Planning Process
Background on Mitigation Planning in Jefferson County
Section titled “Background on Mitigation Planning in Jefferson County”The primary purpose of the Jefferson County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) update is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and human-caused hazards and their effects on the Jefferson County planning area. Recognizing the importance of hazard mitigation planning, Jefferson County and the cities of Arvada, Lakewood and Wheat Ridge participated in the 2003 Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). In order to develop a more specific risk assessment, goals, and mitigation projects, the County and the jurisdictions noted previously, developed their own Jefferson County specific multi-jurisdictional plan in 2009-2010 with an additional ten jurisdictions participating in the planning process. In 2015-2016 the plan underwent a comprehensive five-year update as required by the DMA.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) underwent a comprehensive update in 2021. The planning process followed during the update was similar to what was used in the original plan development. This planning process utilized the input from a multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC). A consultant, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc (Wood) was hired to assist with the update in 2021. The plan update process is described further in this section and documented in Appendix C.
Jefferson County and its communities has been an integral constituent in nurturing partnerships across boundaries for decades. This proactive approach established the County as a leader to the Front Range communities for hazard mitigation and overall emergency management program planning. This plan builds from the accumulated efforts of previous planning mechanisms that clearly align with the planning regulations set forth by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA).
What’s New in the Plan Update
Section titled “What’s New in the Plan Update”This HMP update involved a comprehensive review and update of each section of the 2016 plan and includes an assessment of the progress of the participating communities in evaluating, monitoring and implementing the mitigation strategy outlined in the initial plan. Only the information and data still valid from the previous plan was carried forward as applicable into this HMP update.
One significant change to the 2021 plan update process was the inclusion of five new participating jurisdictions, each listed below under Section Local Government Participation. Three jurisdictions (Lakeside, Mountain View, and Pleasant View Metropolitan District) that participated in 2016 chose not to patriciate in the 2021 plan update due to other priorities and limited resources.
Wood developed a summary of each section in the plan and guided the HMPC through the elements that needed updating during the kickoff meeting in December 2020. This included analyzing each section using FEMA’s local plan update guidance (2013) as well as guidance from the National Flood Insurance (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS), to ensure that the plan met the latest requirements. The HMPC and Wood determined that nearly every section of the plan would need revision to align the plan with the latest FEMA planning guidance and requirements. A summary of the changes in this plan update is highlighted in the table below.
Table 3-1 Jefferson County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Highlights
| Plan Section | Summary of Plan Review, Analysis, and Updates |
|---|---|
| 1. Introduction | Added an Executive Summary section. Verified/updated purpose, scope, etc. Updated Background. |
| 2. Community Profile | Updated demographic, social & economic data, including the results of any recent annexations or new development. Expanded on social vulnerability analysis. Moved capability assessment section here (previously in Risk Assessment) and update data using Plan Update Guide. |
| 3. Planning Process | Described and documented the planning process for the 2021 update, including coordination among agencies and integration with other planning efforts. Updated summary of changes. Described any changes in jurisdictional priorities. Described any changes in participation in detail. Described 2021 public participation process. |
| 4. Risk Assessment | Revisited 2016 hazards list for possible modifications including possible human-caused hazards. Reviewed hazards from current Colorado State Hazard Mitigation Plan for consistency. Updated list of disaster declarations to include 2016-2021 data. Updated hazards data to include 2016-2021 data. Updated past occurrences for each hazard to include 2016-2021 data. Incorporated new hazard studies since 2016 and/or CWPPs/wildfire risk mapping. Added information on impacts of climate change on hazard frequency and severity. Updated critical facilities data. Provided/Updated replacement cost details to critical facilities, as data permits. Updated development and land use trends to include Census data, state, county, and local data sources. Updated historic and cultural resources. Updated current property values using 2021 Assessor’s data. Estimated flood losses using the latest flood hazard mapping and building counts and values. Updated NFIP data, CRS information, and Repetitive Loss data. Incorporated new hazard loss estimates since 2016, as applicable. Examined changes in growth and development will be examined; especially changes in the context of hazard-prone areas and how the changes may affect loss estimates and vulnerability. Conducted a HAZUS-MH Level I earthquake vulnerability analysis. Updated information regarding specific vulnerabilities to hazards, including maps and tables of specific assets at risk, specific critical facilities at risk, and specific populations at risk including social vulnerability. Updated maps in plan where appropriate Moved Capability Assessment to community profile section and update. |
| 5. Mitigation Strategy | Updated based on the results of the updated risk assessment, completed mitigation actions, and implementation obstacles and opportunities over the last five years. |
| Plan Section | Summary of Plan Review, Analysis, and Updates |
|---|---|
| Reviewed goals and objectives to determine if they are still representative of the County’s mitigation strategy, and update/revise as needed. Reviewed mitigation actions from the 2016 plan and develop a status report for each; identify if action has been completed, deleted, or deferred. Updated section on progress made since 2016 to include activities other than 2016 actions. Identified and detail new mitigation actions for all participating jurisdictions. Identified projects that have been submitted for funding and those that will be likely candidates for this funding. | |
