44 CFR Requirement Section 201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
As a requirement under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, local jurisdictions are responsible for revising their Hazard Mitigation Plans every five years. This plan is an update to the County’s 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan that was completed in 2015 and approved in June 2015 under this requirement. All sections of the plan were analyzed and revised where appropriate as part of the update process.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
44 CFR Requirement Section 201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan.
Mesa County invited every incorporated city and special district in the County to participate in the multi-jurisdictional Mesa County Hazard Mitigation Planning process. The Disaster Mitigation Act requires that each jurisdiction participate in the planning process and officially adopt the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. Each jurisdiction that chose to participate in the planning process and development of the plan was required to meet minimum plan participation requirements of attending at least one planning meeting. Participants were, however, encouraged to participate in the entire process, which included the following:
(a) 
Designate a representative to serve on the HMPC.
(b) 
Participate in HMPC meetings.
(c) 
Complete and return worksheets.
(d) 
Identify mitigation actions for the plan.
(e) 
Review and comment on plan drafts.
(f) 
Inform the public, local officials, and other interested parties about the planning process and provide opportunity for them to comment on the plan.
(g) 
Formally adopt the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The following table details how jurisdictions participated in Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee meetings.
Meeting Date (2019/2020)
Kickoff Meeting:
September 3, 2019
HMPC #2:
October 9, 2019
HMPC #3:
November 13, 2019
HMPC Final Mtg.
January 8, 2020
Mesa County
X
X
X
X
City of Grand Junction
X
X
X
X
City of Fruita
X
X
X
X
Town of Collbran
X
Town of Palisade
X
X
Town of DeBeque
X
Lower Valley FPD
X
X
Plateau Valley FPD
X
X
X
Grand Junction Rural Fire
X
X
X
Clifton FPD
X
X
X
DeBeque FPD
X
X
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
Mesa County used FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013). The process used by Mesa County meets the funding eligibility requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program, Community Rating System, and Flood Mitigation Assistance program. This plan is structured around a four-phase approach; organize resources, assess risks, develop the mitigation plan, and implement the plan and monitor progress.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
(a) 
Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort.
Mesa County’s Hazard Mitigation Planning effort started with a kick-off meeting on September 3, 2019. The Mesa County Emergency Management Department mailed letters to County, municipal, district, State, and federal stakeholder representatives inviting representatives to attend the September 3rd meeting and participate in the process. This list is located in Appendix B.[1]
A planning committee was created that includes representatives from each participating jurisdiction, departments of the County, and other local, State, and federal agencies responsible for making decisions in the plan. Representatives at the kick-off meeting agreed to act as the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC).
The following agency representatives participated in the HMPC:
Bill Barlow
Grand Valley Power
Christmas Wharton
Grand Valley Power
Brian Woods
Clifton Sanitation
Eli Jennings
Clifton Sanitation
Carrie Gudorf
Mesa County (Engineering)
Gus Hendricks
Grand Junction Rural Fire Protection District (Fire Department)
David Reinertsen
Clifton Water
Paula Creasy
Grand Junction Regional Communications Center
William Baker
City of Grand Junction (Police Department)
Trent Prall
City of Grand Junction
Richard Rupp
Town of Palisade (Fire Department)
Dave Krause
City of Fruita (Police Department)
Dave Payne
Ute Water District
Kamie Long
Colorado State Forest Service
Mike Harvey
DeBeque Fire Protection District
Aldis Strautins
National Weather Service
Vincent Burkhardt
Mesa County (Public Health)
Matt Ozanic
Colorado State Patrol
Jeff Colton
National Weather Service
Andy Martsolf
Mesa County Office of Emergency Management
Chris Kadel
Mesa County (GIS)
Bob Dalley
Town of DeBeque (Town Marshal)
Frank Cavaliere
Lower Valley Fire Protection District
Ryan Davison
Mesa County (GIS)
Mike Lockwood
Plateau Valley Fire Protection District
Patrick Cole
DeBeque Fire Protection District
Mark Krebs
Colorado National Monument
Eric Paul
Colorado National Monument
Patricia Gavelda
Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Charles Balke
Clifton Fire Protection District
Joe White
Clifton Fire Protection District
Care’ McInnis
Town of DeBeque
Montana Cohn
Mesa County Weed and Pest
Bill Edwards
U.S. Forest Service
Dan Love
Colorado Department of Agriculture
Ed Kline
Colorado Department of Agriculture
Dave Wolny
Colorado Mesa University
Nick Peck
Fruita Police Department
Darren Starr
City of Grand Junction
Janet Hawkinson
Town of Palisade
Troy Ward
Town of Palisade
Melonie Matarozzo
Town of Collbran
The role of the HMPC was to collect data, make decisions on plan process and content, submit mitigation action implementation worksheets, review plan drafts, and coordinate and assist with community meetings and plan adoptions.
