··•
RICHARD D. LAMM Governor EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS DENVER 24 August 1976 Hr. Don EddyFederal Disaster Assistance Administration Executive Tower Inn, Suite 2500
1405 Curtis Street
Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Mr. Eddy:
Attached are goals and objectives adopted in a consensus by the Big Thompson Advisory Committee on August 23, 1976. The objectives are considered to be dynamic, i.e., the Committee will add to, and modify, them from time to time as we learn more about the
restora-tion problem.
The Committee is made up of the 3 Larimer County Commissioners, the Mayors of Loveland and Estes Park, a representative from the Northern Colorado Conservancy District, a Canyon resident, and 5 representatives of State Government. Please see attached Committee list. Commissioner Michie and I are co-chairmen.
Please note the emphasis on flood plain management and the depen-dence upon the Federal Insurance Agency mapping and flood plain delineation as a basis for the restoration and management program. It was indicated at the first meeting that the floodway should be synonomous with the 100-year flood plain limits. This will be
under further study by the County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
KRW:jlb Attachment
cc: Jim M"onaghan
Yours very truly,
'Of
Kenneth R. Wrig t
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
a•zo ALCOTT STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80.1:11
I 303 I 41111-11201
August 23, '76 MenD to Governor Lanm copies sent to:
Governor Lanm
Jim Monaghan
Betty Miller - Dept. of Local Affairs
Rm. 518, State Centermial Bldg. - 1313 She John Rold, State Geologist - Colo. Geological
Survey- 254 Columbine Bldg., 1845 Shennan, Denver, Co 80203
Jack Kinstlinger- Director, Colo. Dept. of Highways - 4201 E. Arkansas, Denver 80222 Felix Sparks - CWCB
Harris Shennan - Dept. of Natural Resources Fred Sondermann, Colo. Land Use Commission,
Political Science Dept. Palmer Hall, Colorado College, Colo. Springs, 80903 Wil Ulman - Colo. Land Use Commission
-State Centermial Bldg., 1313 Shennan,
Rm. 415, Denver 80203
Dwight BCMers, Dist. Engr. , Colo. Dept. of Highways, District 1/=4, P.O. Box 850
TO: FROH: DATE: RE: M E Governor Lannn James Monaghan Ken Wright August 23, 1976 0
Big Thompson Canyon
The first meeting of the Big Thompson Advisory Committee was held in Fort Collins on Monday, August 23, 1976. The meeting was very rewarding and productive. The spirit of cooperation and connnunication dominated this first meeting.
By consensus the attached goals and tion of the Canyon were agreed to. comments or opinions to these goals over each point item by item.·
objectives for the restora-There were no dissenting and objectives. We went
I will forward a complete copy of the meeting minutes tomorrow at the same time that they are submitted to the Commissioners for their review and connnent so that you can keep up to d<:.te. The next meeting will be held on August 31, at which time the Committee will make an all day tour of the Canyon in autos furnished by Mr. Kinstlinger's department. Mr. Felix Sparks is arranging a special helicopter tour of the Canyon for State Legislators with Commissioner Wolaver the local government
representative. It was the consensus of the Committee that such an aerial tour prior to the auto tour would be very useful.
KRW:jlb Attachments
TO: FROH: DATE: RE: E Governor Lamm James Monaghan Ken Wright August 23, 1976 0
Big Thompson Canyon
The first meeting of the Big Thompson Advisory Committee was held in Fort Collins on Monday, August 23, 1976. The meeting was very rewarding and productive. The spirit of cooperation
and communication dominated this first meeting. By consensus the attached goals and
tion of the Canyon were agreed to. comments or opinions to these goals over each point item by item.
objectives for the restora-There were no dissenting and objectives. We went
I will forward a complete copy of the meeting minutes tomorrow at the same time that they are submitted to the Commissioners for their review and comment so that you can keep up to date. The next meeting will be held on August 31, at which time the Committee will make an all day tour of the Canyon in autos furnished by Mr. Kinstlinger's department. Mr. Felix Sparks is arranging a special helicopter tour of the Canyon for State Legislators with Commissioner Wolaver the local government
representative. It was the consensus of the Committee that such an aerial tour prior to the auto tour would be very useful.
KRW:jlb Attachments
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS lh~NYEH RICHARD D. LAMM Governor 20 August 1976 Mr. Don Eddy Federal Disaster Assistance Administration Executive Tower Inn
Suite 2500
1405 Curtis Street
Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Mr. Eddy:
During my participation in the Natural Disaster Workshop which was held in Boulder, I became aware of a study of natural hazards which your agency is carrying out. Some reporting was made on
the recent Minot flood disaster.
My purpose in writing you is to request that you consider care-fully the possibility of using the Big Thompson Canyon disaster as one of the field test areas. Such a field test would be ex-tremely helpful to the State of Colorado as it seeks to formulate immediate and long-range plans for the mitigation of future flood plain disasters. The State of Colorado stands ready to assist you in any way necessary to expedite the designation of the Big Thompson Canyun as one of your flood disaster study areas.
KRW: ekb
CC: James Monaghan
Very truly yours,
Kenneth R. Wright Special Advisor
I
1
~~.Jt"!'I';
{Y>-v.--!
M E M 0 Personal and Confidential~
9~-·,·.;
TO: Governor Richard D. Lamn and Janes M:maghan
FROM: Ken Wright RE: Big Thompson DATE: 15 August'.,l976
Several observations and reactions from the August 14, 1976 property owners neet:ing in Loveland are as follCMS:
-A. Problems
1. The Comni.ssioners are dodging the tough issues on re-developrrent as evidenced by Coomissioner Wolaver's public statement as to:
a. Downplay:ing of the IIDratorium (a word Michie asked us not to use) ,
b. Not requiring building permits for ''minor" repairs, c. Seriously undercutting the County Flood Plain
AdministratDr publicly on a matter relating to pennits for privately reouild:ing bridges,
d. Stating that the Cormrl..ssioners wouldn't confiscate private property through zon:ing,
e. Stat:ing that rebuild:ing should take place to the
max:i..m.Jm extent possible,
f. That county does not have power to institute a IIDratoritnn,
g. That redevelopment plann:ing will occur after they ask the people what they want.