| 6. Plan Maintenance | Moved to Planning Process section; Kept adoption resolutions in Appendix. |
| Jurisdictional Annexes | Updated previous participants’ annexes with recent Census data. Updated past event history and hazard loss estimates. Added new maps and updated old maps as needed. Updated mitigation actions from 2016 and added new mitigation actions. |
| Appendices | Updated as needed |
Local Government Participation
Section titled “Local Government Participation”The DMA planning regulations and guidance requires each local government seeking FEMA approval of its mitigation plan must participate in a planning process effort in the following ways:
Participate in the process as part of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC),
Differentiate geographical locations or jurisdictions within the planning area where the hazard risk differs from that facing the entire planning area,
Identify mitigation projects, specific to each jurisdictional entity, to be eligible for funding, and
Engage the governing body for formal adoption of the plan. For the Jefferson County HMPC, “participation” meant:
Attending and participating in the HMPC meetings,
Providing available data requested of the HMPC,
Reviewing and providing comments on the plan drafts,
Collecting and providing other requested data (as available);
Managing administrative details;
Making decisions on plan process and content;
Identifying mitigation actions for the plan;
Reviewing and providing comments on plan drafts; including annexes
Informing the public, local officials, and other interested parties about the planning process, and providing opportunity for them to comment on the plan;
Coordinating, and participating in the public input process; and
Coordinating the formal adoption of the plan by the governing boards.
The County and all jurisdictions with annexes to this plan seeking FEMA approval met all of these participation requirements. In most cases, one or more representatives for each jurisdiction attended the HMPC meetings described in Appendix B and also brought together a local planning team to help collect data, identify mitigation actions and implementation strategies, and review and provide data on plan drafts. Appendix C provides additional information and documentation of the planning process.
The 10-Step Planning Process
Section titled “The 10-Step Planning Process”Wood established the planning process for Jefferson County’s plan using DMA planning requirements and FEMA’s associated guidance. This guidance is structured around a four-phase process:
Organize Resources
Assess Risks
Develop the Mitigation Plan
Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Into this four-phase process, Wood integrated a more detailed 10-step planning process used for FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs. Thus, the modified 10-step process used for this plan meets the funding eligibility requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants (including Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant, High Hazard Potential Dams grant, and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant), Community Rating System, and the flood control projects authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Jefferson County, the City of Arvada, Golden, Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, and the Town of Morrison participate in the CRS, and thus could potentially earn planning credits from the development of this plan. shows how the modified 10-step process fits into FEMA’s four-phase process, and how these elements correspond to the tasks in the FEMA “Mitigation Planning Handbook.”
Table 3-2 Jefferson County Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
| FEMA’s 4-Phase DMA Process | Modified 10- Step CRS Process | FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook Tasks |
|---|---|---|
| 1) Organize Resources | 1) Organize Resources | 1) Organize Resources |
| 201.6(c)(1) | 1) Organize the Planning Effort | 1: Determine the planning area and resources |
| 201.6(b)(1) | 2) Involve the Public | 2: Build the planning team - 44 CFR 201.6 (C)(1) |
| 201.6(b)(2) and (3) | 3) Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies | 3: Create an outreach strategy - 44 CFR 201.6(b)(1) |
| 201.6(b)(2) and (3) | 3) Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies | 4: Review community capabilities - 44 CFR 201.6 (b)(2)&(3) |
| 2) Assess Risks | 2) Assess Risks | 2) Assess Risks |
| 201.6(c)(2)(i) | 4) Identify the Hazards | 5: Conduct a risk assessment - 44 CFR 201.6 (C)(2)(i) 44 CFR 201.6(C)(2)(ii)&(iii) |
| 201.6(c)(2)(ii) | 5) Assess the Risks | 5: Conduct a risk assessment - 44 CFR 201.6 (C)(2)(i) 44 CFR 201.6(C)(2)(ii)&(iii) |
| 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan | 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan | 3) Develop the Mitigation Plan |
| 201.6(c)(3)(i) | 6) Set Goals | 6: Develop a mitigation strategy - 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i); 44 CFR 201(c)(3)(ii) and 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii) |
| 201.6(c)(3)(ii) | 7) Review Possible Activities | 6: Develop a mitigation strategy - 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i); 44 CFR 201(c)(3)(ii) and 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii) |
| 201.6(c)(3)(iii) | 8) Draft an Action Plan | 6: Develop a mitigation strategy - 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i); 44 CFR 201(c)(3)(ii) and 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii) |
| 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress | 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress | 4) Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress |
| 201.6(c)(5) | 9) Adopt the Plan | 7: Review and adopt the plan |
| FEMA’s 4-Phase DMA Process | Modified 10- Step CRS Process | FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook Tasks |
|---|---|---|
| 201.6(c)(4) | 10) Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan | 8: Keep the plan current |
| 201.6(c)(4) | 10) Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan | 9: Create a safe and resilient community - 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4) |
Phase 1: Organize Resources
Section titled “Phase 1: Organize Resources”Planning Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort
Section titled “Planning Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort”The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) worked to establish the framework and organization for the development of the plan update. This process began with the FEMA planning grant application in 2018. Participating jurisdictions indicated their commitment to participate as evidenced by executing a letter of commitment as a component of the FEMA planning grant. Award of the grant in October 2019 allowed the planning consultant, Wood, to be procured through a competitive bid process.
