Big Thompson flood originals, folder 3 of 3

(1)

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES STATE OF COLORADO

A. First Phase

1. Basic Data and Evaluation - Flood Data (Continuing Process) -Aerial Photos - NASA Photos - Natural Hazards - Stream Conditions - Sedimentaiton

-Canyon Residents Statistics

2. Field Inspection - August 2, 1976

(Complete)

3.

- August , 1976

- September , 1976 with Advisory Committee

Prepared Strategy - Aug us t 1 4 , 1 9 7 6

(Comp 1 ete) (11-page paper)

4.

Assemble Advisory Committee (Complete)

5.

Co-Chairman of Advisory Committee (Comp 1 ete) - Prepared Minutes and weekly ~genda

6. Assist County Commissioners (Continuing Process) - Flood plain criteria

- Private Bridge and highway criteria - Land Use and Open Space planning - Land Purchase options

7. Prepared Goals and Objectives for Recovery {Complete) -Adopted by Advisory Committee August

(2)

10.

11.

8.

Information Dissemination (Continuing Process) - Attend Monday Night Big Thompson Action Group meetings - Correspondence with Canyon Residents

- Coordinate Assistance from Special C.U. Graduate students attending citizen meetings.

9.

Work with State and Federal Agencies in Defining Funding Sources

(Continuing Process)

- Congressional Delegates Contacts

Exploring Special Appropriation for next legislative session.

FIA Activities (Continuing Process)

- Coordination of State Agencies

Miscellaneous (Continuing)

- Explain and promote flood plain criteria

- Assist County in defining private bridge replacement criteria, - Instrumental in coordinating State and Federal agencies to prepare

recreational plans and Master Plan for the Big Thompson Canyon, - Assisted in 701 Grant review and revision.

(3)

\

A G E N D A

BIG THOMPSON COORDINATING MEETING

STATE AGENCIES

Room

#520

Centennial Building -

1313

Sherman

Monday, November

22,

1976 -

10:00

AM

I.

Status of U.S. Highway

#34.

II. Recreation Composite Plan

III. "State of Colorado - Big Thompson Disaster

Assistance" form

IV. Status of Channelization Work

NOTE:

Copy of form noted in Item III is attached.

Please review prior to Monday meeting making

suggested corrections, additions and/or

(4)

ACTION/PROGRAM High Altitude Photos

Low Altitude Aerial Photography

Military Support

Hydrology and Flood Hazard Mapping

Crisis Counseling

STATE OF COLORADO

BIG THOMPSON DISASTER ASSISTANCE AGENCY

National Aeronautic and Space Administration coordinated by Governors office and Colorado State University- Ken Wright, Darryl Simons

Coordinated by Colorado Water Conservation Board- Felix Sparks.

State of Colorado National Guard.

Colorado Water Conservation Board- Felix Sparks.

Colorado Department of Institutions, Division of Mental Health - Dave Winfrey.

ASSISTANCE

Provided special _color photos of the Big Thomp-son Canyon taken about September 1, 1976.

Provided low altitude photos of Big Thompson taken on August 1, 1976.

Aircraft and personnel provided.

Evaluation and coordina-of flood studies.

Counseling Assistance provided based on Federal grant.

08 November 1976

REMARKS

Assistance provided to the State of Colorado under special NASA grant.

Performed search, rescue, and evacuation operation.

Communications and coordination service.

Provided personnel for evaluation of hydrology. Coordinating

efforts on flood hazard mapping. Providing technical assistance to locals.

Six month program of counseling, child and adolescent therapy, crisis intervention, and

intensive psychotherapy for disaster victims.

(5)

ACTION/PROGRAM

Damage Assessments

Water Supply and Water Rights

Law Enforcement

Natural Hazard Evaluation

Road Systems

Flood Plain Mapping Contribution

STATE OF COLORADO

State of Colorado, Depart-ment of Health- Bob Siek.

State Engineer's Office

State Highway Patrol

State of Colorado Geological Survey -John Ro ld.

Colorado State Highway Department

ASSISTANCE

Evaluation of building and property damages.

Flood warning, search and rescue, coordination.

Evaluation of Natural Hazards in Big Thompson Canyon - post-flood.

Provided $15,000 to Colorado Water Conser-vation Board for mapping.

08 November 1976 Page 2

-REMARKS

Provided a team of personnel to evaluate building damage and estimate damage to water and sewer systems.

Provided assistance for flood warning, search and rescue, and measures to protect people and property.

Provided a team of experts to evaluate nature and extent of hazards such as unstable slopes, debris and rock slides, etc.

Cooperative effort to complete aerial photography and mapping contracts which Highway Dept. wi 11 use.

(6)

ACTION/PROGRAM Stream Restoration Land Use Disaster Office Special Consultant to Governor

Parks and Recreation

STATE OF COLORADO

State of Colorado, Dept. of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife- Pete Barrows.

Colorado Land Use

Commission- Alan Merson, and Bev Warburton.

State of Colorado Division of Local Governments -Betty Miller.

Governor1s Office - Lee White.

Governor1s Office - Ken Wright.

State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.

ASSISTANCE

Policy and planning assistance.

Policy and guidance relative to local land land use decisions.

Provided coordination and liaison assistance.

Coordination of State activities relative to planning and recovery assistance

08 November 1976 Page - 3

-REMARKS

Provided personnel for policy and guidance relative to land acquisition, facility develop-ment, research, operation, and maintenance.

Governor1s office provided personnel in Disaster field office for coordination and assistance.

(7)

ACTION/PROGRAM

701 Grant Application

Governor1s Representative for Disaster Assistance

STATE OF COLORADO

BIG THOMPSON DISASTER ASSISTANCE

AGENCY

Governor1s Office - Ken Wright.

State of Colorado

Dept. of Military Affairs Logan Rappe.

ASSISTANCE

Application review and matching fund sources.

Assist individuals in preparation of grants for Federal assistance and relief.

-REMARKS

Provided assistance during preparation of grant appli-cations.