Four meetings were held with the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee to gather data, develop mitigation actions, and review the draft plan. The agendas, sign-in sheets, and sample worksheets used to collect data are included in Appendix D.[2]
Meeting
Topic
Date
Kick-off Meeting
Introduction of planning process and discussion of hazards
September 3, 2019
HMPC #2
Review of risk assessment, identification of goals and objectives
October 9, 2019
HMPC #3
Identification and prioritization of mitigation actions, discussion of process to monitor, evaluate, and update plan
November 13, 2019
HMPC #4
Review of updated plan and final planning
January 8, 2020
During the kick-off meeting, Mesa County Emergency Management staff presented information on the scope and purpose of the plan, participation requirements of HMPC members, and the proposed project work plan and schedule. Also discussed were the hazard identification requirements and data. Table 4 shows the analysis of hazards in Mesa County. This table is based on past events, impacts and future probability for each of the hazards required by FEMA for consideration in a local hazard mitigation plan. Emergency Management staff refined the list of hazards relevant to Mesa County.
Table 4: Hazards in Mesa County
Hazard Type
Geographic Location
Occurrences
Magnitude/ Severity
Total Score
Hazard Level
Avalanche
2
4
6
32
M
Drought
8
4
4
48
M
Earthquake
6
4
4
40
M
Expansive Soils
2
4
2
16
L
Extreme Heat
8
4
2
40
M
Wildfire
6
8
4
80
H
Flood
6
8
6
96
H
Hailstorm
4
4
2
24
L
Land Subsidence
2
4
4
24
L
Landslide/Rockfall
4
8
6
80
H
Lightning
2
8
4
48
M
Tornado
2
4
2
16
L
Windstorm
4
6
4
48
M
Winter Storm
6
6
2
48
M
Dam Failure
4
4
6
40
M
Hazardous Materials
2
8
4
48
M
Geographic Location
Large: greater than 50%
8
Medium: 25 – 50%
6
Small: 10 – 25%
4
Isolated: less than 10%
2
Magnitude/Severity
Catastrophic:
8
Critical:
6
Limited:
4
Negligible:
2
Occurrence
Highly Likely:
8
Likely:
6
Occasional:
4
Unlikely:
2
Formula: Total Score = Occurrences x (Geographic Location + Magnitude/Severity)
Hazard Level is based on Total Score.
Total Score:
L = 8 – 28
M = 32– 64
H = 72 – 128
HMPC representatives were given several worksheets to begin the data collection process. A brief description of each worksheet is provided below and a sample of each worksheet is located in Appendix E.[3]
Worksheet #1 is the Historical Hazard Event Data Collection Sheet which is used to gather historical events that have occurred in Mesa County.
Worksheet #2 is the Vulnerability worksheet used to determine the vulnerable populations, buildings, critical facilities, and infrastructure for each hazard that affects our jurisdiction. For this specific exercise, Mesa County made the decision to focus on the top three hazards affecting our County, which include wildfires, floods, and rockfalls. This particular information was used to estimate disaster losses which can then be used to gauge potential benefits of mitigation measures.
Worksheet #3 is the Capabilities Matrix which is filled out by each participating jurisdiction identifying various capabilities that exist with each entity.
Worksheet #4, the Mitigation Strategy worksheet, is used to identify possible mitigation actions.
Worksheet #5 is the actual Mitigation Project Description. This worksheet is used to develop mitigation projects identified during the planning process and provide additional details about the project.
[1]
Editor's Note: Appendix B is included as an attachment to this title.
[2]
Editor's Note: Appendix D is included as an attachment to this title.
[3]
Editor's Note: Appendix E is included as an attachment to this title.
(b) 
Step 2: Public Involvement.
44 CFR Requirement Section 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval.
The HMPC posted the draft plan on the County’s website and utilized a public information campaign to invite participation into the planning process. The committee used a press release, media interviews, multiple blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Next Door. The goal of the campaign was to invite the public to review and comment on the plan and to complete a hazard perception survey.
Using analytics software, the committee was able to determine that the campaign had the following reach:
•
Facebook: 65,862 followers
•
Twitter: 7,307 followers
•
Next Door: 18,962 residents
•
Blogs: 817 subscribers
•
TV broadcast media: 63,382 viewers
•
Print media: 62.2 percent of Mesa County adults
The HMPC received 113 survey responses. Complete survey results are included in Appendix H.[4] Survey highlights include:
(1) 
Prior to participating in the survey, 24.5 percent of survey respondents were aware of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
(2) 
In the past five years, 25 percent of survey respondents (or someone in their household) have been impacted by a natural hazard event.
(3) 
The most common hazard events experienced by survey respondents are: windstorm, drought, and wildfire.
(4) 
Survey respondents are most concerned about: drought (97 respondents), wildfire (94 respondents, and extreme heat (86 respondents).
(5) 
More than 47 percent of survey respondents have received information about how to make their households safer from natural disasters.
(6) 
Survey respondents were most likely to receive information about how to make their homes safer from natural disasters from: government agencies (18.3 percent), insurance company (16.7 percent), and news media (16.7 percent).
