012 of 2015 - SL County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan T 15-3
R 15-1
RESOLUTION NO. 12 OF 2015
(Salt Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plan)
A resolution adopting the Salt Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,
as required by the Federal Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 2000.
WHEREAS, President William J. Clinton signed H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation and
Cost Reduction Act of 2000 into law on October 30, 2000 establishing a national disaster hazard
mitigation program to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption,
and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters, and to assist state, local and Indian
tribal governments in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures designed to ensure the
continuation of critical services and facilities after a natural disaster; and
WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires, to be eligible for Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) post-disaster funds,jurisdictions develop and be
covered by a Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan that identifies the natural hazards that could
impact their jurisdictions, identify actions and activities to mitigate the effects of those hazards,
and establish a coordinated process to implement such plans; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has
been prepared in accordance with FEMA requirements as 4 C.F.R. 201.6 in coordination with
Salt Lake County's Bureau of Emergency Management and other local jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is within Salt Lake County and participated in the update of
the multi-jurisdictional Plan, the Salt Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is concerned about mitigating potential losses and has
determined that it would be in the best interest of the community to adopt the Salt Lake County
Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City that:
1. The City adopts the Salt Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan as this jurisdiction's Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Attachment A
hereto) pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 28thday of
April , 2015.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By:
Cjr� CHAIRP
� t
r<JJP.
yli N'I.Illpl j1J
ATTEST AND COUNTERSI '°oRA:I E Sti v •
PPROVE)vr`1STOF�7ria�
��i°�L.�arcl;�1f3 <'�:Jsie����a�v'iiltit
Deo
By
CfTY RECORDER
HB_ATTY-443573-V I-Resolution_Adopting_Salt_Lake_County_Multi-Hazard_Mitigation_Plan.DOC
2
_lLt•.ly..
SALT LAKE CITY
Hazard Mitigation Plan
( 2014 )
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 826 of 1430
Riverton, Utah
This page intentionally left blank
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex I
Page 825 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
.000110 ANNEX J: SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY 1 Introduction
1 . 1 Background
Salt Lake City is the capital and the most populous city in the state of Utah.With an estimated
population of 191,180 in 2013,the city lies in the core of the Salt Lake City metropolitan area,
which has a total population of 1,140,483 as of the 2013 estimate.Salt Lake City is further situated
in a larger urban area known as the Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem,UT Combined Statistical Area.This
region is a corridor of contiguous urban and suburban development stretched along an
approximate 120-mile segment of the Wasatch Front,comprising a total population of 2,389,225
as of 2013.
Given the nature of Utah's population concentration along the Wasatch Front,it is important that
Salt Lake City support regional planning and maintain relationships with Salt Lake County and the
other municipalities located in the county.Salt Lake City is a member of Utah's Pre-mitigation
planning for the Wasatch Region,comprised of five counties,Salt Lake,Summit,Tooele,Davis,and
Utah. The region representatives meet to coordinate activities and funding received from the
state through the State Homeland Security Program. Salt Lake City has participated in area Gap
Analysis and Threat Assessments,the Regional Resilience and Assessment Program(RRAP),and
was funded to develop a Local Energy Assurance Plan.Salt Lake City also became a part of the
Urban Area Security Initiative(UASI)in 2008 and again in 2014. The Urban Area Working Group
(UAWG)includes Salt Lake County with representatives from public safety agencies,volunteer
organizations and the state for regional all-hazards planning,mitigation,response and recovery.
1 .2 Purpose
The four purposes of this Plan are(1) to identify threats to the community,(2)to create mitigation
strategies to address those threats,(3)to develop long-term mitigation planning goals and
objectives,and(4) and to fulfill federal,state and local hazard mitigation planning obligations.
Mitigation actions,in particular,would serve to minimize conditions that have an undesirable
impact on our citizens,the economy,environment and the well-being of Salt Lake County and
surrounding municipalities.This Plan is intended to enhance the awareness for elected officials,
agencies and the public of these hazards and their associated threat to life and property.
1 .3 Scope
This Mitigation Plan is Salt Lake City's Annex to the stand alone mitigation plan for Salt Lake
County and replaces the Wasatch Front Regional Council Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Plan(WFRC-PDM).
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 827 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
The plan scope includes the following deliverables:
• Identification of hazards unique tothejurisdiction and not addressed in the master planning
document;
• Avulnerability analysis and an identification of risks,wheretheydifferfromthe general
planning area;
• Theformulationofmitigationgoalsresponsivetopublic input,and development of mitigation
actions complementarytothosegoals.Arangeofactionsmustbeidentifiedspecificallyfor
each jurisdiction;
• Demonstration that there has been a proactively offered opportunity for participation in
the planning process by all community stakeholders(examples of participation include
relevant involvement in an any planning process,attendance at meetings,contributing
research,data,other information,commenting on drafts of the plan);
• Documentation of an effectiveprocesstomaintainandimplementtheplan.
1 .4 Authority and Reference
Local
Salt Lake City Code Title 22 et al.Salt Lake City executives are responsible for carrying out plans
and policies.City government must be prepared to participate in the post-disaster hazard
mitigation team process and pre-mitigation planning as outlined in this document in order to
effectively protect their citizens.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 828 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
2 Community Profile
2. 1 Geography and Environment
Salt Lake City is located in the northeast corner of the Salt Lake Valley surrounded by the Great
Salt Lake to the northwest and the steep Wasatch and Oquirrh mountain ranges on the eastern
and south western borders,respectively.Its encircling mountains contain several narrow glacial
and stream carved canyons.Among them,City Creek,Emigration,Millcreek,and Parley's border
the eastern city limits.Salt Lake City has a total area of 110.4 mi2 and an average elevation of
4,327 feet above sea level.The lowest point within the boundaries of the city is 4,210 feet near
the Jordan River and the Great Salt Lake,and the highest is Grandview Peak,at 9,410 feet.
The Great Salt Lake is separated from Salt Lake City by extensive marshlands and mudflats.The
metabolic activities of bacteria in the lake result in a phenomenon known as"lake stink",a scent
reminiscent of foul poultry eggs,two to three times per year for a few hours.The Jordan River
flows through the city and is drainage of Utah Lake that empties into the Great Salt Lake.
The Salt Lake Valley floor is the ancient lakebed of Lake Bonneville,which existed at the end of the
last Ice Age.Several Lake Bonneville shorelines can be distinctly seen on the foothills or benches of
nearby mountains.
The climate of the Salt Lake City area is typically characterized as semi-arid.Under the Koppen
climate classification,Salt Lake City has a dry-summer continental climate(Dsa),a relatively rare
form of the continental climate where a region experiences dry summers and wet winters.The city
experiences four distinct seasons.Both summer and winter are long,with hot,dry summers and
cold,snowy winters.Spring is the wettest season,while summer is very dry.
The nearby Great Salt Lake is a significant contributor to precipitation in the city.The lake effect
can help enhance rain from summer thunderstorms and produces lake-effect snow approximately
6 to 8 times per year,some of which can drop excessive snowfalls.It is estimated that about 10%
of the annual precipitation in the city can be attributed to the lake effect.
Salt Lake City features large variations in temperatures between seasons.During summer,there
are an average of 56 days per year with temperatures of at least 90°F(32.2°C),23 days of at least
95°F(35°C),and 5 days of 100°F(37.8°C).However,average daytime July humidity is only 22%.
Winters are quite cold but rarely frigid.While there are an average of 127 days that drop to or
below freezing,and 26 days with high temperatures that fail to rise above freezing,the city only
averages 2.3 days at or below 0°F(-17.8 CC).The record high temperature is 107°F(42°C),which
occurred first on 26 July 1960 and again on 13 July 2002,while the record low is-30°F(-34°C),
which occurred on 9 February 1933.
During mid-winter,strong areas of high pressure often situate themselves over the Great Basin,
leading to strong temperature inversions.This causes air stagnation and thick smog in the valley
from several days to weeks at a time and can result in the worst air-pollution levels in the U.S.,
reducing air quality to unhealthy levels.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex
Page 829 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
2.1.1 Community Facts
The city was founded in 1847 by Brigham Young,Isaac Morley,George Washington Bradley and
several other Mormon followers,who extensively irrigated and cultivated the arid valley.