Wood worked with the County to get organized for the plan update. Organizational efforts were initiated with the County and participating jurisdictions in December 2020 to inform and educate the plan participants of the purpose and need for updating the countywide hazard mitigation plan. An initial meeting between Wood and County OEM was held to discuss the organizational aspects of this plan update process. Invitations to the kickoff meeting for this plan update were extended to key County departments, the eight incorporated communities, and representatives from special districts for the County and municipalities, as well as to other federal, state, and local stakeholders that might have an interest in participating in the planning process. Representatives from participating jurisdictions and HMPC members to the 2016 plan were used as a starting point for the invite list, with additional invitations extended as appropriate throughout the planning process. The list of initial invitees is included in Appendix C.
Key stakeholders were identified including representatives from the various county departments, each municipal jurisdiction, and other state and local government agencies. An email was sent from County OEM to describe the upcoming mitigation planning efforts and invite potential members to participate in a kickoff meeting where the HMPC would be formally organized. Suggested representation from each municipality included city/town manager, emergency manager, floodplain manager, public works/engineering, building department and fire department/district representative. Table 3-3 lists the HMPC participants and their respective jurisdiction in the development of the plan. Other stakeholders that participated in the planning process are discussed under Planning Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies.
In the 2020-2021 plan update, the following communities and jurisdictions participated in the process.
Lead Jurisdiction
Section titled “Lead Jurisdiction”Jefferson County
Municipalities
Section titled “Municipalities”City of Arvada
City of Edgewater
City of Golden
City of Lakewood
City of Wheat Ridge
Town of Morrison
Special Districts
Section titled “Special Districts”Denver Water
Arvada Fire Protection District (New)
Elk Creek Fire Protection District (New)
Evergreen Fire Protection District
Fairmount Fire Protection District
Foothills Fire Protection District (New)
Genesee Fire Protection District (New)
Golden Gate Fire Protection District (New)
Indian Hills Fire Protection District
Inter-Canyon Fire Protection District (New)
Jefferson Conservation District
Lookout Mountain Water District
North Fork Fire Protection District
West Metro Fire Protection District
The Town of Bow Mar, Town of Lakeside, Town of Mountain View, and Pleasant View Metropolitan District elected not to participate in the Jefferson County multi-jurisdictional planning process. The City of Westminster has its own hazard mitigation plan and did not participate in the Jefferson County multi- jurisdictional planning process since the City lies within both Jefferson and Adams County. The Town of Superior has a portion of their Town in Jefferson County but opted to participate in the Boulder County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City of Littleton also has a small area in Jefferson County but participated in the Arapahoe County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan update.
The Disaster Mitigation Act requires that each jurisdiction participate in the planning process and officially adopt the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. A planning committee was created that includes representatives from each participating jurisdiction, departments of the County, and other local, state, and federal organizations responsible for making decisions in the plan and agreeing upon the final contents. Kickoff meeting attendees discussed potential participants and made decisions about additional stakeholders to invite to participate on the HMPC.
The HMPC contributed to this planning process by:
Providing facilities for meetings,
Attending meetings,
Collecting data,
Managing administrative details,
Making decisions on plan process and content,
Submitting mitigation action implementation worksheets,
Reviewing and editing drafts, and
Coordinating and assisting with public involvement and plan adoptions
The HMPC was comprised of two groups, a Steering Committee that led the planning and decision- making efforts throughout the planning process, and a Working Group comprised of additional local staff that provided information to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is the group responsible for the 10-Step CRS planning process outlined in the 2017 CRS Coordinator’s Manual. The Working Group supported the overall HMP process by providing information and data to the CRS Steering Committee for consideration and decision-making. Membership and participation in both the Steering Committee and Working Group are listed in Appendix B.
The HMPC communicated during the planning process with a combination of meetings, phone interviews, and email correspondence. All meetings were held virtually due to social distancing requirements associated with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. A folder on Google Drive was hosted by Wood and a SharePoint site hosted by the County were both used to share drafts of the plan and its annexes for jurisdictional review and input. Three planning meetings with the Planning Team were held during the plan’s development between December 2020 and February 2021. The meeting schedule and topics are listed in the following table; all 10 planning process steps were covered in these three meetings.
Agendas, meeting summaries, and attendance records for each of the meetings are included in Appendix C.