[4]
Editor's Note: Appendix H is included as an attachment to this title.
(c) 
Step 3: Departments and Agencies Coordination.
44 CFR Requirement Section 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process; (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.
There are numerous organizations whose goals and interests align with hazard mitigation in Mesa County. Coordination with these organizations and other community planning efforts is vital to the success of this plan. The Mesa County Office of Emergency Management invited other local, State, and federal departments to participate in this process with several of them serving as representatives on the HMPC. As a component of the coordination with other agencies, the HMPC collected and reviewed existing technical data, reports, and plans. State and federal agency data sources, including the National Weather Service and the Flash Flooding at the Colorado National Monument (1921-2003) Report produced by Professor Gigi Richard of Mesa State were used to collect information.
Mesa County and the participating communities also used a variety of comprehensive planning mechanisms, such as land use and general plans, emergency operations plans, and municipal ordinances and building codes as references. This information was used in the development of the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment and in the formation of goals, objectives, and mitigation actions.
Emergency managers in the neighboring jurisdictions of Garfield County, Pitkin County, Delta County, and Montrose Counties were sent an email invitation to review and provide comments on the draft 2020 Mesa County plan which was posted on a County website. A copy of the email is included in Appendix G.[5]
[5]
Editor's Note: Appendix G is included as an attachment to this title.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Senate Bill 11-265, 6-6-11; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
(a) 
Step 4: Identify the Hazards.
During the kick-off meeting, the HMPC discussed past events, impacts, and future probability for each of the hazards required by FEMA for consideration in a local hazard mitigation plan. A profile of each hazard was then developed with the help of County GIS staff in developing GIS layers to display the information. The HMPC discussed the rankings as determined by the scores associated with each of the factors, i.e., occurrences, probability of future occurrences, magnitude and severity. The committee concurred with the scoring and the ratings of hazards as either high, medium, or low hazards. The committee then determined the areas affected by the top three hazards and GIS mapped out the areas using a subjective boundary.
(b) 
Step 5: Assess the Risks.
After profiling the hazards that could impact Mesa County, the Emergency Management Department staff collected information to describe the likely impacts of future hazard events in the participating jurisdictions. This step involved two parts: a vulnerability assessment and a capability assessment.
The vulnerability assessment involves an inventory of assets at risk to natural hazards and in particular wildfires, flooding, and rock fall/landslides. These assets included total number and value of structures; critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, historic and cultural assets; and economic assets. Mesa County Emergency Management staff completed detailed analysis for each community participating in this revision of the plan. The analysis was used to determine the proportion of value of buildings in the hazard areas that were identified by the HMPC. The County GIS system was used by first selecting parcels from the Assessor’s data that have their center within the City or Town limits and then making a subselection of parcels that have their center within the defined hazard area. Structure value is based on the actual value of improvements.
A similar process was completed for each jurisdiction to understand the affected population. This analysis used census tract data in the GIS system.
The capability assessment consists of identifying the existing mitigation capabilities of participating jurisdictions. This includes government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and plans that mitigate or could be used to mitigate risk to disasters. Participating jurisdictions collected information on their regulatory, personnel, fiscal, and technical capabilities as well as ongoing initiatives related to interagency coordination and public outreach. This information is included in Appendix E.[1]
[1]
Editor's Note: Appendix E is included as an attachment to this title.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
(a) 
Step 6: Set Goals.
The HMPC divided themselves into three groups with each group assigned to develop mitigation goals to one of the three “high” hazards. The groups identified possible locations and possible actions that could be integrated into existing planning.
(b) 
Step 7: Review Possible Activities.
At the third committee meeting, the HMPC identified and prioritized mitigation actions. The HMPC conducted a brainstorming session in which each committee member identified at least one mitigation action to address each of the plan’s goals.
As with each priority, there is a responsible agency to ensure the project is completed. The HMPC identified the responsible agency for implementing each action. The responsible agency then completed the Mitigation Project Description Worksheet (worksheet #5). These worksheets allow the HMPC to document background information, ideas for implementation, alternatives, responsible agency, partners, potential funding, cost estimates, benefits, and timeline for each identified action.
(c) 
Step 8: Draft the Plan.
A draft of the revised Mesa County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed by Mesa County Department of Emergency Management staff and submitted to the HMPC for internal review. Once the committee’s comments were incorporated, a complete draft of the plan was made available online for review and comment by the public and other agencies and interested stakeholders. The review period was from July 1, 2020, to July 15, 2020. Public comments were integrated into a final draft for submittal to the Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management and FEMA Region VIII.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
(a) 
Step 9: Adopt the Plan.
To implement the plan, the governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction adopted the plan with a formal resolution. Scanned copies of resolutions of adoption are included in Appendix A.[1]
[1]
Editor's Note: Appendix A is included as an attachment to this title.
(b) 
Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan.
The HMPC developed and agreed upon on overall strategy for plan implementation and for monitoring and maintaining the plan over time. This strategy is further described in the plan implementation article.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)