44 CFR Requirement Section 201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.
This article presents the mitigation strategy developed by the Mesa County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) based on the County’s risk assessment. The mitigation strategy was developed through a collaborative group process and consists of goals, objectives, and mitigation actions. The following definitions are based upon those found in FEMA publication 386-3, Developing a Mitigation Plan (2002):
(a) 
Goals. General guidelines that explain what you want to achieve. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. They are usually long-term, broad, policy-type statements.
(b) 
Objectives. Define strategies or implementation steps to attain the identified goals that are specific and measurable.
(c) 
Mitigation actions. Specific actions that help achieve goals and objectives.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
The HMPC developed goals and objectives to provide direction for reducing hazard-related losses in Mesa County that were based on the results of the risk assessment. After reviewing the updated risk assessment, the HMPC determined that the previous plan’s goals and objectives are still valid.
(a) 
Goal 1.
Reduce risk to the people, property, and environment of Mesa County from the impacts of natural hazards.
(1) 
Minimize the vulnerability of existing and new development to hazards.
(2) 
Increase education and awareness of hazards and risk reduction measures.
(3) 
Improve comprehensive wildfire planning, funding, and mitigation.
(4) 
Strengthen floodplain management programs.
(5) 
Enhance assessment of multi-hazard risk to critical facilities and infrastructure.
(b) 
Goal 2.
Minimize economic losses.
(1) 
Strengthen disaster resistance and resiliency of businesses and employers.
(2) 
Promote and conduct continuity of operations and continuity of governance planning.
(3) 
Reduce financial exposure of County and municipal governments.
(c) 
Goal 3.
Implement the mitigation actions identified in this plan.
(1) 
Engage collaborative partners, including community organizations, businesses, and others.
(2) 
Integrate mitigation activities into existing and new community plans and policies.
(3) 
Monitor, evaluate, and update the mitigation plan.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
44 CFR Requirement Section 201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
The HMPC representatives present at the third meeting identified, discussed, and prioritized potential mitigation actions. Representatives chose to focus on the top three hazards with an overall ranking of “High” to develop hazard specific mitigation actions. The three high hazards are: flooding, wildfire, and landslides-rockfalls. At the time the mitigation actions are complete, additional mitigation goals and actions will be developed for the remaining hazards. The additional hazards include: avalanche, dam failure, drought, hazardous materials, lightning, and severe winter weather. It is important to note that many of the final mitigation actions are multi-hazard actions designed to reduce potential losses from all types of hazard events.
The HMPC discussed the key issues for each priority hazard and discussed potential mitigation alternatives. The mitigation strategy worksheet (worksheet #4) was used to identify all possible mitigation actions for each of the three high hazards. Possible actions were discussed and eventually prioritized for the appropriate jurisdictions.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)
44 CFR Requirement Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii): The mitigation strategy shall include an action strategy describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefits review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
Representatives prioritized the various mitigation actions based on the hazard that would be mitigated, cost estimate, and benefits to completing the mitigation actions preventing further loss, and possible funding opportunities for the actions. The process of identification and analysis of mitigation alternatives allowed the HMPC to come to consensus and to prioritize the recommended actions.
The Disaster Mitigation Act regulations state that cost-benefit review is the primary method for mitigation projects to be prioritized. Recognizing the federal regulatory requirement to prioritize by cost-benefit, and the need for any publicly funded project to be cost-effective, the HMPC decided to pursue implementation according to when and where damage occurs, available funding, political will, and jurisdictional priority.
The mitigation actions developed by the HMPC are listed in Table 17. The HMPC came to consensus on which departments and representatives are responsible for completing an implementation worksheet for each identified mitigation action. The worksheets document background information, cost estimates, benefits, and timeline for each action.
Table 17: Mitigation Action Matrix
Mitigation Action Matrix
Jurisdiction
Action
Priority
Goals Addressed
Hazards Addressed
Multi-jurisdictional
Coordinate biannual reviews.
High
Goal 3
Multi-Hazard
Multi-jurisdictional
Continue public involvement in mitigation activities.
High
Goal 1
Multi-Hazard
Multi-jurisdictional
Coordinate and complete a continuity of operations/continuity of governance (COOP/COG) plan.