Immigration of international LDS members,mining booms,and the construction of the first
transcontinental railroad initially brought economic growth,and the city was nicknamed the
Crossroads of the West.It was traversed by the Lincoln Highway,the first transcontinental
highway,in 1913,and presently two major cross-country freeways,I-15 and 1-80,intersect in the
city.Salt Lake City has since developed a strong outdoor recreation tourist industry based primarily
on skiing,and hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics.It is the industrial banking center of the United
States.
2.1.2 Population and Demographics
Salt Lake City's population is predominantly White 75.1%and Hispanic 22.3%based on the2010
Census.It also consists of 2.7%African American,1.2%American Indian and Alaska Native,4.4%
Asian,2.0%Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,10.7%from other races and 3.7%of mixed
descent.
As of the census of 2010,there are 186,440 people(up from 181,743 in 2000),75,177 households,
and 57,543 families residing in the city.This amounts to 6.75%of Utah's population,18.11%of Salt
Lake County's population,and 16.58%of the new Salt Lake metropolitan population,The area
within the city limits covers 14.2%of Salt Lake County.Salt Lake City is more densely populated
than the surrounding metro area with a population density of 1,688.77/sq.mi(1,049.36/km2).
There are 80,724 housing units at an average density of 731.2 per square mile(454.35/km2).
The median age is 30 years.For every 100 females there are 102.6 males.For every 100 females
age 18 and over,there are 101.2 males.The median income for a household in the city is$36,944,
and the median income for a family is$45,140.Males have a median income of$31,511 versus
$26,403 for females.The per capita income for the city is$20,752.15.3%of the population and
10.4%of families are below the poverty line.Out of the total population,18.7%of those under the
age of 18 and 8.5%of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.Large family sizes and
low housing vacancy rates,which have inflated housing costs along the Wasatch Front,have led to
one out of every six residents living below the poverty line.
Salt Lake City is still home to the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(LDS Church)however less than 50%of Salt Lake City's residents are members of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.This is a much lower proportion than in Utah's more rural
municipalities;altogether,LDS members make up about 62%of Utah's population.
2.1.3 Data Sources and Limitations
Background information and data for this Plan was obtained from the sources listed below.From
these sources,the planning team extracted relevant information and data.That information and
data was subsequently submitted to the County Work Groups for their consideration and approval
for inclusion into the Plan.Relevant information gathered from these sources was compiled by the
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 830 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Working Groups and incorporated into this Plan.Based on the large amount of growth in
communities throughout the region,it was determined by the Working Group that the entire Plan
would be updated.
Sources for Background Information
• Census Profiles
• Federal Emergency Management Agency(How-to Guides)
• National Weather Service(hazard profile)
• National Climate Data Center(drought,severe weather)
• Utah Division of Emergency Management(Salt Lake City Mitigation Plan,GIS data,flood
data, HAZUS data for flood and earthquake)
• Utah Geologic Survey(GIS data,geologic information,various hazard reports)
• Utah Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands(fire data)
• Utah Avalanche Center,Snow and Avalanches,Annual Report 2006-2007 Forest Service
• Utah Department of Transportation(traffic data,avalanche?)
• Utah Automated Geographic Resource Center(GIS data)
• University of Utah Seismic Station(earthquake data)
• Utah State University(climate data)
• Councils or Government
• Association of Governments
• Utah Association of Special Districts
• State Office of Education
• Salt Lake County and municipalities(Emergency Operations Plans,histories,mitigation
actions,public input,data:GIS,assessor,transportation,property and infrastructure)
• Earthquake Safety in Utah
• Utah Natural Hazard Handbook 2008
• Utah Statewide Fire Risk Assessment Project
• A Strategic Plan for Earthquake Safety in Utah
• State of Utah Wildfire Plan 2007
• State of Utah Drought Plan 2007
• West Wide Wildfire Assessment 2013
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 831 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
3 Planning Process
3. 1 Update Process and Participation
Summary
The WFRC plan was reviewed to evaluate its strengths,weakness and utility. The hazards,
vulnerabilities and risks were reviewed and revised as to their impact,how hazards may affect the
population,and their severity. Updates also describe hazard impacts that have occurred since the
last plan revision. The planning team considered previously unidentified hazards to include in the
plan update. A capabilities assessment was conducted to identify potential mitigation needs and
to further align the mitigation plan with other community planning efforts. The revision process
also included a review of proposed mitigation goals,objectives and actions and to determine their
validity and how effective they have been/or will be at reducing vulnerability in the county. New
priorities have been set to support changes that were identified. The Mitigation Plan was also
evaluated to support the State Mitigation Plan goals and objectives,as well as other local planning
efforts. Finally,an implementation strategy and timeline will assign the responsibility and
schedule for tracking implementation of the identified mitigation actions. The Mitigation Plan will
be adopted through the normal legal process and will establish authority and guide all mitigation
activities outlined in the plan.
The plan utilized current county,city and applicable private hazard mitigation,emergency
operations plans,census data and available GIS and assessor's data as resources for the planning
team. Salt Lake City Emergency Management staff,mitigation planning team members,county,
and applicable emergency managers/planners,subject matter experts,recruits from other
jurisdictions such as other local government units,private sector,non-governmental,academia,
airports,military,and the public were also consulted during this planning activity.
3.2 The Planning Team - Acknowledgements
Salt Lake City Emergency Management would like to acknowledge the following individuals and
agencies for their dedication and valuable contribution to this document.
Salt lake City Emergency Management
Cory Lyman,
Eric Witt,
Audrey Pierce
Internal Stakeholders
Wes lng,SLC Public Utilities
Martha Ellis,Fire Marshal
Brain Gourdie,SLC Public Services
Brandon Fleming,Parks Operations
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 832 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Tim Doubt,SLC Police
Debbie Lyons,SLC Sustainability
Pat Peterson,SLC Engineering
Terry Craven,SLC Airport
David Wharff,SLC Fire
Kevin Bell,SLC IMS/GIS
Laura Briefer,SLC Public Utilities
External Stakeholders
Amy Shingleton,Rocky Mountain Power
Robert Neilson,Questar
Laird Severinsen,Century Link
Jan Buttrey,UT Hospital Association
Hugh Johnson,RMA—Archives
Carlton Christensen,SLCo Regional Development
Clint Mecham,SLCo EM-UFA
Jackie Nichol!,SLCo Emergency Services
Jeff Graviet,SLCo Emergency Services
John Leonard,Utah Dept of Transportation
Richard Boddy,Utah Transit Authority
Mark Lemery,Utah SAIC
Reed Scharman,West Jordan Fire Dept
Jon Harris,Murray City Fire
Wade Watkins,SLCo-UFA
John Evans,West Valley City Fire
Jerrianne Kolby,Utah Dept Emergency Management
Marty Shuab,University of Utah
Jalae Thompson,Red Cross
Chris Crnich,UT Dept of Agriculture
Cynthia Morgan,SL Valley Health Dept
Bob Jeppessen,SL Valley Health Dept
Terry Begay,St Valley Health Dept
Mindy Coiling,UT Dept of Health
Leon Berrett,SLCo Public Works
Mike Barrett,SLCo EMergency Services
3.3 Meetings and Documentation
Year Date Activity Purpose
2012 September Utah Division of Emergency
Management designates Salt Lake
County Emergency Management"Unified
Fire Authority as sub-grantees of the
state to revise the Pre Disaster Mitigation
Plan.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 833 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Memorandum of Understanding TAn MOU was signed by participating
jurisdictions committing to participate in
Ithe planning process.
September- •Phone conferences with UDEM and Identified planning team and available
October FEMA Region VIII to discuss the resources.
planning process.Risk MAP.
November 7 RiskMAP Discovery.Mitigation Kickoff Kick off to introduce RiskMAP and
Mitigation projects to reduce risk from
natural hazards and increase disaster
resiliency in the Jordan River
Watershed/Salt Lake County
November- Identifying Planning Team Members Establish a contact person from each
December jurisdiction to participate in the planning
process.
