Identifying Natural Hazards SECTION TWO IDENTIFYING NATURAL HAZARDS STATE OF UTAH HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Transcription

1 SECTION TWO IDENTIFYING NATURAL HAZARDS STATE OF UTAH HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN March 2014

2 Disaster History Presidential Disaster Declarations Once a disaster has occurred, and a State has declared a state of emergency, the State will evaluate the recovery capabilities of the State and local governments. If it is determined that the damage is beyond their recovery capability, the governor will usually send a request letter to the President, directed through the Regional Director of the appropriate FEMA region. The President then makes the decision whether or not to declare a major disaster or emergency. Presidential Disaster Declarations were first proclaimed in After a presidential declaration has been made, FEMA will designate the area eligible for assistance and announce the types of assistance available. FEMA provides supplemental assistance for State and local government recovery expenses, and the Federal share will always be at least 75 percent of the eligible costs ( Utah s Past Presidential Disaster Declarations Utah has received eleven presidential disaster declarations. What follows is a brief history and explanation of the past presidential declarations (from year to year) in Utah: Table 2A-1 Utah s Past Presidential Declarations # Year Description Declaration No Severe Storms, Landslides, Flooding DR Severe Storms, Mudslides, Landslides, DR-720 Flooding Heavy Rains, Snowmelt, Flooding DR Quail Creek Dam Failure DR Salt Lake City Tornado DR Severe Storms and Flooding DR Utah Flood and Landslide DR Severe Winter Storms and Flooding DR Flooding DR Severe Storm DR Severe Storm and Flooding DR Severe Storms, Landslides, Flooding The floods of April 10-June 25, 1983, affected 22 counties, or more than three-fourths of the State. On April 10, a landslide caused by precipitation dammed the Spanish Fork River, which then inundated the community of Thistle. The landslide, which resulted in damage totals of about $200 million and a Presidential disaster declaration, was the most Page 2

3 Page 3 Identifying Natural Hazards costly geologic phenomenon in Utah's history and the most costly landslide in U.S. history (Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management, 1985, p. 40). Rapid melting of the snow pack with maximum-of-record water content for June 1 (U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1983) resulted in the largest and most widespread flooding in the State s history (at the time); peak discharges had recurrence intervals that exceeded 100 years on several streams. New discharge records were set on many others, such as Chalk Creek at Coalville. On June 23, the Delta-Melville-Abraham-Deseret Dam on the Sevier River near Delta failed as a result of the flooding on June 23, 1983, and released 16,000 acre-feet of water down the river. Two bridges were washed away, and the town of Deseret was inundated by as much as 5 feet of water (Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management, 1985, p. 41). Overall damage totaled $621 million (Stephens, 1984, p ). No deaths were attributed to the floods Severe Storms, Mudslides, Landslides, Flooding The May 24, 1984, flooding of the Beaver River, near Beaver, and other flooding during April 17- June 20, 1984, caused damages second in magnitude only to damages sustained in The primary cause of the flooding was a combination of greater than average snow pack and above normal precipitation that continued throughout the spring. Peak discharges exceeded those in 1983 at some sites on the White, Bear, Jordan, and Beaver Rivers. Owing to severe flooding in 12 counties, a disaster was declared by the President. On May 14, rainfall caused a mudslide near the coal-mining town of Clear Creek that killed one person and injured another. The direct impact on people was considerably less in 1984 compared to 1983 because of mitigation measures implemented during the previous year. Total damage for floods and landslides was estimated to be $41 million (Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management, 1985, p. 15) Heavy Rains, Snowmelt, Flooding On March 13, 1986 a major disaster declaration was issued for four counties in Utah. From the period of February 12, 1986 to February 22, 1986 heavy rains and snowmelt brought rare February flooding to many areas of northern Utah. Cache, Morgan, Wasatch, and Weber counties were declared disaster areas with property damage totaling almost $4 million (UtahWeather.org) Quail Creek Dam Failure The Quail Creek Dam, located in Washington County Utah, failed in the early hours of January 1, In the months prior to the failure, the dam had been leaking as a result of the solubility of the gypsum in the soil, which dissolved some of the mechanisms used to transport water. Despite crew efforts, leakage of the dam continued before the dam gave way. Failure of Quail Creek Dam resulted in losses to agriculture and livestock, as well as negative impact to public facilities, roads, bridges, and golf courses. 30 homes, 58 apartments and 9 businesses were flooded. In addition, a reduction in the population of wound fin minnow, a type of fish that is listed on the endangered species list, resulted from the dam failure. $1,133,721 was provided for public assistance with a federal share of $850,294.

4 1999 Salt Lake City Tornado On August 11, 1999, a tornado moved through downtown Salt Lake City. The tornado developed on the western side of downtown and moved northeast before expiring near Memory Grove Park. The tornado, ranked a strong F2 on the Fujita Scale, resulted in 1 death and 80 injuries. 300 buildings or houses were damaged, with 34 of the homes left uninhabitable. In addition, 500 trees were destroyed, as was a portion of Memory Grove Park. Total damage estimates for this storm are $170 million and federal assistance was provided Severe Storms and Flooding A stalled storm-system containing abundant moisture caused significant flooding in Washington and Kane Counties in Southern Utah between January 8 and 12, The storm brought rain and snow throughout much of the State, causing additional precipitation to accumulate in areas already containing deep snow pack. Higher snowfall and water equivalent totals equaled 70 at Cedar Breaks, 60 at Kolob-Zion Park, and 58 at Alta. It is estimated that $300 million dollars in damages was sustained along the Santa Clara and Virgin Rivers in Washington County. 30 homes were destroyed in the flood and another 20 homes were significantly damaged (NCDC, 2005). One fatality associated with this event resulted when a man and his wife inside their vehicle were caught in floodwaters in the Red Cliff Recreation Area near the Quail Creek Reservoir. Six other injuries were reported. Two additional fatalities resulted from avalanches that occurred after the storm. The avalanches occurred primarily due to the considerable amount of wet, heavy snow that fell in the higher mountain elevations during these storms (UtahWeather.org). A Presidential Disaster Declaration was declared February 1, Utah Flood and Landslide During the period of April 28, 2005 until June 29, 2005, frequent rainfall events, warm spring temperatures, and abundant snowpack melting at accelerated rates resulted in significant flooding and numerous landslide events in nine Utah counties and two Indian Reservations. According to the USGS, on April 28, 2005, localized precipitation, believed to be a rain-on-snow phenomenon, caused flooding in southern Cache Valley in the Lower Bear River basin. Peak discharge in the Little Bear River for this event exceeded the 100-year recurrence interval. Large peak discharges in spring of 2005 in the Duchesne and Sevier River basins were the result of near record snowpack. (USGS, 2005). Total damages resulting from the flooding and landslide incidents are estimated to be over 2.9 million dollars. No deaths have been attributed to the flooding and landslide events. These events caused substantial damage to public and private property. In addition, many miles of roads were destroyed, bridges were damaged, and concerns of health risks, such as vector-borne diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, arose. A Presidential Disaster Declaration was declared on August 1, 2005 and included Beaver, Box Elder, Iron, Kane, Sevier, Tooele, Uintah, and Wasatch counties and the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservations. Page 4

