix, NJ. The men were all Muslim immigrants who lived in southern New Jersey and
Page 100
Philadelphia. It is believed they were motivated by their hatred of Jews and Zionism. The jury
acquitted the men of attempted murder.
Evidence against the defendants was drawn from secretly taped conversations between them
and FBI informants, including discussions about Jews and Zionism. During one recorded
conversation about the plot to attack Fort Dix, one man, an American citizen who was born in
Jordan, told an undercover informant that his first choice would be to kill Jews in Israel, "I
love to kill Jews. I tell you this, in all honesty, it is a dream of mine." Some of the
conversations also demonstrated the conspirators motivation was 'avenge' the supposed
crimes of Zionism against the Palestinian Arabs.
Other evidence presented at trial included jihadist propaganda videos, clips of dead American
soldiers, and videos of beheadings of kidnapping victims that were in the possession of the
defendants.
Another, slightly less recent example involving a white supremacist occurred in Colorado
during October, 2006, when Nicholas Vovos of California, was sentenced to 38 years in state
prison. Vovos was convicted of attempted murder and assault on peace officers, stemming
from a shootout with police in Colorado on July 3, 2005, in which his wife was killed. Vovos
also faced murder charges in California, where prosecutors had to determine whether to seek
the death penalty. During the sentencing hearing, Vovos' hair was cut short so that the
"Muscoy Boy" tattoo on the back of his head was clearly visible. According to authorities, the
tattoo refers to the town in California where Vovos was a member of a skinhead group.
Potential militia activity was detected in Colorado in November, 2005 when the FBI arrested a
Denver firefighter for weapons offenses. Information developed though an undercover
operation led to reports that the suspect may have harbored strong anti-government
sympathies, but he was subsequently convicted on a single charge of selling an illegal
machine gun.
Eco-terrorism is another subset of domestic terrorism and another potential threat to
Huerfano County and the state of Colorado. While the list of confirmed terrorism-related
events in Colorado is not long, it is highlighted by the notorious act committed by the ecoterrorist group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), at the Vail Ski Resort in October, 1998.
Three buildings and portions of four chair lifts were destroyed by fire and damages placed at
approximately $12 million were incurred. In a letter sent to news-media outlets, ELF claimed
responsibility for the arson "...to stop the destruction of natural habitat and the exploitation of
the environment." It stated the Vail expansion plans would "...ruin the last, best lynx habitat
in the state. Putting profits ahead of Colorado's wildlife will not be tolerated. This action is just
a warning. We will be back if this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and
unroaded areas." As a footnote to the letter, the Colorado Division of Wildlife reports that the
lynx is doing fine since its reintroduction to the state in 1999.
The ominous threat advanced in the letter remains unfulfilled more than a decade later, and
those allegedly responsible for the fires were indicted federally in December, 2005, and
subsequently convicted. Despite the successes of law enforcement , additional extremists
associates are willing and eager to take up their cause, and they too have demonstrated an
ability to strike at economic interests that do not measure up to their rigid notions of
acceptable growth.
Page 101
Vail, 1998 Ecoterrorism and its aftermath
While Huerfano County is not a likely target of international terrorists who try to create
sensational and deadly events where possible, the quality of living offered by its communities
and its sparsely populated area make the county an attractive area to live or retire for many.
As a result of its rural nature and remote areas, Huerfano County could become a desirable
location for such radical groups rather than the actual target of future fringe elements of
society such as eco-terrorists and militias. It is up to local law enforcement working in concert
with state and federal authorities to develop an appropriate balanced level of intelligence in
order to monitor the possible rise of such groups.
URBAN FIRE (ACCIDENTAL)
Another hazard profiled by Huerfano County is that posed by urban fires. Although not an
urban area by any stretch of the imagination, the term “urban” is used in this context for
Huerfano’s planners to distinguish the more populous communities of the county, such as
Walsenburg and LaVeta, from the clearly rural areas. These urbanized areas have larger
populations and higher densities of people and buildings than does the rest of the county.
Major structural fires sometimes have a severe impact on a community, especially smaller
remote ones. In addition to inventory loss and damage, which can be complete, structural
fires can cause serious injury and death, as well as strain public safety infrastructure such as
fire departments, hospitals, power and water supplies. In 2002, seventy-four % of fatal fires
occurred in structures, and 94% of those were on residential properties. Although most fires
occur outdoors, fatal fires occur most frequently in structures. In 2002, outdoor fires
accounted for 40% of all fires but only 3% of fatal ones. A natural concern in some of the
more remote areas of Huerfano County is the availability of fire suppression equipment and
infrastructure (e.g., fire hydrants and water sources) to rural populations.
A study based on information obtained about urban fires more than a decade ago found the
following:
•
•
•
The leading cause of outdoor fires in urban areas was incendiary or of suspicious
origin.
While outdoor fires were most numerous, structure fires accounted for the vast
majority of fire deaths, injuries and property loss associated with urban fires.
Fires of incendiary or suspicious origin predominated among non-residential structure
fires, accounting for 30 percent of fires.
Page 102
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cooking fires accounted for over one-quarter of all residential fires. Those of
incendiary and suspicious origin ranked second, followed by heating and electrical
distribution.
The leading causes of residential fires were relatively consistent throughout the four
major regions of the country. In every region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West)
cooking fires were the leading cause. Incendiary or suspicious origin was the second
leading cause in every region but the Northeast, where heating fires were ranked
second.
The leading causes of fatal residential fires were also relatively consistent across the
country. Smoking was the leading cause of fatal home fires in every region except the
West, where fires of incendiary or suspicious origin ranked first.
A higher proportion of residential structure fires occurred in apartments in urban areas
compared to the United States as a whole. This is thought to be due to the fact that
more of the urban housing stock is of a multifamily nature.
The prevalence of apartments in the urban housing stock may also account for the
reduced number of heating fires. Heating fires in rural areas are often associated with
chimneys and woodstoves, or other alternate heating devices. Most apartments have
central heating only, reducing the risk of fires associated with alternative sources of
heat.
Fifty-four percent of urban home fires occurred where no working smoke detectors
were present. Similarly, 69% of fires with one or more fatalities occurred in homes not
protected by operating smoke detectors. These rates are similar to, though slightly
lower than, rates for the country as a whole.
The urban fire was not deemed a priority hazard for this planning effort. Certain data
categories, including the construction characteristics of structures in the area such as building
materials used (e.g., wood vs. brick, fire detection equipment, age, etc.), proximity to
forested areas and availability of fire suppression infrastructure was not identified for this
project. Based on available information, all structures in the study area are at some risk of
being destroyed or seriously damaged by a fire, particularly those made of combustible
building materials and located in remote areas of the county where response time is greater.
As a general matter, buildings constructed of wood are more likely to burn down than
buildings constructed with bricks or concrete.
Urban fires occur occasionally in the study area, and while the effects are localized, impact
can sometimes be severe. As in many mountain and rural communities, problems that
exacerbate the fire hazard include the fact that many homes and other structures in the area
tend to be isolated from emergency services. Although damages to individual buildings and
other structures can be great, and death and injury can ensue, the impacts to most critical
facilities and utilities would likely be localized and of short duration.
There are two-hundred ten square miles within the LaVeta Fire Protection District. This area
covers the Cuchara Valley. The town of LaVeta is the home to Station #1, and #2 is in
Cuchara. Each station maintains an ambulance, brush truck, engine, squad and tender. Like
most other departments, many of the calls within this district are related to medical issues.
Most other responses have to do with structure and wildland fire calls, as well as for mutual
aid to neighboring fire departments in Walsenburg, Gardner and adjacent counties. LaVeta
FPD can provide basic life support emergency medical services and works with Walsenburg
Ambulance to provide advanced life support transportation.
The Huerfano County Fire Protection District is located in Walsenburg and is locally run. It is
currently staffed by 18 volunteers. The chief of the Huerfano County Fire Protection District
advised that the vast majority of urban fires in his area are residential rather than commercial
Page 103
in nature. The Upper Huerfano Fire Protection District serves the Redwing area through two
stations, and has 20 volunteers available to meet the needs of the community.
Statistics for 2003, Colorado fire departments responded to approximately 362,467 incidents
of all types. Of these, approximately 14,786 were fires. These fires resulted in an estimated
22 civilian fire deaths, 150 civilian fire-related injuries, and $72.4 million in estimated (direct)
property loss. Additionally, approximately 66 firefighters were injured in the line-of-duty
during the year.
URBAN FIRE (ACCIDENTAL) - Historic Experience
Event 1:
In February, 2009, five family members escaped a house fire in the LaVeta area without
injury. The fire was believed to have started in the attic, possibly in the chimney. Part of the
ceiling fell, spilling burning ashes into the main living area of the family home. The
homeowners planned to repair the house, which primarily consisted of smoke and water
damage.
The La Veta Fire Protection District responded with 10 personnel and the Huerfano County
Fire Protection District arrived with two tender trucks to supply water to the fire.
Event 2:
Page 104
In January, 2009, firefighters from the La Veta Fire Protection District responded to a house
fire in Paradise Acres. The home was a total loss. The owners were seasonal residents and the
home was unoccupied at the time of the fire.
LaVeta FPD response: Pleasant View
Apartments fire, October, 2006
Hazards Risk by Jurisdiction
Although these prioritized hazards affect all
jurisdictions within the planning area,
hazard risk and potential impact varies by jurisdiction. Impact from hazards for the
jurisdictions participating in this plan is estimated in the Risk Assessment section.
Page 105
Risk Assessment
Guidance from the DMA 2000 prescribes that planning areas, such as Huerfano County,
consider risk priorities and potential losses for all areas covered by the plan. Risks related to
each jurisdiction should also be assessed for vulnerabilities and loss potential specific for
those jurisdictions. Huerfano County conformed to this guidance by conducting the following
risk assessment activities to establish risk potential and hazard impact within the planning
areas:
•
Public Risk Assessment Input
•
Identification of Critical Infrastructure
•
Risk Assessment
•
Risk of hazard impact
Huerfano County used the risk assessment activities discussed in this section to identify
hazards that pose the highest risks to Huerfano County. The planning team determined that
these hazards justify mitigation planning and are, therefore, the focus of the mitigation
actions described in this PDMP:
•
Wildfires
•
Winter Storms
•
•
Methane Gas Leaks
•
HazMat-Transported
Future versions of the PDMP will build on the risk assessment for these hazards, and can
encompass further analysis and re-evaluation of additional hazards not prioritized in this first
plan. Drought is one example of a hazard that may be re-prioritized. Per FEMA guidance, the
flooding hazard received added emphasis in this plan although it was not designated a priority
risk. New floodplain maps should be available for county review and use later in 2009, and
these will provide further usable information for future planning efforts.
Public Risk Assessment Input
Public comment was collected through a printed and online survey to increase the opportunity
for public participation. As part of this survey process, the planning team also sought input
from professionals in emergency management, fire services, medical and health services, law
enforcement, planning, government administration, community development, transportation,
and others in public and private sectors.
The community surveys were conducted according to this general methodology:
1) Survey population was identified as:
a. Community residents
b. Emergency responders
c. Certain government officials and administrative staff
d. Those with relevant subject matter expertise, such as those in planning, law
enforcement , healthcare, community development, fire and emergency
responders, and elements of the private sector
2) Survey notices were issued using:
a. Newspaper advertisements
b. Public noticing in libraries and selected government offices
Page 106
3)
4)
5)
6)
c. Individual invitations to groups such as fire departments, law enforcement and
others
d. Postings on the Huerfano County official website
Web-based and conventional survey mediums were used, including:
a. Forms with drop boxes at various public places such as library and government
offices
b. A web-based survey accessed through the County website
Survey questions were developed for general community members and those in
emergency services
The surveys were conducted to allow ample time for response.
a. The survey launch was early September, 2009
b. The survey concluded in early November, 2009, allowing ample time for responses
to be provided
Data collection and reporting
a. No personal data was acquired through this survey. Respondent names were
requested on a volunteer basis only for survey validation
b. Survey results were compiled and analyzed by the planning team
The intent of the survey was to sample a broad set of stakeholders within the planning area.
This survey was not conducted to scientific standards, but the responses from community
members allowed for public input, and were found to be generally consistent with those from
known experts. They are considered valid overall.
The public survey results of the top ranked hazards are summarized in Appendix C.
Risk Assessment
The planning team developed and implemented a risk assessment to identify potential
hazards and their impact on Huerfano County and its critical infrastructure and services. This
approach was intended to collect specific input from emergency professionals and others with
relevant expertise on hazards affecting the planning area. Templates were created as
illustrated in Appendix E to help project participants rank hazard impact according to criteria
shown in the following table.
Variable
Criteria
A
Probability of
Hazard Event
B
Potential
Magnitude
C
Impact to
Health and
Safety
Scoring Metric
% Chance in any given year is the number of hazard
events over 100 yrs.
1 - Unlikely - Occurs greater than every 100 years
2 - Occasional - Occurs only every 11 to 100 years
Considered an “once in a lifetime” event
3 - Likely - Occurs in the range of about once every 10
years
4 - Expected - Annual event or assumed to occur at least
once per year.
What are loss expectations for property and life? What is
the severity of the hazard?
5 - Catastrophic: more than 50% area / population/
infrastructure affected,
4 - Critical: 25% - 50%,
3 - Medium: 10% - 25%,
2 - Low: less than 10% affected
1 – Negligible
1 - Low (Less than 5% of affected area population or
maximum of 5 people affected)
2 - Moderate (between 5% - 10% of affected area
population or maximum of 20 people affected)
3 - High (between 10% - 20% affected or maximum of 50
Page 107
Variable
D
Criteria
Impact to
Property
Scoring Metric
people affected)
4 - Extreme (more than 20% or over 50 people affected)
1 - Low (Less than 5% of personal property/ agriculture
land in hazard area impacted)
2 - Moderate (Between 5%-10% impacted)
3 - High (between 10%-20% affected)
4 - Extreme (more than 20% affected)
Includes losses to commercial revenues, tourism, etc.
Losses include direct revenues and opportunity losses such
as downtime.
1 - Low (Less than $10,000 losses on local
economy/businesses)
2 - Moderate (more than $10,000 but less than $50,000)
3 - High (expected losses more than $50,000 and less than
$200,000)
4 - Extreme (expected losses more than $200,000)
E
Economic
Impact
F
Impact to
Infrastructure
and Critical
Facilities
1 - Low (Less than 5% of personal property/ agriculture
land in hazard area impacted)
2 - Moderate (Between 5%-10% impacted)
3 - High (between 10%-20% affected)
4 - Extreme (more than 20% affected)
Impact to First
Responders
1 - Low (less than 5% loss of operational efficacy)
2 - Moderate ( 5% - 10% loss in efficacy)
3 - High (10% - 20% loss in efficacy)
4 - Extreme (more than 20% loss of operational
effectiveness)
G
These criteria were developed based on HAZUS-MH, a risk assessment model endorsed by
FEMA and accepted by emergency management planners nationwide. HAZUS-MH is a
standardized loss estimation software program designed to determine damage and economic
loss potential. Risk assessment scoring was also conducted according to HAZUS-MH using a
formula of (based on variables in the above table):
Composite Risk Score = (b + c + d + e + f + g) * (a / 100)
Using the formula cited above, results of the risk assessment were tabulated to produce a
composite risk score, which was used to prioritize hazards for mitigation. The Composite Risk
Score is intended to provide a relative indication of risk impact within the planning areas. It is
important to note, however, that these scores were but one element used to determine the
hazards prioritized for mitigation actions under this plan. The planning team also considered
results from the Public Survey and recommendations from experts contributing to the Plan.
Huerfano County considers its respective emergency services professionals and various
experts from the private sector as crucial sources for determining risks from hazards within
the planning area. The risk assessment templates were developed to allow a broad set of
these professionals and experts to deliver comprehensive input in a standardized manner.
Risk assessment activities mentioned above provided input to the model to augment the
standard HAZUS-MH datasets and improve the model results. HAZUS-MH was originally
developed to model loss potential from earthquake, hurricane winds and coastal flooding,
which are hazards not prioritized by this plan.
Huerfano County recognizes that hazard modeling, such as that supported by HAZUS-MH, is a
valuable tool to planning. Although input and data for some of the prioritized hazards is not
Page 108
presently sufficient to produce adequate model results, Huerfano County may wish to
consider resource requirements to acquire or access additional geospatial data in these areas
for future updates to this Plan.
As a result of the foregoing risk assessment activities, Huerfano County and their participating
jurisdictions prioritized these hazards for mitigation planning. This assessment includes an indepth review and consideration of the potential flooding hazards faced by the county:
Huerfano County and
Participating Jurisdictions
Hazard
Wildfire
Winter Storm
Methane Gas Leaks
HazMat – Transported
Flooding
Huerfano County completed the risk assessments using processes most effective for their
project teams. Huerfano County, under direction from its County Administrator and
Emergency Management Coordinator, conducted three meetings where project participants
reviewed then completed the qualitative risk assessment in workgroup settings.
Probability of Future Hazard Occurrence
In order to assess probability of future events within Huerfano County and it, an analysis of
historical occurrences of the five prioritized hazards and flood was conducted. Data sources
including the National Climatic Data Center, SHELDUS, information provided by Huerfano
County officials and residents, and the 2011 State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
(State Plan) were analyzed. Because of variances in available data from hazard to hazard,
the range of dates also varied. Estimates of probability of future occurrence were therefore
generated based on the individual hazard data’s correlating span of time. Based on the
methodology used in the 2011 State Plan, probability was broken down into the following
categories:
•
•
•
•
Expected - Annual event or assumed to occur at least once per year.
Likely - Occurs in the range of about once every 10 years.
Occasional - Occurs only every 11 to 100 years. Considered an “once in a lifetime”
event.
Unlikely - Occurs greater than every 100 years.
Hazard
Wildfire
Number of
Events
Probability of
Future
Occurrence
6
Likely
42
Likely
59
Expected
10
Likely
Winter Storms
High Winds
Tornadoes
Comment
Events from 2000-2010
(SHELDUS and local information)
(SHELDUS, State of Colorado
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan)
(SHELDUS)
Page 109
Number of
Events
Hazard
Probability of
Future
Occurrence
Comment
(SHELDUS, NCDC)
Methane Gas
Hazmat
Flooding
2
N/A
6
Likely
11
Likely
Data too limited to estimate
probability
(SHELDUS, NCDC)
Hazard Risk by Jurisdiction
The risk assessment activities conducted as part of this project provided the planning team
with sufficient information and justification to describe hazard threats to the jurisdictions
covered by this plan as shown in the table below. Huerfano County and participating
jurisdictions elected to rank each hazard according to a risk scale defined by:
Low – Hazard impact causes minor disruption to critical infrastructure and emergency
services. Risks to life or safety are minor, and hazard impact causes little disruption to
Huerfano County.
Moderate – Hazard impact causes some disruption to critical infrastructure and emergency
services, but the likelihood of such disruption directly contributing to personal injury, loss
of life or extensive property damage is not significant.
•
High – Hazard impact results in disruption to critical infrastructure and emergency
services and contributes to personal injury, fatalities or extensive property damage.
This section does not predict the likelihood of a hazard incident, as was done above, but
rather it describes expected impact from the hazard if such incident occurs.
Hazard Risk By Jurisdiction
Wildfire
Winter
Storms
High
Winds/
Tornadoes
Methane
Gas Leaks
HazMat
Transported
Flooding
Gardner Area
(Including Upper
Huerfano FPD)
M
H
H
L
L
M
Cuchara
H
H
M
L
L
H
La Veta (Including La
Veta FPD)
H
H
M
L
L
M
Walsenburg
L
M
H
M
H
M
H/M*
H
H
H/L**
L
M
Community
Unincorporated
Huerfano County
(Including Huerfano
County FPD)
*Mountainous/Plains areas
**Varies by coal deposit locations
Page 110
The Planning team also considered the potential for the occurrence and future impact from
the prioritized hazards. Expert input indicates a reasonable probability that the prioritized
hazards will continue to affect the planning area to some extent in the foreseeable future.
Based on average population growth projections and property value increases, it was
determined that the future impact potential from these hazards would increase in the absence
of effective mitigation actions.
Hazard Impact on Critical Infrastructure
The planning team reviewed Huerfano County’s critical infrastructure. Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 7 identified 17 critical infrastructure and key resource sectors that
require protective actions to prepare for, or mitigate against, a terrorist attack or other
hazards.
The sectors are:
• Agriculture and food.
• Banking and finance.
• Chemical.
• Commercial facilities.
• Commercial nuclear reactors including materials and waste.
• Dams.
• Defense industrial base.
• Drinking water and water treatment systems.
• Emergency services.
• Energy.
• Government facilities.
• Information technology.
• National monuments and icons.
• Postal and shipping.
• Public health and healthcare.
• Telecommunications.
• Transportation systems including mass transit, aviation, maritime, ground or surface,
rail and pipeline systems.
Impact from the prioritized hazards was ranked as low, moderate or high for the identified
critical infrastructures within Huerfano County. Findings from risk assessment activities were
used to determine hazard impact on the critical infrastructure. Notwithstanding hazard
impact on critical infrastructure, however, Huerfano County weighted mitigation actions for
hazards affecting life and safety.
Due to the potentially sensitive nature of the critical infrastructure inventory, and in keeping with State
of Colorado practices for controlling critical infrastructure identification, Huerfano County monitors
access to this information through the county’s Emergency Management Coordinator. This information
is available on a need-to-know basis by application to the Emergency Management Coordinator
identified in this Plan.
Hazard Vulnerability Based on Projected Land Use and Demographics
Based on land use and population growth projections, over the next 10 years Huerfano
County anticipates steady but not explosive population growth, particularly along the
wildland–urban interface and adjacent to major transportation corridors. In the absence of
effective mitigation measures, these projections indicate increasing loss potential from the
prioritized hazards identified in this plan.
Demographic projections predict some continued population growth of part time residents,
including some who may be inexperienced with the challenges posed by Huerfano County’s
Page 111
natural hazards. Like many parts of the country, part-time residents include a growing senior
citizen population that can be at greater risk from these hazards and less capable of dealing
with emergency response requirements. This at-risk population will likely impose increased
demands on Huerfano County’s emergency services capabilities.
Hazard Mitigation
The risk assessment identified and prioritized these hazards for further mitigation planning:
•
Wildfires
•
Winter Storms
•
•
Methane Gas leaks
•
•
Flooding
These hazards were prioritized, in part, by their historical and broad impact (or potential for
broad impact) on Huerfano County’s residents, economy, critical infrastructure and vital
services. Also strongly considered due to their past and possible future impacts on the county
were the hazards of flooding, lightning/thunderstorms and drought. Flooding in particular was
critically analyzed for its potential to create future hazards to the populace and structures,
both residential and commercial, located in the county.
Huerfano County has adopted mitigation strategy guidance from FEMA that suggests a riskanalysis method that uses two general categories for pre-disaster mitigation:
•
Actions to reduce the frequency and/or severity of hazard events
•
Actions that reduce the vulnerability of community assets
The mitigation actions set forth in this section draw broadly on those concepts and from a
collection of respected resources. For example, some of the proposed mitigation actions were
suggested by survey and project participants from Huerfano County. Other potential actions
were found during the course of research conducted for the project and are provided for
additional analysis and consideration by county officials and interested citizens.
Mitigation Goals and Objectives
To serve as a blueprint for Huerfano County’s PDMP and to comply with FEMA guidance from
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Final Rule, Huerfano County identified goals and
objectives for mitigation actions. These goals and objectives provide metrics to gauge results
of mitigation actions and to guide PDMP updates and improvements.
A mitigation goal is a broad guideline that explains what is to be achieved, and it serves as
the vision for mitigation actions. Objectives, on the other hand, are specific steps or
measurable actions needed to achieve the goals.
The planning team considered and
developed goals and objectives as part of the mitigation actions, and those goals and
objectives are summarized with related proposed mitigation actions below. Goals and
associated objectives and mitigation actions are listed in Appendix A of this document.
Existing Hazard Mitigation Reports, Studies and Programs
Huerfano County has plans in place, studies either completed or in process, and programs
underway that identify, assess or mitigate the hazards identified above and others impacting
the planning area. These existing actions are summarized in the following tables.
Page 112
Huerfano County
Existing Hazard Mitigation Reports, Studies and Programs
Jurisdiction and Lead
Mitigation
Relevant
Mitigation Action
Agency
Category
Hazard(s)
Huerfano County
Commissioners
Huerfano County
Wildfire Regulations
Land Use and Zoning
Huerfano County
Geologic Hazard Regulations
Huerfano County
Drainage Standards
Huerfano County
Town of LaVeta
City of Walsenburg
Commercial and Industrial
Standards
LaVeta Master Plan
Walsenburg Master Plan
Colorado Div. of Emergency
Management
Colorado Hazard Mitigation
Plan, 2004 and updates
Property
Protection
Property
Protection
Property
Protection
Property
Protection
Property
Protection
Prevention
Prevention
Various
Wildfire
All hazards
Rockslide /
Landslide,
Avalanche
Flooding
HAZMATTransported
Flooding
Flooding
All hazards
The planning team recognizes the benefit of incorporating, as appropriate, mitigation actions
resulting from the PDMP with current and future hazard mitigation reports, studies, programs,
including capital improvement plans, building codes reviews, hazard site reviews and
permitting. A “Mitigation Update Committee”, a subgroup of the Huerfano County Planning
Committee discussed in the Plan Update and Maintenance section of this document, will work
with the participating jurisdictions to facilitate the necessary coordination
Proposed Mitigation Actions
Huerfano County evaluated a broad set of mitigation actions for the prioritized hazards.
Mitigation actions for these hazards were categorized into six groups:
•
Prevention
•
Property protection
•
Public education and awareness
•
Natural resource protection
•
Emergency services
•
Structural projects
Potential mitigation actions were determined though direct research and, in some instances,
interviews with public and private sector experts summarized in the table below. These efforts
were supported by input from community residents and independent research by the planning
team. The table includes a partial but representative list of sources consulted for potential
mitigation actions relevant to the prioritized hazards.
Page 113
Potential Mitigation Action Sources for various hazards
Interviews and Document Reviews Conducted for Potential
Prioritized Hazard
Mitigation Actions
•
Wildfire
Chief, Huerfano County Fire Protection District
•
Chief and Board President, La Veta Fire Protection District
•
Chief Upper Huerfano Fire Protection District
•
Huerfano County wildfire regulations
•
Proposed Wildfire Plan, Huerfano County
•
Huerfano County Administrator
•
Huerfano County Emergency Manager
•
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Winter Storm
•
Director, Road and Bridge, Huerfano County
•
Director, Huerfano County Public Works
•
U.S. Weather Service
•
NOAA
Methane Gas Leaks
•
DEM
•
•
HAZMAT - Transported
Flooding (Seasonal and
Flash Floods)
Domestic and
International Terrorism
Jail/Prison Escape
•
Colorado Dept. of Transportation
•
Colorado State Patrol
•
•
•
Director, Road and Bridge, Huerfano County XXXX
•
State Water Conservation Board
•
John Mencer, FBI (Retired)
•
Colorado Department of Corrections
•
Sheriff, Huerfano County
•
Chiefs of Police, LaVeta and Walsenburg
Once collected, mitigation actions were evaluated using the STAPLEE methodology, which is a
standard methodology approved by FEMA, that seeks to objectively evaluate mitigation
options and ensure those selected are consistent with and complementary to other
community goals and objectives The results of the STAPLEE evaluation process produced
prioritized mitigation actions for implementation within the planning area. A summary of
STAPLEE evaluation criteria is shown in the table below.
STAPLEE Mitigation Action Evaluation Criteria Overview
S - Social
Actions are acceptable to the community if they do not adversely affect a particular
segment of the population, do not cause unreasonable impact to lower income
people, and if they are compatible with the community’s social and cultural values.
T - Technical
Actions are technically most effective if the provide long-term reduction of losses and
have minimal secondary adverse impacts.
A – Administrative
Proposed actions can have the necessary staffing and funding.
P - Political
Public support for the action is evident and all stakeholders have had an adequate
opportunity to participate in the process.
L - Legal
The jurisdiction or agency implementing the action has the legal authority to do so.
E - Economic
An evaluation of whether or not the proposed action is cost-effective, as determined
by a cost-benefit review and able to be funded.
Page 114
STAPLEE Mitigation Action Evaluation Criteria Overview
E - Environmental
Verification that the proposed actions do not have an adverse environmental effect,
comply with existing environmental laws and are consistent with the jurisdiction’s
environmental goals.
An example of the STAPLEE analysis tool used by the planning team is shown at Appendix D.
The planning team considered the risk analysis, input from all project stakeholders and
results of the STAPLEE evaluation to identify the hazard mitigation goals, objectives specific
actions to be undertaken by each County and their participating jurisdictions. These goals,
objectives and mitigation actions are listed in appendices to this Plan covering the
jurisdictions as shown in the following table:
Participating Jurisdictions
Town of LaVeta
Town of Walsenburg
Protection District
La Veta Fire Protection
District
Upper Huerfano Fire
Protection District
Mitigation Action Implementation
The mitigation actions identified in Appendix A include an accompanying implementation
priority, the jurisdiction(s) and appropriate agency responsible for implementing the action,
potential funding sources, and a preliminary timeline. The actions identified in Appendix A
represent a list of mitigation actions adopted by each participating jurisdiction. The actions
will be implemented in order of priority, as resources become available. They are prioritized
using the STAPLE/E (Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and
Environmental) method that is commonly used in local hazard mitigation plans. It serves as
a benefit-cost analysis that enables the participating jurisdictions to identify how and where
to begin implementing the identified actions.
All six jurisdictions will implement as many of these actions as possible. Implementation will
require continued attention, as well as available funding and other resources. These efforts
will be led by a mitigation working group. Upon completion of this plan, the working group
will be formed under direction of the county administrator and emergency manager, and will
include the three participating jurisdictions as well as others representing agencies such as
finance, facilities, health, parks and recreation, fire, law enforcement and others. Given the
relatively compact size of Huerfano County’s governing bodies, it is likely the county
commissioners will be involved as well. As is the case with all county and local governmental
entities, resources are very limited in Huerfano County, and implementing some actions
identified will depend on the availability of outside funding.
The mitigation working group will work to expand its analysis of each action beyond what has
already been provided in the plan. Analysis will be ongoing through implementation and
should eventually include an evaluation of the implemented action’s effectiveness. Areas of
analysis could be expanded to include the following:
Page 115
Mitigation Implementation Planning
Mitigation Action description
Jurisdiction(s) or local area(s) covered by the Mitigation
Action
Mitigation Category (prevention, structural, etc.)
Relevant Hazard(s) addressed by the action
Priority (High, Medium, Low)
Estimated Cost for implementation of the mitigation action
Potential Funding Sources
Cost / Benefit Analysis Results
Lead or Responsible Department
Implementation Schedule
Implementation Status
Environmental review for required studies and approvals
Action effectiveness
Plan Maintenance and Adoption
Plan Maintenance
The Plan is intended to be a ‘living’ document that informs stakeholders about hazard
mitigation projects and plans undertaken by Huerfano County and their participating
jurisdictions. Huerfano County fully understands the need to regularly review and update the
PDMP based on evolving hazards, new mitigation techniques and changes in land use and
critical infrastructure within the planning area. This review and update occurs on a schedule
that, at a minimum, meets provisions, rules and laws covering hazard mitigation planning.
This section provides a general overview of Huerfano County’s PDMP maintenance process.
Mitigation Update Committee
Huerfano County has designated the following participants of the Mitigation Update
Committee (the Committee). These individuals will guide plan maintenance and update
activities, ensure that the information in the Plan is current and disseminate information to
stakeholders within their respective jurisdiction. In addition, this committee will initiate the
formal process to update the plan no later than four years after FEMA approves this plan.
Initiation of the process will include assembling the appropriate stakeholders, reviewing and
analyzing this plan for continued accuracy and relevance, evaluating the effectiveness of
mitigation actions and identifying new opportunities to reduce risks throughout Huerfano
County.
Page 116
Huerfano County
Jurisdiction
Hazard Mitigation Update Committee
Point-of-Contact
Review
Schedule
Huerfano County
Emergency Manager
Annually
Huerfano County
County Administrator
Annually
Town of LaVeta
Town Manager
Annually
City of Walsenburg
Town Manager
Annually
La Veta Fire
Protection District
Fire Chief
Annually
Protection District
Fire Chief
Annually
Upper Huerfano Fire
Protection District
Fire Chief
Annually
Others as necessary
Public Participation in Plan Maintenance
Although Committee members represent the participating jurisdictions and have point-ofcontact responsibility for PDMP maintenance, Huerfano County also understands the need for
direct public input to the plan update effort. To facilitate public involvement of the plan
maintenance process, the Committee will establish guidelines, some of which can include:
•
Copies of the plan will be made available at certain public libraries and at other public
buildings within Huerfano County.
•
Announcements regarding the location and availability of the plans will be periodically
made in local newspapers, at safety council meetings and in other ways deemed
appropriate by the hazard mitigation update committees.
•
Copies of the plan and proposed updates will be posted to the county’s website along with
instructions for public participation in contributing to the maintenance process.
•
Public meetings will be held prior to adoption of plan updates where citizen comments will
be collected, their concerns discussed and ideas shared.
•
The Committee will incorporate public ideas and comments into the plan maintenance
process and adjust the plan as appropriate.
Annual Plan Review
The Plan will be reviewed by the Committee annually or when:
•
Determined appropriate by the Update Committee
•
Significant changes occur within the planning area involving threat impact or potential
impact
•
Changes occur to mitigation actions that are part of the Plan
Page 117
As part of the annual Plan review, the Mitigation Update Committee will follow a process that:
•
Requests input from project stakeholders not represented on the Update Committee,
including members of the public. This input will include information on projects and
programs important to mitigation planning.
•
Makes minor adjustments to the plan to keep mitigation actions in line with approved
goals and objectives
•
Allows for a formal approval process for major changes to the Plan
•
Makes changes, as appropriate, to the Mitigation Update Committee
Plan Review Criteria
The Planning team has defined initial criteria for evaluating the Plan, and these criteria will be
modified and approved by the Mitigation Update Committee as appropriate. When evaluating
the Plan, the Committee will, among other things, assess whether:
•
Mitigation goals and objectives address current and expected conditions
•
The nature and magnitude of threats have changed
•
Current resources are appropriate for implementing the Plan
•
The mitigation actions underway continue to be compatible with STAPLEE criteria and any
other criteria determined relevant by the Update Committee
•
The maintenance process includes a cross-functional set of participants, including
members of the public and representatives of the jurisdictions involved in the Plan
•
Mitigation actions encounter problems in implementation
•
Mitigation actions are achieving their planned outcomes
•
Mitigation actions are coordinated with other planning studies, reports and programs
undertaken or otherwise in effect in Huerfano County and participating jurisdictions.
Huerfano County’s Hazard Mitigation Update committee will meet periodically to ensure that
mitigation actions are incorporated into any current planning activities. As an example,
certain mitigation actions affect Huerfano County’s land use policies, zoning ordinances,
capital improvement plans and wildfire plans. Following PDMP adoption, the update committee
will work with agencies and departments within their respective jurisdictions to align
mitigation actions in the PDMP to these policies, plans and regulations, some of which are
identified elsewhere in this document. Huerfano County believes that this process will allow
the plan to effectively address the hazard mitigation requirements within the planning area
and incorporate input from a broad cross section of stakeholders, including community
members.
Plan Adoption
Huerfano County and jurisdictions represented by this document will adopt the Plan according
to this general process:
• Posting of the draft plan with public notice to allow community members to review and
comment on the plan prior to adoption
• A first reading as part of the Board of County Commissioners meetings, the Town/City
Council meetings or the fire district board meetings, whichever venue is appropriate
Page 118
• A second reading, if necessary, as part of the Board of County Commissioners meetings
the Town/City Council meetings, or Fire District board meetings, whichever venue is
appropriate
• Final adoption by the respective jurisdictions with execution by the proper jurisdiction
officials
The public posting of the draft Plan will occur using an Internet (web) posting along with
distribution of the draft to public sites such as libraries, government offices. Announcements
of the public postings will be made through local newspapers and using Huerfano County’s
website.
Every five years, the updated plan will be re-submitted for adoption following the general
process outlined above.
Page 119
Appendix A – Mitigation Actions for Huerfano County
This appendix describes mitigation actions and associated goals and objectives for the
prioritized hazards adopted by Huerfano County, the Town of La Veta, the City of Walsenburg
and the Huerfano County, La Veta and Upper Huerfano Fire Protection Districts. The hazards
identified for mitigation include:
• Wildfire
• Winter Storms
• High Winds/Tornadoes
• Methane Gas Leaks
• Hazardous Materials - Transported (HAZMAT – Transported)
• Flooding
Page 120
Wildfire
Goal: Reduce wildfire occurrences and severity on Huerfano County
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Sources
Agency
Objective 1
Improve emergency response capability for wildfire within the planning area
Mitigation
Action 1.1
Identify then certify all privately
owned bridges with load limits to
support emergency response
Medium
Timeline
County Road &
Bridge, County
GIS, County OEM
Local, USFS,
Colorado Forest
Service
2-4 Years
County Road &
Bridge; Upper
Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
County OEM
Foundations, Federal
Programs
2-4 Years
Local
1-2 Years
Mitigation
Action 1.2
Acquire 4-wheel drive pumper
trucks
Mitigation
Action 1.3
Have County staff certified by the
National Wildfire Coordinating
Group
Objective 2
Enhance community policies and procedures as preventive measures to reduce wildfire impact
Mitigation
Action 2.1
Adopt County-wide Wildfire
regulations
Mitigation
Action 2.2
Strengthen and formalize
oversight and enforcement for
compliance to land use standards
(H.B. 1041)
Mitigation
Action 2.3
Implement code changes so that
new developments have dual
ingress / egress to support
emergency response and
evacuation
Medium
Mitigation
Action 2.4
Develop, implement and promote
subdivision wildfire protection
protocols
Medium
Medium
High
High
County OEM,
County
Administration
County
Local
1-2 Years
Local
3-6 Years
County OEM,
County
Administration
Local
3-6 Years
Upper Huerfano,
Huerfano and La
Veta Fire Districts
Local, State Forest,
USFS
2-4 Years
Low
Page 121
Wildfire
Goal: Reduce wildfire occurrences and severity on Huerfano County
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Sources
Agency
Objective 3
Mitigation
Action 3.1
Reduce the wildfire threat to critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property
Develop and implement a
voluntary wildfire protection
program for residents within
wildfire / urban interface
Develop and implement fuelreduction projects
Mitigation
Action 3.2
Mitigation
Action 3.3
Objective 4
Mitigation
Action
4.1
Timeline
High
High
Identify high risk critical
structures within the wildland /
urban interchange and develop
fire protection strategies
appropriate for those structures
High
Upper Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
Upper Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts; USFS,
State Forest
Service
Upper Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts; Private
Owners
Local
1-2 Years
USFE, BLM, Local,
Private
1-2 Years
Local, Private
1-2 Years
Local
2-4 Years
Improve public education of wildfire, mitigation and response.
Provide community awareness
education classes/ seminars/
advertising/ brochures/ etc…
Medium
County OEM;
Upper Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
Page 122
Winter Storm
Goal: Minimize the impact of Winter Storms on Huerfano County and participating jurisdictions within the County
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Timeline
Sources
Agency
Objective 1
Improve emergency response capability for winter storm response within the planning area
Mitigation
Action 1.1
Identify and improve bridges
within the planning area that are
inadequate for emergency
response
Medium
County Road &
Bridge, County
OEM
CDOT, Energy
Impact
2-4 years
County GIS,
County OEM
FEMA, CDEM
3-6 Years
County OEM
Local
0-1 Year
County Disptach,
County OEM
HLS
3-6 Years
Mitigation
Action 1.2
Incorporate GIS layer for LandOwnership Parcels into
emergency-response procedures
Objective 2
Improve early notification capabilities for Winter Storm events
Mitigation
Action 2.1
Establish Storm Ready
Programs, adapted for Winter
Storms, within the County
Mitigation
Action 2.2
Expand radio coverage within
the counties to better support
the All Hazard warning / alert
system (NOAA weather alert
system)
Objective 3
Provide for support of citizens significantly impacted by Winter Storm events
Mitigation
Action 3.1
Identify at-risk or shut-in
residents
Mitigation
Action 3.2
Develop coordinated
management strategies for
plowing snow and clearing roads
of fallen trees; clearing debris
from both public and private
property.
Low
Medium
Low
Highh
Medium
County LE, County
OEM, County
Ambulance
County Road &
Bridge, County
OEM; City of
Walsenburg Public
Works
Local
0-1 Year
Local, San Isabel
2-4 Years
Page 123
Winter Storm
Goal: Minimize the impact of Winter Storms on Huerfano County and participating jurisdictions within the County
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Timeline
Sources
Agency
Reduce risk to public
City of
Local, San Isabel
2-4 Years
infrastructure from severe
Walsenburg,
storms. Partner with other
Public Works,
Mitigation
agencies such as Public Works to
Town of La Veta;
Medium
Action 3.3
document known hazard areas.
County OEM,
County Road &
Bridge, San Isabel
Page 124
High Wind/Tornadoes
Goal: Reduce impact on life, safety and property from High Winds/Tornadoes
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Sources
Agency
Objective 1
Mitigation
Action 1.1
Mitigation
Action 1.2
Mitigation
Action 1.3
Timeline
Improve emergency response capability for High Winds/Tornadoes response within hazard areas
The County should consider
promoting the use of NOAA AllHazard radios as a primary
notification system to forward
weather advisories to the
general public and special
locations. The County may
consider evaluating the different
types of notification systems
currently being used along with
new types of notification
technology.
Implement warning and alert
systems with specific coverage
of the highest hazard areas
Implement, if necessary, and
publicize emergency shelters for
use immediately following a high
wind/tornado event with
resulting property damage
County OEM,
County Dispatch
CDEM, HLS, Local
1-2 Years
County Dispatch,
County OEM
CDEM, HLS, FEMA,
Local
1-2 Years
County OEM
CDEM, HLS, FEMA,
Local
3-6 Years
High
High
Low
Objective 2
Minimize threat to human life and property posed by High Winds /Tornadoes
Mitigation
Action 2.1
Consider planting windbreaks to
protect farmsteads, buildings
and open fields from high winds
Low
County
Administration
Arbor Day, D.O.W.,
CDOT
Page 125
3-6 Years
High Wind/Tornadoes
Mitigation
Action 2.2
Goal: Reduce impact on life, safety and property from High Winds/Tornadoes
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Sources
Agency
Consider promoting construction
County
Local
standards and techniques to
Administration,
strengthen public and private
County OEM, City
Medium
structures against severe wind
of Walsenburg,
damage
Town of La Veta
Objective 3
Improve training and public awareness for High Winds/Tornadoes mitigation
Mitigation
Action 3.1
Review local building codes to
determine if revisions are
needed to improve the
structures ability to withstand
greater wind velocities
High
County
Administration,
County OEM; City
of Walsenburg,
Town of La Veta
Local
Page 126
Timeline
2-4 Years
1-2 Years
Methane Gas Leaks
Goal: Reduce impact on life, safety and property from Methane Leaks
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Sources
Agency
Objective 1
Identify areas of County vulnerable to future Methane Leaks
Mitigation
Action 1.1
Conduct review of past events to
identify potential future patterns
of methane leakage
Objective 2
Improve emergency response capability for Methane Leak leaks within hazard areas
Mitigation
Action 2.1
Consider formalizing a warning
system that includes methane
gas leak alerts. Potential outlets
include newspapers, the county
website, radio, television and
reverse 911.
Mitigation
Action 2.2
Ensure Emergency responders
and other County staffs receive
appropriate training in methane
gas leak issues.
Mitigation
Action 2.4
Update Mutual Aid Agreements,
particularly with San Luis Valley
area counties.
Mitigation
Action 2.5
Objective 3
Ensure an adequate county work
force is available in the event of
an extensive methane gas leak
High
Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation
Commission;
County OEM
USGS, COGCC, EPA
Timeline
1-2 Years
County Dispatch,
County OEM
USGS, COGCC, EPA,
FEMA, Local
1-2 Years
County OEM
COGCC, Local
1-2 Years
County OEM
Local
2-4 Years
County OEM;
Upper Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
Local
2-4 Years
High
High
Medium
Medium
Improve training and public awareness for Methane Leak mitigation
Page 127
Goal: Reduce the potential for impact from transported hazardous materials to the public the County participating jurisdictions
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Timeline
Sources
Agency
Objective 1
Mitigation
Action 1.1
Mitigation
Action 1.2
Identify and characterize facilities and companies that regularly receive or transport hazardous material
Conduct a survey in selected
business parks to identify use,
storage and transportation of
hazardous materials
Update and validate previously
completed assessments of the
quantity and frequency for
transported petroleum products
in incorporated areas within the
County
Mitigation
Action 1.3
Distribute results of the
petroleum assessments to all
relevant stakeholders,
particularly Fire Departments
Mitigation
Action 1.4
Conduct commodity flow studies
of main highways and railroads
through the county.
Objective 2
Mitigation
Action 2.1
High
Medium
Medium
High
CSP, CDOT;
County LE, County
OEM; Upper
Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
CSP, CDOT,
CDPHE; County LE,
County OEM;
Upper Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
CSP; County LE,
County OEM;
Upper Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
County Public
Works, CDOT
Local
1-2 Years
CDOT, Local
2-4 Years
Local
2-4 Years
Local, State
1-2 Years
Local
1-2 Years
Improve public / private response capabilities for HAZMAT incidents
Plan and execute HAZMAT
exercises, including private
stakeholders identified in the
surveys (see Objective 1)
High
CSP, CDOT;
County LE, County
OEM; Upper
Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts,
Page 128
Goal: Reduce the potential for impact from transported hazardous materials to the public the County participating jurisdictions
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Timeline
Sources
Agency
Mitigation
Create a county-wide HAZMAT
County LE, County
CDEM, Local, FEMA
1-2 Years
Action 2.2
response plan
OEM; Upper
Huerfano,
High
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
Mitigation
Coordinate county-wide HAZMAT
County Dispatch,
Local
2-4 Years
Action 2.3
response resources
Medium
County OEM,
County LE
Mitigation
Ensure Emergency responders
County OEM
FEMA,CDEM, CSP
1-2 Years
Action 2.4
and other County staff receive
High
appropriate training in HazMat
issues
Mitigation
Action 2.5
Objective 3
Mitigation
Action 3.1
Mitigation
Action 3.2
Consider formalizing a warning
system that includes HazMat and
Methane Leak alerts (see above,
methane gas leaks, Mitigation
Action, 2.1). Potential outlets
include newspapers, the county
website, radio, television and
reverse 911.
County Dispatch,
County OEM
FEMA, Local, EPA
1-2 Years
High
Improve training and public awareness for Methane Leak mitigation
Provide community awareness
education classes/ seminars/
advertising/ brochures/ etc…
Identify county areas with most
vulnerable segments of the
population such as the elderly
and the very young.
High
County OEM
USGS, COGCC,
CDPHE
1-2 Years
High
County OEM,
County LE; Upper
Huerfano,
Huerfano County
and La Veta Fire
Districts
Local
1-2 Years
Page 129
Flooding
Goal: Reduce impact on life, safety and property from Floods
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Sources
Agency
Objective 1
Improve emergency response capability for Flooding response within hazard areas
Mitigation
Action 1.1
Upgrade Warning system(s)
Mitigation
Action 1.2
County Dispatch
Local, FEMA, Core of
Engineers
2-4 Years
County Dispatch,
County OEM
Red Cross, Local
2-4 Years
County OEM
Local
2-4 Years
FEMA, Local, CDEM
1-2 Years
Medium
Publicize emergency shelters for
use immediately following a
widespread flooding event,
particularly in the area of
Cucharas River
Timeline
Medium
Mitigation
Action 1.3
Update Mutual Aid Agreements,
especially with San Luis Valley
and other nearby counties.
Objective 2
Improve training and public awareness for Flood mitigation
Mitigation
Action 2.1
Develop public awareness
programs to notify stakeholders
in hazard areas of policies and
regulations in the areas
Objective 3
Improve planning and regulations aimed at enhancing Flood mitigation
Mitigation
Action 3.1
Continue to participate in the
National Flood Insurance
Program by implementing and
improving upon effective
floodplain and stormwater
management practices, including
improved mapping, public
information, and where feasible,
structural projects.
Medium
County OEM
High
County
Administration
Core of Engineers,
CWCB, State
Engineer, Local,
Energy Impact
High
Page 130
1-2 Years
Flooding
Mitigation
Action 3.2
Goal: Reduce impact on life, safety and property from Floods
Jurisdiction and
Potential Funding
Action
Priority
Responsible
Sources
Agency
Update mapping of flood prone
County OEM,
Local
areas and incorporate into GIS
County
GIS
High
for public distribution
Mitigation
Action 3.3
Conservation easements may be
used to protect environmentally
significant portions of parcels
from development. They do not
restrict all use of the land;
rather, they direct development
to areas of land that are not
environmentally significant.
Mitigation
Action 3.4
Obtain drainage easements for
planned and regulated public use
of privately owned land for
permanent water retention and
drainage.
Mitigation
Action 3.5
Wetland Protection With special
soils and hydrology, wetlands
serve as natural collection basins
for floodwaters. Wetlands act like
sponges to collect water, filter it,
and release it slowly into rivers
and streams. Protecting and
preserving wetlands can go a
long way toward preventing
flooding in other areas.
Mitigation
Action 3.6
3.5 Expand use of risk
assessment to guide future land
use and policy formation
Timeline
1-2 Years
County GIS;
Private,
Foundations
Local, Private, GOCO
3-6 Years
County
Administration;
City of
Walsenburg, Town
of La Veta
Local, GOCO
2-4 Years
County
Administration;
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
State Engineer, EPA,
CWCB, GOCO, Ducks
Unlimited
2-4 Years
Local, HLS
1-2 Years
Low
Medium
Medium
County OEM
High
Page 131
Appendix B – Plan Participation
Huerfano County - Charter Meeting 8/5/08
Page 132
Page 133
Huerfano County – PDMP meeting attendees – 3/4/10
Page 134
Appendix C – Pubic Survey Risk Assessment
Huerfano County surveyed residents to collect public input on risks from natural and human-caused
hazards within the participating jurisdictions. This survey was accessible electronically through the
Internet and in hardcopy form distributed at designated public locations within Huerfano County.
A summary of the tabulated results from this survey are listed in the table below. This information
was used to complement Huerfano County PDM planning efforts. Huerfano County will not necessarily
invest mitigation resources according to the priority assigned to these hazards as a result of this
survey. In some cases, mitigating activities will not produce adequate benefits compared to
implementation and maintenance costs. This survey was used, however, to provide general guidance
to planning activities related to Huerfano County PDMP initiative.
Total No. of Public Survey
Respondents
41
The hazards below were ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 describing hazards with the most
impact on Huerfano County. The values shown represent the average ranking for each hazard from
all respondents. Hazards highlighted in bold indicate those the Planning team elected to prioritize for
remediation in this plan. Flooding from spring runoff, flash flooding and intentionally caused flooding
due to a dam breach were hazards that were all evaluated and analyzed, but that did not receive a
designation as priority ones. Emergency responders were asked to identify themselves as part of the
survey, and such respondents comprised slightly less than 25 % of the survey takers.
HAZARD
Drought
Winds
Winter Storms
Wildfire
Lightning
Motor Vehicle Crashes
Methane Leaks (Natural)
Flooding (all types)
AVERAGE SCORE
7.1
6.92
6.84
6.77
5.92
5.97
5.74
5.61
4.3
Page 135
The following represents the public survey form used to collect the public input.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Development
Public Survey
Introduction
Huerfano County is participating in a federally-funded effort in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 to develop a pre-disaster mitigation plan to reduce risk from natural and humancaused hazards. The input of all County residents is sought through this public survey about possible
hazards facing the County. The survey is available electronically through the Huerfano County
website and in paper form in libraries, town halls and the County courthouse in
Walsenburg.
Your participation in this short survey is greatly appreciated and will contribute to the
quality of the County’s emergency planning efforts.
The survey will be available from September 15th through October 6th, 2008
Respondent Name:
_________________________________
Are you 18 years old or older:
(YES
Please record today’s date:
DATE:
If you reside in a town, which one?
_________________________________
Do you reside in unincorporated
Huerfano County?
(YES
Are you an Emergency Response Professional?
NO)
/
/ 2009
NO)
(YES
NO)
If so, are you a (check those that apply):
Firefighter
_______
Law enforcement
_______
EMS
_______
Healthcare professional
_______
Mountain Rescue
_______
Other public safety
_______
Page 136
PRE-DISASTER ALL-HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Development
Public Survey Form
In your opinion, which of the following
hazards and their potential
consequences most threaten life, health
and property in your community?
Please rate each hazard from 1 – 10
1 – Least threatening
10 – Most threatening
Natural Hazards
(Please circle your responses)
Wildfire
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Winter Storm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Seasonal Flooding (seasonal rains, melting snow)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Flash Flooding (caused by high run-off due to
excessive rain and drainage failure)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Landslides
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Avalanche
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Drought
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Tornado
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
High Winds
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Lightning/Thunderstorms
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Earthquake
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Disease Outbreak
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Volcanic Eruption
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Asteroid/Comet Impact
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Methane Gas Leaks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Human-Caused Hazards
(Please circle your responses)
Flood due to Dam Breach
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
International Terrorism
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Domestic Terrorism
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Transportation of Hazardous Materials
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Fixed Installations of Hazardous Materials
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Urban Fire (Accidental)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Airplane Crashes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Military Accident
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Arson
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Extreme Acts of Violence (eg. Granby incident)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Civil Disturbance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Motor Vehicle Crashes (single vehicle)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Motor Vehicle Crashes (multiple vehicles)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Jail Escape
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
HUERFANO COUNTY PRE-DISASTER ALL-HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN
Other Hazards – Natural or Human-caused (please write in relevant hazard)
Manmade Gas Leaks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
Appendix D – STAPLEE Sample Template
The following table is an example of the STAPLEE template as used by the planning
team to validate mitigation actions encompassed by this Plan. Each planning team
member assessed each potential action item individually. The assessment for each
criterion (consideration) was defined by:
(-) negative response – indicates that the criteria would have a negative impact on
the adoption of the associated mitigation action.
(0) neutral response - indicates that the criteria would have a neutral impact on the
adoption of the associated mitigation action.
(+) positive response - indicates that the criteria would have a positive impact on
the adoption of the associated mitigation action.
The results of the actual STAPLEE analysis are available through the Huerfano
County project manager.
Draft Version – Not for Public Distribution
Page 138
HAZARD
1.1. Identify and
certify all privately
owned bridges with
load limits to support
emergency response
1.2 Acquire 4 wheel
drive pumper trucks
1.3. Have County
staff certified by the
National Wildfire
Coordinating Group
1.4 Other ?
+
+
+
+
+
o
-
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
Consistent with Federal
Laws
0
Objective 1
Reduce Wildfire occurrences and severity on Huerfano County
Consistent with
Community Environ.
Goals
Effect on HAZMAT /
Waste Sites
-
Effect on Endangered
Species
+
Effect on Land / Water
Outside Funding
Required
Environmental
Contributes to Economic
Goals
Cost of Action
Benefit of Action
Economic
Potential Legal Challenge
Existing Local Authority
State Authority
Legal
Public Support
Local Champion
Political Support
Political
Maintenance and
Operations
Staffing
Administrative
Secondary Impacts
Long Term Solution
Technical Feasibility
Technical
Effect on disadvantaged
population segment
Social
Community
Acceptance
Ranking
Criteria
Considerations
---->
For Alternative
Actions
|
|
\/
Reduce impact on life, safety and property from Wildfire
Funding Allocation
GOAL 1
Wildfire
Objective 2
Enhance community policies and procedures as preventive measures to reduce Wildfire impact
2.1. Adopt proposed
County-wide wildfire
regulations
2.2. Strengthen and
formalize oversight and
enforcement for
compliance to land use
standards (H.B. 1041)
2.3 Implement code
changes so that new
developments have dual
ingress/egress to support
emergency response and
evacuation
2.4 Develop, implement
and promote subdivision
wildfire protection
protocols
Objective 3
Reduce the Wildfire threat to critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property
3.1 Develop and
implement a voluntary
wildfire protection
program for residents
within wildfire/urban
interchange
Page 140
Consistent with Federal
Laws
Consistent with
Community Environ.
Goals
Effect on HAZMAT /
Waste Sites
Effect on Endangered
Species
Effect on Land / Water
Environment
Outside Funding
Required
Contributes to Economic
Goals
Benefit of Action
Economic
Potential Legal Challenge
Existing Local Authority
State Authority
Legal
Public Support
Local Champion
Political Support
Political
Maintenance and
Operations
Funding Allocation
Admin.
Staffing
Secondary Impacts
|
|
\/
Technical
Technical Feasibility
Community Acceptance
Considerations
---->
For Alternative
Actions
Effect on disadvantaged
population segment
Social
Long Term Solution
Ranking
Criteria
Objective 3
Reduce the Wildfire threat to critical infrastructure, including residential and commercial property
3.2 Develop and
implement fuel-reduction
projects
3.3 Identify high risk
critical structures within
the wildland/urban
interchange and develop
fire protection strategies
appropriate for those
structures
Objective 4
Improve public education of Wildfire, mitigation and response
4.1 Provide community
awareness education
classes/seminars/advertis
ing/brochures, etc.
Page 141
Appendix E – Risk Assessment Data Collection Template
For each jurisdiction participating in Plan development, a risk assessment was conducted for the hazards prioritized as a result
of the public survey and expert input. Project participants completed a risk assessment tool, an example of which is listed
below. The results of this risk assessment were used to rank hazards according to high, medium or low risk as illustrated in the
Risk Assessment section of this Plan.
Risk Assessment
Template
Note: This document assesses impact of hazard on community. List
all probable incidents for all hazard types.
This spreadsheet uses a qualitative scoring model. Pointing the cursor over the table
header cell (red dot) gives the scoring criteria for assessment.
Natural Hazard: Wildfire
Location
% Chance of
Hazard Event
Potential
Magnitude
Impact to
Life and
Health
Impact to
Property
Economic
Impact
Impact to
Infrastructure
and Critical
Facilities
Impact to First
Responders
Total Score
A description of the criteria and scoring for this risk template is listed on the following page.
Page 142
Hazard Risk
Criteria
Location
Description
Scoring Metrics
Geographic location (i.e., 120 square
miles in north-east part of county,
coordinates of location etc.)
What are loss expectations for life and
safety? What is the severity of the
hazard? This might require Historical
data, hazard maps, expert judgment.
Not applicable
Impact to Life and
Health
What are loss expectations for life and
safety?
Impact to
Property
What are loss expectations for
property?
Economic Impact
Includes losses to commercial
revenues, tourism, etc. Losses
include direct revenues and
opportunity losses such as downtime.
Impact to
Infrastructure and
Critical Facilities
Impact includes service disruption,
structural damage, displacement
costs, etc.
Impact to First
Responders
Impact includes affect on operational
efficiency, equipment or personnel
5 - Catastrophic: more than 50% area / population/
infrastructure affected,
4 - Critical: 25% - 50%,
3 - Medium: 10% - 25%,
2 - Low: less than 10% affected
1 – Negligible affect
1 - Low (Less than 5% of affected area population or maximum
of 5 people affected)
2 - Moderate (between 5% - 10% of affected area population or
maximum of 20 people affected)
3 - High (between 10% - 20% affected or maximum of 50 people
affected)
4 - Extreme (more than 20% or over 50 people directly affected)
1 - Low (Less than $10,000 losses on local economy/businesses)
2 - Moderate (more than $10,000 but less than $50,000)
3 - High (expected losses more than $50,000 and less than
$200,000)
4 - Extreme (expected losses more than $200,000)
1 - Low (expected damages less than $50,000)
2 - Moderate ( expected damages between $50,000 - $500,000)
3 - High (between $500,000 - $ 1 MM)
4 - Extreme (in excess of $ 1 million)
1 - Low (less than 5% loss of operational efficacy)
2 - Moderate ( 5% - 10% loss in efficacy)
3 - High (10% - 20% loss in efficacy)
4 - Extreme (more than 20% loss of operational effectiveness)
Potential
Magnitude
5% - 1 event in 20 years
20% - approx. 2 events in 10 yrs. time
100% - one event in any year
200% - two events in any year
Page 143
Appendix F – Hazard Maps
WILDFIRE THREAT/PINE BEETLE DAMAGE
COALBED METHANE GAS MAPS
Page 146
HAZMAT ROUTES
Page 147
HYDROGRAPHY FEATURES INCLUDING DAMS
Page 148

Huerfano County 2.2011 - Division of Homeland Security and

Transcription

Similar documents

PDF - City of Terrell Hills

Colorado Springs

First District News

MABAS 47

Real Estate Advisor Sell Smart, Buy Wise, and Live Well

Read more... - Log Hill Volunteer Fire Department

Class IX

(MSDS) Kukui Nut Oil RBDW

Marina de Joyuda - staging.files.cms.plus.com