December Meeting with Salt Lake County
Emergency Services to discuss
cooperation with other county agencies
and participation in mitigation planning
process.
2013 January-May Gather information. Data collection.
January 22 Mitigation Planning Team Meeting Introduce project scope,identified team
responsibilities,key terminology,
requirements of the planning process,
timeline.
February 11 Mitigation Planning Team Meeting Review of hazard maps for earthquake.
landslide,and dam failure. Worksheets
to gather information of areas of
concern- Subject matter experts
available to answer questions.
February 27 Sandy City BCDM(Business Continuity Outreach effort,presentation/overview
Development Meeting) of mitigation plan to Sandy City
business partners and emergency
managers
March 7 Salt Lake County Council of Outreach presentation to elected officials
Government(COG) to give overview of mitigation planning
project.
March 11 Mitigation Planning Team Meeting Discussion with subject matter experts
on severe weather and wildfire.
April 8 Mitigation Planning Team Meeting Presentation on pandemic flu and wildfire
public education_programs.
May 16 Mitigation Planning Team,Risk MAP Presentation of flood and earthquake risk
joint meeting analysis front FEMA Region VIII,
presentation from IJDEM regarding
community Risk MAP meetins to be held
over summer,Mitigation team given
Capabilities Assessment worksheets and
hazard matrix.
June-Aug Community Risk MAP meetings and Risk MAP representatives met with
stark on worksheets individual communities to discuss flood
study needs and areas of concern.
Sept II Mitigation Team Meeting f Recap oh Capabilities Assessment,preparing
for next stages of plan.
Oct 21 Salt Lake County Emergency Manager's Planner reported on mitigation plan progress
meeting to emergency managers- Encouraged
completion of capabilities assessment
worksheets.Provided copy of 2009
mitigation strategies to review and comment
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 834 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
on progress.
Oct-Nor Risk Assessment Draft and mitigation Planner reviewed and summarized
strategies preparation Capabilities Assessment and Hazard
worksheets.Continued Revising Risk
Assessment. Summarized responses to 2009
Strategies Review.
Nov.19 Mitigation Planning Team Meeting— Brainstorming meeting to begin identifying
Mitigation Strategies Part II possible mitigation strategies. Hazards
discussed were flood.wildfire,earthquake.
and avalanche.Rough draft of Risk
Assessment made available.
Nov.20 Planner meeting with SHMO regarding Discussed timeline and planning progress
plan progress
December Reviewed mitigation strategies. Planner compiled notes horn mitigation
strategies brainstorm meeting and
2014 Jan 14 Mitigation Planning Team Meeting— Brainstorming meeting to begin identifying
Mitigation Strategies Part II possible mitigation strategies. Hazards
discussed were earthquake,pandemic,dams
and canals,and drought.
Feb-Mar Mitigation strategies draft,update Planner compiled notes from mitigation
wildfire risk assessment. strategies brainstorm sessions,continued
revision of Risk Assessment as new data
became available for Wildfire.
Apr-June Mitigation Strategies review Create timeline to meet Grant
requirements.Complete all elements of
June Review Best Practices SOG for Find a better system for Mitigation
Mitigation planning. Permission to use
Pennsvlvania's Mitigation SOD
July 1 Review Progress with EM staff Prepare Plan for submission to State and
FEM review boards
July 14 Mitigation Planning Team Prioritization Planning Team reviews final mitigation
Workshop strategies to assign responsibility,
estimate costs and define nrinrity
Revision of remaining Plan sections. For review.
Public comment period. Draft placed on UFA'SLCOEM website
for public involvement
Prepare plan Crosswalk
Submitted Plan to Utah DHLS for initial State and federal review.
State review and FEMA conditional
review.
Continued Plan revision. Final Plan proofreading,mitigation
strategy updates.Addition of Special
mice nisi-riot data
Submit Plan to Utah DHLS for final ate review.
State review.
Plan forwarded to FEMA for final Federal review may take up to 45 days,
approval. Appendix
Local Jurisdiction Plan Adoption
Planning Process Timeline
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 835 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
3.4 Public Stakeholder Participation
To ensure the public and their officials were supportive of the Plan,the SLCEM Mitigation Planner
presented at the Salt Lake County Council of Governments meeting in March 2013. Salt Lake City's
Chief Executive was present at this meeting..The draft of this annex is posted on Salt Lake City's
Emergency Management webpage for review and public input.
Getting Started
Salt Lake City has participated in the County multi-jurisdictional planning committee based on the
Memorandum of Understanding to create a standalone mitigation plan that will meet the 44CFR
201.6 planning requirements and will result in a FEMA approved mitigation plan since 2012.
Jordan River Watershed RiskMAP Collaboration
FEMA Region VIII and the Utah Division of Emergency Management initiated a project to identify
flood mapping and risk analysis needs in the Jordan River watershed near the same time as the
Salt Lake County Mitigation planning project. The flood risk project and mitigation planning
project shared the same planning area,and many common objectives.This presented a unique
opportunity to share resources,integrate programs,and implement a more comprehensive
approach to risk reduction for Salt Lake City Officials since water resources have
interdependencies across the valley.
Objectives of the RiskMap project included:
• Assist communities to identify,assess,communicate,and mitigate risk
• Document flood risk issues and floodplain mapping needs within the Jordan River
watershed which could potentially initiate a new mapping project in a future year
• Develop non-regulatory flood risk data,analysis,and mapping based on local needs and
priorities
• Identify areas of mitigation interest for Salt Lake County,Salt Lake City,local communities
and special districts
• Build capabilities of local jurisdictions to create and use risk analysis data,identify
mitigation actions,and access resources for implementing projects
• Incorporate a multi-hazard approach into the Risk MAP project by working with local staff
and jurisdictions on analyzing and integrating impacts of wildfire,earthquake,and other
major hazards in the planning area
• Provide technical assistance as needed to help support a comprehensive and inclusive
mitigation planning process and the development of an effective,high quality plan.FEMA
planning and GIS Staff provided technical assistance through risk assessment data,analysis
and mapping,training to local staff,meeting facilitation,and guidance on meeting federal
regulations for plan approval.
Collaboration between the Risk MAP team,County,and Salt Lake City mitigation planning team
improved coordination and partnerships between local,state and regional staff used stakeholder
time more efficiently by combining meetings and improved the quality of risk analysis by sharing
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 836 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
data and technical expertise. This also improved the plan review and approval process through
early and consistent involvement and guidance on regulations from FEMA.
Data Review and Acquisition
The 2009 WFRC PDM Plan was reviewed by the Planning Team to evaluate which portions of the
plan required updating and revision. Contact was made with the GIS technician and/or planning
commission staff in cities and county departments to assess available data.Mapping data layers
obtained included some or all of the following:local roads,plot maps,county tax assessor's data,
hazard data,flood maps,topographic data,aerial photographs and land development data.The
Planning Team evaluated revised data and maps,and through a consensus process developed the
revised mitigation strategies based on current data.
Vulnerability Assessment
This step was conducted through a review of local hazard maps,topographical maps,floodplain
maps,and Utah Geological Survey(UGS)maps,Automated Geographic Reference Center(AGRC)
data,FEMA hazard maps and climate maps from the National Climatic Data Center(NCDC).
Assessor data was used to estimate the number of structures and their value that could potentially
be affected by hazards. Census 2010 data were used to estimate the number of residents and
households that could be affected by hazards. A detailed vulnerability assessment was completed
with the use of GIS software.The FEMA modeling program Hazards United States—Multi-Hazards
(HAZUS-MH)was used to determine earthquake and flood vulnerability. In summary,loss
estimation methodology was developed by the core planning team,with assistance from the
technical team,to determine vulnerability from each identified hazard. Vulnerability and Risk
Analysis(VRA)provides stakeholders with a guide to understanding the impacts that are
associated with major deficiencies,disruptions,and response processes. In practical terms,VRA
analysis provides insight into the following questions:
1. What are the City's specific vulnerabilities?
2. What are the potential consequences of disruptions in particular critical assets?
3. What are the most relevant event-driven vulnerabilities?
Capabilities Assessment
Salt Lake City completed the Capabilities Assessment Worksheet and Hazard Identification Matrix
with city planners,economic development,building and zoning officials,engineers,floodplain
administrators,GIS Analyst or others as appropriate. It encouraged them to review existing plans,
studies,reports or other technical information. The worksheets were also intended to help
recognize established goals as well as identify known hazards or problem areas that could
potentially be addressed by implementing mitigation actions. The Hazard Identification Matrix
allowed them to identify which hazards present the greatest threat to Salt Lake City.