Table 3-3 Schedule of HMPC Meetings
Section titled “Table 3-3 Schedule of HMPC Meetings”| Meeting Type | Meeting Topic | CRS Steps | Meeting Date(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMPC #1 Kick-off Meeting | Introduction to DMA and the planning process Overview of current HMP; Organize Resources: the role of the HMPC, planning for public involvement, coordinating with other agencies/stakeholders Introduction to Hazard Identification | 1,2,3 | December 7, 2020 |
| HMPC #2 Risk Assessment | Risk assessment overview and work session Development of mitigation goals and objectives; | 2,4,5,6 | January 11, 2021 |
| HMPC #3 Mitigation Strategy and Goals Update | Identification, prioritization, and status update of mitigation actions; Discussion of process to monitor, evaluate, and update plan | 7,8,9,10 | February 11, 2021 |
HMPC Meeting #1 – Kickoff Meeting
Section titled “HMPC Meeting #1 – Kickoff Meeting”On December 7, 2020, the HMPC convened virtually with 85 people participating, to kick off the plan update process. Wood presented information on the scope and purpose of the plan update, participation requirements of HMPC members, and the proposed project work plan and schedule. Plans for public involvement (Step 2) and coordination with other agencies and departments (Step 3) were discussed.
Wood also introduced the hazard identification requirements and data. The HMPC discussed past events and impacts and future probability for each of the hazards required by FEMA for consideration in a local hazard mitigation plan. The HMPC made two revisions to the hazards list from the 2016 plan, adding Pandemic and Cyber Attacks. Each jurisdiction provided updates to the plan and their respective annexes via a plan update guide and mitigation action tracker.
HMPC Meeting #2 – Risk Assessment Update
Section titled “HMPC Meeting #2 – Risk Assessment Update”On January 11, 2021, the HMPC convened virtually to review and discuss the results of the risk and vulnerability assessment update (Steps 4 and 5). There were 81 members of the HMPC and stakeholders were present for the discussion. Wood presented the results the risk assessment for natural and human- caused hazards. The group went through each hazard together and discussed the results as well as shared any local insight to inform the HIRA update. Refer to the meeting summary in Appendix C for notes related to each hazard discussed. Some of this discussion was also related to the reviewing and updating the 2015-2016 goals.
HMPC Meeting #3 – Mitigation Strategy and Goals Update
Section titled “HMPC Meeting #3 – Mitigation Strategy and Goals Update”The HMPC convened virtually on February 11, 2021 with 69 people participating to update the plan’s mitigation strategy. The group finalized the plan’s goals and objectives (Step 6) and discussed the criteria for mitigation action selection and prioritization using a worksheet provided by Wood. The group reviewed each possible new mitigation action and additional details were provided by the Planning Team (Step 7). The meeting ended with a review of the next steps and planning process schedule. Wood provided the Planning Team with a link to an online form to submit new mitigation actions. During the Planning Team review of the full plan, each member was provided a handout on prioritizing new mitigation actions and asked to focus on prioritizing each new mitigation action for their jurisdiction.
Planning Step 2: Involve the Public
Section titled “Planning Step 2: Involve the Public”Involving the public assures support from the community at large and is a part of the planning process. At the kickoff meeting, strategies to involve the public were discussed for soliciting public input on the mitigation plan and developed an outreach strategy by consensus. The fact that the process was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with attendant restrictions on public gatherings, made it difficult to use many traditional outreach methods such as in-person public gatherings or discussions at other forums. The HMPC adapted by leveraging virtual meetings and other online messaging, which in
many cases resulted in greater public attendance and involvement than more traditional face-to-face meetings. An online public survey was developed by Wood and shared with the Planning Team to share through their respective public information channels. In addition to the online public survey, two virtual public workshops were held in January and June 2021.
These outreach efforts are summarized in and discussed below.
Table 3-4 Summary of Public Outreach and Involvement Efforts
Section titled “Table 3-4 Summary of Public Outreach and Involvement Efforts”| Event/Effort | Message | Dates | Methods Advertised |
|---|---|---|---|
| Online Public Survey | Personal experience with hazard events; public perception of hazard significance; what mitigation measures should be pursued. | January 6, - January 31, 2021 | Website posting, Facebook, Twitter |
| Public Workshop #1 (virtual) | Overview of mitigation planning and plan update process; introduction to hazards and risk assessment; mitigation goals and objectives. | January 21, 2021 | Website posting, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube |
| Public Workshop #2 (virtual) | Overview of draft plan; solicitation of feedback. | June 8, 2021 | Website posting, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube |
| Public Review Draft | Public review and comment on the draft plan. | June 7-25, 2021 | Website posting, Facebook |
| Virtual Public Room | Virtual room for the public to educate the public on mitigation planning and the 2021 plan update, as well as providing opportunities to review and comment on the draft plan. | June 7-25, 2021 | Website posting, Facebook |
| YouTube | Videos of public workshops posted. | Ongoing | NA |
| Website notices | Notices of process, survey, public workshops, and public review draft posted at Jeffco.us | December 2020 – June 2021 | NA |
| Facebook posts | Updates on process, survey, public workshops, and public review draft posted on County Facebook page. | December 2020 – June 2021 | NA |
| Twitter posts | Updates on process, survey, public workshops, and public review draft posted on County Twitter account. | December 2020 – June 2021 | NA |
| Newspaper article | Arvada Press article “Working Together to Reduce Wildfire Risk in Jefferson County” | March 16, 2021 | NA |
Online Public Survey
Section titled “Online Public Survey”During the plan update’s initial drafting stage, an online public survey was used to gather public input to the Planning Team. The survey provided an opportunity for public input during the planning process, prior to finalization of the plan update. The survey gathered public feedback on concerns about hazards and input on mitigation strategies to reduce their impacts. The survey was released on January 6, 2021 and closed on January 31, 2021. The Planning Team provided links to the public survey by distributing it using social media, email, and posting the link on websites. A link to the survey was also posted on some of the participating jurisdictions’ websites as well as through social media posts; screenshots from both can be found in Appendix C. A total of 953 people filled out the survey online. Results showed that the public perceives the most significant hazards to be wildfire, drought, hailstorm and pandemic/public health.