IT APPEARED THAT A LEADERSHIP VACUUM EXISTS .AS TO 'lliE BIG 'TIIOMPSON REHABILI-TAT! ON PUNNING. 'lliiS IS SERIOUS Kr A POINT 'IWO WEEKS FDILa-JING 'lliE FLOOD. MANY IMPORTANT ITEM> WERE LEFT UNSAID BY TilE COM:1I.SSIONERS AND BY IvliCHIE Nor OOING TO TilE PODIUM.
2. The Comnissioners do not want the State to play a significant decision-making role :in the Big Thompson redevelopment.
a. Wolaver stated that "the Cormrl..ssion.ers will ask the people mat should be done, not other :interests". b. Michie stated privately that the State is too far
rennved.
IF A LEADERSHIP ROLE VACUUM EXISTS Kr 'TIIE COUNI'Y LEVEL, WHAT SHOULD TilE STATE ROLE BE, AND WHEN SHOULD ITS ROLE BE EXERTED?
3. The Camri..ssioners are stalling on the Big Thompson Re-habilitation Camri..ttee decision.
Mem:> to Govemor Lanm 15 August 1976
Michie said they would discuss the Conmi.ttee again on U:mday, August 16, 1976 and then s~ IIDre on Tuesday.
'IHE STATE MAY Nar BE ABlE TO CONITNUE TO WAIT FOR 'IHE COMMISSIONERS TO Acr ON 'lliE COMMITI'EE DUE TO VALUABlE TIME SLIPPING BY. POSITIVE LEAIER-SHIP VIA ANOTHER R01JfE IS CALlED FOR ALONG WITH BEITER INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.
4. Highway decisions are being made which could make the study of alternatives academic.
a. The current Canyon effort by the District Highway Office at Greeley has three phased objectives as described by the Assistant District Engineer. 'Ihese are:
• Complete the pioneer road • Follow-up improvenents
• Two-way 24 foot wide highway through Canyon (including Narrows) to Estes Park with sur-face stabilization or asphalt paving using old aligt1IIEilt and existing bridges. The fill going in now would be suitable for the final highway with outside buttressing.
IF A TWO LANE, 24 FOOT WIDE, SURFACED HIGHWAY IS CONSTRIJCI'ED FROM I.DVELAND TO ESTES PARK UNIER EMERGENCY CONDITIONS, AND AT LARGE COST, IS THIS A COM-MI'IMENT TO 'IHE OlD HIGHWAY ROUI'E WITH OlD BRIDGES AND Willi 'IHE SAME HAZARDS AS BEFORE? IT IDULD BE MJRE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY A NEW CANYON OOITOM
ROur-ING WHEN 'IHE EMERGENCY HIGHWAY IS SERVING THE BASIC NEED. IF A HIGHWAY ABOVE TilE CANYON WAS BUILT, WOULD MJI'ORISTS PR.m\RILY USE TilE OlD CANYON ROUTE WHICH IDULD EVENTUAU..Y REQUIRE UPGRADING TO :MEET 'IHE TRAFFIC DEMAND? WE WOULD 'lliEN HAVE 'IWO HIGHWAYS RATHER THAN ONE. WilL TilE FEIERAL HIGHWAY DEPARTMENI' PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A NEW HIGHWAY IF TilE OLD ONE IS ESSENTIALLY
ALREADY IN AND FUNcriONING?
5. Mr. Hayden (~eting Chairman) has arerged as an important leader of the Canyon property owners. He will have
in-fluence as a spokesman and as a decision Imker at the County level.
a. Mr. Hayden owns 75 percent of Drake though he lives east of the foothills.
b. He was in the process of selling his property to Kansas bankers at the tine of the flood.
c. Mr. Hayden wants a water and sewer line to run the full leD.c.oth of the Canyon (This would be a grCMth
generator).
d. Mr. Hayden introduced ma to his real estate agent who in tum asked ma to give special consideratiOn to
Me.m::> to Governor Lamn August 15, 1975
delineation so that the land could be used for overnight camping and recreation.
'11IE CANYON RESIDENTS' LEADER WHO HAS EMERGED IS AN ABSENI'EE MAJOR PROPERlY OWNER IN DRAKE WHO WOULD HAVE LIKED 1D SELL
our.
HE HAS A STRONG APPAREN.r INI'EREST IN MINIMAL OONTROL AND REGlllATION OF LAi'ID USE.B. Recommendations
1. Further effort should be made by the State to encourage the Cormrissioners to fonn the Conmittee prior to the 10:00 A.M. l.Dveland neeting on Tuesday, August 17th, the Conmi.ttee
having adequate State representation for leadership purposes. 2. Guidelines for redevelopment criteria and standards must be
established nav and explained to the Conmissioners for their acceptance. This inforrm.tion must be disseminated soon to the public in a clear manner to avoid mi..sconception and uncertainity.
3. The State position and role must be defined in the event that the Commissioners refuse to allav the State to Partici-pate, and the County decisions (or lack of) are aimed at repeating past mi..stakes when public health, satety, and welfare is involved, and which could be a source of
enbar-rassiiEilt to Colorado in the future.
4. Highway #34 policy must be clearly articulated to avoid having a :rmjor decision being made by the Greeley District Engineer which may be too nruch of a ccmrri:t:m=nt from which to back out. Stopping current work with an upgraded pioneer road should be given consideration at this tine.
5. Additional Canyon resident leaders who support correcting past mi..stakes and safeguarding against future disaster ·should be identified in the event that the current leader and
spokes-m:m works against flood plain managerrent and good land use. 6. The August 14, 1976 strat~gy (originally dated August 8th)
draft and work program provides reasonable skeleton guide-lines which should be given to the Corrrnissioners at this tine. It is my opinion that the Cornnissioners are in a quandary as to hav to proceed from here. Further, their rapport with the Canyon residents seems to be wanting, and two of them are up for reelection, making them cautious . They may not want to get into a public debate prior to election over the Canyon redeveloprrent, and therefore, positive leadership by the State may go unchallenged, and perhaps it may be welconed even though it is uninvited.
STATE OF COLORADO
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
BIG THOMPSON CANYON RESTORATION PROJECT NO.
(Wright-McLaughlin Engineers)
THIS AGREEi1ENT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES, written in three (3) counterparts, any one of which shall be admissable as prima facie evidence of its contents, made and entered into at Denver, Colorado this day of September, 1976, by and between the State of Colorado, hereinafter called "STATE", acting by and through the Office of the Governor, Denver, Colorado, hereinafter called the "PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE", for the use and benefit of the State of Colorado and WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS, ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, with principal office at 2420 Alcott Street, Denver, Colorado, hereinafter called "ENGINEER".