Mitigation Strategy Development
Developing the mitigation strategies was a process in which all of the previous steps were taken
into account.Each participating jurisdiction evaluated,identified and profiled the hazards,and
vulnerability assessment completed by SLCOEM.The strategies from the 2009 WFRC plan were
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan AnnexJ
Page 837 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
reviewed to identify which projects had been completed,which were ongoing,and whether others
should be carried over into the current plan. The planning team met several times to brainstorm
additional strategies and improve upon the existing strategies. Each mitigation strategy developed
was evaluated to determine that actions met the objectives stated in Section D(page 10)of the
Introduction.
Prioritization of Identified Mitigation Strategies
DMA 2000 requires state,tribal,and local governments to show how mitigation actions were
evaluated and prioritized.The Planning Team determined which strategies were highest priority,
which jurisdiction was responsible,and evaluated to ensure best action to take given limited
budgets allocated to hazard mitigation efforts at the local level.The prioritization process was
completed by the Planning Team over a series of planning meetings(workshops).Each action was
assigned a responsible party,an anticipated cost,and a timeline.Prioritization was accomplished
using the STAPLEE method as explained in the FEMA How to Guide,Document 386-3.This process
resulted in each Mitigation Strategy given a High,Medium or Low priority by the local planning
teams.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 838 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
4 Risk Assessment
4. 1 Update Process Summary
Risk Assessment Review
Salt Lake City has meet with stakeholders from multiple disciplines public and private sector to
identify the risk.Including but not limited to involvement with the following projects that focused
on risk to the area:Regional Resilience Assessment Program(RRAP),Local Energy Assurance
Planning(LEAP),and the Salt Lake County HMP2013-Flood and Earthquake Risk Assessment.
4.2 Hazard Identification
4.2.1 Table of Presidential Disaster Declarations
Salt Lake City Presidential disaster declarations related to flooding in 1983 and 1984.Following
these events of an enormous amount of mitigation was completed in Salt Lake City along the
urban areas of the Wasatch Front. The State of Utah constructed a county flood control project in
which pumps were installed on the Great Salt Lake to pump excess water into the west desert.Salt
Lake City benefited from the pump project and the following upgrades:an advanced water-
monitoring network of stream gauges,SNOTEL sites,and automated stream flow gates give
warning of elevated flows.
4.2.2 Summary of Hazards
Each of the hazards that can affect Salt Lake City,and the potential impacts,will be described in
this section,known as a Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment or HIRA.
Hazard Description:These are general descriptions of the causes and characteristics of each hazard
to give a general understanding of each hazard and why,when and how the hazards occur.
Hazard Profile: This section describes the potential impact of each identified hazard,including its:
• Severity or magnitude(as it relates to the percentage of the jurisdiction that can be
affected)
• Probability:likelihood that the hazard will occur
• Conditions that make the area prone to the hazard,including seasonal patterns
• Hazard history
• Geographic location or extent-maps
The hazards were profiled based on historical evidence,local input,emergency operations plans,
scientific reports,scenario based models,county master or general plans,hazard analysis plans,
and historical evidence.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 839 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
A hazard profile table was created for each hazard,which highlights the above mentioned
characteristics. Hazard magnitude is based on the anticipated level of damage on a city-wide basis
described on a scale of Catastrophic to Negligible. The probability of a hazard event was
determined through the amount of risk to the county. Probability was identified by four
categories: Highly Likely,Likely,Possible,and Unlikely.
Vulnerability Analysis: The vulnerability analysis is based on asset identification and potential loss
estimates for located within identified hazard areas.For each hazard,a risk assessment was
conducted.The vulnerability analysis summarizes the results of the risk assessment and describes
the potential impacts of each hazard. This includes a description of exposure to the hazard for
each jurisdiction and the potential losses based on scenario models or historical occurrences.
Asset Identificati0n: The vulnerability analysis combines the data from each of the hazard profiles
and merges it with community asset information to analyze and quantify potential damages from
future hazard events. The asset inventory identifies critical facilities and infrastructure that can be
damaged or affected by hazard events. Critical facilities are of particular concern because of the
essential services and products they provide to the general public. These critical facilities may
fulfill important public safety,emergency response,and/or disaster recovery functions. The
facilities identified in this plan include hospitals,police and fire stations,schools,communication
facilities,utility companies,water and wastewater treatment plants.In order to assess where and
to what extent the identified hazards will affect the assets of each jurisdiction,the locations of
these assets were identified and overlaid with the mapped hazards using GIS software. Additional
community assets considered were assets of historical or economic significance,vulnerable
populations,or natural resources.
Potential Loss Estimates: Potential dollar loss estimates were identified using the same method as
the asset identification and were completed for existing infrastructure only. When data
permitted,structure,content,and function of the identified vulnerable infrastructure was
incorporated into the vulnerability assessments. Describing the vulnerability in terms of dollar
losses provides the community and state with a common framework in which to measure the
effects of hazards on assets.
The estimated potential losses for the identified hazards using the methodology explained in the
FEMA document titled"Understanding Your Risks:Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses",
along with Utah Division of Emergency Management historical data and GIS data.
The information sources used to complete the vulnerability assessment portion of this plan
include;Utah DEM,county and city GIS departments,Salt Lake County Assessor's Office,Salt Lake
County Planning and Development,FEMA Region VIII RiskMAP and HAZUS-MH data,and the Utah
Automated Geographic Reference Center(AGRC). This data was compiled into GIS layers that
were used as overlays to identify critical facilities,municipalities,roads,and residents. The assets
that have been identified are based on the best available data during the development of this
plan.
The HIRA was initiated through a series of meetings with the Core Planning Team and subject
matter experts from the following organizations:
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 840 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
• City and county agencies
• Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
• Salt Lake City Public Utilities
• Utah Geological Survey
• National Weather Service
• Utah Division of Water Rights
• Utah Forestry,Fire,and State Lands
• Unified Fire Authority
• Salt Lake Valley Health Department
The Planning Team identified the hazards in Table 4 as having the potential to affecting all or a
portion of Salt Lake County,based on history of occurrences and/or future probability. Each of
these was carried over from the 2009 WFRC Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan,with the addition of
Avalanche and Flu Epidemic.
The HIRA process was aided through the use of FEMA How-to Guidance Documents,FEMA Local
Mitigation Planning Handbook,Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide,the Utah State Hazard
Mitigation Plan,Utah Natural Hazards Handbook 2008,FEMA 386-1,2,3,7,Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000,44 CFR Parts 201 and 206,Interim Final Rule,and FEMA Region VIII Crosswalk. The risk
assessment process also utilized assistance from local GIS departments using the best available
data.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 841 of 1430
Salt
Hazard Hnvx Identified Why I dentifedC City, Utah
--- •Rey iew rl Corals rent Iniergency Operations Plans • t Ian has a 1 5 chance of experiencing a large mall within the nest fifty
•Rey Fa of pa-t disaster declarations nears.
• Input from City and County I mergency Oerations • Numerous faults throughout I.'tali including the Intermountain Seismic/ot•
Earthquake Managers I'S(IS.I('1.I bah IIFM.and community • Yearly.I tdh aa erves lsppmsintatets 13 earthquakes having a magnitude"
I lich members greater.
• Farthquak s can create fire flooding_hazardous materials incident_transportation.
and communication limitations.
• The Wetsatch Front has recorded large earthquakes in the past and can he expected
to experience large earthquakes in the future.
•Reviess of past disaster declarations • SeveralincidenLshavecausedseveredamageandlossoflife-
•Inputfrorn uty and County emergency Operations • Mans of the rivers and streams are located near neighborhoods.
Flood Manager,lads DWS.t(aS.Utah Amo Corps of • Many neighborhoods are located on fhmdplains alluvial fans.