5 2011 Severe Winter Storms and Flooding Winter storms from December 20 to December 24, 2010, brought 16.4 inches of rainfall and 15.3 inches of snow, resulting in the flooding of parts of Garfield, Kane and Washington counties. The precipitation in Kane and Washington counties was record breaking. Washington County s Emergency Operation Center was activated on December 20 to deal with the flooding. The severe winter storms and flooding caused damage to homes, bridges, roads, utility systems, parks, trails and other public facilities. Two dams were evaluated for the threat of failure. Hundreds of residents were also evacuated. Estimated damage was $6 million. A Presidential Disaster Declaration was declared on February 11, 2011 ( Flooding On August 8, 2011, a Presidential Disaster Declaration was proclaimed as a result of flooding during the period of April 18, 2011, to July 16, Public Assistance was declared for 18 counties and 1 Indian reservation: Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Salt Lake, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch and Weber counties and the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. Estimated damage from the flooding was $12.7 million. The causes of the widespread flooding include a record breaking snowpack in certain areas, heavy spring rains (especially in April), and warm temperatures in the summer that led to increased runoff into rivers and streams ( Severe Storm A severe storm with hurricane force winds (up to 104 mph) affected Davis, Salt Lake and Weber Counties late in the evening of November 30, 2011, and throughout the day on December 1, The high winds uprooted and knocked down thousands of trees, led to closure of public schools, caused widespread power outages, and damaged public infrastructure and entities. Davis County was the hardest hit. The Governor requested support from the Utah National Guard to augment the recovery process and protect the community through collection, removal and disposal of debris from the public Rights-Of- Way. In addition, thousands of local volunteers assisted with cleaning up debris. Estimated damage to public infrastructure was $4.1 million. A Presidential Disaster Declaration was proclaimed for Davis County on February 1, ( Severe Storm and Flooding On September 11, 2012, an extreme monsoon rain storm created overland flood water through Washington County and caused damage primarily to the City of Ivins, the City of Santa Clara and the City of St. George. These heavy rains led to the failure of the Laub Detention Dam in the City of Santa Clara. The dam was constructed in 1919 of local materials. There persist ongoing investigations into the cause of the dam break. In the April 2012 report from a regular inspection of the dam, the Utah Division of Water Rights inspector stated, in general, the dam is in good condition and well maintained. The same report mentions active rodent burrows were noted on both the upstream and downstream slopes in the Necessary Maintenance and Repair section of the report (Source: Utah DWR DAMVIEW Dam Safety Database Information Viewer). A total of 66 Page 5

6 homes, 18 businesses, and numerous roads, sidewalks, sewer lines and golf courses were damaged ( Estimated damage to public infrastructure was $3.9 million dollars. A Presidential Disaster Declaration was declared for Washington County on November 3, 2012 ( Hazard Identification It is important to understand Utah s past disaster events in order to gain a grasp of potential future hazards. A chronological history was assembled for each major hazard that can occur in Utah. Utah s disaster histories were compiled from numerous sources including but not limited to: Flood Insurance Studies, newspaper articles, the University of Utah Seismograph Stations, interviews, surveys, past mitigation plans, libraries, microfilm, Sheldus, National Climate Data Center, and the Utah Historical Society. Several research studies played a part in identifying natural hazards. These studies included hydrologic, meteorological, and drought studies, and new research on seismicity, particularly along the Wasatch Front. Many of these studies have shed new light on past events, and in some cases present a higher risk than previously thought. The state plan addressed the following major natural hazards: Earthquake Flood Landslide, including debris flow Dam Failure Wildfire Drought Severe Weather Other (Radon, Problem Soils, CMEs) Figure 2A-1 Santa Clara Flooding, September 2012 Failure of the Laub Detention Dam Limitations Challenges in conducting hazard identification and impact analyses continue to include a lack of data availability, lack of current and frequently updated data, conflicting data, and insufficient tools available to conduct detailed and thorough analyses. The following items would be useful in future planning processes: Readily available and updated County Assessor data from all 29 counties. A better method and model that can be used in predicting future losses. A more complete database of state owned facilities. Based on the histories and profiles of the aforementioned hazards, the recurrence interval and frequency were determined (see Table 2A-2). The recurrence interval was calculated by dividing the number of years observed for each hazard by the number of events reported. For example, there are 129 documented tornadoes during a 62-year period. This information provides a recurrence interval of 62/129 or The hazard frequency Page 6

7 was calculated by dividing the number of events observed by number of years. For example, 65 lightning fatalities divided by 64 years indicates that an average of 1.02 lightning fatalities occur in Utah in any given year. Disaster loss data from was also calculated (see Tables 2A-3 and 2A-4). Table 2A-2 Utah Hazard Recurrence and Frequency Hazard Number of Events Years in Record Recurrence Interval (years) PDSI, Drought Years as indicated by NOAA, Magnitude 5.0 or larger Data from UGS and University of Utah Seismography Station. * Landslide recurrence intervals cannot be predicted because landslides often have recurrent movement with the same landslides moving each year depending on climate. **Only large flooding events reported by the USGS and FEMA. Tornado and Avalanche data courtesy of the NOAA. Lightning data courtesy of NOAA, Table 2A-3 Utah Disaster Loss Data 1970 through 2012 Hazard Frequency and Probability/Year Droughts (<0 PDSI) % Earthquakes ( 5.0) % Landslides* unknown unknown unknown unknown Floods** % Tornadoes (all) % Avalanches (fatalities) % Wildfires (>5000 acres) % Lightning (fatalities) % Event Injuries Fatalities Property Damage* Crop Damage* Avalanche 20** 38** $100,000 $0.00 Earthquake 6 3 $0 $0 Flooding $457,192,250 $51,035,800 Fog $1,307,500 $0.00 Hail 90 1 $2,612,950 $2,831,800 Landslides 1 1 $504,243,281 $0.00 Lightning 80** 44** $2,559,100 $5,500 Severe Thunderstorm 32 7 $28,961,610 $394,299 Tornado 90 1 $173,686,900 $607,750 Wildfire 6 10 $5,770,000 $40,000 Wind $62,496,450 $1,845,851 Winter weather $68,432,805 $6,740,600 Total $1,307,362,846 $63,501,600 Source: "Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute (2013). The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, Version 12.0 [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available from " (some of the disaster events are combined in sheldus)* Totals are not inflation adjusted. ** More accurate data exist (see Table I-1) Page 7