High
Goal 2
Multi-Hazard
Multi-jurisdictional
Identify and prioritize fuel reduction projects around critical facilities and infrastructure in wildfire hazard areas. Community education regarding the risk of wildfires.
High
Goal 1
Wildfire
Town of Palisade: Fire Department
Create a fire mitigation plan to protect vital raw water supplies and infrastructure. Conduct on the ground mitigation to reduce the potential for wildfire.
High
Goal 1, 2
Wildfire
Multi-jurisdictional
Incorporate information contained in Hazard Mitigation Plan into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate.
High
Goal 1, 2
Multi-Hazard
Multi-jurisdictional
Project includes two detention basins and 535 feet of box culvert improvements that will remove 269 structures from 100-year floodplain, including two churches and one elementary school, and decrease emergency response arterial inundation (Hwy. 50) by 0.43 feet (Orchard Mesa Detention and Conveyance Improvements).
Medium
Goal 1, 2
Flooding
Mesa County
Adobe Creek: Overbank flooding of properties is common during small events. Project will upgrade 13 structures and 2.5 miles of channel to achieve flow capacity for 10-year event level.
Medium
Goal 1, 2
Flooding
Mesa County
Douglas Wash: The existing drainage way and crossing structures are undersized and cannot convey the 100-year storm event. More than 55 properties are within the flooding area as a result. A study was completed and the recommended solution was to construct detention areas to control the flow within the channel.
Medium
Goal 1, 2
Flooding
Multi-jurisdictional
Mitigation project for the upper and lower portions of the Leach Creek drainage. These projects would provide mitigation to flood events for the area of Leach Creek above the confluence with Ranchmen’s Ditch.
Medium
Goal 1, 2
Flooding
Mesa County, City of Grand Junction, City of Fruita, Town of Palisade
NFIP Compliance: Jurisdictions will incorporate and reference DFIRM maps in regulations as new floodplains are mapped. Audits of regulations will ensure compliance with NFIP in all program areas.
Medium
Goal 1
Flooding
Multi-jurisdictional
Identify and map geologic hazard zones and incorporate into master planning.
Medium
Goal 1, 3
Landslide-Rockfall-Mudflow-Debris flow
Multi-jurisdictional
Real time rainfall data is lacking in Mesa County. An automated rainfall ALERT network would allow real time rainfall data access by local officials and National Weather Service forecasters for more timely flash flood warnings.
Medium
Goal 1, 3
Flooding
Multi-jurisdictional
A Basin Master Plan for Big Salt Wash will be completed. The plan will identify at risk properties, conveyance and detention mitigation alternatives and costs.
Low
Goal 1
Flooding
Multi-Jurisdictional
Community Resilience Planning: Develop the ability to function and sustain critical systems; adapt to changes in the physical, social, or economic environment; be self-reliant if external resources are limited or cut off.
Medium
Goal 1, 2, 3
Multi-Hazard
Town of Palisade
Fuel and Debris Reduction: Remove overgrowth, slash, and debris from steep river bank.
High
Goal 1
Wildfire, Flooding
DeBeque FPD
District Wildland Fire Assessment: Assess wildland-urban interface issues in district
Medium
Goal 1
Wildfire
DeBeque FPD
Reduce amount of fuels residents pile up for burning in and around the Town of DeBeque by establishing a wood chipping program
Medium
Goal 1
Wildfire
Multi-Jurisdictional
Review and update the 2012 Countywide Community Wildfire Protection Plan
High
Goal 1
Wildfire
Multi-Jurisdictional
StormReady Recertification: Complete actions necessary to maintain StormReady Certification.
Medium
Goal 1
Multi-Hazard
Clifton FPD and Mesa County
Lewis Wash wildfire mitigation project
High
Goal 1
Wildfire
Town of Palisade
Riverbend Park wildfire mitigation project
High
Goal 1
Wildfire
City of Fruita and Lower Valley FPD
Big Salt Wash wildfire mitigation project – Evening Breeze section
High
Goal 1
Wildfire
City of Grand Junction and GJ Rural FPD
Identify, prioritize, support, and conduct fuels mitigation in Wildland Urban Interface.