Question 4 of the survey asked the public’s opinion on what mitigation actions that should have the highest priority in the updated hazard mitigation plan; wildfire fuels treatment projects, forest health/watershed protection, water conservation, evacuation route development and public health incident preparedness were cited as the most popular mitigation actions. This information was shared with the Planning Team during the update of the mitigation strategy to consider when evaluating hazard rankings
and as a source of potential mitigation ideas. A summary of all the survey data and documentation of the public feedback can be found in Appendix D.
Figure 3-1 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Link on Jefferson County Twitter
Section titled “Figure 3-1 Hazard Mitigation Planning Survey Link on Jefferson County Twitter”Online Public Workshops
Section titled “Online Public Workshops”Two online public workshops were held during the planning process to inform the public, receive input to integrate into the plan update, and keep the public updated on the progress being made in the planning process. Both workshops were held virtually as webinars due to social distancing requirements associated with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
The workshop took place on January 14, 2021 through Zoom. The workshop introduced the public to the hazard mitigation planning process for the County’s Plan Update and answered any questions and gather public input to be integrated into the plan update. In addition, it was an opportunity to help staff identify risks, hazards and vulnerabilities from the public’s perspective. In total 26 individuals participated in the virtual workshop. Members of the public were able to submit comments verbally or via the chat function. The Planning Team received four comments from the meeting that helped to inform the Planning Team on the public initial thoughts on hazard mitigation and hazards in their community. A recording of the meeting was subsequently posted on Jefferson County’s YouTube channel, where it has an additional 128 views as of July 1st, 2021.
The second virtual public workshop was held on June 8, 2021, again conducted via Zoom. Eight members of the public attended this meeting, which gave an update on the planning process, reviewed the results of the public survey, and introduced the updated Plan. The purpose, contents, and key components of the updated plan were described, and participants were encouraged to review and comment on the draft plan. A recording of the meeting was subsequently posted on Jefferson County’s YouTube channel, where it has an additional 10views as of July 1st, 2021.
Figure 3-2 Public Meeting #1 Screenshot, January 14, 2021
Section titled “Figure 3-2 Public Meeting #1 Screenshot, January 14, 2021”Public Review Period
Section titled “Public Review Period”Following the HMPC draft review a public review draft of the plan was prepared. The public was given an opportunity to provide input on this draft of the complete plan prior to its submittal to the State and FEMA. A virtual public engagement room was created for people to learn about the plan, download and review copies of the draft plan and annexes, and upload comments and feedback using an online survey tool.
The draft plan and annexes were also made available on the County’s emergency management web page from June 7th–25th, 2021. The comment period was advertised extensively through the jurisdictions’ websites and social media accounts. The City of Arvada also made the plan available through their Speak Up Arvada platform. A total of eleven comments were received, which are included in Appendix B. The comments were reviewed with the Planning Team and used to inform revisions to the draft Plan.
Figure 3-3 Virtual Public Engagement Room
Section titled “Figure 3-3 Virtual Public Engagement Room”Planning Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies
There are numerous organizations whose goals and interests interface with hazard mitigation in Jefferson County. Coordination with these organizations and other community planning efforts is vital to the success of this plan update. The Jefferson County Office of Emergency Management invited other local, state, and federal departments and agencies to the kickoff meeting to learn about the hazard mitigation planning initiative. Many of the agencies participated throughout the planning process in meetings described in Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort.