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE seeks to accomplish all necessary work for the coordination and planning of recovery and restoration activities in the Big Thompson Canyon, Larimer County, Colorado, hereinafter called the "PROJECT", and
WHEREAS, PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE recognizes the importance of utilizing the services of a highly trained and competent er:gi-neering consultant, well acquainted with the special needs and problems likely to be encountered in the successful accomplishment of PROJECT, and
WHEREAS, ENGINEER is prepared to commence implementation of coordination and planning activities at this time, and
WHEREAS, PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE at this time desires to engage ENGINEER to perform the engineering services necessary for PROJECT,
NOW, THEREFORE, PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE and ENGINEER for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY ENGINEER
ENGINEER, in consideration of PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE'S promises hereinafter made, promises to perform and provide professional engineering services for PROJECT in accordance with the "Scope of Work" set forth in ENGINEER'S September 4,
1976 proposal, "BIG THOMPSON CANYON RESTORATION", and "Schedule of Hourly Rates", copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as uEXHIBIT A" and "Exhibit A-1". ENGINEER agrees it will undertake the necessary services and accomplish performance of same within eighteen months hereafter unless PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE shall extend the term for an additional period of time by written notification of such
intention at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of termi-nation.
ARTICLE 2. CONSIDERATION FOR SERVICES OF ENGINEER
PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE, in consideration for ENGINEER'S promises hereinbefore made, promises to cause STATE to pay to ENGINEER, a fee based upon charges as provided in EXHIBIT A, for actual services performed, the total fee not to exceed
EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($80,000.00) in accordance with EXHIBIT A-1 fee schedule criteria.
Payment by STATE shall be made as provided in EXHIBIT A, on a monthly basis. Any Special Services agreed upon shall be compensated for as completed and upon receipt of fully itemized statement of charges, using payment form, Application for Payment of Architect/Engineer Fees, State of Colorado Form SC-7.1, rendered in quadruplicate to PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE.
ARTICLE 3. ENGINEER'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS
Records of ENGINEER'S direct personnel, Consultant, and Reimbursable Expense attributable to this Project, and records of accounts between PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE and ENGINEER shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis, and shall be available to PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE or his authorized repres~n
tative at mutually convenient times and extending to three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 4. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days written notice to the other, with copies filed with the OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING AND BUDGETING and the STATE CONTROLLER, should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms, through no fault of the first party. In the event of termination, due to the fault of others than ENGINEER, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed to the termination date,
including reimbursements then due.
-ARTICLE 5. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The ENGINEER agrees to comply with the letter and spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended, and other applicable law respecting discrimination and unfair employ-nlent practices (24-34-301, C.R.S. 1973, as amended), as well as
the EXECUTIVE ORDER-EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, of the Governor, dated April 16, 1975.
ENGINEER agrees that he will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. He also agrees that he will take affirmative action to ins.ure that applicants when employed are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, sex or national origin. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
ARTICLE 6. BENEFITS ACCRUING TO OTHER STATE EMPLOYEES OR OFFICERS
A. It is understood and agreed that no benefits, payments or consideration received by ENGINEER for the performance of services associated and pertinent to this Agreement shall accrue, directly or indirectly, to any employee, or employees, elected or appointed officers or representatives, or by any other person or persons identified as agents of, or who are by definition, public servants of the State of Colorado.
B. The signatories hereto aver that they are familiar with 18-8-301, et seq., (Bribery and Corrupt Influences) and 18-8-401, et seq., (Abuse of Public Office), C.R.S. 1973, as amended, and that there has been no violation of such provisions.
ARTICLE I . SPECIAL INDEMNIFICATION
It is agreed and understood ENGINEER shall maintain in full force and effect adequate comprehensive general liability insurance and property damage insurance, as well as workmen's compensation and employer's liability insurance, to indemnify and hold harmless STATE, and PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE, and their agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Services contemplated in this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damage, loss, or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property, including the loss of use resulting therefrom, and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of ENGINEER, any consultant or associate thereof, anyone directly
or indirectly employed by ENGINEER, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. ENGINEER shall submit a Certificate of Insurance at the signing of this Agreement and also any notices of Renewal of said Policy as they occur.
ARTICLE 8. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY OR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS The ENGINEER promises and agrees to maintain in full force and effect an Errors and Omissions or Professional Liability Insurance Policy affording adequate coverage, as determined by the Principal Representative, for the duration of this Agreement and for at least two years beyond the completion and acceptance of the facility. The contract of insurance shall insure the PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIVE and STATE against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of Professional Services Contem-plated in this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damage,
loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property, or to failures of the structure or facility, including the loss of use resulting therefrom, and is caused, in whole, or in part, by any negligent act, error, or omission of ENGINEER, any consultant or associate thereof, anyone directly or indirectly employed by ENGINEER, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. ENGINEER shall submit a Certificate of Insurance verifying said coverage at the signing of this Agreement and also any notices of Renewals of the said policy as they occur.
ARTICLE 9. GENERAL
The laws of the State of Colorado and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be applied in the interpretation, execution and enforcement of this contract. Any provision of this contract whether or not incorporated herein by reference which provides for arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person or which is otherwise in conflict with said laws, rules and regulations shall be considered null and void. Nothing
contained in any provision incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other special provision in whole or in part shall be valid or enforceable or available in any a~tion
at law whether by way of complaint, defense or otherwise. Any
provision rendered null and void by the operation of this provision will not invalidate the remainder of this contract to the extent
that the contract is capable of execution.
ARTICLE 10. VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall not be deemed valid until it shall have been approved by the Controller of the State of Colorado, or such assistant as he may designate.
-IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.
J . D . MacF ARLi\NE , ATTORNEY GENER./: .. L STATE OF COLOR.c\D~) By ____________________ __ WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS, a partnership 2420 Alcott Street Denver, Colorado 80211 3y __ ~--"~~~~---~~--~
Ronald C. HcLaughlin, Partner
By __ ~~-=~~~~~~~~~~
Kenneth
R.