Leer Engineer,Utah DI:M.and comrnonit members • l typography and climate lead to cloudburst storms and heavy precipitation can
•Review of Flood Insurance Studies 1-loodplain maps and result in Flash flooding throughout most of the Wasatch Front.
FIRMS
•Review or Count Emergency Operations Plans • Serious threat to life and property
•Review ofCommunity Wildfire Plans • Much of county is at risk
W ildland Fire •Input norm County Emergency Managers Utah Di At • Increasing threat due to urban growth in Wl`I areas.
High Utah FFST Utah ES.NWS_I IMA.turd local • Secondary threat associated with Flooding.drought.and earthquake.
community members • Additional funding and resources offered by local and state agencies to rcluce risk
• l o increase community awareness.
•Input from City and County Emergency Operations • Have caused damage in the past to residential and commercial infrastructure.
Managers.IISGS.UGS.NCDC.that 1)EM,and • Can be life threatening.
Slope Failure community members
Low • Genereflc occur in known historic locations therefore risks exist through-
out much of the Wasatch Front
• To increase community awareness.
• Review of County Emergency Operations Plans •Darnaoe to communities homes-infrastructure.roads ski area.and people
• Rex iew of past disaster declarations •Can cause proper damage and loss of life.
Severe Weather • Input thom City and County Emergency Operations •Results in economic loss
Mod Managers.Ltah Avalanche-Forecast Center-Ulah •Lightning is number one cause of natural hazard death in Umh_
Department of Transportation-and community •Can txr costly to recover from.
members •Affects the young and old more severely.
•Res iew ofCounty Emergency Operations Plans • Can cause serious damage to bile and property and have subsequent effects such a
•Input from community members.Utah DWS.Dam flooding.fire.deans flora.etc..
Safety Section.Utah DI:M • Man reservoirs located in the county.
Dam Failure •Review of inundation maps • llareat to downhill communities.
Low
• Subsxtuent eflxLs include tfooding_fire.and debris floaas.
• To increase community awareness.
• To incorporate mitigation measures into existing plans to help sere local residents
• Review of Utah State Water Plan •Affects local economy and residents.
• Input from community members.I tab DHLS.IWS. •Reduces available water in reservoirs impacting culinary.irrigation.and
NC( and NCDC municipal water supplies.
Drought •Drought periods may extend several years.
Mod •Secondary e y threat associated with svildlir
•Utah is the nations second driest state.
•Can impact farming and ranching operations.
•Neighboring communities has e been affected tar culinary and irrigation water
shortages
Table Local Hazards Identification
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 842 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
4.3 Hazard Profiles
4.3.1 Hazard 1-Earthquake
4.3.1.1 Location and Extent
The Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch fault lies within the Intermountain Seismic Belt(ISB),
which extends 800 miles from Montana to Nevada and Arizona,and trends from north to south
through the center of Utah(The Wasatch Fault,UGS PIS 40). The ISB contains the Wasatch fault;
one of the longest and most active normal faults in the world,with a potential for earthquake with
a magnitude up to 7.5. The largest earthquakes in Utah occur in the ISB,where at least 35
earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have occurred since 1850.(UNHH 2008)
The Wasatch Fault traces along the base of the Wasatch mountain range. It is made up of 10
segments that act independently,meaning that a part of the fault ruptures separately as a unit
during an earthquake.The Salt Lake City Segment traverses Salt Lake County from north to south,
roughly along the eastern foothills of the Wasatch Mountains. Within the Salt Lake City segment
of the Wasatch Fault are three smaller segments from north to south known as Warm Springs
Fault,Virginia Street Fault and the East Bench Fault. Earthquakes originating in any of the five
Wasatch faults pose a direct threat to Salt Lake City.
I J4.
_ 2s
4
r +,
11
i++ IE Salt l
Lake
7
1
71
Image of Fault Segments in Salt Lake City
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 843 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
;;
Name Fault 'Length' Time of Most Recurrence
Tv a km Recent Deformation Interval
Last Great Salt Lake fault zone. 1 Normal 35 586+201/-241 cal yr 4.200 years
Antelope Island section B.P.
Wasatch fault zone.Salt Lake Normal 43 1.300±650 cal yr B.P. 1.300 years
segment
West Valley fault zone.Granger Normal 16 1.500±200 cal yr B.P. 2.600-6.500
segmentyears
West Valley fault zone.Taylorsville Normal 15 2.200±200 cal yr H.P.j 6,000-a2s,000
y
Table.Quaternary faults,Salt Lake County(UGS 2002,UG5 2006)cal.Yr.B.P.=calendar years before present
4.3.1.2 Range of Magnitude
Utah experiences approximately 700 earthquakes each year,and approximately six of those have a
magnitude 3.0 or greater.On average,a moderate,potentially damaging earthquake(magnitude
5.5 to 6.5)occurs every 10 years.Large earthquakes(magnitude 6.5-7.5)occur on average every
50 years(UNHH 2008). The history of seismic activity in Utah and along the Wasatch Front
suggests that it is not a matter of"if'but"when"an earthquake will occur. The probability of a
large earthquake occurring along the central segments of the Wasatch Front is 13 percent in 50
years,or 25 percent in 100 years. (The Wasatch Fault,UGS PIS 40)
Earthquake Hazard Profile
X'Cata3trophic1 w Highlyi:ikety+:y4'• "'.
Critical(25-50%) Probabilit X Likely
Potential Magnitude o
Limited(10-25/o) y Possible
Negligible(<10%) Unlikely
Location Fault Activity within the Wasatch area magnitude 5.0 or greater
poses a direct threat to Salt Lake City.
Seasonal Pattern None.
Liquefaction potential within areas with shallow ground water.Soil
Conditions that is comprised of old lakebed sediments.historic movement along
faults.Intermountain Seismic Zone,Wasatch Fault.
Duration Actual ground shaking will be under one minute,aftershocks can
occur for weeks or even months.
Fire,landslide,rock falls,avalanche,flooding,hazardous material
Secondary Hazards release,transportation and infrastructure disruptions,essential service
disruptions(communications,utilities).
Review of hazard analysis plans and other information provided by the
Analysis Used University of Utah Seismograph Station.UGS,USGS,FEMA,
UDEM,AGRC.
4.3.1.3 Past Occurrence
Although no surface-faulting earthquakes have occurred on the Wasatch fault since settlement in
Salt Lake,evidence of numerous prehistoric events exists in the geologic record(The Wasatch
Fault,UGS PIS 40) The segments between Brigham City and Nephi have a composite recurrence
interval(average time between earthquake events)for large surface-faulting earthquakes
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 844 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
(magnitude 7.0-7.5)of 300-400 years. The average repeat time on an individual segment is 1,200-
2,600 years. The most recent surface-faulting earthquakes occurred about 500 years ago on the
Provo and Weber segments,and about 350 years ago on the Nephi segment. (UNHH 2008)
P,,,v 1000 - 2000. 3ItP 4000 601 1101116n A:
I III
6risanmepham f •1 ..-.
•
Vida• n
wenor 2.1- �iwC:.' -
•
senmem
\sale take Cfes -F _: .
segment i v.
L
Pem• Provo '
sepmene .-.,
I -,..
s eeunr
pme,e
s Lpment �'
1 I I I I
Preunl 1000 ' 2000 300E 1000 . 6000Yuna„
Table Wasatch Fault Segments and Timeline of Major Ruptures
("The Wasatch Fault",Utah Geological Survey Public Information Series 40)
Significant earthquakes have occurred in Salt Lake County within the last 50 years.In 1962,a 5.2
Richter magnitude quake jolted the Magna area.In 1992,a magnitude 4.2 quake shook the
southern portion of the County.
Liquefaction is one of the secondary hazards associated with an earthquake and affects nearly all
of Salt City.The City is located atop the ancient Lake Bonneville lakebed,which is made up of
unconsolidated sandy soils.Much of the valley is also subject to shallow ground water and a
relatively high earthquake threat.
