FLOOD08745 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan -1999 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . FEMA Regulation. 44 CFR. Part 13, administrative requirements . FEMA Regulations. 44 CFR. Part 17. Subpart F, drug,free work place . FEMA Regulations, 44 CFR, Part 206. Subparts M&N . Final Report of the Interagency Floodplain Managernent Review Committee - June 1994 . FEMA - 1186-DR-CO Hazard Mitigation Team Report - October 1997 . FEMA - 1276-DR-CO Hazard Mitigation Team Report - July 30. 1999 1.3.2 Slate Presidentially dedared disasters include a stipulation that the state must initiate the mitigation process, This condition is required by Section 409 of the Stafford Act (as amended) and is also stated in the FEMA-State Agreement for 1276-DR-CO Flood Disaster in Colorado, dedared May 17. 1999, The governor. through his executive power, directs specific agencies to participate in post-disaster mitigation activities. Addrtional authority is derived from the Governor's Office . "Colorado Disaster Emergency Act of 1992" (Part 21 of Artide 32, Titie 24. Colorado Revised Statute, 1988 as amended) states the governor. as the executive head of state, has the inherent responsibility. as well as constitutional and statutory authority, to commrt state and local resources (personnel, equipment and finances) for the purpose of ... meeting the dangers to the state and its people presented by disasters .... This responsibilrty is exercised through the director, Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Department of local Affairs (DOLA). The Governor's Disaster Em...gency Council serves as an advisory council to the governor and the director of the Office of Em8f!lency Management on all mailers pertaining to Declarations of State Disaster Emergencies, and on the response and recovery activities of state government. 1.3.2.1 Slate Mitigation Planning The first Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared as a result of the presidential dedaration of disaster for larim... County on July 22. 1982 (FEMA-665-DR-CO). The following are additions and revisions to the original plan: . Status report No, 1 prepared December 1983, . Second review prepared January 1985 following dedaration of 10 western slope counties as a ma- jor disaster area eligible for public assistance on July 27.1984 (FEMA-71B-DR,CO). . In 1988, the Colorado Geological Survey prepared the Colorado Landslide Hazard Mitigation Plan in response to flooding and mudslides on the west- ern slope, . In 1995. the Colorado State Forest Service pre- pared the Colorado Wildfire Hazard Mrtigation Plan in response to wildfires in the state (FEMA- CO-2098-FSA; FEMA-C0-2099-FSA; and FEMA- CO-2102-FSA), . In 1998, the Colorado Flood Hazard Mrtigation Plan was updated due to dedaration DR-1186- CO. . In 1999. the Colorado Flood Hazard Mrtigation Plan was updated due to declaration DR-1276- CO, 1.3.3 Local Government local governments play an essential role in implementing effective mitigation, both before and after disaster events. In a post-disaster environment, locally affected areas also are expected to participate in mitigation evaluation, local government participation with federal and state agencies in the Colorado Hazard Mitigation Team process is crucial. Recommendations on alleviating or eliminating a repetitive problem often focus on local assessment as to the cause of damage and depend on a local applicant for implementation. Both OEM and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) have suggested that communities prepare a flood hazard mrtigation plan for their jurisdictions. This is a logical extension of the mitigation planning process initiated on a national scale by the federal government. A carefully drafted plan can be an extremely valuable resource to formulate annual work programs, budgets, and policy posrtions, 1.4 Goals and Objectives The 1999 Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan is the comerstone for establishing and guiding a statewide effort to reduce or eliminate the impact on life, property. and the environment from the flood hazard. The costs of responding to and recovering from repetitive flooding increases with each event. However, it is possible to break the cycle of recurring damage by evaluating the root cause and choosing a logical and realistic course of action from among potential alternative solutions to eliminate or reduce either the cause or its impact. The implementation of mitigation measures is challenging due to additional costs and assuring cost effectiveness of the measures. Mrtigation measures can be difficult to inrtiate because of sociaVeconomic Chapter 1 - 2 12/24/992:58 PM