Wright, PartnerDIVISION OF ACCOUNTS AND CONTROL By _____________________________ __
RICHARD D . LAM11, GOVERNOR
By __________________________ __
-M E M 0
TO: Governor Larrnn FROM: Ken Wright DATE: 12 August 1976
Attached are two papers dealing with redevelopment following a disaster. These papers are chapter 2 and chapter 6 of a forthcoming publication by the MIT press entitled "Reconstruc-tion Following Disasters". They were provided to me by Gene Haas of the Institute of Behavioral Sciences at the University of Colorado. Dr. Gilbert White recommended them for our
review.
I have taken the liberty of high lighting key points in both papers so that they can be skimmed satisfactorily.
'
A number of messages are presented in these papers which are based upon past experiences with other disasters, including Rapid City. Several messages which ring loud and clear are:
1. Delay is an enemy of good redevelopment. 2. Dissemination of information is important to
avoid uncertainty by the survivors and others. 3. Overly ambitious planning is counterproductive,
i.e., in disaster reconstruction grandiose plans often lead to merely rebuilding what was there before.
KRW:jlb Attachment
Mr. Martin Knutson Ames Research Center Code OS
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Dr. D. B. Simons
Engineering Research Center Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523
1'-c- - -
---RICHARD D. LAMM Governor
Mr. Olav Smistad Johnson Space Center Code HB Houston, Texas 77058 Dear Mr. Smistad: EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS DENVER 9 August 1976
On July 31, 1976 Colorado experienced a major flood on the Big Thomp-son River near Loveland, Colorado. This flood caused loss of life and destroyed homes and businesses.
Relative to the long term redevelopment plans of the Canyon in conjunc-tion with Larimer County, the State of Colorado is interested in acquir-ing specialized information concernacquir-ing the Big Thompson flood. Redevelop-· ment planning would consider both engineering and long term environmental impacts. We have been discussing this with Dr. Daryl Simons of Colorado State University who has indicated a willingness to provide advice and consultation on this matter for the State and Larimer County.
Dr. Simons has described NASA's unique remote sensing capability and I am requesting NASA to participate in our data effort. Would it be possible for NASA to provide air craft and equipment to obtain thermal scanning and high resolution aerial photographs of the damaged area? Pre-flood aerial photographs and post-flood ground and aerial photo-graphs have been obtained to compliment specialized flight data from your organization. Data supplied by NASA's effort would provide excellent basic information useful to evaluate the type of hazard exemplified by the Big Thompson River flood and to supplement photo-graphy already accomplished.
Data acquisition activity that NASA would assist with would be coor-dinated by me as a Special Assistant to the Governor. Dr. Simons of Colorado State University would provide technical expertise. Further information on our request may be obtained by contacting me at Area Code 303/458-6201 or Dr. Daryl Simons at Colorado State University. Thank you for any assistance you may be able to provide on this matter.
KRW:j lb
cc: Martin Knutson,
Ames Research Center Dr. D. B. Simons,
Colar:::~do State Ilniversitv
Very truly yours,
Kenneth R. Wright
I
I
M E M 0
-TO: Governor Richard D. Lamm FROM: Ken Wright
DATE: 9 August 1976 RE: Big Thompson
Attached is a brief skeleton of an outline strategy for the Big Thompson. It recaps policy and goals which you reviewed on Friday, August 6 with four prime goals articulated.
The strategy framework, which consists of the following four parts are:
I. Immediate After Search Phase. (Temporary Housing Complex Period.)
II. Long Range Planning. (Plan for Valley and Canyon Redevelop-ment.)
III. Assessment of Similarily Situated Recreational Facilities and Canyons .
IV. Financial Strategy.
I need at least a tentative okay to proceed along these lines. These four parts seem to be consistant with recent research work by Gilbert White's Institute of Behavioral Science and with conclusions of Dr. John Sheaffer of Chicago, currently special consultant to HUD on floods.
Points of interest which I want to bring to your attention are: 1. Temporary Housing.
The Red Cross reports that requests for housing assistance have been low for a disaster of this magnitude. The Red Cross effort is short term until HUD takes over. They
currently provide assistance for housing, such as in motels, hotels, rooming houses, etc.
Memo to Governor Lamm 9 August 1976
Page 2
Discussions with Larimer County Commissioner, Michie, indicates that the County is depending upon the Red Cross to handle temporary housing.
Red Cross indicates that temporary housing will be very important and that HUD is ready to move in trailers for this purpose. The Red Cross has no idea on extent of need of temporary housing, but they are working on it. A team is in the field at this time from the Red Cross. A preliminary opinion is that 70% of the canyon residents will need temporary housing.
FDAA reports 199 family unit applications have been received for temporary housing as of August 9, 1976. 10 trailers will be on-site by August 12 and 30 more will be coming later. Existing pads will be utilized. The balance of the family units will be housed in existing rental units and some minor damaged homes after minor repair.
FDAA HAS TEMPORARY HOUSING MATTERS IN HAND AND WILL PROCESS APPLICATIONS FOR 60 DAYS. THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN CONVEYED TO LOU BROWN OF LARIMER COUNTY.
2. Mapping.
This matter is well in hand with FlA.
One of my representatives is in Loveland and the canyon today to work out details. Our objective is to work closely with FIA and their floodplain management people. I spent Sunday afternoon meeting with FIA Acting Regional Director on this matter.
OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO HAVE BIG THOMPSON CANYON MAPPED AND DELINEATED FOR FLOOD OF RECORD AND HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD FROM MOUTH OF CANYON TO LAKE ESTES AND UP THE NORTH FORK TO ABOUT GLENHAVEN. EFFORT CAN NOT BE FULLY PAID FOR BY FIA AS OF THIS WRITING. SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS WOULD COME FROM CWCB AND STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. I WILL WORK ON THIS FINANCING.
Memo to Governor Lamm 9 August 1976
Page 3
3. Highway Reconstruction.
This is most difficult problem effecting canyon redevelop-ment. Reestablishment of highway through the Narrows will be the largest policy question along with type and character of highway.
Mr. Kinstlinger has reportedly received requests to consider alternatives to canyon highway which include following the canyon from Estes Park to Drake, and then leaving the canyon for the continuation to Loveland. U.S. Department of Wild-life and BOR (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) seem to have an interest in doing something special with at least portions of the canyon. I have meetings scheduled with Kinstlinger at 8:30 A.M., August lOth.