(8)

'·~-~(···.'1·\. ·~:~~~~ .... " .... :, \

1l/;,,~""

WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS

z•ao ALCOTT STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80111

13031

•••·••o•

Meeting Notice, agenda copies afi11L22

mai Jed to following I ist: ~Felix Sparks- CWCB

v John Rold - Geological Survey

11/16/76 mtg.

~Jack Kinstlinger- Colo. Dept. of Highways v'>Dwight Bowers- Colo. Dept. of Highways "'Pete Barrows -r-fish & Wildlife

~Alan Merson - Colo. Land Use Commission v Bev Warburton - Colo. Land Use Commission

~Betty Miller- Division of Local Governments /i.ee White - Governor 1 s office

/Audrey Bloom- Div. of Parks & Outdoor Recreation

~-Logan

Rappe - Dept. of Mi I i tary Affairs

,/~Gene Jencsok - CWCB (Colo. Water Conservation Bd) v'Dave Walker - Dept. of Natural Resources

~Darryl Todd- Colo. Wildlife Div. - 6060 N. Brdw. /,Bob McLavey - Senator Hart 1 s Office - Denver

~-~ob Liberatore- Senator Haskell 1_S office- D.C.

~Del Raupp - Department of Highways - bridges

(9)

A G E N D A

BIG THOMPSON COORDINATING MEETING

STATE AGENCIES

Room #520

Centennial Building - 1313 Sherman

Monday, November 22, 1976 - 10:00 AM

I. Status of U.S. Highway #34

II. Recreation Composite Plan

III. "State of Colorado - Big Thompson Disaster

Assistance" form

IV. Status of Channelization Work

NOTE:

Copy of form noted in Item III is attached.

Please review prior to Monday meeting making

suggested corrections, additions and/or

(10)

ACTION/PROGRAM High Altitude Photos

Low Altitude Aerial Photography

M i 1 ita ry Support

Hydrology and Flood Hazard Mapping

Crisis Counseling

STAT£ OF COLORADO

National Aeronautic and Space Administration coordinated by Governors office and Colorado State University - Ken Wright, Darryl Simons

Coordinated by Colorado Water Conservation Board- Felix Sparks.

State of Colorado National Guard.

Colorado Water Conservation Board~ Felix Sparks.

Colorado Department of Institutions, Division of Mental Health - Dave Winfrey.

ASSISTANCE

Provided special color photos of the Big Thomp-son Canyon taken about September 1, 1976.

Provided low altitude photos of Big Thompson taken on August 1,1976.

Aircraft and personnel provided.

Evaluation and coordina-of flood studies.

Counseling Assistance provided based on Federal grant.

-.

OB Novcndwt 1'1/(,

REMARKS

Assistance provided to the Stat of Colorado under special NASA grant.

Performed search, rescue, and evacuation operation.

Communications and coordination service.

Provided personnel for evaluati of hydrology. Coordinating efforts on flood hazard mapping. Providing technical assistance to locals.

Six month program of counseling, child and adolescent therapy, crisis intervention, and

intensive psychotherapy for disaster victims.

(11)

ACTION/PROGRAM

Damage Assessments

Water Supply and Water Rights

Law Enforcement

Natural Hazard Evaluation

Road Systems

Flood Plain Mapping Contribution

STATE OF COLORADO

State of Colorado, Depart-ment of Health - Bob Siek.

State Engineer's Office

State Highway Patrol

State of Colorado Geological Survey -John Rold.

Colorado State Highway Department

ASSISTANCE

Evaluation of building and property damages.

-Flood warning, search and rescue, coordination.

Evaluation of Natural Hazards in Big Thompson Canyon - post-flood.

Provided $15,000 to Colorado Water Conser-vation Board for mapping.

-REMARKS

Provided a team of personnel to evaluate building damage and estimate damage to water and sewer systems.

Provided assistance for flood warning, search and rescue,

and measures to protect people and property.

Provided a team of experts to evaluate nature and extent of hazards such as unstable slope debris and rock slides, etc.

Cooperative effort to complete aerial photography and mapping contracts which Highway Dept. will use.

(12)

ACTION/PROGRAM Stream Restoration Land Use Disaster Office Special Consultant to Governor

Parks and Recreation

STATE OF COLORADO

State of Colorado, Dept. of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife- Pete Barrows.

Colorado Land Use

Commission- Alan Merson, and Bev Warburton.

State of Colorado Division of Local Governments -Betty Miller.

Governor•s Office - Lee White.

Governor•s Office - Ken Wright.

State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor RPcrrntinn.

ASSISTANCE

Policy and planning assistance.

Policy and guidance relative to local land land use decisions.

Provided coordination and liaison assistance.

Coordination of State activities relative to planning and recovery assistance

08 November 1976 Page -

3

-REMARKS

Provided personnel for policy and guidance relative to land acquisition, facility develop-ment, research, operation, and maintenance.

Governor•s office provided personnel in Disaster field office for coordination and assistance.

(13)

ACTION/PROGRAM

701 Grant Application

Governor•s Representative for Disaster Assistance

STATE OF COLORADO

BIG THOMPSON DISASTER ASSISTANCE

AGENCY

Governor 1 s Office - Ken

Wright.

State of Colorado

Dept. of Military Affairs Logan Rappe.

ASSISTANCE

Application review and matching fund sources.

Assist individuals in preparation of grants Federal assistance and relief.

for

-REMARKS

Provided assistance during preparation of grant appli-cations.

(14)

RONALD C. McLAU~HLIN KENNETH R. WRIGftT HALFORD E. ERICKSON DOUGLAS T. SOVERN JOHN T. McLANE WIL.LIAM C. TAGGART THOMAS W. MORRIS JIMMIE D. WHITFIELD ASPEN OFFICE WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 2.420 ALCOTT STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80211 ( 303) 4!58-6201 STEAMBOAT OFFICE P, o. eox 5220

COMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE SPECIALTY F"IELDS OF"

WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT SEWAGE COLLECTION AND REUSE INDUSTRIAL WASTES

STORM DRAINAGE FLOOD CONTROL AND

OTHER WATER-ORIENTED PROJ.ECTS

DILL.ON LAKE OFFICE P, 0, BOX 5028

ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 STEAMBOAT VILLAGE, COLORADO 80499 FRISCO, COLORADO 80443

November 12, 1976

M E M 0 R A N D U M

TO: W i 11 a rd Qu i rk FROM: Kenneth R. Wright

Attached is a survey of building permits issued by Larimer County during SEptember and October in the Big Thompson Canyon.