8 Based on the data from SHELDUS in Table 2A-3 the disasters ranked from highest total disaster losses (both property and crop damage combined) to least from 1970 to 2012 are flooding, landslide, tornado, winter weather, wind, severe thunderstorm, wildfire, hail, lightning, fog, avalanche, and earthquake in that order. Flooding and landslides have both caused over $500,000,000 dollars in damage since 1970 and tornadoes have caused over $170,000,000. All of the other disasters have caused less than $100,000,000 in damage. Table 2A-4 County Disaster Losses 1970 through 2012 County Injuries Fatalities Property Crop Total Damage* Damage* Damage* Beaver 28 2 $14,887,900 $2,456,207 $17,344,107 Box Elder 92 7 $21,827,840 $1,859,943 $23,687,783 Cache 62 9 $20,895,152 $3,030,961 $23,926,113 Carbon 31 7 $15,686,995 $2,463,457 $18,150,452 Daggett 9 6 $12,463,203 $55,655 $12,518,858 Davis 90 5 $25,689,784 $3,193,802 $28,883,586 Duchesne $15,526,937 $2,461,109 $17,988,046 Emery 36 7 $13,556,566 $174,859 $13,731,425 Garfield 22 7 $15,651,326 $2,498,356 $18,149,682 Grand 11 4 $14,106,709 $93,001 $14,199,710 Iron 44 2 $16,444,591 $3,376,689 $19,821,280 Juab 52 8 $15,972,590 $2,864,511 $18,837,101 Kane $14,074,063 $347,987 $14,422,050 Millard 49 2 $15,268,291 $2,823,072 $18,091,363 Morgan 46 6 $16,170,881 $2,826,613 $18,997,494 Piute 16 2 $12,312,643 $87,820 $12,400,463 Rich 28 5 $15,807,699 $2,452,493 $18,260,192 Salt Lake $223,629,771 $4,097,079 $227,726,850 San Juan $16,780,681 $2,870,417 $19,651,098 Sanpete 34 6 $18,827,494 $3,483,550 $22,311,044 Sevier 20 2 $14,854,985 $2,880,513 $17,735,498 Summit $21,330,080 $2,467,454 $23,797,534 Tooele $24,942,356 $2,529,253 $27,471,609 Uintah $16,716,342 $2,509,216 $19,225,558 Utah $240,526,352 $4,163,987 $244,690,339 Wasatch $13,151,712 $84,104 $13,235,816 Washington 41 6 $352,231,375 $3,207,014 $355,438,389 Wayne 19 3 $20,538,121 $123,193 $20,661,314 Weber 88 7 $30,259,806 $3,150,534 $33,410,340 Source: "Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute (2013). The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, Version 12.0 [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available from " * Totals are not inflation adjusted Page 8

9 Page 9 Identifying Natural Hazards Table 2A-4 breaks down the property and crop damage losses for from SHELDUS by county. The top five counties with the most total damage are Washington, Utah, Salt Lake, Weber, and Davis Counties. These five counties are also the five most populated counties in the state. Ranking Table 2A-4 by number of fatalities puts Salt Lake County on top with 280, followed by Summit, Utah, Kane, and San Juan. Both Kane and San Juan are more rural and less populated than most counties. Daggett and Piute, the two least populated counties in Utah, came in as having the least total damage loss. To get a more accurate assessment of the disaster losses and fatalities, the per capita damage losses were calculated (Table 2A-5), as well as the county population per fatality (Table 2A-6). Table 2A-5 County Disaster Per Capita Losses 1970 through 2012 Rank County Per Capita Loss* (Property & Crop) 1 Daggett $11, Piute $8, Rich $8, Wayne $7, Garfield $3, Beaver $2, Washington $2, Kane $1, Morgan $1, Juab $1, Grand $1, Millard $1, San Juan $1, Emery $1, Duchesne $ Carbon $ Sevier $ Sanpete $ Summit $ Uintah $ Wasatch $ Box Elder $ Tooele $ Utah $ Iron $ Salt Lake $ Cache $ Weber $ Davis $91.46 Source: "Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute (2013). The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, Version 12.0 [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available from " * Totals are not inflation adjusted

10 Table 2A-6 County Disaster Fatalities and Per Capita Fatalities 1970 through 2012 County Fatalities (from most to least) Rank County Population per Fatality Salt Lake 40 1 Daggett 182 Summit 19 2 Kane 451 Utah 16 3 Rich 453 Kane 16 4 Garfield 728 San Juan 15 5 Piute 762 Wasatch 13 6 Wayne 912 Tooele 11 7 San Juan 998 Uintah 11 8 Juab 1,293 Duchesne 11 9 Emery 1,562 Cache 9 10 Morgan 1,637 Juab 8 11 Duchesne 1,749 Weber 7 12 Wasatch 1,944 Box Elder 7 13 Summit 2,000 Carbon 7 14 Grand 2,332 Emery 7 15 Carbon 3,035 Garfield 7 16 Uintah 3,139 Washington 6 17 Beaver 3,251 Sanpete 6 18 Sanpete 4,651 Morgan 6 19 Tooele 5,443 Daggett 6 20 Millard 6,285 Davis 5 21 Box Elder 7,167 Rich 5 22 Sevier 10,392 Grand 4 23 Cache 12,836 Wayne 3 24 Iron 23,375 Iron 2 25 Washington 24,135 Sevier 2 26 Salt Lake 26,596 Millard 2 27 Utah 33,782 Beaver 2 28 Weber 33,806 Piute 2 29 Davis 63,162 Source: "Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute (2013). The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, Version 12.0 [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available from " Population data: census.gov, based on 2012 data. The previous two tables highlight the impact disasters have had from on the rural jurisdictions in Utah. Daggett, the least populated county in Utah, has the highest per capita disaster loss, as well as the highest population per disaster fatality in Utah. The majority of the most populated counties fall to the bottom of the tables. While the populous counties may have higher damage and fatality numbers, the rural jurisdictions take the brunt of the loss based on per capita. Page 10

11 Page 11 Identifying Natural Hazards State Owned Facilities One of the requirements in DMA 2000 is to assess the state owned facilities and their potential vulnerability to particular hazards. Utah Division of Risk Management provided a geocoded list of state-owned facilities and their total current use value. The 2012 shapefile used for analyses pertaining to vulnerability of state facilities includes 8,375 facilities (the shapefile included more than 8375 facilities, but the quality of the data of the other facilities was poor, inconsistent, lacking information or vague). It should also be noted that the 8375 facilities includes not only buildings, but also shacks, sheds, outhouses, gravel yards, etc. Despite these limitations the number is a great improvement over the data used in the first assessment, which included approximately 1,000 facilities. The 2011 plan update included a different state facility database. The Utah Division of Risk Management is continually updating their data. For future plan updates DEM will work with state agencies to gather better quality data and further filter out the database. In addition, DEM will seek to further refine the database to distinguish buildings by several attributes such as building type. The dataset was overlaid with the wildfire, l11andslide, and dam inundation areas to determine how many facilities are vulnerable to these specific natural disasters. Table 2A-7 State Owned Facilities and Their Insured Values (Ranked by Insured Value) Rank County Count Insured Value 1 Salt Lake 2741 $10,715,737,803 2 Utah 800 $3,272,078,538 3 Weber 516 $2,035,817,177 4 Davis 408 $1,831,072,477 5 Cache 686 $1,688,388,391 6 Washington 313 $886,829,863 7 Iron 275 $602,622,203 8 Sanpete 215 $453,868,556 9 Box Elder 175 $434,406, Tooele 138 $368,636, Summit 179 $321,610, Duchesne 134 $225,864, Carbon 168 $222,748, Sevier 163 $213,094, Wasatch 198 $202,611, San Juan 156 $180,032, Millard 108 $169,518, Emery 150 $113,694, Uintah 173 $92,893, Grand 103 $87,296, Juab 72 $75,072, Morgan 87 $73,587, Beaver 56 $60,697, Garfield 83 $58,463, Kane 87 $57,883, Rich 80 $27,297,843