Stakeholders include local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities or those beyond the County and local government that have the authority to regulate development. Stakeholders could participate in various ways, either by contributing input at HMPC meetings, being aware of planning activities through an email group, providing information to support the effort, or reviewing and commenting on the draft plan. Based on their involvement in other hazard mitigation planning efforts, and status in the County, representatives from the following agencies and organizations were invited to participate as stakeholders in the process; an asterisk indicates they participated in HMPC meetings:
Special Districts
− Mile High Flood District*
− Evergreen Metropolitan District*
Neighboring county/municipality emergency management and floodplain management
− Adams County*
− Arapahoe County
− Boulder County
− Broomfield County*
− Clear Creek County
− Denver City and County
Denver Mountain Parks*
− Douglas County
− Gilpin County*
− Park County
− Westminster, City of*
Nonprofits
− Consolidated Mutual Water Company
State Agencies
− Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management*
− Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control (DFPC)*
− Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife*
Chatfield State Park*
− Colorado Division of Water Resources – Dam Safety*
Federal Agencies
− US Forest Service*
Universities
− Colorado State University Extension
- Participated in HMPC meetings
The majority of the listed stakeholders were invited to participate through an email from the Jefferson County Emergency Manager on November 17, 2020, which included an invitation to the kickoff meeting. A complete list of agencies and persons invited to the kick off meeting, plus the invitation itself, can be referenced in Appendices B & C. As part of the public review and comment period for the draft plan, key agencies were again specifically solicited to provide any final input to the draft plan document. This input was solicited both through membership on the HMPC and by direct emails to key groups and associations to review and comment on the plan. As part of this targeted outreach, these key stakeholders were also specifically invited to attend the HMPC and public meeting to discuss any outstanding issues and to provide input on the draft document and final mitigation strategies.
Coordination with key agencies, organizations, and advisory groups throughout the planning process allowed the HMPC to review common problems, development policies, and mitigation strategies as well as identifying any conflicts or inconsistencies with regional mitigation policies, plans, programs and regulations. Phone calls and emails were used during plan development to directly coordinate with key individuals representing other regional programs.
The HMPC also used technical data, reports, and studies from the following agencies and groups, just to name a few:
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Colorado Geological Survey
FEMA
Mile High Flood District
Appendix F References provides a detailed list of references used in the preparation of this plan update. Specific references relied on in the development of this plan are also sourced throughout the document as appropriate.
Several opportunities were provided for the groups listed above to participate in the planning process. At the beginning of the planning process, invitations were extended to these groups to actively participate on the HMPC. Specific participants from these groups are detailed in Appendix B. Others assisted in the process by providing data directly as requested or through data contained on their websites or as maintained by their offices. Further, as part of the public outreach process, all groups were invited to attend the public meetings and to review and comment on the plan prior to submittal to DHSEM and FEMA. In addition, as part of the review of the draft plan, key agency stakeholders were contacted, and their comments specifically solicited.
This process was accomplished as part of planning tasks two and three in the FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook.
Incorporation of Existing Plans and Other Information
Section titled “Incorporation of Existing Plans and Other Information”The coordination and synchronization with other community planning mechanisms and efforts are vital to the success of this plan. To have a thorough evaluation of hazard mitigation practices already in place, appropriate planning procedures should also involve identifying and reviewing existing plans, policies, regulations, codes, tools, and other actions are designed to reduce a community’s risk and vulnerability from natural hazards. Jefferson County uses a variety of mechanisms to guide growth and development. Integrating existing planning efforts, mitigation policies, and action strategies into this plan establishes a credible, comprehensive document that weaves the common threads of a community’s values together. The development of this plan involved a comprehensive review of existing plans, studies, reports, and initiatives from Jefferson County and each participating municipality.
The following table includes a comprehensive list of the documents reviewed and how they informed the HMP update.
Table 3-5 Incorporated Plans, Studies, and Reports
Section titled “Table 3-5 Incorporated Plans, Studies, and Reports”| Plan | How Incorporated |
|---|---|
| Jefferson County Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP) 2013 | Used as baseline for update and incorporated into Community Profile, Planning Process, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment, Capabilities Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, and Implementation |
| Jefferson County Comprehensive Master Plan Findings for 2019 Update | Informed growth and development trends and demographics for Community Profile. |
| Jefferson County Emergency Preparedness Guide (2018) | Incorporated into Risk and Vulnerability Assessment |
| Jefferson County Open Space Master Plan 2014-2019 | Incorporated into Community Profile, Capabilities Assessment and Wildfire Vulnerability Assessment |
| Individual Community Land Use Plans (12 separate documents) | Incorporated data into Jurisdictional Annexes for Future Planning and Development patterns |
| Jefferson County Economic Profile, JeffCo Economic Development Corporation 2015 | Incorporated into Community Profile and Risk and Vulnerability Assessment |
| County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2012) | Incorporated into Community Profile and Wildfire Vulnerability Assessment |
| Individual Community Wildfire Protection Plans (16 separate documents) | Incorporated data into Jurisdictional Annexes and Wildfire Vulnerability Assessment |
| Jefferson County Land Development Regulation | Informed Capabilities, Risk and Vulnerability Assessments and goals update in Section |