4. Canyon Dozer Work.
Construction crews and debris cleaning crews (clearing and snagging) are important and necessary. They also can cause irrepairable damage to environment and future erosion and sedimentation problems. Some coordination and policy direction is needed quickly in this regard. This is high on priority list.
OUR POSITION IS THAT THIS WORK MUST GO ON BUT THAT CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED ON "DOZER WORK" TO MINHUZE LONG TERM IMPACT. I AM INVESTIGATING USE OF A SPECIAL FEDERAL TEAM FROM MISSOURI, WHICH IS KNO\VN AS "A STREA.t1 ALTERATION TEAM". I WILL REPORT FURTHER ON THIS. ALSO, CSU EXPERTS HAVE
OFFERED TO ASSIST US ON CANYON PLANNING. GENERAL.
I would like a general okay to proceed along the lines indicated, approval of the four goals, and a preliminary okay for the four phases included under "Strategy Frame-work" in the attachment.
On the temporary housing, Phase I work, full coordination and clearance will be obtained from Larimer County before doing anything more than coordination work with FDAA. Also, I will maintain close liaison with Lee White.
KRW:j lb Attachment 762-44
,-, RICHARD D. LAMM Governor Mr. Willard R. Quirk 201 East 4th Street Room 215 Loveland, Colorado Dear Willard: EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS DENVER February 23, 1977 80537 - I i_'l>-'(.f'i I
Attached please find a copy of a letter from Governor Lamm to Representative Sidney R. Yates, Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Although we are uncertain that it can be accomplished, we have supported pre-flood compensation for flood victims. Our office would like to reemphasize our support of this concept.
After our meeting with you on February 1, 1977, I reviewed your proposal and have concern for its effectiveness in assisting those most adversely impacted by the Big Thompson flood. It appears to me that you intend to purchase land with habitable structures first, with a lower
priority placed upon land acquisition of parcels where homes were destroyed. Given the very high relocation costs necessitated by purchasing livable homes, I wonder if you would end up with too little funds to buy lands from those who have lost their homes.
We have hope, albeit small, of getting authorization by Congress for pre-flood value purchas~. This, coupled with a review of priorities, leads me to ask
if
the first priority for total pre-flood compensation should be given to those who have nothing left from which to start again. I have concern that the program as presented will not achieve this impor-tant goal. If I have misunderstood your proposal, I apologize and would appreciate classification of its priorities.Without question, further monetary resources must be used to accomplish the total acquisition program. This might be accomplished in two ways. The first is to put the _Forest Se:r_vif .. e ..
.R!!P-
J.n_,.e,Jt~!t~!?.!!lYeffort with the help of Congressman Jim Johnson and our two Senators. The second is to obtain funds from BORLand and Water Conservation Fund monies. I am pleased to see the recent Larimer County resolution in this regard and commend the Commissioner's good faith efforts to provide some matching funds to this project.
Mr. Willard R. Quirk February 23. 1977 Page Two
The planning resources of state government agencies remain available to assist Larimer County when needed. Please contact Ken Wright's office if you need further assistance in this matter.
LW:ks
cc: Ken Wright
Larimer County Commissioner Representative Jim Lloyd Senator Fred Anderson
Lee White
DRAFT 2/21/77
Mr. Willard R. Quirk
201 E. 4th Street, Rm. 215 Loveland, CO 80537
Dear Mr. Quirk:
Attached please find a copy of a letter from Governor Lamm to Representative Sidney R. Yates, Chairman of the Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Although we are uncertain that
it can be accomplished, we have supported pre-flood compensation for flood victims. Our office would like to re-emphasize our support of this concept.
After our meeting with you on February 1, 1977, I reviewed your proposal and have concern for its effectiveness in assisting those most adversely
impacted by the Big Thompson flood. The direction of the application is to assist those victims in the Canyon who tended to be hurt the least. Those whose homes have been totally washed out would receive an average of approximately $4,200, plus the possibility of some help from the Community Development Block Grant. With relocation costs included for those who now remain and wish to sell, the amount available to purchase the remaining heavily damaged properties wi 11 be further reduced.
We have hope of getting authorization by Congress for pre-flood value purchases. This, coupled with a review of priorities, leads our office to recommend to you that first priority for total pre-flood compensation be given to those who have nothing left from which to start again. I have concern that the program as presented to me will not achieve this important goal.
-Willard R. Quirk 2/21/77
Page 2
Without question, further monetary resources must be used to accomplish the total acquisition program. This can be accomplished
in two ways. The first is to put the Forest Service plan in a high priority effort with the help of Congressman Jim Johnson and our two Senators. The second is to obtain funds from the Secretary of the
lnterior•s Discretionary Land and Water Conservation Fund (see attached memo). The latter program may require more matching funds; however, this probability should not deter you from seeking these monies. The existing State legislative request was geared to the program which you presented. There would be reason to expect sympathetic reception from the Legislature for matching new federal money.
The resources of State government agencies remain available to assist Larimer County when needed. Please contact Ken Wright1s office of you
need further assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Lee White
DTS:KRW:jlb
RICHARD D. LAMM Governor
Honorable Sidney R. Yates Chairman, Interior Subcommittee House Appropriations Committee U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Congressman Yates:
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS DF;~·vER
February 9, 1977
Congressman James Johnson informs me that the Interior Subcommittee will begin markup of the Interior Appropriations Bill in March. I am particularly interested in the Land and Water Conservation portion of the FY 78 appropriation because it represents the primary federal funding source for acquisition of land affected by the Big Thompson Canyon Flood of July 31, 1976. It is my hope that some of the funds allocated to Colorado will be matched by state and local appropriations in order to create flood pia in parks, open space, and recrea-tion land.
There will be a bill introduced in the current session of the Colorado Legislature which I will support to appropriate state general funds as a partial match for Land and Water Conserva-tion Funds. This, if passed, with additional funds from Larimer County, should demonstrate the State's willingness to participate in a program for the Big Thompson Canyon residents.
I have consistently supported every effort to obtain funding for the program and to imple-ment the program in a manner which would achieve a meaningful level of compensation as close to pre-flood value as possible. Any steps you might take in this direction regarding the FY 78 Land and Water Conservation Funds would be most helpful.
ccs: Congressman Joseph M. McDade Senator Floyd Haskell
Senator Gary Hart
Congressman Jim Johnson
Sincerely,
RICHARD D. LAMM Governor
TO: Governor Lamm Jim Monaghan
-~~--
...