12 27 Piute 37 $20,245, Wayne 42 $17,633, Daggett 32 $15,277,535 TOTAL 8375 $24,524,982,480 Identifying Natural Hazards Provided in Table 2A-8 is a breakdown by county of the total estimated dollar value exposed to natural hazards. This information was derived using HAZUS-MH. Estimated dollar values are provided in millions for the key occupancies classes in Utah, along with the number of response facilities, schools, and hospitals. Table 2A-8 Total Estimated Exposed Value Per County (adjusted for 2013 inflation) County Name Residential Value Non-Residential Value Schools & Hospitals Emergency Response Facilities Total Building Value Beaver $305,976,825 $36,057, $343,064,925 Box Elder $1,782,289,250 $262,707, $2,044,996,625 Cache $3,514,097,475 $825,210, $4,339,307,700 Carbon $1,012,711,175 $153,503, $1,166,214,700 Daggett $85,508,675 $4,120, $90,659,800 Davis $10,586,592,100 $1,677,206, $12,264,828,625 Duchesne $646,981,300 $156,594, $803,575,500 Emery $454,329,225 $86,538, $541,898,350 Garfield $320,399,975 $78,297, $398,697,075 Grand $397,666,850 $91,690, $490,387,100 Iron $1,513,400,525 $326,581, $1,839,981,850 Juab $329,672,000 $66,964, $397,666,850 Kane $399,727,300 $63,873, $464,631,475 Millard $519,233,400 $97,871, $617,104,775 Morgan $311,127,950 $69,025, $380,153,025 Piute $85,508,675 $12,362, $98,901,600 Rich $253,435,350 $10,302, $264,767,825 Salt Lake $41,588,122,800 $10,813,241, $52,402,394,625 San Juan $542,928,575 $84,478, $627,407,025 Sanpete $919,990,925 $166,896, $1,086,887,375 Sevier $845,814,725 $158,654, $1,005,499,600 Summit $2,679,615,225 $389,425, $3,070,070,500 Tooele $1,856,465,450 $237,981, $2,095,477,650 Uintah $983,864,875 $560,442, $1,235,239,775 Utah $14,011,060,000 $2,793,970, $16,806,060,425 Wasatch $885,993,500 $114,354, $1,001,378,700 Washington $4,269,252,400 $878,781, $5,148,034,325 Wayne $152,473,300 $19,574, $173,077,800 Weber $9,063,919,550 $1,613,332, $10,678,282,125 Page 12

13 Page 13 Identifying Natural Hazards Table 2A-9 Ranking of Counties by Total Building Value and Per Capita Value* Rank County Total Building Value Rank County Per Capita Building Value 1 Salt Lake $52,402,394,625 1 Rich $116, Utah $16,806,060,425 2 Daggett $83, Davis $12,264,828,625 3 Summit $80, Weber $10,678,282,125 4 Garfield $78, Washington $5,148,034,325 5 Piute $64, Cache $4,339,307,700 6 Kane $64, Summit $3,070,070,500 7 Wayne $63, Tooele $2,095,477,650 8 Carbon $54, Box Elder $2,044,996,625 9 Beaver $52, Iron $1,839,981, Grand $52, Uintah $1,235,239, Emery $49, Carbon $1,166,214, Salt Lake $49, Sanpete $1,086,887, Millard $49, Sevier $1,005,499, Sevier $48, Wasatch $1,001,378, Weber $45, Duchesne $803,575, San Juan $41, San Juan $627,407, Duchesne $41, Millard $617,104, Box Elder $40, Emery $541,898, Wasatch $39, Grand $490,387, Iron $39, Kane $464,631, Sanpete $38, Garfield $398,697, Davis $38, Juab $397,666, Morgan $38, Morgan $380,153, Juab $38, Beaver $343,064, Cache $37, Rich $264,767, Uintah $35, Wayne $173,077, Washington $35, Piute $98,901, Tooele $35, Daggett $90,659, Utah $31, * Based on data from HAZUS-MH in Table 2A-8 Tables 2A-9 highlights that while the most populous counties have the most total dollar building value, the less populated counties like Rich, Daggett, Garfield, and Piute have some of the highest per capita building value. Local Risk Assessments The Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMPs) produced by the Association of Governments (see Figure 2A-2) were reviewed by the State Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (SHMPC). A few of the LHMPs have been updated and approved by FEMA

14 since the last update of the SHMP (SEAOG, Five County, and UBAOG). BRAG, Six County and Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake County, Davis County, Weber County, and Morgan County are all doing separate mitigation plans) are in the process of being updated. The SHMPC used all LHMPs to review local risk assessments. Some of the LHMP risk assessment data was added into the SHMP to show areas with greater risk at a local level. The SHMPC reviewed the LHMP risk assessments in determining overall state risk. LHMP loss estimates were used in the SHMP flood loss estimates. Figure 2A-2 Map of Utah s 7 Associations of Governments LHMPs from the different AOGs were also reviewed to see if any hazards identified at the local level warranted review at the state level. Each planning entity assigns a frequency and severity ranking to each hazard they have identified. Frequency is the likelihood of the disaster occurring in the county; severity is the potential magnitude at which the disaster affects the county. Page 14

15 Based on the frequency and severity the LHMPs assigned each hazard (Table 2A-10), the SHMPC assigned a score to rank each hazard by county (Table 2A-11). In other words, the frequency of hazard, based on the data from every LHMP, was given a number from 0 to 3 and the severity of a hazard, also based on the information from every LHMP, was given a number from 0 to 3. The SHMPC summed the scores (ranges from 0 to 6), to determine which hazards the counties viewed as the highest concern (see Table 2A-12, 13 and Figure 2A-3). It is important to note that each county mentioned drought in the LHMP but few assigned it a frequency and severity. This is understandable considering drought characteristics are difficult to rank. In addition, radon and problem soils were not given a frequency and severity ranking by every LHMP. Not all LHMPs assigned frequency and severity the same way. Some LHMPs used severe to moderate while others used rare to frequent. The SHMPC used their best judgment to determine their intent. Table 2A-10 LHMP - Frequency and Severity Frequency Highly Likely/Frequent Near 100% probability in next year. Likely/Occasional Between 10 and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in next 10 years Possible/Rare Between 1 and 10% probability in next year, or, at least one chance in next 100 years. Unlikely/Never Less than 1% probability in next 100 years Severity Catastrophic/Severe More than 50% of County Critical/Moderate 25 to 50% Limited 10 to 25% Negligible Less than 10% Table 2A-11 LHMP - Ranking Frequency Severity 3 Highly Likely/Frequent 3 Catastrophic 2 Likely/Occasional 2 Critical/Moderate 1 Possible/Rare 1 Limited 0 Unlikely/Never 0 Negligible Example: Salt Lake County-Landslide: 2 (Likely/Occasional) + 1 (Limited) = 3 Page 15

16 Earthquake Flooding Landslide Wildfire Problem Soil* Dam Failure Severe Weather Radon* Drought* Total Identifying Natural Hazards Table 2A-12 LHMP Hazard Frequency and Severity Assessment Based on County Population County By Population (highest to lowest) Salt Lake Utah Davis Weber Washington Cache Tooele Box Elder Iron Summit Uintah Sanpete Wasatch Sevier Carbon Duchesne San Juan Millard Emery Grand Juab Morgan Kane Beaver Garfield Wayne Rich Piute Daggett Total Source: Based on frequency and severity hazard data from the most recent LHMPs.*Not all LHMPs reported a frequency and severity for radon, problem soil, and drought. Five County AOG (Beaver, Iron, Washington, Kane, and Garfield counties) combined dam failure under the flood hazard. Emery County did not report frequency and severity for wildfire. Page 16