4.3.1.3 Future Occurrence
Other faults within Salt Lake County include the West Valley Fault Zone and the East Great Salt
Lake Fault Zone.Each of these fault zones has much longer return interval(2,500 years or more)
and is not expected to produce a major quake in the near future.
4.3.1.4 Potential Loss Estimates
Building Damage
HAZUS-MH classifies building damage into five states:none,slight,moderate,extensive and
complete.Table 11 lists the number of buildings by occupancy estimated to sustain moderate to
complete levels of damage during an arbitrarily-determined Richter magnitude 5.9(M5.9)
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 845 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
earthquake scenarios or a probabilistic Richter magnitude 7.1(M7.1)earthquake scenario.Also
listed are the estimated monetary losses to structures,contents/inventory,and income.
Models show Salt Lake City will have$12,249,473,845 of total building economic loss and
7,966,834 tons of debris.As a result of our$32,341 unreinforced masonry buildings 35,786
households will be displaced,21,629 individuals seeking public shelter,13,698 casualties and 1,397
life threatening injuries and fatalities.
Number of
Structures with> Estimated Losses
Category 50%Damage _ Category
Salt 2500-yr Salt Lake 2500-yr
Lake M7.1 M5.9 M7.1
M5.9
Residential 30,342 157,705 Structural Losses $519,320,000 $3,419,030,470
Commercial 1,896 5,199 Non-Structural $1818,647,000 $12,331,504,070
Losses
Industrial 495 1,367 Content Losses $719,709,000 $4,114.455.740
Government 167 475 Inventory Losses $29,216,000 S175,756,410
Education 51 159 Income and $623.140.000 $3 263,449,580
Relocation Losses
Totals 32,951 164,905 Totals S3,710,032,000 S23,304,196,270
Table.Building Damage Counts and Estimated Losses using HAZUS MH
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 846 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
1
® ® ' —
L - `It i y, _I-
..,
L • f `' 40
.r
� 046t�07
li
Building Damage Estimates:Red 70-100%,Yellow 30-70%,Green 5-30%
Transportation and Utilities Damage
Damages to transportation and utility infrastructure are in illustrated below. Infrastructure
sustaining moderate or worse damage and estimated monetary losses are both shown.
At Least Moderate Damage
>50% Estimated Losses
Category Total Salt Lake Salt Lake 2500-yr
M5.9 2500-yr M7.1 M5.9 M7.1
Waste Water Facilities 5 2 4 $44,008,000 $146,243,0
00
Waste Water Pipelines 3.975 637 14,005 i $2 294,000 $50,416,00
km leaks/breaks leaks/breaks 0
Potable Water 6,625 805 17,706 $63,744,00
Pipelines km leaks/breaks leaks/breaks $2,900,000 0
Natural Gas Pipelines 2,650 681 14,970 $2,452,000 $53,893'00
km leaks/breaks leaks/breaks 0
Electrical Power $343,874,0
Facilities 7 3 7 $92,024,000 00
Communication 42 9 34 $242,000 $1,478,000
Facilities
Highway Bridges 698 126 496 $81,646,000 $468,944,0
00
Railway Bridges 17 0 8 $9,000 $358,000
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 847 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Railway Facilities 1 6 0 6 $3,494,000 $7,525.000
Bus Facilities 2 0 2 $490.000 $1.157.000
Airport Facilities 3 1 0 3 $2,675.000 S7,450.000
Total Losses $232,234,00 $1.145,082.
0 000
Table.Damage to Transportation and Utilities
Debris Removal
Table below shows how much debris would be generated by the earthquake and how many loads
it would take to remove the debris,based on 25 tons per load.One truck can likely haul one load
per hour.A second debris removal issue is landfill space.Fifty thousand tons at a weight-to-
volume ratio of one ton per cubic yard would cover more than ten acres to a depth of three feet.
Category Salt Lake M5.9 2500-yr M7.1
Brick,Wood&Others 581,000 tons/23,240 loads 3,356,000 tons/134,240
loads
Concrete&Steel 1,195,000 tons/47,800 7,678,000 tons/307,120
loads loads
Table.Debris Generated/Number of Loads
Fires Following an Earthquake
Multiple ignitions and broken water mains following an earthquake can make firefighting nearly
impossible.HAZUS-MH uses estimated building damages,loss of transportation infrastructure and
estimated winds to calculate the estimated area that would be burned following an earthquake.
Number of Structures
Category
Salt Lake M5.9 2500-yr M7.1
Ignitions 49 80
Persons Exposed 806 2.116
Value Exposed $50,232,000 $120,188,000
Table 14.Fire Following Event,Population Exposed,and Building Stock Exposed
Casualties
Table below estimates casualties likely to occur during each earthquake scenario.The nighttime
scenario(2 a.m.local time)assumes a primarily residential concentration of persons,the daytime
scenario(2 p.m.local time)a commercial concentration,and the commute scenario(5 pm.local
time)a concentration of persons on commuting routes.Categories of casualties include those not
requiring hospitalization(minor),those requiring treatment at a medical facility(major),and
fatalities.
Night I Salt 2500-yr Day Salt 2500-yr Commut Salt 2500-yr
Event Lake M7.1 i Event Lake M7.1 l c Lake , M7.1
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex i
Page 848 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
M5.9 1 M5.9 Event M5.9
Minor 1.024 J 10,4751 Minor 1.883 17.110 Minor 1,432 �) 13.442
Major 219 3.224 1 Major 502 6.192 Major 369 4.688
Fatalities j 44 758 Fatalities 122 1.742 Fatalities 87 1,258
Table.Casualties
4.3.1.5 Mitigation Strategy
Goal 1—Reduce earthquakes losses to infrastructure
Objective 1.1[Priority HIGH]:Encourage retrofit and rehabilitation of highly susceptible
infrastructure
Action 1:Identify structures at risk to earthquake damage through HAZUS data and building
inspections.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 2:Research feasibility of an incentive program for retrofitting privately-owned buildings,
particularly unreinforced masonry.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 3:Complete seismic rehabilitation/retrofitting projects of public buildings at risk.For
example the City and County building has undergone seismic retrofitting and then new Public
Safety Building was constructed to withstand 7.5 earthquake
Time Frame:complete
Objective 1.2(Priority MEDIUM]:Improve public education regarding earthquake risks to
unreinforced masonry buildings
Action 1:Provide educational materials to unreinforced masonry home and business owners.
Particularly marketing Fix the Bricks Program to educate home and business owners about
masonry reinforcement.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
4.3.2 Hazard 2-Flooding
Although located in a semi-arid region,Salt Lake City is subject to flash flooding due to heavy
rainfall and rapid snowmelt.The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)has rated
floodplains along the Jordan River and its tributaries for expected flood heights and areas
susceptible to 100-year flood-frequency inundation.Significant flood mitigation measures were
implemented following the major floods of 1983-84 that greatly reduced the flood threat to Salt
Lake City.Of the many causes for flooding Salt Lake City's most likely event is from Post-fire debris
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex I
Page 849 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
flow flooding. Enhanced runoff conditions from a fire-damaged watershed can result in debris
flow flooding. As fires burn,they destroy vegetation and leave soils in a hydrophobic state,
resulting in greater peak flows.
4.3.2.1 Location and Extent
The Jordan River's four major northern tributaries(City,Red Butte,Emigration and Parley's Creeks)
are diverted into storm sewers beneath the city.These storm sewers have sufficient capacity to
handle the excessive runoff,but must be continually maintained to prevent debris from
accumulating.Public works agencies have built debris basins,installed stream-bank protection,
and regularly dredge stream channels to reduce flood hazards. Parley's Creek has flood storage
capacity at Mountain Dell and Little Dell Reservoirs and is routed through a retention basin in
Sugarhouse Park.Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks and have a number of smaller flood storage
lakes and ponds providing some flood protection,such as Wheeler Historic Farm.In Salt Lake City,
Emigration Creek and Red Butte Creek come together at 700 East and 1300 South and can be
discharged in or bypass Liberty Park pond.Parley's Creek discharges to the 1300 South drain at
State Street.
Areas to monitor include 13th South between 700 East and State Street,7th West and North
Temple Streets.Retention ponds are also used to store runoff from commercial and residential
development areas.