| Jefferson County Zoning Resolution | Incorporated into Capabilities Assessment |
| Addendum to 2018 Jefferson County Residential Code and Supplement – Appendix Z Special Building Construction Regulations in Wildfire Zone 1 (Effective January 1, 2020) | Incorporated into Capabilities Assessment |
| Jefferson County Floodplain Regulations | Incorporated into Capabilities Assessment |
| Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Regulation – Section 17 of the Jefferson County Land Development Regulation | Incorporated into Capabilities Assessment |
| Construction/Land Disturbance Activities Section 16 | Incorporated into Capabilities Assessment |
| Jefferson County Roadway Design and Construction Manual | Incorporated into Capabilities Assessment |
| 2018-2023 State of Colorado Hazard Mitigation Plan | Informed data sources and information gathering and goals update |
| Colorado Drought Mitigation & Response Plan 2018 | Informed data sources and information gathering |
| City of Arvada Comprehensive Plan | Used as baseline for Annex update and incorporated into Community Profile, Planning Process, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, and Implementation |
| City of Arvada Sustainable Action Plan (ASAP) | Informed Annex update |
| City of Arvada Land Development Code | Informed Annex update |
| City of Arvada Parks and Open Space Master Plan | Informed Annex update |
| City of Lakewood Community Resources Master Plan | Informed Annex update |
| City of Lakewood Comprehensive Plan | Used as baseline for Annex update and incorporated into Community Profile, Planning Process, Risk and |
| Plan | How Incorporated |
|---|---|
| Vulnerability Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, and Implementation | |
| City of Lakewood Zoning Ordinance/Floodplain Management | Informed Annex update |
| City of Wheat Ridge Strategic Plan | Informed Annex update |
| City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan | Informed Annex update |
| City of Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Master Plan | Informed Annex update |
| City of Wheat Ridge Zoning and Development Code | Informed Annex update |
| City of Golden Comprehensive Plan | Used as baseline for Annex update and incorporated into Community Profile, Planning Process, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment, Mitigation Strategy, and Implementation |
| City of Golden Land Use Plan | Informed Annex update |
| City of Edgewater Master Plan | Informed Annex update |
| Town of Morrison Ordinances | Informed Annex update |
| Town of Mountain View Master Plan | Informed Annex update |
Other documents were reviewed and considered, as appropriate, during the collection of data to support Planning Steps 4 and 5, which include the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment. See also Appendix F for other references.
2016 Mitigation Plan Inclusion in Other Planning Mechanisms
Section titled “2016 Mitigation Plan Inclusion in Other Planning Mechanisms”The 2016 HMP was integrated into other planning mechanisms in the County. The risk assessment portion of the 2016 plan was integrated into the other planning mechanisms listed in The table lists the jurisdiction and what planning mechanism the 2016 Plan was integrated into. In some cases, communities have deferred this for future planning mechanisms, as discussed in the Section Plan Implementation and Maintenance.
Table 3-6 2016 Mitigation Plan Inclusion in Other Planning Mechanisms
| Jurisdiction | Planning Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Jefferson County | Goals and approaches from 2016 HMP were included in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP) and regulation updates. |
| Jefferson County | The 2016 Jefferson County HMP was made available on the Emergency Management and Preparedness page on the Sheriff’s Office web portal |
| Wheat Ridge | City of Wheat Ridge Local Energy Assurance Plan 2012. Hazard Mitigation Plan is cross referenced in several sections. Provided the basis for hazard profiles in the vulnerability assessment |
| State of Colorado | The 2018-2023 Colorado Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a meta-level analysis of local and multi-jurisdictional hazards profiled (with rankings for each hazard in each jurisdiction) in respective plans. Jefferson County’s 2016 plan is included in this analysis. |
| State of Colorado | The 2018 Colorado Drought Mitigation Response Plan references local hazard mitigation plans and efforts, including Jefferson County. |
| Lakewood | Adopted by referenced in City Emergency Operations Plan as an important planning element and background on the various natural hazards and risks in the City. |
| Jurisdiction | Planning Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Arvada | 2016 HIRA was incorporated into the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Floodplain regulations were updated and adopted in 2020. Incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan was deferred for incorporation by reference in future planning mechanisms (2023 Update). |
| Edgewater | Information from 2016 HMP was incorporated into Comprehensive Plan and is considered when updating local codes and plans. |
| Golden | Information from the 2016 HMP was incorporated into the City’s Emergency Operations Plan |
| Morrison | Deferred for incorporation by reference in future planning mechanisms |
| Fire Districts | Fairmount FPD incorporated 2016 HMP into Strategic Plan and Standards of Coverage, which describes the District’s response plans within the community. West Metro FPD considers and references the 2016 HMP where applicable. |
| Jefferson Conservation District | Deferred for incorporation by reference in future planning mechanisms, where applicable |
Phase 2: Assess Risks
Section titled “Phase 2: Assess Risks”Planning Step 4 Identify the Hazards
Section titled “Planning Step 4 Identify the Hazards”Wood led the HMPC in an effort to identify and document all the hazards that have, or could, impact the planning area, including documenting recent drought, flood, wildfire and winter storm events. Data collection worksheets were used in this effort to aid in determining hazards and vulnerabilities and where risk varies across the planning area. The profile of each of these hazards was then developed and updated for 2021 with information from the HMPC and additional sources. Web resources, existing reports and plans, and existing GIS layers were used to compile information about past hazard events and determine the location, previous occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and magnitude/severity of each hazard. Geographic information systems (GIS) were used to display, analyze, and quantify hazards and vulnerabilities. A more detailed description of the hazard identification and risk assessment process and the results are included in Section Risk Assessment.