High
Goal 1
Wildfire
City of Grand Junction
Emergency Action Plans for Dam Safety
High
Goal 1, 2
Flooding
City of Grand Junction
Fire Mitigation for Grand Junction Watershed
High
Goal 1
Wildfire
City of Grand Junction
Carson Lake Dam Rehabilitation and Early Warning System
High
Goal 1, 2
Flooding
Note: Multi-jurisdictional includes all jurisdictions requesting approval of plan.
(a) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Plan Maintenance and Implementation.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action item: Coordinate biannual reviews of the Mesa County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to monitor, evaluate, and update the plan.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee formed to develop the Mesa County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan needs to continue to exist and be comprised of a broad base of stakeholders. Holding biannual meetings will help keep the plan action-oriented and will assist in a more effective five-year update process. This action will also implement the process for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan.
(5) 
Implementation: The Mesa County Emergency Manager will schedule and facilitate these meetings. The committee will need to establish a meeting schedule and framework for continuity. These concepts will be presented to the group by email with a meeting date planned for the future. The first meeting will occur in July 2015. Biannual reviews may be combined with other meetings, such as multi-agency coordination group meetings.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County Emergency Management Department.
(7) 
Partners: All agencies and jurisdictions identified as the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee.
(8) 
Potential funding: Mesa County Emergency Management.
(9) 
Cost estimate: Staff time.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Continue to build relationships and understanding of the important issues involved in mitigation planning.
(ii) 
Improve communication and coordination between the County and participating jurisdictions/agencies.
(iii) 
Keep plan current and accurate.
(11) 
Timeline: Ongoing.
(b) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Public Involvement in Mitigation Activities.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Continue public involvement process in mitigation activities.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Implementation: The Mesa County Emergency Management Department will prepare and conduct a series of presentations focused upon coordination and improvements of mitigation activities.
Through Mesa County’s Public Relations personnel, local media will be used to announce progress on the mitigation plan and future mitigation activities. Additional educational information materials will be used and will include: fact sheets, public service announcements, and presentations to specific groups. Flooding, landslides/rockfall, and wildfires are priority hazards for such information.
(5) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County Emergency Management Department.
(6) 
Partners: All participating local governments, special districts, authorities and local media sources.
(7) 
Potential funding: Mesa County and participating jurisdictions/agencies.
(8) 
Cost estimate: Staff time and media costs.
(9) 
Benefits:
(i) 
Increase public education and awareness.
(ii) 
Improve communication and coordination.
(iii) 
Build relationships and encourage a better understanding of the important issues involved in mitigation planning.
(10) 
Timeline: Ongoing.
(c) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Coordination of a Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Governance Plan.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Complete a comprehensive inventory and vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructure and coordinate multi-jurisdictional continuity of operations/continuity of governance (COOP/COG) planning.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: The Mesa County Emergency Management Department and City of Grand Junction staff has been engaged in a COOP/COG planning process, which was scheduled to be completed for the County government by December 2009. This process was disrupted by organizational structure changes and has not yet been reinstated.
(5) 
Implementation: The County will work with local governments and special districts to encourage their investment and implementation of similar work for their organizations and critical infrastructure. Mesa County and the City of Grand Junction are invested in this planning.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County Emergency Management Department/City of Grand Junction.
(7) 
Partners: All local governments and special districts.
(8) 
Potential funding: Mesa County and participating jurisdictions.
(9) 
Cost estimate: Staff time.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Identify critical functions/services provided by local government/special districts.
(ii) 
Prevent loss of service.
(iii) 
Protect human health and safety.
(11) 
Timeline: Ongoing.
(d) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Community Education Regarding the Risk of Wildfires.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Identification of fuel reduction projects around critical facilities and infrastructure in wildland-urban interface areas.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: At present times, wildfires are caused mainly by humans and lightning. Each year significant issues arise for Fire Protection Districts/Agencies regarding agriculture burning without proper permits.
(5) 
Implementation: Fire Protection Districts/Agencies will pull together information discussing the process for obtaining an agriculture burn permit and discuss the advantages to ensuring property owners use defensible spacing around structures on their property.
(6) 
Responsible agency: All Fire Districts/Departments.
(7) 
Partners: All Fire Districts, Colorado State Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Mesa County Sheriff’s Office.