This analysis was undertaken by Tom Downing at our request as part of the statistical review of the resident locations of owners of damaged properties which is transmitted under separate cover.

cc: Members of Big Thompson Recovery Planning Council

(15)

November 6, 1976

Survey of Building Permits Issued by Larimer County 9/1 to 10/29.

Twenty permits have been issued as of October 29th; 17 are for residential

dwellings. The majority appear to be for repair to houses less than 50% damaged

by the flood. On most of the permits Rex Burns, County Flood Planner, has

item-ized what the repairs are for, specifically stating that the permit is not for

the expansion of the living area.

One new building has been permitted, in T5, R69, Sec 16. It is required

to have a raised first floor with heating and electrical facilities above the

first floor level. Flood insurance is also required. The exact location of

this building with respect to the flood plain is uncertain.

The following table itemizes the value of the repairs, zoning and new land use

code for the dwelling.

Value of Repairs

Zone

$ 8,500

Open

7,000

Tourist

1,344

Open

6,800

Farm

5,000

Estate

15,000

Farm

1,500

Farm

4,000

Farm

8,000

Open

5,600

Open

12,600

Open

2,000

Open

4,200

Tourist

12,000

Business

12,000

Open

1,227

Open

10,000

Open

12,000

Open

3,500

Open

5,000

Open

Average Repair

=

6,864

Total Repairs

=

137,271

New Land Use Code

1100 Single Family

9201

1100 Single Family

2210

2120

1100 Single Family

(16)

RONALD C. fo,1cLAUGHLIN' KENNETH/. WRIGHT HALFORD E. ERICKSON DOUGLAS T. SOVERN JOHN T. McLANE WILLIAM C. TAGGART THOMAS W. MORRIS JIMMIE 0. WHITFIELD ASPEN OFFICE

WRIGHT-Me LAUGHLIN ENGINEERS

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 2420 ALCOTT STREET DENVER, COLORADO 8021t ( 303) 458·6201 STEAMBOAT OFFICE P, o, a ox s220

COMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE SPECIALTY FIELDS OF

WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT SEWAGE COLLECTION AND REUSE INDUSTRIAL WASTES

STORM DRAINAGE FLOOD CONTROL AND

OTHER WATER·ORIENTED PROJECTS

DILLON LAKE OFFICE P, o. BOX 1021

ASPEN, COLORADO 11611 STEAMBOAT VILLAGE, COLORADO 10499 FRISCO, COLORADO 10443

November 11, 1976 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Larimer County Commissioners

FROM: Kenneth R. Wright

Attached is a statistical summary of the Larimer County flood victims by both location and age group based on 138 victims, though the age statis-tics are based on 139. We thought you would find this analysis important to take into consideration in the planning work because, for instance, of the large number of elderly people who died in the flood. Further, more than one-half were female and one-third were residents from outside of Colorado.

Statistics such as this assist in planning for future safety. studies are underway by the University of Colorado scientists study the causes leading to the unusual loss of life.

KRW

Additional to further

(17)

BIG THOMPSON FLOOD VICTIMS

November 11, 1976

Thomas E. Downing

Location

29.7%

41 Big Thompson Canyon

7.2%

TO

Loveland

4.3%

6 Larimer County

24.6%

34 Colorado

17 Denver

6 Greeley

11 Other

33.3%

46 USA

0.7%

1 Foreign

100.0%

138 TOTAL COUNTED

Ages

0-10

10 7.6%

11-20

19 14.4%

21-30

23 17.4%

31-40

7 5.3%

41-50

12 9.1%

51-60

25 18.9%

61-70

25 18.9%

71--

11 8.3%

TOTAL

132 100.0%

Ages Unknown 7

Male

62 44.9%

Female

76 55.1%

Total

B8

(18)

OBSERVATIONS FROM ANALYSIS OF FLOOD VICTIMS

Thomas E. Downing

November 11, 1976

*

Roughly a third of the victims came from the Canyon area,

a third from within the state, and a third from outside the

state. Therefore, although the wellbeing (physical and financial)

of the Canyon residents needs to be taken care of, policy decisions

should also consider future visitors to the Canyon. Their safety

must be safeguarded in the Big Thompson Canyon and other dangerous

canyons of Colorado.

*

The age distribution clearly shows the preponderance of elderly

people affected by the flood. Well over a third of the victims were

over 50 years of age. Future flash flood preparedness plans need to

take this into account.

(19)

/

"

MEMORANDUM

TO: Ken Wright, Files FROM: Doug S.

RE: Big Thompson Recovery Planning Council Meeting of November 16, 1976

DATE: November 23, 1976

The November 16 meeting went well and produced some positive results. The first item on the agenda was a discussion of who should chair the

Recovery Planning Council meetings. There were some suggestions given;

however, it was obvious the lobbying had already been done and a con-clusion reached. That conclusion was to retain John Michie as the chair-man until the end of the year and to seat the new commissioners as ex officio members.

The next item was the report by our office. I had distributed (prior to the meeting)copies of our report to Governor Lamm and I went through the report in some detail. There were a number of questions which were rather mundane; however, Mr. Lopez stated that the detailed report seemed essen-tially correct and well done, but that the credit was not given to who had done the work. I pointed out to Mr. Lopez very firmly that it was not our job to 11do the work11 but that it was our job to see that the work

was completed. Unless it was stated in the report that we did the work, he could be sure that the work was done by the appropriate agency. I also suggested, and it was accepted, that we would give a weekly report on most of the activities on which we were working as an aid to better

com-munications. This approach met with unqualified support.

Mr. Quirk then gave his report and introduced Mr. Tom Pitts and Mr. Curt Smith of the Toups Corporation, who will be the planners for the 701 effort. These people gave a presentation concerning how they were going to approach the planning effort, and it was immediately picked up by the residents in the audience that there was a duplication of work already being done, at least by the title of the job description as 1 isted by Toups. This was an important confrontation in that it delineated, at least by the residents• perspective, that the State is doing some of this work and they did not want money spent which was going to be carried on by others.

There were some general discussions concerning the reality that the canyon residents seemed to be overlooked in the overall aid effort. It was pointed out that we have already began at the State level an effort to identify weakness in both Federal and legislative programs so that new legislation could be proposed. It was also pointed out that the type of legislation proposed would likely be in two phases, with the proposed legislation for the 1977 session being of an immediate aid nature as opposed to long-term legislative requirements. We also pointed out that it was not necessarily

(20)

MEMORANDUM

Recovery Planning Council

November 23, 1976 Page 2

fact that any legislation would be forthcoming from this next session ·of the State, but that the nature and needs of the legislation would

require some support from area residents, both to define the legislation and to support it. A motion was made and passed to have Ken Wright's office, Quirk's office, and Toups meet to discuss the goals, objectives and delineate possible areas of legislation to effect immediate short-term help for the canyon residents. I view this as positive, although probably overly optimistic, in that this is the first self-generated positive step that the planning council has taken without the specific aid of Ken Wright. In the process of this discussion, Mr. Wolaver argued that the State was trying to use the Big Thompson to develop very restrictive regulations and geological hazards and floodplain hazards and to develop a pristine, development-free canyon. All the State people at the table jumped all

over Mr. Wolaver, these people included Mr. Rappe, Mr. Bower, Mrs. Warburton, Mr. Rold, and myself. It was very clear, I believe, to anybody listening that our efforts were well-intended in order to develop long-term programs for all hazardous canyons in the State, both to mitigate hazards and to provide more immediate relief rather than the lengthy, expensive, and some-times painful process through which we are now going.

There were no details given, but one of the residents in the audience pointed out that foreclosure proceedings had already begun on one resident

(21)

I

MEMORANDUM

RE: Meeting with Colorado Department of Highways on Local Bridges

On November 22, I met with Mr. Del Roupp with the Colorado Department of Highways and the head of the Bridge Section, concerning the design of local bridges. Basic conclusions reached were that the minimum discharge would be the 10-year as determined by the Gingery and Associates report, a twin-tee type construction would be used with flimsy railing and that there would be hub guard constructed on the slab to prevent cars from running off the bridge. After a great deal of construction, it was determined that we would anchor the bridges with cable, but it was pointed out the because of the

lateral weakness of twin tees, that probably most of them would break when they floated off. Both Del and I were adamant in the fact that the bridges had to be tied with cable so that they would not float down and take out the next bridge.

Cost-wise, the major problem has to do with the design of the abutment. Considerable effort is going to have to be expended to come up with a flexible design; however, it appears that drilled piers with a small top foundation would be the most effective. In some areas, it may be necessary to use high retaining walls and wingwalls.

The Department of Highways presently does not have drafting help available to help them illustrate the type of bridge. I offered to supply them with a draftman sometime around Tuesday or Wednesday of the week of November 29.

In the meantime, the Department of Highways is doing some investigation into possible abutment and opening criteria (span) and we will discuss this in some detail before any drawings are made.

(22)

I

MEMORANDUM

TO: Ken Wright, Files

FROM: Doug S. DATE: November 24, 1976

RE: Coordinating Meetings for State Agencies

On November 22, 1976, a meeting was held with various groups of the State. A copy of the agenda and the attendance list is attached.

Mr. AI Chotvacs of the Greeley office of the Colorado Division of Highways gave a report on the status of U.S.

34,

indicating that they intended to keep the road open during the summer time and that construction might re-quire as long as three years to complete. John Rold made a very strong point that the three year delay is probably unfair to the canyon residents to which Mr. Chotvacs stated that only a I imited amount of road way would be torn up at any one time and that he did not feel the inconvenience would be too great.

Mr. Chotvacs indicated that they are planning to advertise for bids on two sections of highway, the first being from Olympus Dam to Glen Comfort and the second being from Cedar Cove to the Loveland Power Plant Diversion. Del Roupp is currently working on water surface profiles in those areas.

It was determined in the meeting that there may be as many as 200 construction workers within the canyon at any one time. Mr. Rold suggested that emergency evacuation plan be developed for these people and distributed so that they are aware of the risk and the mitigation measures necessary.

It was suggested that a meeting on the floodway delineation be held between

the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Highways,

and Gingery and Associates to assure coordination of the floodplain delin-eation effort and that priorities are appropriately met for both the depart-ment of highways and for the people preparing the recreation composite plan. The next item discussed was the recreation composite plan, the report being given by Audrey Bloom of the Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and by Darryl Todd of the Division of Wild] ife. The general approach will be to do two 11type11 areas, the first being in Drake, and the second being in an area along the North Fork. This data would then be applied to the general overall situation. As a result, two scales of maps are being used,:one set at 111=2001 and another at 111=2,000_{1 •}

Alternative concepts include:

I. Status quo

2. Recreation nodes and clusters

3.

Add trails to item 2 above

4.

Canyon primarily used as a transportation corridor

(23)

MEMORANDUM

State Agencies• Meetings November 24, _{Page 2} 1976

Ms. Bloom indicated that she thought the final plan would be a combination. She listed several assumptions, the most important of which is that no new residential development or overnight occupation will be allowed in the flood plain. The plan is not being specific as to ownership, however, she did indicate that the U.S. Forest Service is looking at block acquistion to get people out of the canyon to U.S.F.S. land. It was also pointed out that the values being considered were fair market value at the time of acquisition.

It was brought out in many instances that the local government is g1v1ng permits for local bridges and for other construction (mostly on the North Fork) after the fact. I will be taking a trip up the canyon on Wednesday to verify the general overall approach in these areas by the County. A new title has been used now for the recreation composite plan in that the Forest Service is conducting another study which meets the statutory require-ments of a recreation composite plan. The new title of the combined State-Federal effort will be 11State-Federal Recreation Alternative Study.••

On Item No.

3

which is State assistance of Colorado Big Thompson Disaster Assistance Form we requested that the forms be returned to our office by

Wednesday morning with the appropriate corrections. Alan Mersen pointed

out that it would be well to consider the responsibility areas where the State may coerce local government into adopting appropriate regulations.

It was pointed out that probably this ought to be done on both the Federal and State level and that the respective forms completed to date do not address that situation for either Federal or State.

Darryl Todd gave the status on the channelization work for the December

3

&

4

effort which now appears that there will be four companies totaling 80 pieces of equipment in the canyon on that weekend. Darryl was quite concerned, although Gene Jenscok has looked at the areas and has indicated that:

1. There cannot be that much work for 80 vehicles, and that 2. The work in those areas would be rather limited.

As soon as we have a better feeling for the timing and the scope, we will try to arrange a meeting with Major Zettler, Darryl Todd and myself to discuss the work effort and to determine whether or not there is a need for more inspectors from the State level to be present than what the divi-sion of Wildlife can place in the canyon on that weekend. It was also pointed out that a new application is being prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in conjunction with the Division of Wild] ife with the State and that it will be more detailed in its estimate, that it will relate to joint efforts with the ColoradoDepartment of Highways reconstruction of U.S.

34

and that it will probably be labor intensive so that there will be opportunities for local employment and education.

John Rold pointed out that perhaps a good measure to use in the canyon restoration is to build small check dams to trap the sediment to be used in the channel restoration and at other locations in the canyon. Darryl Todd will look into this as a possibility.

(24)

!

MEMORANDUM

RE: Miscellaneous Work Items

Currently Underway

The following is a list of items and descriptions on which work is underway, and for which commitments have been made by me to get some of the slow

moving items off dead center.

l. The local bridge problem remains a hot item; however, both the commissioners and Quirk are accepting our work effort being

carried on at this time. While we have some problems with typical approachs to abutment design, the basic concept, I believe, has been well-established. We will be furnishing a draftsman for about one day to the Department of Highways during the week of November 29 to draw up the conceptual drawings for presentation to Quirk and the commissioners. This should be done prior to the next meeting on the Recovery Council. Please note that the Recovery Council meeting for November 30 has been cancelled.

2. Relative to recreation alternative plans, we have been requested by Steve McMillan (also Audrey Bloom) to have Tom Downing do some addi-tional statistical analysis work from the county accessor's records. This is an extension of the earlier work and it was requested that he do it because of the knowledge he had obtained from his previous work. Tom has looked into the time requirements and it appears that about 35 hours will be required. As he has not been working full time this week, he should be able to take this under the existing arrangement without any major problem.

3. When we get ready for public presentations and meetings (as opposed to hearings) to be held in the canyon on the flood plain delineation, Rex Burns may need some assistance in getting the information out to the residents concerning notification of the meeting, location,

time, and perhaps some information dissemination. I have indicated

to Rex that at that point in time, if it is absolutely necessary to keep things going, we could help with some personal assistance.

4.

Willard Quirk requested that we walk the A-95 through the State agencies for the 701 assistance plan. I am meeting with Quirk today on legislative matters, and I will pick up the complete A-95 review

form at that point. Lee White sees no problem with this work effort. 5. 1 am giving some assistance to Quirk in the development of five wells

for local residents to obtain water from during the winter. Lee White and I discussed the possibility of our geologists doing some resistivity work as a part of our contract. In the context of the

(25)

MEMORANDUM

Miscellaneous Work Items

November 24, 1976 Page 2

future planning efforts, these wells should be considered semi-permanent in that they may be incorporated into other municipal type of systems. In this regard, they should be located: 1) out of the flood plains, 2) within population centers, and 3) at an optimum location so that both short-term and long-term expenditures are maximized as to benefits.

6.

I am meeting today with Willard Quirk on legislative requirements, and needs and goals and objectives for recommendation to the Recovery Council next meeting. I am somewhat doubtful that this will be truly beneficial

in this context, however, I believe that we have some work already done and underway which would be of some assistance to this group and more specifically, the Governor. Other than my time, there is no commitment by our firm to any additional work to assist Quirk. Our efforts wi 11 continue to be in the development of the State/Federal program.

7.

At Lee White•s request, I talked with Dwight Bower concerning announce-ments about the timing and the closure of U.S. 34 during construction period. To date, the Highway Department has maintained that they have not had sufficient information to be able to say for sure whether or not they will keep the highway open all the time during the period from Memorial Day to Labor Day for the next three years. However, it

is his goal to do so, and this has strictly been stated. As it appears now, they will be able to accomplish this goal in its major context although there may be short periods of closure during the summer. Mr. White requested that the Governor be allowed to make an announce-ment concerning this procedure. I made this request to Dwight Bower and he assured me he would let us know at what time the announcement would be suitable so the Governor could make that announcement. I

pointed out to Lee White, that at about a yeaG when the road con~truc

tion keeps lingering on, the canyon residents are 1 ikely to be very vocal about completely the road sooner, and perhaps we should be

ready to move at that point and change plans as to time of completion.

8.

The State Income Tax Forms have turned out to be not many in number. I received three at the last Big Thompson Recovery Plan Council meeting and those have been turned over to Gary May of the Department of Revenue who said he would process those on today1s date and that it would be

three to five weeks before the money was actually in the residents• hands. He did promise me he would try to short circuit the process at every possible location.

9.

Bob McLavy at Gary Hart1s office has continued to maintain contact with

out office.

10. You1ll have to start reading the newspapers up there because you won•t believe the favorable press that we have finally gotten out of that place!

(26)

MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Wright, Files

FROM: Doug Sovern

RE: Big Thompson Recovery Planning Council

Meeting of November 23

The meeting on November 23 was very low key, with two commissioners being absent (Lopez and Wolover). I gave a short report from the State1s view-point as to the happenings of the past week, which included the work on the local bridges with the department of highways, assistance to Quirk for running the A-95 through the State Planning Office, status of flood plain delineation, State efforts in the Composite Recreation Plan, and the tax

refund form for the State. There were few questions at this point; however, Reg Kerns requested more information on the local bridge situation later in the meeting. This went really well for us because the local bridge problem had been taken over and reported on by Quirk and his associates in the past several weeks. Our definitive efforts to define a cheap and efficient design for bulk installation has seen a more favorable response from the

residents in the meeting.

Quirk gave a report on his activities which primarily centered around the 701 and the block grants. It is his feeling that they will receive the money for the 701 around the first of December and that~ when they expect to begin strong planning efforts. Potable water supplies in the canyon are somewhat of a problem, and Quirk1s office intends to drill approximately five wells in conjunction with Women1s Club of Colorado and the Rotary Club

of Estes Park to provide close-in water for canyon residents. Both John Rold and ourselves (through prior efforts and after concurrence with Lee White) have offered assistance. We may actually run some resistivity surveys in the event that they can chose the sites and they do obtain some money. This later action has been accepted by Lee White as a very favorable approach to giving assistance up there.

John Rold gave a geological hazard presentation with Jim Soule which was well received, although I think a number of them were ready to go to sleep.

It is apparent that the decision makers on the Council have a relatively low level of wanting to seek new information to assist them. They feel that information 1 ike John Rold1s ought to be presented at the Monday meetings only. However, as a whole, most people in attendance appreciated the presentation, and it assisted in the development of overall

under-standing among the canyon residents as to the imprudence of those buildings that are left in many instances.

(27)

M I M 0

______

....

TO:

Lee White

FROM:

Ken Wright

DATE:

December

6, 1976

RE:

Big

Thompson

Attached

Is a

copy of the report of

activities as

presented to the

Big

Thompson

lecovery

Council

for December

7, 1976.

KRW:J lb

Attachment

(28)

REPORT OF WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS FOR DECEMBER 7, 1976

MEETING OF BIG THOMPSON RECOVERY PLANNING COUNCIL

1. BRIDGES

Coordination meetings were held with Del Raupp, of the State Department of Highways, and Wi liard Quirk, of Larimer County, to establish tenative bridge hydraulic criteria and to proceed with preparation of material for presentation to the County Commissioners on December 9th.

Tentative criteria which are expected to be recommended to the Commissioners is based upon the philosophy of low profile

bridges which would include hydraulic design of bridge openings for the 10-year flood discharge, H-15 loading, and cable tie-down designed to forestall a washed out bridge from becoming a hazard to other property owners and the public.

Drafting services have been provided for preparation of sketches.

2. LEGISLATION

3.

RECREATION PLAN

State agencies were kept up-to-date on information relating to the recreational alternative plan to be submitted to Senators Haskell and Hart. Additionally, we have made the offer of providing drafting services if and when necessary to avoid schedule disruptions because of these services. The State places emphasis on this plan, and resulting Federal funding, as an important tool in providing direct assistance to financially distressed canyon residents.

Checking was undertaken at the County Assessor's office for technical information needed by the recreational planning task force.

(29)

Page 2

4.

CHANNELIZATION

Coordination was made between the State Division of Wildlife and other agencies to insure agreement on channel

modifications and to eliminate duplication of inspection personne 1.

5. LETTERS

Assistance was provided to the Governor relative to responding to certain specific written requests from resident property owners. In one instance this included identifying the property

in question, checking elevation levels and flood peaks, and providing special information as to the property location in respect to the floodway.

6. COORDINATION MEETINGS

Meetings have been held with State, Federal, and local represent-atives to help insure communication on key issues and an additional meeting was held with State personnel to provide briefing up-dates, to review potential new legislation, and to discuss means of how the State can better provide services and assistance to Larimer County.

]. STATE TAX FORMS

A search was initiated for the amended tax forms of three (3)

individuals who have already submitted State amended income tax forms. Future processing can be shortened by notifying our office when the forms are submitted to the Department of Revenue and supplying Social Security numbers as used when submitting amended tax forms.

8.

DIRECT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Our office stands ready, at the request of Governor Lamm to provide technical and planning services to Larimer County as requested. This could help meet deadlines and result in engineer-ing and plannengineer-ing cost savengineer-ings to the County.

(30)

~I

MEMORANDUM

TO: Files

FROM: Doug S. DATE: October 27, 1976

RE: Big Thompson Recreation Composite Plan Organizational Meeting

At the above-referenced meeting the people on the attached list were independents representing the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Division of Wildlife {DOW), Division of Parks (DOP), Colorado Geological Survey {CGS), Department of Highways (DOH), the County Coordinator, and myself as representative for the Governor.

In addition, the Secretary of the Interior had a representative. The meeting was chaired by Steve McMillan, and the first part of the meeting was devoted to developing the background of the request from the Recovery Committee for Federal assistance and State coordination of the development of a composite recreation plan. It was pointed out that the main thrust is to find and develop a mechanism to assist flood ravaged residents of the area; however, this represents a unique opportunity as well for the development of a recreational plan. Mr. Rold pointed out that the overall goal is that this is an opportunity to make the canyon better than what it is apt to become.

Various constraints and information were discussed pertaining to flood plains, geological, and other hazards. The status of mapping, land owner-ship, and other planning efforts previously done were also discussed. Steve McMillan indicated that he would like to work in some detail in some specific area; however, I believe that a concensus of the group was that the project must be done in

45

days and was not intended to be specific. Rather, it was to be general and of sufficient detail to allow for use by State and Federal Congressional Members. Some discus-sion took place concerning what values to use in assessing the land and, although it was felt by the Forest Service that the value would be as

is, it was felt that in the development of a composite plan that an

approach might be generated for acquisition at pre-flood property values. The major conclusion reached was the development of a group of four in-dividuals from State and Federal Agencies who will meet on November

3

in offices provided by the State in the Columbine Building to assemble all data available at that time, and to begin developing a detailed process by which the composite plan can be completed. The four agencies are BOR, USFS, DOW, and DOP. In addition, there will be one member from the County and Steve McMillan will provide the leadership.

(31)

MEMORANDUM Comp,os i te PI an

October 27, 1976 Page 2

Although the organization went well, it is apparent that there is going to be some difficulty after this first organizational effort on Wednesday

(and perhaps for a few days thereafter) developing the personnel needed to complete the plan by December 10. It is apparent that BOR will take the leadership from the Federal standpoint, and they may be cajoled into providing the staff support to complete the 11dog work11 needed to obtain a successful plan. Everyone seems to be willing to provide manpower for

input, decision making, and the concept development, but there is strong reluctance from any agency to commit permanent staff to complete the plan. Our efforts must be to develop the State and Federal support so that

completion can be made in

45

days .

(32)

WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.

I/!!//,,

! , I '·"

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS

z•ao ALCOTT STREET

DENVER, COLORADO aoatt 13031 •••-•aot

Copies also disttributed to:

John Rold, State Geologist

Colorado Geological Survey

State Centennial Bldg.

1313 Sherman St.

Denver,

CO

80203

Ms. Nona Thayer (Larimer Cty. Comm)

1827 Michael Lane

Ft. Collins,

CO

80521

Mr. Bob McLavey

U.S. Senator Hart's Office

1200 Williams Street

Denver, CO

80218

Mr. Rob Liberatore

U.S. Senator Haskell's Office

4104 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C.

20510

Larimer County Commission copy

sent to Bill Lopez

(33)

"".

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

RE:

MEMORANDUM

---Willard R. Quirk

Kenneth R. Wright

/~

10 November 1976

Recreation Composite Plan

To confirm a conversation with Steve McMillan, this memo is

to let you know about a short meeting between Governor Lamm

and Mr. McGuire, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.

The meeting

was held on November 4, 1976.

Mr. Craig Rupp, Regional Director

of the U.S. Forest Service attended.

The meeting related to the potential supplemental appropriations

for USFS acquisition of Big Thompson Canyon lands.

This is in

regard to the Recreation Composite Plan now underway by the

special task team of local, State, and Federal representatives.

Mr.

McGuire suggested that a meeting be held between the county

commissioners, the State, and Mr. Rupp to clarify certain policy

questions.

In a discussion with

Mr.

Rupp on November 9th it

was concluded that such a meeting would be premature at this time.

The reasons for this conclusion are:

1. The planning team is apparently doing very well

at this time and no policy guidance is required

now, and

2. The meeting would be more productive after a

display of alternatives is available with related

estimates of land cost

Mr. Rupp indicated that from his standpoint, the plan was moving

satisfactorily and that he saw no problem in the scheduled

comple-tion of early December.

Our office has volunteered drafting services to the planning team

for the Recreational Composite through Ms. Audrey Bloom.

We were

set up to provide a draftsman on November 9, but the request was

cancelled.

Please be advised that we can provide emergency drafting

services for limited periods.

KRW:jlb

cc :

Lee lfui te

Larimer County Commission

Audrey Bloom

(34)

M E M 0 R A N D U M

TO: Alan Merson

FROM: Ken Wright

/('l!wJ

DATE: 12 November 1976

RE:

Flood Plain Regs

Please see attached memo from Rex Burns of Larimer. He is asking that velocity criteria also be included, which is satisfactory. See my note on page 2. Mr. Sparks will probably not designate a low hazard zone in many places of the Canyon because of the proven hazards involved.

Regarding rebuilding in the floodway if less than 50 percent damaged, neither CWCB nor Larimer regulations handle this as you would like. There may not be much we can do now except stress the valuation drop because of the non-conforming use. We would not expect many buildings to fall in this category though because of the force and magnitude of the July

31,

1976 flood. However, a special request from the LUC to the County on floodway repairs would be in order.

The matter of replacing new trailers in existing flood plain and floodway trailer parks is something on which the State needs to be firm and positive.

I would appreciate it if the LUC staff would put together a letter on this item.

KRW:jlb Attachment cc: John Ro 1 d

Jack Kinstl inger Bev Warburton Wi 1 Ulman, LUC

(35)

LARII\t~E~~ COUNTY PL;..'\NN!NG DEPARTMENT

FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80522

PH0f\][ 221-2100 November 5, 1976 P.O. BOX 1458

M E M 0 R A N D U M

To: Mr. Larry Lang, Colorado Water Conservation Board

From:

Subject:

Mr. Jerome Olson, Federal Insurance Adminstration

Rex A. Burns, Larimer County Flood Zoning Administrator

Floodway Delineation in Big Thompson Canyon

The stated desire of the Larimer County Board of Commissioners and the Big Thompson Advisory

Council is to provide for the safe and orderly development of the Big Thompson Canyon. In pursuing this goal, I feel that land use regulations should take into account the degree of hazard presented to a proposed development 9,s well as

the effect of that development on neighboring properties. It is our position that the FW-Floodway Zone or no-building area should be applied only to those areas where the degree of hazard is great, and that wher-ever areas of low hazard and sufficient size are found, the FF- Flood Fringe zone will be applied. This position has been expressed both to Canyon resid~nts and to the Big Thompson Advisory Council.

We wish, therefore to request that a floodway map be prepared by the Federal Insurance

Administration as part of its study of the Big Thompson Canyon. A reasonable criteria for low hazard areas in thos~ areas in which structures can be placed and suffer no

(36)

MEMO/Nov. 5, 1976/page 2

undue disturbance to flood flow.

My understanding is that the Colorado Attorney General's Office has issued an opinion stating that the Colorado Water Conservation Board has the authority to designate a floodway and thq.t the minimum level of restriction is a one and one-half foot depth. At this time, Larimer County, to my knowledge has not received a copy of this opinion.

If the Water Conservation Board does have this authority, we would like to request that the Water Conservation Board staff put in writing what their proposed criteria will be, for review by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners and so that a formal request for study can be made by Larimer County to the Federal Insurance Administration.

In discussions with knowledgeable engineers, I am informed that a velocity criteria may be desirable in a high gradient situation such as the Big Thompson Canyon. My suggestion is that a velocity criteria be developed which would constitute a level of restriction equal to the one and one-half foot criteria.

RB 1/ I

I .... _>

(37)

RONALD C. McLAUGHLIN KENNETH R. WRIGHT HALFORD E. ERICKSON DOUGLAS T. SOVERN JOHN T. McLANE WILL.IAM C. TAGGART" THOMAS W, MORRIS JIMMIE D. WHITFIELD ASPEN OFFICE WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 2420 Al-COTT STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80211 ( 303) 458-6201 STEAMBOAT OFFICE P, 0, BOX 5ZZ0

COMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE SPECIALTY FIELDS OF"

WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION

WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT SEWAGE COLLECTION AND REUSE INDUSTRIAL WASTES

STORM DRAINAGE

FLOOD CONTROL AND

OTHER WATER-ORIENTED PROJECTS

DILLON LAKE OFFICE

P, 0, BOX 1021

ASPEN, COLORADO 11611 STEAMBOAT VILLAGE, COLORADO 80499 FRISCO, COLORADO 10443

November

'12, 1976

M E M 0 R A N D U M

TO: Willard Quirk and

Larimer County Commissioners FROM: Kenneth R. Wright

Attached is an analysis of permanent residences of the Big Thompson Canyon versus non-resident property owners. The analysis covers damaged properties as indicated by devaluation by the County Assessor. Not all of the properties were necessarily physically damaged by the flood because a devaluation could be made, for instance, because of washed out access bridges or other related

impacts.

This analysis was performed by Mr. Thomas E. Downing, of the University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Sciences at our request. Mr. Downing is working half-time for our office.

Table I shows market devaluation for

16

taxing districts along the Canyon, the devaluation amounting to

$6.6

million. It summarizes the impact of the flood on

796

residences plus

568

empty lots. There are

67

residences listed as uncertain which refers to the fact that it was not possible to determine where the building owner maintains his or her permanent residence.

Please note that of the damaged residences

224,

or

28%,

represent Canyon resident owners,

11%

reside in Loveland,

7%

reside in Larimer County,

31%

reside in Colorado outside of Larimer County, and

19%

were out-of-State property owners.

Table 2 is a summary of the resident locations of people who own empty lots in the Big Thompson Canyon. Note that only

14%

of the

379

identi·fied lot owners are:residents of Big Thompson Canyon.

For clarification we have included a map showing the taxing districts. METHOD

The billing address for the property taxes was assumed to be the homeowner's permanent residence. This may not be entirely accurate as a number may have had their bills sent to an office or a Loveland post office box rather than their residence. Also, some are known to have been planning to retire and make their canyon residence their permanent home.

(38)

Mr. Willard Quirk and

Larimer County Commissioners Page 2

The 11unknown'' column reflects properties included in the flood damage print-out, but not found in the printout of properties listed in the Governor's delineation of the disaster area. For the most part they are located outside the declared disaster area.

Owners of empty lots were not counted in the homeowners residence location survey.

Tax districts 3109, 1309, and 1319 were not included in the survey, as they are not included in the printout of addresses.

Devaluation figures were computed by adding the preflood assessed values for improvements and land, subtracting their post flood values, and multiplying by 1/(.85)(.30). The recorded assessed values were 80% to 85% of the full assessed value, which is about 30% of market value. Typically, the adjusted assessed values are lower than the market actually reflects, therefore, these figures may be conservative.

Subcategories of the residence locations, in descending order of frequency are: Canyon: Drake, Star Route, Glen Haven, Big Thompson, West U.S. Highway 34,

Devil 's Gulch, Loveland Heights. Loveland:

P.O. Box Loveland, various street addresses including W 8th, Route 3, W. Colorado Road 24, Glade, Colorado Avenue, River-front Drive, Griffith Road, Monte Vienda Drive, Empire Avenue, Cimmeron Drive, Masonville Road, Redwood Drive.

Larimer County:

Colorado:

Fort Collins, Estes Park, Berthoud.

Denver Area, Greeley, Boulder, Longmont, LaSalle, Fort Morgan, others.

USA: Nebraska, Texas, Kansas, California and Iowa account for over

3/4 of the out-of-state residents. SUMMARY

1. 28% of the damaged residences are owned by Canyon resident property owners. In some cases this may include dwellings rented out to others on a full-or part-time basis by Canyon residents.

2. 46% of the damaged residences are owned by Larimer County residents. 3. 81% of the damaged residences are owned by Colorado citizens.

(39)

Mr. Willard Quirk and

Larimer County Commissioners Page 3

4.

The average residence devaluation amounts to

$7,700.

5.

The highest proportions of part-time residents are found in the western portions of the Canyon, i.e. Waltonia, Glen Comfort, Loveland Heights, and Glen Haven. The eastern end of the Canyon had relatively more full-time residents.

6.

The large majority of unimproved flood damaged lots are located in the eastern part of the Canyon.

7.

The basic statistics indicate that two developers or landholders own a substantial proportion of the empty lots, especially in the

3029

and

3069

tax districts. These holders are Philip

J.

Switzer and Escape Properties, Ltd.

(40)

~Jow

--

--...---.----7---;---~--.---,---T-~--r--~---:----i

. I l~ I

I

~~ I /~ ft.{ I /3 I I

-

-1

19

"2-D j I I ·

-/7

i

!

ot----;----T----r----

,

--

-

--~---~

1 ----~--~,

'

2.1 ·1

22 ?5 24:

;c:

₁

I

_{2 ')} -.7₁° ~ I

I

L ~ I

ts-

Jtf

21 ;

,~ 2.2.! I I 7%-1 z71 2( I I t3 t'-)

_u.:

_2..1 /') 2Z ?..7 "I Cj

i

- I 25 I I 0 I b I~ t ' i9 "l.( 2

(41)

TABLE I