LA
du,i
Salt
LaLe
('itv Ifni„r�lt,
ltah
q „n
l.e^r I. ',t LSO I 'l li p
al,dun ma
LIUb 2,
l\etil _ on
Valley Rlu,
Fitt
4.3.2.2 Range of Magnitude
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 850 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Flooding Hazard Profile
ptrasti oph�c � �p�
Potential Magnitude Critical(25-50%) Probability Likely
X Limited(10-25/o) X Possible
Negligible(<10%) Unlikely
Location Fire damaged areas where soil is in hydrophobic
Seasonal Conditions Spring.heavy rainfall,and spring snowmelt runoff.
Conditions Thunderstorms w/heavy rainfall.extended wet periods.
Duration Flooding can last anywhere from hours to days and even months.
Secondary Hazards Raw sewage/health risk-electrical fires.gas spills.
Analysis Used Review of FIS.FIRM.Army Corp of Engineers Flood Study.
4.3.2.3 Past Occurrence
History: The following flood events are of notable significance:
2011-Large snowpack meant larger resulting spring runoff flows
2010-Spring snowmelt combined with heavy rains caused several streams to overtop
their banks
1987—Great Salt Lake reached its all-time maximum water level(4211.6 feet)
1983-Large snowpack was coupled with a rain-on-snow event,(City Creek diverted down
State Street)
1983/1984-Large snowpack overwhelmed Utah Lake and affected Jordan River
downstream
1952-Rapid melt of a large snowpack
Salt Lake City implemented mitigation efforts post 1983-84 floods and subsequently there are no
repetitive loss claims due to flooding identified under NFIP.
The City's Community Development Director oversees enforcement of floodplain management
requirements adopted by the City,including regulating new construction in Special Flood Hazard
Areas(SFHAs);Floodplain identification and mapping,including any local requests for map
updates;description of community assistance and monitoring activities.
4.3.2.4 Vulnerability Assessment
A community assessment exercise was performed at the Risk MAP Discovery Meeting and at
several community follow-up meetings. Community representatives worked together to gain a
comprehensive understanding of previous flooding events and areas of concern(including future
development areas),existing community studies that can be leveraged as part of the Risk MAP
project,and the status of flooding mitigation actions from the Wasatch Front Regional Council
Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Pan. The assessment exercise also helped to identify
vulnerable community assets including critical facilities,socially vulnerable populations,and areas
of mitigation interest. The participants identified and prioritized several future flood study needs.
A number of potential mitigation actions were identified and will be described in the Mitigation
Strategies section.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 851 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
4.3.2.5 Mitigation Strategies
Goal 1—Protection of life and property before,during and after a flooding event
Objective 1.1(Priority MEDIUM): Provide 100%availability of the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
Action#2: Encourage communities to actively participate in NFIP.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Objective 1.2(Priority MEDIUM):Encourage appropriate flood control measures,particularly in new
developments.
Action 1:Determine potential flood impacts and identify areas in need of additional flood
control structures.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 2:Address identified problems through construction of debris basins,flood
retention ponds,energy dissipaters or other flood control structures.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Objective 1.3[Priority HIGH):Provide maintenance,repairs and improvements to drainage
structures,storm water systems and flood control structures.
Goal 2—Reduce threat of unstable or inadequate flood control structures
Objective 2.1(Priority HIGH]:Reduce potential for failure of flood control structures.
Action 1:Identify and assess structures for deficiencies.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Action 2:Modify structures as needed to address deficiencies.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
1%Annual Chance T 0.2%Annual Chance
Building Building
and and
Structure Contents Loss Structure Contents Loss
Jurisdiction Exposure Loss* Ratio** Exposure loss r Ratio
Salt Lake Cite $ ° °
424 14,806,691 0.034/o i 1,835 24,286,386 0 06/0
Count Total
1,533 118,217,947 6,763 320,309,430 0.23% '
Structure Exposure and HAZUS Generated Losses
`Data not available for 1%annual chance loss calculation for e structures. More detail on structures
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 852 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
without associated losses available in jurisdictional tables. Structure count is accurate.
**Ratio of damages/losses by hazard and total building inventory.
The following data for flooding is carried over from the WFRC Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan and was
obtained from HAZUS-MH**.Vulnerability was assessed for both 100-year(NFIP Zone A)and 500-
year(NFIP Zone B or Zone X(shaded)flood events.Analysis was completed using Digital Flood
Insurance Rate Maps(DFIRM).Only streams that contained detailed flood cross-section data could
be used.Flooding from the Great Salt Lake was not included.Consequently,the results should be
considered conservative.(**For a more detailed explanation of the loss estimation methodology of
HAZUS-MH MR2,please see Part VI of the WFRC Mitigation Plan or the HAZUS-MH Technical
Manual(Flood Modell at www.fema.gov/hazus).
4.3.3 Hazard 3-Wildfire
Wildfires are particularly concerning in the wildland-urban interface. The wildland-urban interface
(WUI)is the line,area or zone where structures or other human development meet or intermingle
with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuel. Homes,storage sheds,recreational facilities,
transmission lines and other buildings may meet or intermingle with trees,brush,and grasses in
the WUI. The three conditions that affect fire behavior are topography,vegetation and weather.
Topography: Topography includes factors such as slope,aspect and elevation. Fires spread
faster upslope because fuels are closer to flames. Aspect influences fuel moisture content. Fuels
tend to be drier on south and west-facing slopes. Higher elevation is related to cooler
temperatures and higher relative humidity,as well as changes in vegetative fuel types.
Vegetation: The type of vegetation has a major effect on how quickly a fire will spread.For
example,light grasses burn rapidly,whereas heavy,dense fuels like Douglas fir burn slowly but
with greater intensity. Different fuels burn at different rates of spread,intensity,and will resist
control to different degrees.
Size,continuity and compactness also affect the fuel's rate of spread. Large fuels do not burn as
readily as small fuels,and take more heat to ignite. Small fuels ignite easier and fire will spread
more rapidly through them. Continuity describes how a fuel is arranged horizontally. Fuels that
are broken up in patches burn unevenly and slower than uniform fuels. Compactness is how fuel
is arranged vertically. Compact fuels burn slower than tall,deep fuels that have more oxygen
available
Weather: Weather(temperature,humidity,precipitation,and wind)affects the ease with
which a fuel ignites,the intensity at which it burns,and how easy control may be. High
temperatures heat fuels and reduce water content,which increases flammability. A decrease in
relative humidity causes a proportionate decrease in fuel moisture,promoting easier ignition and
more intense burning. Wind carries the heat from a fire into unburned fuels,drying them out and
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 853 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
causing them to ignite easier. The wind may also blow burning embers into unburned areas ahead
of the main fire that may start spot fires.
Wildfire removes vegetation that protects soil from excessive rainfall and resulting runoff. It also
damages soil by making the soil hydrophobic,or water repellent. These conditions contribute to
depletion of wildlife resources,soil erosion,water runoff,and in some cases severe slope failures
and debris flows.
Providing adequate fire protection in the WUI can be difficult. Local suppression methods and
resources may not be suited to wildfire suppression,and personnel can become easily
overwhelmed when multiple structures are threatened simultaneously. Energy output from a
wildfire may make protection of homes almost impossible and involves tremendous danger to
firefighters and homeowners.
4.3.3.1 location and Extent
The portions of Salt Lake City that could experience significant amount of destruction due to a
wildland fire include the foothills and the bench areas on or near the Wasatch Range.These WUI
areas are threatened most because of the amount of forested lands and the increasing population
growth spreading into the foothills.Another concern is vegetation type in these areas such as
sagebrush,mountain scrub oak,cheat grass,pinion and juniper trees,and rural and riparian
vegetation.Sagebrush and mountain shrub burn hot and fast,spreads easily and is found
throughout the county.During prime burning conditions(hot,dry and windy)the pinion juniper
class will burn.The image below illustrates where Salt Lake City's WUI occurs and includes fire
response boundaries(red lines)in conjunction with the forestry service areas(green patches).