17 Provided in Table 2A-13 is the total county ranking numbers from Table 2A-12 and is arranged from highest hazard ranking to lowest. Based on this analysis, Morgan, Summit, Cache, Box Elder, and Utah Counties have the highest risk perceptibility to earthquakes, flooding, landslides, wildfire, problem soil, dam failure, severe weather and radon combined. The results are mapped in Figure 2A-3 where northern Utah has the highest hazard rankings. Table 2A-13 LHMP Combined Hazard Frequency and Severity Assessment by County Frequency and County Severity Hazard Total* Morgan 28 Summit 27 Cache 26 Box Elder 26 Utah 25 Davis 25 Daggett 25 Wasatch 24 Salt Lake 23 Weber 23 Sanpete 23 Rich 23 Sevier 22 Duchesne 22 Millard 22 Kane 22 Washington 21 Tooele 21 Iron 21 Uintah 21 Carbon 21 Grand 21 Juab 21 Beaver 21 Garfield 21 Piute 21 Wayne 18 San Juan 16 Emery 12 Source: Based on data from Table 2A-12;* Includes total of all hazards except radon, problem soil and drought because of a lack of reporting severity and frequency for all counties in LHMPs. Page 17

18 Figure 2A-3 Map of Combined Hazard Rankings from LHMPs* Based on data from Table 2A-12; Source: Based on frequency and severity hazard data from the most recent LHMPs.*Not all LHMPs reported a frequency and severity for radon, problem soil, and drought. Five County AOG (Beaver, Iron, Washington, Kane, and Garfield counties) combined dam failure under the flood hazard. Emery County did not report frequency and severity for wildfire. Page 18

19 The hazards listed in Table 2A-12 and their frequency and severity rankings from the LHMPs were combined for each hazard to produce a high, medium and low priority list of hazards in Utah. Each hazard for every county was ranked on a scale from 0-3 for frequency and 0-3 for severity. Therefore the highest possible total for any given hazard in a county is 6. With 29 counties, 174 (6 x 29) is the total possible score for a hazard for the state. High priority hazards ranged from 60% and above of the total possible score. Medium priority hazards ranged from 40-60% and low priority hazards from 0-40%. For example, wildfires totaled 128 out of 174, which is 74%. Table 2A-14 Utah Hazards Ranked by Priority from LHMPs* High Priority Total (out of 174) *Data is based on Table 2A-12 and combines all the rankings for each hazard from every county. ** Not all LHMPs listed a frequency and severity for problem soils, radon gas and drought. Previous State Hazard Mitigation Plans were reviewed to see if perceived vulnerability to hazards had changed over the years, and if so, how. This study of almost 20 years of plans showed that vulnerability had changed over time, but the hazards had not changed significantly. Following flooding in 1983 and 1984 large investments were made in mitigation. As evidenced by the spring 2010 flooding, this investment reduced the vulnerability to similar flood events in Salt Lake and Wasatch Counties, yet increased population growth and the conversion of agricultural land to residential development still makes flooding, despite the mitigation, a hazard in Utah. Following the St. George flooding event in 2005, FEMA, NRCS and locals invested in mitigation along the Santa Clara and Virgin rivers. These investments paid for themselves in 2011 when the same area was hit with an enormous flood. Vulnerability Analysis Medium Priority A vulnerability analysis was performed based on 59 criteria contained in tables from all of the hazards sections. These 59 criteria come from all of the hazard sections, including this section and are outlined in each hazard section under the Vulnerability Analysis section. There are four out of the 59 criteria that come from the Identifying Hazards chapter. These four criteria come from Tables 2A-5, 6, 7, and 9 and include per capita disaster loss from , county population per fatality, county insured value of state facilities, and county total building value. Each of the 59 criteria was ranked from 1 to 29 for each county (see Table 2A-9 as an example). These ranking numbers were combined for each county for all 59 criteria and then the totals were ranked from 1 to 29 to determine a vulnerability score. The counties with the lowest total ranking number Page 19 Total (out of 174) Low Priority Total (out of 174) Wildfires 128 or 74% Landslides 96 or 55% Problem Soils** 41 or 24% Severe Weather 118 or 68% Dam Failure 79 or 45% Radon Gas** 33 or 19% Earthquakes 114 or 66% - Drought** 110 or 63% Floods 107 or 61%

20 would indicate the highest overall vulnerability to hazards. For example, if a county ranked first for each of the criteria it would receive a vulnerability score of 59. Table 2A- 15 and Figure 2A-4 list the results of the analysis. This analysis does not represent the likelihood of hazards impacting a county, but the vulnerability of a county to hazards based on the 59 criteria. The results of the analysis as shown in Table 2A-15 and Figure 2A-4 indicate that Salt Lake, Washington, Weber, Cache, and Utah Counties are the most vulnerable to hazards as based on the 59 criteria. All five of these counties are some of the most populated counties in the state. The least populated counties are generally shown as having the least vulnerability. The conclusion based on this analysis is that generally where most of the population lives and their property, the higher the vulnerability. Table 2A-15 All-Hazard Vulnerability Score of Utah Counties Rank County Vulnerability 2012 Score Population 1 Salt Lake 359 1,063,842 2 Cache ,809 3 Weber ,640 4 Washington ,520 5 Utah ,504 6 Iron ,750 7 Summit ,003 8 Davis ,809 9 Carbon , Tooele , Duchesne , Wasatch , Sanpete , Box Elder 688 9, Morgan , San Juan , Uintah 726 5, Garfield 731 7, Millard , Kane 744 9, Sevier , Grand , Rich , Emery 813 2, Beaver 839 6, Juab , Daggett 882 1, Piute 931 1, Wayne 949 2,737 Vulnerability score based on 59 criteria from SHMP risk assessment. Population data from census.gov. Page 20

21 Figure 2A-4 All-Hazard Vulnerability of Utah Counties* *Does not include any technological or manmade hazards. Page 21

22 Low Medium High Identifying Natural Hazards Hazard Analysis Matrix The following all-hazards analysis matrix and all-hazard consequence and impact analysis matrix show the vulnerability to both natural and technological hazards. The hazards analysis matrix uses the probability of a hazard occurring in the state during 1 year and the severity of the consequences of each hazard. This matrix also identifies technological and man-made hazards. The hazards analysis matrix was derived from past hazard mitigation plans, LHMPs and input from the SHMT, SHMPC, and county and local officials. Volcanoes were decided to be dropped from the list based on its extremely low level of threat. The hazards were ranked as low, medium, or high priority. The matrix was discussed and presented at SHMT meetings and the City and County Directors Conference for input. Probability (P): The likely future occurrence of a hazard within the state within 1 year. Severity (S): The amount of likely fatalities, injuries, and social, economic, and property damage in the state caused by a hazard. Table 2A-16 Hazard Analysis Matrix Hazard Probability Severity Total Wildfire Public Safety Issues Earthquake Severe Weather Cyber Attack Flooding Health Hazard/Disease Problem Soils Radon Gas Building Fire Drought Landslide Workplace Violence HazMat Release Dam Failure WMD Coronal Mass Ejection Explosion Aircraft Accident Tornado Agri-Terrorism Bomb Threat Terrorist Threat Probability Scale Not Very Likely 1 Not Likely 2 Likely 3 Very Likely 4 Extremely Likely 5 Severity Scale Low 1 Average 2 High 3 Extensive 4 Catastrophic 5 Page 22