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS DE~"'VER
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Lee
White~
IIEc'o
FEB 1 7
RE: Secretary of Interior's Discretionary Land and Water Fund DATE: February 16, 1977
If you have a chance, you should ask Andrus what the status is on his $15 million discretionary fund for BOR's Land and Water Conservation program. This is a real pork-barrel and Kleppe may have already spent it before the election. If there is still some money in it, we would like to make a bid for a Big Thompson Canyon acquisi-tion program.
Also, even if his FY77 funds are gone, we should feel him out on his FY78 appropriations.
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
DENVER
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor 18 September 1976
Mr. Robert Libortore, Legal Assistant to Hon. Floyd Haskell, Senator
4104 Dirksen Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Libortore:
Your interest in our efforts on the Big Thompson Canyon restoration are very much appreciated by the State of Colorado, and I know that the Commissioners of Larimer County also welcome your interest.
Only last Tuesday a motion was unanimously passed by the Big Thompson Canyon Advisory Committee requesting federal planning assistance from a group of Interior agencies plus the U. S. Forest Service. The objec-tive of the motion was to requ,es t these agencies to prepare master plans for recreation and open space in the canyon in such a manner that USFS -lan,d trades or acquisitions might be undertaken to help pre-serve the beauty of the canyon and assist canyon residents in overcoming the personal tragedies and financial burdens which have fallen on their shoulders.
We hope to be contacting the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the USFS in the near future through the Advisory Committee to determine the status of funding for such purposes.
To assist you in understanding the status of the Big Thompson
restoration effort, I have enclosed several letters and statements which should be of interest. These are:
J. Goals and objectives of the Big Thompson Canyon Advisory Committee for canyon restoration.
2. List of members of the Advisory Committee, made up of five State appointees and seven county appointees.
3· A letter to Don Eddy transmitting motion of September 14 requesting federal agency planning assistance.
4. Statement of the Governor's office on U.S. Highway No. 34 restoration, listing safety criteria.
Mr. Robert Libortore, 18 September 1976 Page 2
5. Outline of strategy for Governor's office dated August 14, 1976. 6. Memorandum to Don Eddy of September 7, listing additional planning
subjects which we felt were not being adequately covered.
7. Outline of talk to Estes Park Chamber of Commerce on September 14.
I may have to call upon you for assistance in the event that the Federal Highway Administration becomes recalcitrant over our requirements that the new U.S. 34 be safe and sound during the 100-year flood event. I mention this only because of State Highway officials indicating that they may find some resistance at the federal level.
I want to again express my sincere appreciation for your interest in our problems in the Big Thompson Canyon. Many people have come for-ward with suggestions and some with criticism. Your office has come forward with a constructive and helpful suggestion which is solution-oriented.
Very truly yours
KRW:ej 762-44
Encl. as listed above
~ ... \ -e RICHARD D. LAMM Governor Ms. Mary L. Maffei EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS DEN"'\'l~R December 17, 1976 5036 Harriett Dr. Jackson, Michigan 49203 Dear Ms. Maffei: --, ,;.,-;,J - •{ '"(
I was pleased to receive your thoughtful letter regarding the Big Thompson Canyon ~nd your vacation property in Glen Haven.
Assistance to survivors is an extremely complex matter with which county, state, and federal agencies have been struggling
for months. Everything possible within the law has been done or will be done. However, we realize that more is needed.
A legislative package has been prepared by the Recovery Council for discussion with members of the State Legislature for their action.
The Governor's office has been working very closely with Senators Hart and Haskell on a potential direct government to people program where the U.S. Forest Service would acquire properties which would,
in effect, provide relief to financially troubled property owners and at the same time enhance management of public lands. This is an important program for the property owners.
One of my recommendations to the Recovery Council has been inclu-sion in the legislative package of a long-term low interest loan program with interest rates ranging from 1 to 5 percent. This is similar to your suggestion in the last paragraph.
Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have any more questions or suggestions.
KRW:jlb
Very truly yours,
Kenneth Special
August 23, 1976
(Larimer County - State Committee)
GOALS FOR
BIG THOMPSON.ADVISORY CO~~ITTEE
Economic
&
Social1. Assist survivors, property owners, and communities in readjustment.
Physical & Public \vorks Projects
2. Recovery and rehabilitation of Canyon to be accomplished in safe and orderly manner.
Planning
3. Achieve positive results and avoid duplication of past mistakes ·with various programs.
Financial
4. Assure maximization of planning and public works financial assistance from federal agencies.
BIG THOMPSON Al~D NORTH FORK CANYONS RECOMMENDED OUTLINE PLAN
The recovery and redevelopment plan decisions must be made now as the opportunity to improve the Canyon in a positive manner will be lost.
At the present time the following major steps have been accomplished.
1. Moratorium on building in the zone of the flood of record has been initiated.
2. The State Department of Highways has been requested to evaluate conceptually (quickly) the various alter-native plans for highway rebuilding. This is underway. 3. The Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) and the Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB) have started the process of detailed mapping and floodplain delineation. Prelim-inary floodplain maps will be available on about September 1, 1976 from FlA.
The following outline recovery and redevelopment strategy is recommended.
A. Floodplain Management.
1. Establish the floodplain of record as the regulatory floodplain to the South Platte confluence.
2. Establish the 100-year (1 percent) floodplain as the floodway zone, i.e., the zone of no building or filling to the South Platte confluence.
-Big Thompson and North Fork Canyons Recommended Outline Plan
Page 2
B. · Assistance to Survivors and Canyon Land Owners.
1. Encourage applications by property owners under PL 93-288 Section 408 for grants up to $5,000 from FDAA to cover losses of real and personal property, transportation, medical, and funeral expenses.
2. Acquire appropriate residential and business properties on liberal basis using pre-disaster valuation wherever permitted by law. Priority would be for those property owners with special
financial needs and those in hazardous areas.
3. Acquire empty lots resulting from lost buildings from those in financial distress and with special needs. Others would be zoned for no rebuilding when in 100-year floodplain.
4. Assist U.S. Forest Service in trading land on Canyon for land outside Canyon.
5. Use full array of PL 93-288 assistance measures.
C. Highway Reconstruction.
1. Assist Colorado State Highway Department on policy, goals, and tabulation of constraints on conceptual review of highway reconstruction alternatives.