(8) 
Potential funding: Fire Districts/Departments, grants.
(9) 
Cost estimate: $4,400 for ad campaigns and permits.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Improve communication and coordination.
(ii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(iii) 
Reduce future losses.
(iv) 
Prevent duplication of efforts.
(11) 
Timeline: Ongoing.
(e) 
Mitigation Action: Town of Palisade Fire Department – Fire Mitigation Plan for Town’s Watershed.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Town of Palisade.
(2) 
Action title: Implementation of a fire mitigation plan to reduce fuels and protect vital raw water supplies and infrastructure.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: The Town of Palisade’s watershed has been threatened by wildfire in recent years. The Town of Palisade has developed a plan to reduce fuel sources that threaten the watershed if a wildfire were to start in the area.
(5) 
Implementation: Mechanical thinning and pruning will be used where practical with hand work applied to areas of steep terrain or poor vehicle access. Prescribed burning will be applied as appropriate and existing roads and pipeline routes will provide for fuel breaks. All slash will be removed, burned or mulched.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Town of Palisade Fire Department.
(7) 
Partners: Town of Palisade Road and Bridge Department, Colorado State Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, private land owners.
(8) 
Potential funding: Colorado State Forest Service Grant, Town of Palisade.
(9) 
Cost estimate: $150,000.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Protect the Town of Palisade’s watershed.
(ii) 
Prevent future losses to the Town of Palisade.
(iii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(iv) 
Create habitat and an improved environment.
(11) 
Timeline: Ongoing.
(f) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Incorporate Plan Information Into Other Planning Mechanisms.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Incorporate information contained in Hazard Mitigation Plan into other planning mechanisms, when appropriate.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: Jurisdiction planning mechanisms should consider natural hazards and mitigation strategies in planning process.
(5) 
Implementation: Stakeholder interviews during plan development.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County Emergency Management Department.
(7) 
Partners: Mesa County, City of Grand Junction, City of Fruita, Town of Palisade, Town of Collbran.
(8) 
Potential funding: Mesa County Emergency Management.
(9) 
Cost estimate: Staff time.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Continue to build relationships and understanding of the important issues involved in mitigation planning.
(ii) 
Improve communication and coordination between the County and participating jurisdictions/agencies.
(11) 
Timeline: Ongoing.
(g) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Orchard Mesa Detention and Conveyance Improvements.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Build two detention basins and make improvements to culvert.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: With the construction of two detention basins and 535 feet of box culvert improvements, 269 structures including two churches and one elementary school will be removed from the 100-year floodplain. This will also decrease emergency response arterial inundation (Highway 50) by 0.43 feet.
(5) 
Implementation: Mesa County will make application to the BRIC Program Grant and begin design phases.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County.
(7) 
Partners: City of Grand Junction.
(8) 
Potential funding: Funding sources not yet identified.
(9) 
Cost estimate: $4,150,000.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Remove a significant amount of structures out of the 100-year floodplain.
(ii) 
Decrease emergency response arterial inundation.
(h) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Increase Flow Capacity on Adobe Creek with Conveyance Improvements.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Increase Adobe Creek flow capacity.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: Overbank flooding of properties is common during small events. This project will upgrade 13 structures and 2.5 miles of channel to achieve flow capacity for 10-year event level.
(5) 
Implementation: Partners will identify the 13 structures that will be updated in this project and begin developing design standards to increase flow capacity.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County.
(7) 
Partners: City of Fruita.
(8) 
Potential funding: City of Fruita, Mesa County CIP, grants.
(9) 
Cost estimate: $7,873,000.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Increase flow capacity along Adobe Creek and reduce overbank flooding.
(ii) 
Thirteen structures will be upgraded.
(11) 
Timeline: Not yet determined.
(i) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Douglas Wash Improvements.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Mesa County.
(2) 
Action title: Construction of detention area to control the flow within the channel.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: The existing drainage way and crossing structure are undersized and cannot convey the 100-year storm event. More than 55 properties are within the flooding area as a result. A study was completed and the recommended solution was to construct detention areas to control the flow within the channel.
(5) 
Implementation: Unknown at this time.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County.
(7) 
Partners: Grand Junction Drainage District.
(8) 
Potential funding: Grants.
(9) 
Cost estimate: $8,286,000.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Reduce future losses.
(ii) 
Protect public health and environment.
(11) 
Timeline: Not identified at this time.
(j) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Leach Creek Drainage Detention Ponds.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Construction of regional detention ponds for Leach Creek Drainage.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: These projects would provide mitigation to flood events for the area of Leach Creek above the confluence with Ranchmen’s Ditch. Other alternatives would be to purchase all properties with structures impacted by flood.
(5) 
Implementation: Unknown at this time.
(6) 
Responsible party: City of Grand Junction.
(7) 
Potential funding: DOLA, City of Grand Junction.
(8) 
Cost estimate: $525,000.
(9) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Remove approximately 500 acres of commercial and residential zone properties from floodplain.
(ii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(iii) 
Reduce future losses.
(10) 
Timeline: Unknown at this time.
(k) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – NFIP Compliance.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Mesa County, City of Grand Junction, City of Fruita, Town of Palisade.
(2) 
Action title: Ensure continued compliance with NFIP.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/Background: Incorporation of and reference to new DFIRM is necessary. Additionally, audit of regulations will ensure continued compliance with NFIP in all program areas.
(5) 
Responsible party: Jurisdictions participating in NFIP.
(6) 
Cost estimate: Staff time.
(7) 
Benefits: Ensure regulations are clear, concise, and enforceable.
(8) 
Timeline: Ongoing.
(l) 
Mitigation Action: Mesa County – Landslide-Rockfall-Mudflow-Debris Flow Mapping.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Identify and map landslide-rockfall-mudflow-debris flow areas in Mesa County and identify possible mitigation actions.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: Additional identification and mapping of landslide-rockfall-mudflow-debris flow is needed throughout Mesa County and as important as the need for possible mitigation efforts.
(5) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County Emergency Management Department.
(6) 
Partners: Mesa County Public Works Department, Colorado Department of Transportation.
(7) 
Potential funding: Nothing identified at this time.
(8) 
Cost estimate: Staff time.
(9) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Reduce geologic hazard risk.
(ii) 
Increase public awareness of hazard.
(iii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(10) 
Timeline: Ongoing.
(m) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Automated Rainfall Alert Network.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Mesa County.
(2) 
Action title: Automated Rainfall Alert Network.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: Real time rainfall data is lacking in Mesa County, with only one exception being the Grand Junction Regional Airport. An automated rainfall alert network would allow real time rainfall data access by local officials and National Weather Service forecasters for more timely flash flood warnings.
(5) 
Implementation: Identification of system components and vendors.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County Emergency Management Department.
(7) 
Partners: National Weather Service.
(8) 
Potential funding: Grants.
(9) 
Cost estimate: $625,000 for installation and $150,000 annual maintenance.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Enhanced monitoring of flood potential.
(ii) 
Increase lead time of flash flood warnings for the general public.
(iii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(11) 
Timeline: Unknown at this time.
(n) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Big Salt Wash Detention and Conveyance.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Create a Basin Master Plan to identify properties at risk and develop mitigation alternatives.
(3) 
Priority: Low.
(4) 
Issue/background: Some flooding has occurred along Big Salt Wash. A better understanding of what properties are at risk and identification of mitigation actions/alternatives is required.
(5) 
Implementation: A Basin Master Plan is needed to identify at risk properties and determine what conveyance and detention mitigation actions will prevent future flooding.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County.
(7) 
Partners: City of Fruita.
(8) 
Potential funding: City of Fruita, Mesa County Capital Improvement Plan.
(9) 
Cost estimate: Staff time.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Improve communication and coordination.
(ii) 
Protect infrastructure and other properties.
(iii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(11) 
Timeline: Not identified at this time.
(o) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Community Resilience Planning.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action title: Community resilience planning.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: Much of Mesa County is prone to some sort of hazard, such as wildfire, landslide, flooding, or severe weather, which may leave residents cut off from services or access. A resilient community is one with the ability to withstand and recover from disasters, as well as learn from past disasters to strengthen future response and recovery efforts. By working with local communities and conducting community resilience planning, residents will be able to draw on their resources and respond accordingly in the event of a severe emergency or disaster.
(5) 
Implementation: Through a structured planning process, develop the ability to function and sustain critical systems; adapt to changes in the physical, social, or economic environment; be self-reliant if external resources are limited or cut off; and learn from past experiences to be better prepared for the next response.
(6) 
Responsible agency: Mesa County Planning Division and Emergency Management.
(7) 
Partners: City of Grand Junction, City of Fruita, Town of Palisade, Town of DeBeque, Town of Collbran.
(8) 
Potential funding: Department budgets, grants.
(9) 
Cost estimate: Variable, based on scope and methods.
(10) 
Benefits: Self-sufficiency in local communities can free up resources to focus on response to the most critical needs. Recovery can be faster, with fewer long-term impacts on services and local economies.
(11) 
Timeline: Ongoing as updates to community plans and the Mesa County Master Plan.
(p) 
Mitigation Action: Town of Palisade – Fuel and Debris Reduction.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Town of Palisade.
(2) 
Action title: Fuels and debris reduction.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/Background.
(i) 
Overgrowth of brush, Russian olive, tamarisk, downed trees, and the discarding of branches, leaves, grass trimmings, and debris by past and present residents for many years.
(ii) 
Potential for Fire. Very difficult to access due to the river, steep river bank, and fences along the back yards that abut the river bank. There are three mobile home parks which border the full length of the west side of, south of Highway 6, with approximately 24 mobile homes that could be impacted in this area. Additionally, there are 11 stick-built homes to the north of Highway 6. Two of the mobile home parks are mostly elderly and retired residents.
(5) 
Second problem: Palisade Fire has had a few incidents to rescue rafters on the river that drift too close to the river bank, get punctures in their rafts from the Russian olive thorns. Stranded rafters cannot get to the bank due to the overgrowth. Downstream, less than one-quarter mile is a diversion dam for an irrigation canal, making access for rescue very difficult due to vegetation overgrowth especially during spring runoff with high, fast moving water.
(6) 
Project prerequisite: Prior to undertaking this fuel and debris reduction project, an understanding must be gained of the river bank stability. The project location can be exposed to high river flows due to spring runoff. If this project is deemed to negatively impact bank stability it will not move forward.
(7) 
Responsible agency: Town of Palisade.
(8) 
Potential funding: Possible grant funding.
(9) 
Cost estimate: $40,000.
(10) 
Benefits: Protect public health and safety. Prevent loss of life. Prevent structure loss.
(11) 
Timeline: Not yet determined.
(q) 
Mitigation Action: DeBeque Fire District – District Wildland Fire Assessment.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: DeBeque Fire District.
(2) 
Action title: District wildland fire assessment.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: Urban Interface.
(5) 
Responsible agency: DeBeque Fire Protection District.
(6) 
Potential funding: State grants.
(7) 
Cost estimate: $5,000.
(8) 
Benefits: Avoid losses due to impact of wildland fire in the rural areas of Roan Creek and wild horse areas.
(9) 
Timeline: Not yet determined.
(r) 
Mitigation Action: DeBeque Fire District – Wood Chipping Project.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: DeBeque Fire District.
(2) 
Action title: Wood chipping project.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: Reduce amount of fuels residents pile up for burning in and around the town of DeBeque.
(5) 
Responsible agency: DeBeque Fire Protection District.
(6) 
Potential funding: State wildfire grants.
(7) 
Cost estimate: $20,000.
(8) 
Benefits: Reduce the fire risk associated with land owners piling up brush around and near homes.
(9) 
Timeline: Not yet determined.
(s) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Revise and Update Countywide CWPP.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action Title: Review and Update 2012 Countywide Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: Wildfire is a high hazard in Mesa County. In 2012 Mesa County, all municipalities, and fire districts developed a County-wide community wildfire protection plan. The 2012 plan should be updated and revised.
(5) 
Implementation: The Mesa County Emergency Manager will coordinate the CWPP update process.
(6) 
Responsible Agency: Mesa County Emergency Management.
(7) 
Partners: City of Fruita, City of Grand Junction, Town of Palisade, Town of Collbran, Town of DeBeque, Lower Valley Fire Protection District, Clifton Fire Protection District, Grand Junction Rural Fire Protection District, Plateau Valley Fire Protection District, DeBeque Fire Protection District.