23 Hazard Consequence and Impact Analysis Matrix Impact on Public Based on the SHMP HIRA, there is neither record of a historical event nor impacts as identified in the vulnerability analysis that would be considered catastrophic from a statewide perspective. Historically hazard events in Utah tend to be small to moderate in size. In some instances, widespread flooding would be considered extremely significant. However, it would not necessarily reach catastrophic levels. A magnitude 7.0 earthquake along the Wasatch Front would be considered catastrophic. Perhaps the hazard with the greatest impact on the public (in terms of numbers of individuals adversely affected statewide) would be an emerging disease/pandemic outbreak or a terrorism event that included a nuclear dispersion device. Impact on Responders Impact on responders was evaluated based on existing mutual aid and the ability to utilize the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), although there was an evaluation regarding the impact of responders as it relates to an emerging disease/pandemic outbreak or detonation of a nuclear explosion. Continuity of Operations Communities and the state continually develop and update their Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) in the event facilities and/or agencies are impacted. State agencies also maintain disaster recovery plans which are largely IT focused. It is expected that affected agencies would exercise their COOP as appropriate. Private sector businesses are encouraged to develop business continuity plans, but they are not mandated by the state. Properties, Facilities and Infrastructure The SHMP has attempted to collect and create risk assessments and vulnerability analyses for the different hazards it profiled. One must take into consideration when using the data that dollar damage and facilities affected as a state, regional or local property, facilities and infrastructure should be used independently and as a comparison. One cannot conclude that an entire region and or county would actually have an event occur where the maximum damages sustained are in all the counties in a region. Environment Certainly any hazard event has the potential for environmental impact. Flood events for example may result in pollution of streams and rivers due to combined sewage overflows and a tornado/wind event will disperse materials, trash and debris over a widespread area. A drought may affect the environment in a different way by drying up wetlands, and weakening/killing trees and forestlands. An earthquake and destroy and disrupt numerous parts of the environment and may take years to address and to recover. The four hazards Page 23

24 that have a significant potential for environmental impact are: nuclear detonation/dispersion, emerging disease/pandemic outbreak, earthquake and flooding. Economic Because most hazards in Utah would not result in a statewide catastrophe, the economic impacts, while potentially severe, would be recoverable. Utah s economy continues to diversify. From a geographic perspective, an event that would affect the greater Salt Lake Valley would have a greater impact than would a hazard affecting other areas of the state. Similarly, an invasive species or pest that would affect a specific crop statewide, or a drought might result in a more widespread deterioration of the economic condition of the state. Finally, an event affecting Salt Lake City as it is the seat of state government could have a significant impact as centralized processing of payments to citizens for a variety of programs may be interrupted. Public Confidence in Governance The public must believe the government is ready to deal with terrorism and natural disasters otherwise they will not trust the directives and guidance given by those in charge. The public deserves the confidence that their leaders are doing everything in their power to take the steps necessary to keep our communities safe. Public confidence measures the trust that the public has in their government s ability to protect or respond to disasters or emergencies. Page 24

25 Hazard Frequency of Occurrence Table 2A-17 Hazard Consequence and Impact Analysis Matrix Public Responders COOP Delivery Services Property, Facilities, Infrastructure Environment Economics and Financial Conditions Public Confidence in Governance Severe Weather 1 H H H H M M H H Earthquake 4 C H H H H M C M Building Fire 3 C H M L C H M H Drought 3 L L L L L H H H Tornado 4 H M M M M M M M Landslide 4 H M L M M H L M Flooding 3 H M M M H H H M Dam Failure 5 H M M M H H H H Wildfire 1 H H L M H C M H Problem Soils 1 L L L L L M L L Radon Gas 1 H L L L L L M L Technological Man-made 1 C C M M M H M M (Overall ) WMD 1 H H H H H H H L Cyber-Terrorism 1 M L H M H L H L Agri-Terrorism 1 M L L M M H M L HazMat Release 5 H H M H H H H M Civil Unrest 4 M M M M M M H M Frequency of Occurrence: Numerical Value Vulnerability Factor: Numerical Value Public Confidence: Numerical Value Annual Event 1 Every 5 years or less 2 Every 10 years or less 3 Every 30 years or less 4 Greater than 30 years 5 Low Moderate High Catastrophic L M H C Low Moderate High L M H Based on government s ability to protect or respond to disasters or emergency s Vulnerability Factor Measures Hazard Catastrophic High Moderate Low Description of Loss Widespread Extended time frame Results in more than 10 fatalities Results in greater than 50 injury s Irreversible environmental damage Closure to business for extended time frame Widespread 1-10 fatalities injury s Environmental damage Temporary economic impact Localized No fatalities Less than 10 injuries Minimal to moderate environmental damage Minimal economic impact Localized No damage to improved property No deaths No injuries Minimal damage to the environment No economic impact Page 25

26 Land Use and Development Trends Identifying Natural Hazards Utah contains 29 counties. The state s capital is Salt Lake City and according to the 2012 Estimated U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Utah was 2,855,287. Utah ranks as the 35 th most populated state. The estimated state population growth from was 1.5%, which ranks Utah 5th among states in population growth rate. Approximately 80% of the population lives along the Wasatch Front. Figure 2A-5 Utah Population Growth Rates Figure 2A-6 Population Growth Rates Outlook Utah will continue to experience population growth at a rate higher than most states in 2013 on account of strong natural increase in addition to in-migration. Natural increase (births less deaths) is anticipated to add 37,800 people to Utah s population. While net in-migration has slowed since the peak of the economic expansion, Utah s net migration is projected to remain positive at 10,400 people. Source: EDC Utah 2013 Population Trends A total of 40,940 people were added to Utah s population since Utah s unique characteristics of high fertility and low mortality consistently contribute to a strong natural increase. Utah grew more than twice as fast as the nation from 2011 to Page 26

27 However, the actual number of people added must be weighed in comparison to other states population numbers. Source: EDC Utah 2013 Figure 2A-7 U.S. Population Growth Rates Analysis 2011 SHMP 2014 SHMP The fastest growing areas in Utah are along the Wasatch Front and Washington County (see Table 2A-20). The southern portion of Salt Lake County and northern Utah County is the fastest growing area in the state. There have been several fires of major concern in this area of major concern that would not have made the news years ago. Camp Williams is part of this area and has a long history of wildfires, which as we saw with the Machine Gun Fire now cause damage and threatens lives and property. There has also been an increase in flooding throughout this area due to poor storm water management, lack of understanding the flood areas and debris flows off of the fire burn areas. The area of St. George, Ivins, Washington City and Santa Clara in Washington County continues to grow rapidly. During the past three years, large event flooding has occurred in this area resulting in two Presidential declarations, DR-1955 in February 2011 and DR in November Washington County and the cities named above have taken several mitigation measures to reduce their flooding risk. Through the 404 & 406 programs as well as PDM and the NRCS they have increased culverts and bridges and have strengthened the river banks using riprap. They have created a new fund within the Page 27