Big Thompson and North Fork Canyons Recommended Outline Plan
Page 3
2. Merely rebuilding the old highway from the old plans appears to be an unacceptable alternative
due to outdated design, Canyon impact, motorist safety, and flood and sediment problems.
3. If best alternative highway is found to be in Canyon, the highway layout should use modern engineering and planning. A type of National Park Service Highway in the Canyon would improve long term economic situation of Loveland and Estes Park, with Rocky Mountain Park experience for visitors commencing at the Canyon mouth after leaving Loveland. Scenic, and safe, turnouts would be incorporated in the highway.
4. Utilize synergistic methods in highway design to assist in Canyon recovery and floodplain management.
D. Canyon Occupancy.
Future occupancy of Canyon must recognize natural hazards both in physical construction and preparedness plans. The compatibility of Canyon occupants density with Canyon
characteristics must be evaluated.
E. Economics of Estes Park, Loveland, Canyon, and Larimer County.
1. The economic impact on these entities must be assessed for the short term and for the long range.
2. The assessment must be evaluated, and if significantly adverse, solutions should be devised to assist.
3. Much of the economic impact for disaster assistance and recovery will fall on the Larimer County General Fund. Means to ease this burden are needed.
'
..
Big Thompson and North Fork Canyons Recommended Outline Plan
Page 4
F. Technical Assistance.
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) has been requested to provide technical assistance following discussions with them. The channel stability (sediment) expert at CSU has offered assistance which has been accepted. Additionally, the American Society of Civil Engineers (Colorado Section) has offered to provide a technical advisory committee.
However, the burden of detailed planning and design work
will fall on State agencies, Larimer County, and consultants. This phase of work ha.s begun, but will be more significant in the following weeks and months. Planning and design funds are required.
g. Schedule.
The decision making points, planning and design, and construction activities must be scheduled at the earlies possible time.
BIG THOMPSON ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ms. Jean Gaines, City of Loveland P.O. Box 419 Love I and, CO 667-6130 Mayor 80537 Kinstlinger, Jack Executive Director
Colorado Dept. Of Highways 4201 E. Arkansas
Denver, _CO 80222 757-9201
Lopez, Mr. William
Larimer County Commissioner Office: 221-2100
*
Home: 482-7579Michie, John (Co-Chairmen) Larimer County Commissioner Office: 221-2100
Rold, John W., State Geologist Colorado Geological Survey 254 Columbine Building 1845 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Office: 892-2611
Simpson,· Larry
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District P.O. Box 679
1250 No. Wilson Avenue Loveland, CO 80537 Office: 667-2437
Sondermann, Fred Colorado Land Use Political Science Colorado College Colorado Springs, Office: 473-2233, Sparks, Felix Commission
Dept., Palmer Hall
co
80903 Ext. 322Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street
Denver, CO 80203 Office: 892-3441
Tregent, Harry B., Mayor Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517 Office: 586-2080
586-5331
Wolaver, Warren
Larimer County Commissioner Office: 221-2100
Wright, K.R. (Co-Chairmen)
Stille, Ernest (canyon resident)
Larimer County P.O. Box 1280
TO: FROM: DATE: RE: M E M Governor Lamm
Ken Wright
/~vi
August 14, 1976 Big Thompson0
The need for the Larimer County/State Committee is pressing. It should be formed prior to the 10:00 AM, August 17, 1976 meeting in Fort Collins with federal agencies. The first meeting should follow the federal meeting.
Attached is the August 14, 1976 draft of policy, goals and strategy which needs a tentative okay from you as to direction. Attached to the draft is a Recommended Outline Plan. If this is generally satisfactory I will commence work items and
coordination with agencies and consultants after clearing with Jim Monaghan as to substance and process.
KRW:j lb Attachments
I I
DRAFT LETTER
23 September 1976
Harry B. Tregent, Mayor Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Jean Gaines, Mayor City of Loveland P.O. Box 419
Loveland, CO 80537
Mr. Harry Rogers, Executive Director Estes Park Area Chamber of Commerce 215 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Box 3050 Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Gentlemen:
I am sure you are aware that my office has received numerous communi-cations and local input concerning the planning and design criteria for U.S. Highway #34 in the Big Thompson Canyon. The problem
which our office is addressing is the resolution of opinions between significant interests from within and without the Canyon area. It is in your best interests that the resolution of these matters be firmly addressed.
I have been keeping up on all matters personally and have been regularly briefed by Mr. Kinstlinger, the Executive Director of
the Colorado Department of Highways, and by Messrs. White and Wright.
The importance of U.S. Highway #34 to the short and long range economic vitality is well understood and I am sensitive to the problems that exist and sympathetic to your needs. The highway routing, layout, design, and potential availability for use during the summer of 1977 are all subject to various trade-offs so that the optimum overall solutions can be achieved.
DRAFT LETTER
23 September 1976 Page 2
-My position been conveyed to the Colorado Highway
Connnission.-.is t::hi!:t: !he highway design and restoration must result
-in a safe highway -in time of flood based upon the one percent (100 year) flood criteria. Normal highway safety improvements would also be incorporated and consideration would be given to rockfall potential, side canyon flooding, and special safe areas. If
certain bridges were found, by our Highway Department engineers, to be inadequate for passage of flood waters these bridges would be replaced. When the highw-ay is completed it is important for us at the State level, and at the local level of government, to not have to apologize for the highway.
There is no the Narrows represents very signi-hydrologic engineering challenges. We have Commission that in the event that the highway engineers conclu e that the construction of a safe highway through the Narrows is in asible, our office has no objection to the
Narrows being by-pa sed. During this period, the temporary Narrows
though part of the ro speed up the road
so that access would be maintained even changed. Thus, this could actually
In regard to reopening the highway during the sunnner of 1977 to accommodate the economic impacts to your communities, I have requested Jack Kinstlinger, Executive Director of the Department of Highways, to respond to this problem so that advertising
planning can be accomplished in Loveland and Estes Park for the 1977 tourist season. Highway by-passes and temporary highway use are engineering decisions. Mr. Kinstlinger is very sensitive to your needs and fully understands the importance of the highway to you. He has informed me that his staff is working on the matter, both at the Headquarters office and at the District Office in Greeley. District Engineer Dwight Bower has indicated that it
will take approximately 60 days to analyze the engineering constraints so that a decision regarding the temporary use of the highway next summer can be properly made.
