Laserfiche WebLink
to be able to develop loss estimates for the ski and rafting recreation industry, although <br />the approach we will rely on for this will likely be less direct than for agriculture. For <br />example we will survey ski and rafting industry representatives to extract estimated <br />losses for 2002, and the methods used to develop these. We will then seek to refine <br />these and add to the overall loss (which impacts not just the ski /rafting industry but <br />supporting industries of, for example, hotels) by surveying sample hotel chains for <br />occupancy rates during drought impact periods. <br />Potential economic vulnerability at the county level will be analyzed through the <br />qualitative assessment previously mentioned and by rolling up the local hazard <br />mitigation plans or drought plans (a process discussed later in this proposal's Scope of <br />Work). As there are often gaps in the local plans where economic loss data is <br />concerned, this data will be supplemented by state -level analyses as needed. <br />Qualitative loss estimates will be evaluated to determine if new data can be used to <br />refine or make more precise and quantitative loss estimates in future drought plan <br />updates. <br />The 2007 drought plan update provides an inventory of potentially vulnerable state <br />facilities and an estimate of potential losses. AMEC will build off that information and <br />use the 2002 drought as a "drought of record" to quantify the potential for future losses <br />based on this past severe event. For example, impacts to state parks included a 3 <br />percent decline in visitation in 2002. A potential dollar loss can be estimated by <br />collecting updated revenue figures for state parks and applying a 3 percent reduction. <br />These costs can be inflated to represent current dollar values. This methodology can be <br />applied to other sectors and state facilities /assets, such as wildlife and agriculture. <br />AMEC has successfully used this approach in other state and local mitigation planning <br />projects that have been approved by FEMA. <br />3.3.1 (c) Identification of potential socioeconomic drought impacts <br />As well as meteorologic, hydrologic and economic factors, it is also important to <br />consider drought vulnerability from the perspective of indirect impacts on society and <br />the economy (e.g., increased unemployment due to failure of an industry because of <br />drought). For example, during and following the 2002 drought many rafting businesses <br />failed in Colorado. The reduced numbers of adventure tourists visiting towns close by <br />rafting waters also had a serious impact on the hospitality and other industries <br />dependant on tourists. Supplies of many goods and services such as water, forage, and <br />food grains, depend upon water supply. Inadequate rainfall causes a decrease in the <br />production of rangeland goods and services. Effects of drought on rangeland- dependent <br />counties and towns are well recognized. Indicators of socio- economic drought in these <br />locations of Colorado might include: <br />* Value of forage harvested <br />* Employment diversity <br />* Land tenure, use and ownership patterns <br />* Sources and amounts of community income <br />* Return on rangeland investments <br />