28 countywide water district that will set aside money to continue completing mitigation projects. Uintah and Duchesne Counties have seen a large percentage increase of population over that last few years. This is due to their low population and natural gas boom. Workers are moving to the Uintah Basin to work in the oil fields. The towns and county do not have enough housing for everyone moving into the Basin. Wasatch and Summit counties continue to show strong growth in population. Much of the growth in these counties is located in the Wildland Urban Interface. Table 2A-18 Utah s Most Populous Counties and Associated Population Changes Rank County Growth Rate Numeric Change Total Estimated Population Salt Lake 1.5% 16,096 1,063,842 2 Utah 2.0% 10, ,504 3 Davis 1.3% 3, ,809 4 Weber 1.1% 2, ,640 5 Washington 2.3% 3, ,809 Source US Census Bureau Population Estimates Table 2A-19 Utah s Counties by Highest Growth Rate Rank County Growth Rate Numeric Change Total Estimated Population Uintah 4.1% 1,354 34,524 2 Wasatch 3.8% ,273 3 Washington 2.3 % 3, ,809 4 Duchesne 2.0% ,244 5 Utah 2.0% 10, ,504 Source US Census Bureau Population Estimates From , seven of the top ten cities who had the most population growth by numbers, were located in the southern portion of Salt Lake County and the northern portion of Utah county. Out of 85 cities with populations greater than 5000 in 2012, 83 had positive growth rates, with Utah, Davis, Salt Lake, Weber, and Cache counties having the greatest number of growing cities (see Figure 2A-8). These include West Jordan, Lehi, South Jordan, Herriman, Eagle Mountain, Draper, and Saratoga Springs. Figure 2A-9 displays the top 20 highest growth rate cities by county from Again the top five counties are Utah, Salt Lake, Weber, Cache, and Davis. Figure 2A-10 displays the all-hazard vulnerability map (Figure 2A-4) along with the 50 fastest growing cities by growth rate. This map highlights the most vulnerable counties to risks from hazards alongside developing and growing cities throughout the state. All but 3 of the 50 cities are located in the top two vulnerability categories. The map points out that along Page 28

29 the Wasatch Front and the southwestern corner of the state, where the majority of the population lives, are also the most vulnerable areas of the state to hazards as based on the state and local hazard risk assessments. Table 2A-20 Fifty Highest Growth Rate Cities from * Rank City County Population Growth % Rank City County Population Growth % 1 Saratoga Utah Bluffdale Salt Lake Springs 5 2 Farmington Davis Roosevelt Duchesne Herriman Salt Lake Woods Davis Cross Washington Washington Santa Clara Washington South Jordan Salt Lake Pleasant Weber View Eagle Utah West Salt Lake Mountain Jordan Midvale Salt Lake Spanish Utah Fork Vernal Uintah 8 33 Hurricane Washington Heber City Wasatch Draper Salt Lake Lehi Utah Harrisville Weber West Haven Weber Riverton Salt Lake Plain City Weber Park City Summit Nibley Cache Springville Utah Hooper Weber 7 39 Lindon Utah Fruit Davis St. George Washington Heights Ivins Washington Kaysville Davis North Logan Cache 6 42 Payson Utah Santaquin Utah American Utah 6 43 Fork Highland Utah Farr West Weber Mapleton Utah Enoch Iron Centerville Davis Murray Salt Lake Grantsville Tooele West Point Davis South Weber Davis Syracuse Davis 3.2 Salem Utah South Salt Salt Lake Lake 25 Smithfield Cache Alpine Utah 3.1 *Only cities > 5000 population in 2012 included. Page 29

30 Figure 2A-8 Number of Cities per County with Positive Growth Rates * *Only cities with > 5000 population in 2012 included. Figure 2A-9 Top 20 Cities with Highest Growth Rates from by County Page 30

31 Figure 2A-10 All-Hazard Vulnerability Map Combined with 50 Highest Growth Rate Cities from Page 31

32 The federal government owns 66.5% of the land in Utah. This number means that most of the land is out of the state and local control to mitigate natural hazards. Mitigation is still possible on federal lands through partnerships and acquiring permits to work on federal land. Many hazards crisscross federal, state and private lands such as wildfire while other hazards such as flood can start on federal land and impact private land. Over 70 percent of the land is either BLM land, Utah State Trustland, or U.S. National Forest, U.S. National Park, U.S. National Monument, National Recreation Area or U.S. Wilderness Area. Forests cover nearly one-third of Utah, but only about one-fifth of the forestland is used commercially. Figure 2A-11 Land Ownership in Utah Page 32

33 Land cover significantly affects hazard vulnerability. Counties with a large percentage of forest cover are more susceptible to wildfire hazards and invasive species. As urbanization occurs, areas that were once covered with trees and grass are being replaced by impervious surfaces of roads, roofs, and parking lots. This type of urbanization reduces infiltration of rainwater and snowmelt which increases the amount runoff and increases the potential for flash flooding. Utah s land use and development is often defined by the state s transportation system. The Salt Lake City International Airport is located just 5 miles from downtown Salt Lake City, is within 2.5 hours from half of the nation s population. In 2010, the airport served over 21 million passengers, making it the 23 rd busiest airport in the nation. With over 700 trucking companies based in the state, Utah is a great location for product distribution. I- 80 (extending east to New York City and west to San Francisco), I-15 (extending north to Canada and south to Mexico) and I-70 (extending east to Denver) provide the entire state with great accessibility. About 1,400 miles of railroad track stretch throughout Utah; all lines converge in the Salt Lake and Ogden metropolitan areas allowing second-morning service to 90% of the western U.S. Salt Lake City is the western-most point from which all west-coast cities can be directly served without backtracking. Utah at a Glance -UT EDC 2012 Future Growth Envision Utah prepared a report about possible future growth impacts along the Wasatch Front. The report is called Envision Utah: Producing a Vision for the Future of the Greater Wasatch Area. There are a few scenarios based on specific models that map out possible areas of new growth and development along the Wasatch Front area by The Wasatch Front study area contains some of the fastest and largest growth areas in Utah. Figure 2A-12 shows one scenario of possible growth areas if the same growth pattern continues to exist as it did in the 1990s. Figure 2A-13, indicates a possible scenario that includes both new development and redevelopment of existing areas using a Quality Growth Strategy. While the scenarios were created years ago, much of the new development is located in the possible growth areas as indicated on the maps. A comparison of the scenarios with the hazard maps (see Appendix R) shows that several growth areas, especially in the mountainous regions and along the southwestern corner of Salt Lake County and the northwestern corner of Utah county are in high and extreme wildfire risk areas. Many communities are building in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) along the benches of the mountains. Some of these same areas are also in moderate landslide risk areas. Up north into Davis, Weber, and Box Elder Counties, several of the new growth areas are encroaching within flooding zones along the Great Salt Lake. These same areas near the Great Salt Lake are susceptible to high liquefaction during an earthquake. Page 33

34 Figure 2A-12 Scenario of Possible Future Growth by 2020 along the Wasatch Front Page 34

35 Figure 2A-13 Scenario of Possible Future Growth and Redevelopment by 2020 along the Wasatch Front using a Quality Growth Strategy Current Economic Overview Utah typically grows more rapidly than the nation after recessions, and this pattern is taking hold in the current recovery. For the U.S., employment grew 1.6% from December 2012 to December 2013, compared to 1.8% for Utah. Utah s unemployment rate improved, falling to 4.1%. Page 35