DRAFT LETTER
23 September 1976 Page 3
-I understand that the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce has
ordered new brochures for their use and that ·the brochures do not cover the Highway 1134 question. \ Hr. Wright had ~t:at:ed
Otl SeptemlHir l4th. in a meeting witfi tfie Eo teo Park Chanrber that the road probably w·otlld not be open by the SUHlffiCf' of 1977, ba~ed
on i.nfermation atrailable to him at tfiat time. He indicated that,your
H C!) ... ,.,. ... , IL
advertising might stress Highways 1136 and :ff7) He liilCFJ:t eft te -point'O'liit1:i··t·hll'E the Highway Department may be able to work out an
"TI:i11Poll~"'1 us<r
advantageous solution for the epenl:Rg' of the highway next summer, but this could not now be planned on. ~ this matter I agre~
Additionally, it is important for you to do contingency planning.
I
In closing, I want to once again state that the highway planning, design, and potential opening next summer is a.~t engineering matter which is under study by the Department of Highways and that a
decision in regard to potential temporary use must be based upon engineering parameters. A final answer on the opening will take approximately 60 days.
DRAFT LETTER
23 September 1976
Harry B. Tregent, Mayor Town of Estes Park
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Jean Gaines, Mayor City of Loveland P.O. Box 419
Loveland, CO 80537
Mr. Harry Rogers, Executive Director Estes Park Area Chamber of Commerce 215 E. Elkhorn Avenue, Box 3050 Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Gentlemen:
I am sure you are aware that my office has received numerous communi-cations and local input concerning the planning and design criteria for U.S. Highway #34 in the Big Thompson Canyon. The problem
which our office is addressing is the resolution of opinions between significant interests from within and without the Canyon area. It is in your best interests that the resolution of these matters be firmly addressed.
I have been keeping up on all matters personally and have been regularly briefed by Mr. Kinstlinger, the Executive Director of
the Colorado Department of Highways, and by Messrs. White and Wright.
The importance of U.S. Highway #34 to the short and long range economic vitality is well understood and I am sensitive to the problems that exist and sympathetic to your needs. The highway routing, layout, design, and potential availability for use during the summer of 1977 are all subject to various trade-offs so that the optimum overall solutions can be achieved.
DRAFT LETTER
23 September 1976 Page 2
-My position which has been conveyed to the Colorado Highway
Commission is that the highway design and restoration must result in a safe highway in time of flood based upon the one percent (100 year) flood criteria. Normal highway safety improvements would also be incorporated and consideration would be given to rockfall potential, side canyon flooding, and special safe areas. If
certain bridges were found, by our Highway Department engineers, to be inadequate for passage of flood waters these bridges would be replaced. When the highway is completed it is important for us at the State level, and at the local level of government, to not have to apologize for the highway.
There is no question but that the Narrows represents very signi-ficant highway and hydrologic engineering challenges. We have recommended to the Commission that in the event that the highway engineers conclude that the construction of a safe highway through the Narrows is infeasible, our office has no objection to the
Narrows being by-passed. During this period, the temporary Narrows road could remain in use so that access would be maintained even though part of the route is changed. Thus, this could actually speed up the road opening.
In regard to reopening the highway during the summer of 1977 to accommodate the economic impacts to your communities, I have requested Jack Kinstlinger, Executive Director of the Department of Highways, to respond to this problem so that advertising
planning can be accomplished in Loveland and Estes Park for the 1977 tourist season. Highway by-passes and temporary highway use are engineering decisions. Mr. Kinstlinger is very sensitive to your needs and fully understands the importance of the highway to you. He has informed me that his staff is working on the matter, both at the Headquarters office and at the District Office in Greeley. District Engineer Dwight Bower has indicated that it
will take approximately 60 days to analyze the engineering constraints so that a decision regarding the temporary use of the highway next summer can be properly made.
DRAFT LETTER
23 September 1976 Page 3
-I understand that the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce has
ordered new brochures for their use and that -the brochures do not cover the Highway #34 question. Mr. Wright had stated
on September 14th in a meeting with the Estes Park Chamber that the road probably would not be open by the summer of 1977, based
on information available to him at that time. He indicated that your advertising might stress Highways #36 and #7. He went on to
point out that the Highway Department may be able to work out an advantageous solution for the opening of the highway next summer, but this could not now be planned on. On this matter I agree. Additionally, it is important for you to do contingency planning.
I
In closing, I want to once again state that the highway planning, design, and potential opening next summer is an engineering matter which is under study by the Department of Highways and that a
decision in regard to potential temporary use must be based upon engineering parameters. A final answer on the opening will take approximately 60 days.
l.l»frtl!t!Q.I~l~!t~t~t!J
RICHARD D. LAMM EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS DENVI!;U Governor E X E C U T I V E 0 R D E REVALUATION OF FLOOD HAZARD IN LOCATING STATE BUILDINGS, ROADS, AND OTHER FACILITIES, A}ID IN REVIEWING AND APPROVING SEWAGE AND WATER FACILITIES, AND SUBDIVISIONS
WHEREAS, hazardous uses of Colorado flood plains are occurring and potential flood losses and loss of life are increasing despite substantial efforts to control floods; and
WHEREAS, economic losses due to floods in Colorado during the last twelve years place Colorado near the top of the Nation's list for per capita losses; and
WHEREAS, past inadequate land use policy and controls led to the major disaster in the Big Thompson Canyon on July 31, 1976; and WHEREAS, minimum flood plain and floodway regulation criteria have been
promulgated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colo-rado Land Use Commission on the premise that wise use of our State's flood plains is the key to controlling and minimizing future
economic losses and suffering of our citizens; and
WHEREAS, wise use of our flood plains will promote public health, safety and welfare, reduce future public costs for relief and rehabili-tation and contribute to the State's economy; and
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado has extensive and continuing programs for the construction of buildings, roads, and other facilities and further, State Agencies are involved in the review and approval of water and sewer treatment plants, subdivisions, trailer parks, campgrounds, and many other facilities throughout the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, both Federal and State Agencies have compiled significant data and studies concerning the frequency of floods and the location of flood plains and are expert at estimating flood hazards;
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor of Colorado, it is hereby ordered as follows:
