Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />1000 2000 <br />I I <br />FEET <br />Figure 21. Detail from the Grand Junction 7Yz minute quadrangle showing location of Santa Oara <br />Avenue and the Uimplite Park landslide. . <br /> <br />Mitigation <br />Remedial actions taken to stabili2e the landslide area at <br />LampJite Park consisted of the removal of 8 of the 12 af- <br />fected structures, regrading of the ground surlace, and the <br />installation of 10 monitoring wells to observe the perched <br />. water table and provide an early warning system for future <br />instability that might impact Santa Clara Avenue and the <br />utilities beneath it. <br /> <br />ADDRESSING UNMET LOCAL NEEDS <br /> <br />These three case studies provided the basis for formula- <br />tion of a mitigation assistance strategy by state govern- <br />ment. In each case, local entities had expended con- <br />siderable effort and money in order to mitigate their <br />landslide problems. Yet much still needed to be done, <br />. because technical and financial needs often exceeded <br />the capabi1ities of the impacted communities. Develop- <br />ment of the three cases provided opportunities for the <br />identification of available resources and needs that could <br />not be met at the local level. In many cases, the <br />resource shortfalls identified represented substantial <br />obstacles to reducing the impacts of future landslides on <br />people, property, and essential services. The unmet <br />needs typified the problems that face most local govern- <br />ments impacted by Iandsliding. Thus, once these cases <br />were analyzed, projects could be developed to deal with <br />many high priority local needs. <br />Unmet needs were identified and prioritized following <br />on-site investigation and analysis. Vulnerable areas were <br />evaluated to determine the potential type and magnitude <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />. / . <br /> <br />Sch <br /> <br />-.......-..::~ <br />.0 <br /><v'~~ <br />V .c~-'-, . . <br />........., <br />II /I <br />fl !,At." <br />....__1/ <br />: .-.. <br />" . <br /> <br /> <br />. <br />.' <br />.' <br />: ~ <br />: . i <br /> <br />. <br />. . <br />-.. ..... . <br />: ......:. : <br />.......... <br />....~.......... <br />... . ... <br />:.: :. ':::.. .. <br />: :. : t...{3: . .: .: <br />: . : : :.: : . :: :: <br />..::.:.. .: <br />. . ... : : :: -... :. <br />.... . <br />. . . <br />., . <br /> <br />of impacts. Health and safety, property loss, economic <br />and social disruption were all considered in each situa- <br />tion. Arrj potential impacts were then aggregated and <br />ranked by priority SO that major potential impacts were <br />clearly identified. A portion of the matrix used for this <br />analytical process is offered as an example in Table 9. <br />Next these high priority potential impacts were listed <br />for ~h major study site and compared against existing <br />response systems available to local governments. Once <br />this comparison was made, residua1 needs were then <br />identified (as sbown in the right hand column of Thble <br />10) as unmet needs that should be considered by state <br />and federal governments. A portion of this matrix- <br />examining potential "health and safety" impacts for cer- <br />tain specific activities at Glenwood Springs and D~s <br />Junction-is also provided. When all three case studies <br />had been thoroughly analyzed, a wide range of unmet <br />needs were identified, and the most critical were <br />selected to form the basis for state mitigation-assistance <br />projects. Other less urgent unmet needs and potential <br />projects were identified for later consideration by state <br />agenCies. <br /> <br />49 <br />