36 The best way to analyze development trends is through building data and economic growth. The information for Utah Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and the University of Utah s Bureau of Economic and Business Research support the slow but increasing economic and building growth in Utah. The following information shows the recovery progress from the recent financial recession. While building permits are moving out of negative numbers, it will still take many years to fully recover from the impacts on construction. Table 2A-21 Construction Data Building Permits, Percent Change New Dwelling Units 27.9% New Residential Valuation 29.6% New Non-residential valuation -15.2% Residential Valuation 32.5% Non Residential Valuation -28.3% Total Construction Value 5.0% Three Top Counties With Most Change (+) Uintah, Sevier, and Grand U of U - The Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2012 Table 2A-22 Construction Data Building Permits, Percent Change New Dwelling Units -3.4% New Residential Valuation 2.8% New Non-residential valuation 29.3% Residential Valuation -12.3% Non Residential Valuation 45.8% Total Construction Value 15.6% Three Top Counties With Most Change (+) Beaver, Weber and Salt Lake U of U - The Bureau of Economic and Business Research Critical Infrastructure and Facilities Tracking critical facility, type and associated replacement value continues to need improvement. By definition a critical facility is one that is considered vital to an area s ability to provide essential services while protecting life and property. A critical facility may be a system or an asset, either physical or virtual. Critical facilities may include, but not be limited to, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, and roadways. State critical facilities are now included in the HAZUS data for Utah. Utah has collected the necessary data needed to incorporate these facilities within HAZUS. Utah continues to pursue developing and performing critical infrastructure analysis using HAZUS. FEMA s support, help, guidance, and hands-on assistance has allowed Utah to develop a HAZUS model for critical infrastructure that will be valuable in performing jointplanning efforts between Utah communities, Utah and FEMA. These efforts are Page 36

37 supported and maintained through Utah and grants that may become available. Utah recognizes FEMA Region VIII as a valuable asset, resource, and asset in leveraging HAZUS analysis to strengthen, protect, and safeguard critical infrastructure using HAZUS. A hazard analysis was completed for hospitals and courthouses in A hazard analysis is underway for cultural resources throughout the state, part of the initial analysis is below. Two critical facility reports are found in Appendix O, Utah Court House Natural Hazard Analysis 2010, and in Appendix P, Utah Hospital Natural Hazard Analysis DEM will continue to identify critical infrastructure and facilities to complete hazard analysis for as funding and opportunities present themselves. Cultural Resources The Emergency Management for Cultural Resources (EMCR) team consists of various state agencies with a common goal of protecting and preserving Utah s cultural resources. These Utah agencies include the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Heritage and Arts; the Division of Arts and Museums, the Division of State History, the Division of State Library, the Division of Archives and Record Services, the Division of Facilities and Construction Management, the Division of Risk Management, the Division of Homeland Security; the Capitol Preservation Board and the University of Utah. These agencies house and support the unique documentation of Utah s history. The Emergency Operations Center has a role in the EMCR team. Their role is to support and secure as much of the state s cultural and natural collections as possible. In support of ESF 11 s mission, they assist in seeking funding to accomplish and procure the goals of the Cultural Resources Annex. By working together the EMCR team is able to share ideas that benefit the state. Mitigation needs vary for each agency. Buildings in which artwork and other cultural resources are displayed or stored vary in capacity to withstand disasters. Each division within the EMCR team that houses cultural resources has identified threats to their collections. These threats include water, smoke, fire, excessive heat or cold, poor security, and any natural or man-made disaster. The divisions have also provided input as to the mitigation efforts needed and any efforts taken to minimize these threats. The buildings that house these unique collections are all in an earthquake zone and several of the buildings are located in a high water table area. The Utah Division of Arts and Museums is responsible for the exhibition, shipment, storage, conservation and restoration of a collection of approximately 1400 artworks in a 114-year-old collection of Utah artists. This collection is valued at approximately $10M. This irreplaceable collection is in exhibition in several locations around the state with the vast majority in the Utah State Capitol, the Governor's Mansion, the Glendinning Mansion (home office) and the ArtHaus Storage facility. Page 37

38 Disaster mitigation needs for the ArtHaus consist of an analysis of the seismic survivability of the storage facility as well as the Glendinning Mansion. Additionally, the current storage facility needs fire suppression, floor and ceiling mounted screen storage system for art, floor-secured shelving with earthquake netting or bars, and regular and effective pest management. The Utah Division of State History s collection is important because it is accessible to all of Utah s citizens and because of its diversity. State History has taken a number of steps to improve the storage conditions of its collection. Four post steel shelving was added to the photograph and manuscript storage rooms creating a more secure and stable platform, new flammable materials storage freezers were purchased to isolate and cool down deteriorating negatives, disaster kits were placed in all basement storage areas, and digital environmental monitors have been placed in storage areas to document environmental conditions and to build a case for improved collection storage. Mitigation needs include a seismic evaluation of the Rio Grande Depot, which houses the Department of Heritage and Arts and the Division of State History. Additional mitigation needs include improving the current shelving system by bracing shelving units to secure boxes, placing tops on shelving to protect collections, and padding around boxes. Collections in the basement storage areas are also at risk from underground water seepage. Walls and floors have been damaged in storage areas. Repairs and sealing of walls could improve the situation. The Utah Division of Archives and Record Service is responsible for government records throughout the state. State records are essential to protecting life, property, and the rights of citizens. They also provide the informational infrastructure necessary to maintain order and accountability in government. In order to mitigate damage and ensure the preservation of the state s essential records, the Archives is committed to continuing its statewide preservation project for local governments. Most recently the Archives focused on microfilming cemetery records. They were able to capture a majority of the cemetery records, however, there are still more cemetery records to microfilm. The Archives is also working on microfilming city and county commission minutes for Tooele County. Additional records that need to be microfilmed include all local governments along the Wasatch Front. All local governments need crash-kits to secure the vital documents housed within their buildings following a disaster. Mitigation needs for the building that the Division of State Archives and Record Service occupies include completing the conversion and upgrade of the fire-suppression system, installing security fencing, upgrading magnetic door locks, eliminating irrigated landscaping abutting the Archives Repository, upgrading the water drainage system, and installing a water alarm system. The mitigation needs at the State Records Center include working with DFCM and other funding sources to build a cold storage vault to house preservation microfilm. The University of Utah has several cultural heritage organizations within its campus. Each organization houses unique and valuable collections. Needs for these organizations include re-hanging paintings on campus that do not currently conform to three-point Page 38

39 security hanging techniques to mitigate potential earthquake damage. Additionally, the Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library building needs to be seismically stable. The Natural History Museum of Utah, the Utah Museum of Fine Arts, and the Marriott Library all need to stabilize and build supports for fragile collections. Other mitigation needs include ensuring collection records and documentation, both physical and digital, are properly preserved, providing training to improve awareness of hazardous materials in collections, and creating earthquake restraints for bookshelves to prevent rare, high-value collections from being thrown to the floor during an earthquake and subsequent aftershocks. Page 39

40 Figure 2A-14 Cultural Resource Locations Page 40