Planning Step 5 Assess the Risks
Section titled “Planning Step 5 Assess the Risks”After updating the profiles of the hazards that could affect the County, the HMPC collected information to describe the likely impacts of future hazard events on the participating jurisdictions. This step included two parts: a vulnerability assessment and a capability assessment.
Vulnerability Assessment—Participating jurisdictions updated their assets at risk to natural hazards— overall and in identified hazard areas. These assets included the total number and value of structures; critical facilities and infrastructure; natural, historic, and cultural assets; and economic assets. The HMPC also analyzed development trends in hazard areas. The DFIRM was used to refine the estimated flood losses during the update, where available for the NFIP participating communities. The results of the vulnerability assessment are included in Section Risk Assessment.
Capability Assessment— The HMPC also conducted a capability assessment update to review and document the planning area’s current capabilities to mitigate risk and vulnerability from natural hazards. By collecting information about existing government programs, policies, regulations, ordinances, and emergency plans, the HMPC can assess those activities and measures already in place that contribute to mitigating some of the risks and vulnerabilities identified. This information for is included in Section and in the respective jurisdictional annexes.
Wood provided the draft risk assessment to the HMPC in March 2021 for review and comment. Results of the risk assessment were presented and comments discussed at the second meeting of the HMPC.
Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan
Section titled “Phase 3: Develop the Mitigation Plan”Planning Step 6: Set Goals
Section titled “Planning Step 6: Set Goals”Wood facilitated a discussion session with the HMPC to review the 2016 plan’s goals and objectives. The HMPC discussed definitions and examples of goals, objectives, and actions and considered the goals of
the state hazard mitigation plan and other relevant local plans when reviewing and revising the goals and objectives. The resulting updated goals and objectives are presented in Section Mitigation Strategy.
Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities
Section titled “Planning Step 7: Review Possible Activities”Wood facilitated a discussion at an HMPC meeting to review the alternatives for mitigating hazards. This included a brainstorming session with the HMPC to identify a comprehensive range of mitigation actions for each identified hazard, and a method of selecting and defending recommended mitigation actions using a series of selection criteria. More specifics on the process and the results of this collaborative process are captured in Section Mitigation Strategy.
Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan
Section titled “Planning Step 8: Draft an Action Plan”Based on input from the HMPC regarding the draft risk assessment and the goals and activities identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7, Wood produced a complete first draft of the plan. This complete draft was delivered electronically for HMPC review and comment. HMPC and agency comments were integrated into the second draft, which was advertised and distributed to collect public input and comments. Other agencies were invited to comment on this draft as well. Wood integrated comments and issues from the public, as appropriate, along with additional internal review comments and produced a final draft for the Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM) and FEMA Region VIII to review and approve, contingent upon final adoption by the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction.
Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Section titled “Phase 4: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress”Planning Step 9: Adopt the Plan
Section titled “Planning Step 9: Adopt the Plan”In order to secure buy-in and officially implement the plan, the plan was re-adopted by the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction on the dates included in the adoption resolutions in Appendix A Plan Adoption.
Planning Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan
Section titled “Planning Step 10: Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan”The true worth of any mitigation plan is in the effectiveness of its implementation. Up to this point in the planning process, all of the HMPC’s efforts have been directed at researching data, coordinating input from participating entities, and developing appropriate mitigation actions. Each recommended action includes key descriptors, such as a lead manager and possible funding sources, to help initiate implementation. An overall implementation strategy is described in Section Plan Implementation and Maintenance.
Finally, there are numerous organizations within the Jefferson County planning area whose goals and interests interface with hazard mitigation. Coordination with these other planning efforts, as addressed in Planning Step 3, is vital to the ongoing success of this plan and mitigation in Jefferson County and is addressed further in Section A plan update and maintenance schedule and a strategy for continued public involvement are also included in Section
Implementation and Maintenance Process: 2016 Plan
Section titled “Implementation and Maintenance Process: 2016 Plan”The 2016 Hazard Mitigation Plan included a process for implementation and maintenance which was generally followed, with some variation. Implementation of the plan including the status of mitigation actions is captured in Section and the jurisdictional annexes. In general, the County and participating jurisdictions have made good progress in the implementation of the plan. Successes of note are detailed in Section As a result of revisiting the implementation and maintenance section some modifications were made including:
Changed annual review from October to January.
An updated implementation and maintenance section can be referenced in Section