(8) 
Potential Funding: SRS Title III.
(9) 
Cost Estimate: $60,000.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Enhanced wildfire protection.
(ii) 
Fire adapted communities.
(iii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(11) 
Timeline: 2021-2022.
(t) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – StormReady Certification Recertification.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional.
(2) 
Action Title: StormReady Recertification.
(3) 
Priority: Medium.
(4) 
Issue/background: Mesa County was originally certified as StormReady by the National Weather Service in 2012. Recertification is required every three years.
(5) 
Implementation: Complete actions necessary to retain NWS StormReady Certification.
(6) 
Responsible Agency: Mesa County Emergency Management.
(7) 
Partners: City of Grand Junction, City of Fruita, Town of Palisade, Town of DeBeque, Town of Collbran.
(8) 
Potential Funding: Mesa County Emergency Management.
(9) 
Cost Estimate: Staff time.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Improve multi-path warning for weather-related emergencies.
(ii) 
Protect infrastructure and other properties.
(iii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(11) 
Timeline: 2021.
(u) 
Mitigation Action: Multi-Jurisdictional – Lewis Wash Fire Mitigation.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Mesa County.
(2) 
Action Title: Mitigate wildfire hazard in Lewis Wash.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: Lewis Wash is a heavily vegetated waterway with homes that back to it. Lewis Wash is adjacent to a public park and a high school. There have been a number of fires in Lewis Wash.
(5) 
Implementation: Identify land owners, coordinate with home owners and use a combination of mastication and hand thinning.
(6) 
Responsible Agency: Clifton Fire Protection District and Mesa County.
(7) 
Partners: BLM.
(8) 
Potential Funding: Grants.
(9) 
Cost Estimate: TBD based on method selected.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Enhanced fire safety of adjacent homes.
(ii) 
Reduced criminal activity.
(iii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(11) 
Timeline: 2021-2022.
(v) 
Mitigation Action: Town of Palisade – Wildland Fire Mitigation at Riverbend Park.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: Town of Palisade.
(2) 
Action Title: Wildland fire mitigation at Riverbend Park.
(3) 
Priority: Medium-High.
(4) 
Issue/background: Years of overgrowth of invasive tree species along the Colorado River riverbank in Riverbend Park.
(5) 
Responsible Agency: Town of Palisade.
(6) 
Potential Funding: Grant with match.
(7) 
Cost Estimate: $35,000 – $40,000.
(8) 
Benefits: Reduction in fire fuels of tamarisk and Russian olive in Riverbend Park. Once mitigation has been achieved, revegetation with native tree and plant species will proceed. Project will provide improved line of sight to river which greatly improves safety. Reducing the massive number of invasive trees will significantly reduce the risk of uncontrolled fire along the riverbank.
(9) 
Timeline: Late 2020-2021.
(w) 
Mitigation Action: City of Fruita and LVFPD – Big Salt Wash Fire Mitigation.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: City of Fruita/Lower Valley Fire Protection District.
(2) 
Action Title: Big Salt Wash – Evening Breeze Subdivision Section.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: Foot/bike path traverses the area of Big Salt and Evening Breeze subdivision. One-eighth mile. Overgrown with invasive species.
(5) 
Implementation: Hire tree company to cut large trees. Use Conservation Corps for undergrowth/ladder fuel.
(6) 
Responsible Agency: City of Fruita/Lower Valley Fire Protection District.
(7) 
Partners: Youth Conservation Corps.
(8) 
Potential Funding: Grants.
(9) 
Cost Estimate: $15,000.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Enhanced fire safety of adjacent homes.
(ii) 
Protect public health and safety.
(11) 
Timeline: Late 2021-2022.
(x) 
Mitigation Action: City of Grand Junction and Grand Junction Rural FPD – WUI Mitigation.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: City of Grand Junction and Grand Junction Rural Fire Protection District.
(2) 
Action Title: Identify, prioritize, support, and conduct fuels mitigation in Wildland Urban Interface.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: Within the City of Grand Junction Fire Department service area, wildfires and grass fires are primarily caused by human activity. The fires threaten lives and property, destroy natural and economic resources, deplete local emergency resources, and come at a great cost to agencies involved.
(5) 
Implementation: Implementation will be coordinated between stakeholder agencies.
(6) 
Responsible Agency: Grand Junction Fire Department and GJ Rural FPD.
(7) 
Partners: Mesa County, State of Colorado, and others.
(8) 
Potential Funding: Grants.
(9) 
Cost Estimate: TBD based on method selected.
(10) 
Benefits.
(i) 
Reduced fuel load increases safety for residents and firefighters. Having intentional mitigation areas helps reduce the impact of wildfires in the area and creates safer areas to effectively fight fires.
(ii) 
Reducing the impact of wildfire on publicly owned properties preserves the ecologic and economic assets of our community.
(11) 
Timeline: To be determined.
(y) 
Mitigation Action: Emergency Action Plans for Dam Safety.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: City of Grand Junction.
(2) 
Action Title: City of Grand Junction, Utilities Department – Emergency Action Plans for Dam Safety.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: The City of Grand Junction maintains emergency action plans for reservoirs on the Grand Mesa. An emergency action plan (EAP) is a written document that identifies incidents that can lead to potential emergency conditions at a dam, identifies the areas that can be affected by reservoir flooding, and specifies pre-planned actions to be followed to minimize property damage, potential loss of infrastructure and water resources, and potential loss of life.
(5) 
Implementation: Implementation will be coordinated by the City of Grand Junction, Utilities Department.
(6) 
Responsible Agency: Grand Junction.
(7) 
Potential Funding: City of Grand Junction Water Fund.
(8) 
Cost Estimate: TBD based on method selected.
(9) 
Benefits: Preventing losses of the City’s water supply infrastructure, protect downstream populations, and structures, protect wildlife and recreational uses.
(10) 
Timeline: To be determined.
(z) 
Mitigation Action: Fire Mitigation for Grand Junction Watershed.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: City of Grand Junction.
(2) 
Action Title: City of Grand Junction, Utilities Department – Fire Mitigation for City’s Watershed.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: As far back as 1915, the City of Grand Junction and the U.S. Forest Service have cooperated to protect the City’s watershed (Kannah Creek, Whitewater Creek, and North Fork of Kannah Creek) and maintain forest health.
(5) 
Responsible Agency: Grand Junction.
(6) 
Potential Funding: City of Grand Junction Water Fund.
(7) 
Cost Estimate: Approximately $30,000 per year.
(8) 
Benefits: Protection of the City’s watershed, prevent losses of infrastructure, maintain recreational trails, promote forest health.
(9) 
Timeline: 2020-2021.
(aa) 
Mitigation Action: Carson Lake Dam Rehabilitation and Early Warning System.
(1) 
Jurisdiction: City of Grand Junction.
(2) 
Action Title: City of Grand Junction, Utilities Department – Carson Lake Dam Rehabilitation and Early Warning System.
(3) 
Priority: High.
(4) 
Issue/background: The City of Grand Junction owns and operates Carson Lake (aka Hogchute Reservoir). The reservoir provides water storage for the City’s domestic water supply, downstream irrigation use, and fishing recreation. The Carson Lake Dam is classified as a high hazard jurisdictional dam as defined by the Colorado Dam Safety of the Division of Water Resources. The State Engineer’s Office completed a Comprehensive Dam Safety Evaluation in 2017 and rated the dam as “Conditionally Satisfactory” and provided guidance in planning needed dam improvements.
The Carson Lake Dam Rehabilitation Project includes rehabilitating the existing spillway, outlet works, toe drain seepage collection system. It will also incorporate an early warning system program, which is a risk reduction measure for high hazard dams to provide advanced warning of an impending hydrologic event that could lead to dam failure.
(5) 
Responsible Agency: Grand Junction.
(6) 
Potential Funding: City of Grand Junction Water Fund, possibly BRIC or HHPD Program.
(7) 
Cost Estimate: $3,000,000.
(8) 
Benefits: Preventing losses of the City’s water supply infrastructure, protect downstream populations and structures, protect wildlife and recreational uses.
(9) 
Timeline: 2020-2021.
(Res. 61-20, 10-7-20; Res. 32-15, 7-1-15; Res. 05-10, 1-6-10)