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 854 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
J
{
I
F r I
4.3.3.2 Range of Magnitude
Past wildfires in Salt Lake City have had a significant impact on watersheds,resulting in slope
failure,debris flows and other forms of erosion.State and local agencies have worked together to
enhance ordinances and other measures to protect these watersheds.
Wildfire Hazard Profile
Catastroph�c ;Mx F F:,: HiF,LIy.LikefY¢. `
X Critical(25-50%) X Likely
Potential Magnitude u Probability
Limited(10-25%) Possible
Negligible(<10%) Unlikely
Wildland-Urban Interface(WU])zones near the foothills and in
Location forested areas
Seasonal Pattern June-October.
Areas affected by drought;heavily overgrown and dry brush and debris;
Conditions lightning and human triggers.
Days to months;depends on climate and fuel load as well as resources
Duration (financial,manpower)to extinguish the fire.
Secondary Hazards landslides,debris flows/flash floods,erosion,traffic accidents,air
pollution.
Analysis Used Review of plans and data provided by US Forest Service,FFSL,
FEMA,AGRC,County Hazard Analysis Plans,WWA,and UDEM.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 855 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
4.3.3.3 Past Occurrence
Several notable wildfires have occurred in Salt Lake County since the last Mitigation Plan was
completed. These include the Corner Canyon Fire in Draper City in August 2008,The Machine Gun
fire in Herriman City in September,2010,and the Rose Crest fire and Pinion Fire also in Herriman
City in 2012. These fires prompted major fire response,required evacuations of large numbers of
citizens,and created the threat of debris flows in following years. Even though these fires did not
occur within Salt Lake City boundaries they impacted our resources and capabilities due to mutual
aide response.
4.3.3.4 Future Occurrence
As population growth continues,pressure to develop in WUI areas is likely to increase the threats
associated with fire.Mitigation measures will need to be recognized and enforced to reduce these
threats.
4.3.3.5 Vulnerability Assessment
The next two tables estimate the total area,population and buildings vulnerable to wildland fire
for Salt Lake City. These values are based on a new GIS analysis to account for population growth
and new structures. Salt Lake County Assessor data and 2010 Census data were overlaid on the
located within Moderate,High or Extreme wildfire risk. Wildfire Hazard Risk data is shown in Map
10 to determine population and structures.
Incorporated Total Total Total 1 Residential Commercial
Areas Population Households Structures (Total Assessed (Total Assessed
Affected
Value) Value)
Salt Lake City 2680 1095 611 410 60
$83,640,000 $209,789,232
Table. Population vulnerability and structures in areas of Moderate or
Greater Hazard,based on BLM Wildfire Hazard data.2007
Fire
Fire Fuels Values Protection i Overall
Communities At Risk 1 Occurrence Hazards Protected _ Ca abilit I Score 1
Salt Lake City 1 2 3 C 1 8
4.3.3.6 Mitigation Strategy
Goal 1—Community education on wildfire hazard
Objective 1.1(Priority HIGH):Reduce risk from wild fire through education programs
Action 1: Increase public awareness through"Fire Wise"program.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 856 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 2:Educate homeowners on the need to create defensible space near structures in
WUI.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Goal 2—Improve safety from wildfire hazards through planning,protective actions and improved
fire response capabilities
Objective 2.1(Priority HIGH):Assist homeowners with creating defensible space near structures in
WUI areas.
Action 1:Designate and promote county-wide annual initiative for clearing fuels.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 2:Provide waste removal,such as chipping of green waste by Public Works,
following designated fuel clearing day/week.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Objective 2.2(Priority HIGH Improve evacuation capabilities for WUI areas.
Action 1:Work with experts and communities to develop or update evacuation plans.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 2:Evaluate transportation network and address needed improvements to facilitate
evacuation and emergency response.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Objective 2.3(Priority HIGH):Complete wildfire protection projects
Action 1:Reduce fuels around publicly owned structures.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 2:Implement fire breaks and other protective measures.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 857 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
4.3.4 Hazard 4-Landslide and Slope Failure
Slope failure is any type of ground disturbance on a surface with any slope,not flat ground.
Landslides,also referred to as slope failures,are classified according to the type of movement and
material involved. Movement types include falls,topples,slides,lateral spreads and flows.
Materials include rocks,debris(coarse-grained soil),and earth(fine-grained soil). The most
common landslides include rack falls,rock topples,debris slides,debris flows,earth slides,and
earth flows.
Slope instability has not been a major problem in the Salt Lake area.Yet,as development moves
higher into the foothills and nearby canyons,slope stability is becoming a major issue affecting
future development.Types of slope instability in the Salt Lake area include rock fall,debris flow
and debris flood,rotational and transitional slumps,and earth flows.During the unusually wet
springs of 1983 and 1984,numerous slope failures in the Wasatch Range resulted in debris flows
and floods that caused extensive damage to urban areas north of Salt Lake City.Similar failures
occurred in canyons adjacent to Salt Lake City,but none reached developed areas.
4.3.4.1 Location and Extent
Landslides and debris flows are most common in the foothills along the base of the Wasatch
Mountain Range from wet climatic conditions.Some major landslide areas include the Grand View
Peak rockslide in upper City Creek Canyon.As urbanization spreads into geologically unstable
areas the risk to life and property increases.
4.3.4.2 Range of Magnitude
Landslide and slope failure Hazard Profile
Catastrophic
Potential Magnitude Critical(25-50%) Probability X Likely
X Limited(10-25%) Possible
Negligible(<10%) Unlikely
Location Foothills and nearby canyons
Seasonal Pattern Spring and summer months.
Usually caused by the stress release of over-weighted soils or
Conditions loosening of rock and debris by wind,water or ground shaking.
Duration
Landslides'Rock frills:IIours to Months.
Debris flows: Instantaneous.
Secondary Hazards Flooding(natural dams).traffic accidents.
Analysis Used Information and maps provided by UGS.IJDF,M,AGRC.
4.3.4.3 Past Occurrence
A cluster of historical landslides is visible from the hairpin turn in Bonneville Boulevard in lower
City Creek Canyon in Salt Lake City.Movement of the largest and most damaging of these
landslides has been monitored since June 1998 by the UGS and the Salt Lake City surveyor.Since
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 858 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
June 1998,the toe of the landslide has moved about 24 feet,and the main scarp has offset the
ground surface about the same amount.Like most recurrently active landslides in northern Utah,
movement typically occurs between March and June as ground-water levels rise following the
snowmelt.Four houses at the top of the slide are threatened.and efforts to protect one house have
cost in excess of$300.000. In 2006 the landslide reactivated again.moving about 2 feet.despite
drier-than-normal conditions in Salt Lake City. (Utah Hazard Mitigation Plan)
Subsidence is possible in City Creek,Emigration,Parley's,and Big Cottonwood Canyons due to the
prevalence of dissolvable limestone.Subsidence can also occur in the Avenues area of Salt Lake
City due to collapsible soils that are compactable upon wetting.
Structures in Areas of Moderate or
Acres Population Greater Hazard
Incorporated Areas Residential
Affected Affected Commercial
(Replacement (Annual Sales)
Value)
Salt Lake City 15,701 15,762 6,327 176
$1,294,504,200 $47,480,280
Table.Vulnerability Assessment for Landslides
4.3.4.4 Mitigation Strategy
Goal 1—Reduce or eliminate the threat of slope failure damage
Objective 1.1(Priority MEDIUM):Reduce the threat of slope failures following wild fires.
Action 1:Develop protocol for working with State and Federal agencies in reducing the
impact of post-fire debris flow hazard.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Objective 1.2[Priority MEDIUM):Monitor historic landslide areas.
Action 1:Coordinate with Utah Geological Survey and other agencies to understand
current slope failure threats/potential.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Objective 2.1(Priority HIGH]:Address landslide hazards in new sub-divisions.
Action 1:Utilize recommendations provided by State Geologic Hazards Working Group to
address land-use and planning for new developments.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 859 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
4.3.5 Hazard 5-Severe Weather
Severe weather over northern Utah can have a dramatic impact on regional commerce,
transportation and daily activity and is a major forecast challenge for local meteorologists.The
region is characterized by intense vertical relief with the Great Salt Lake and surrounding lowlands
located near 4,300 ft above mean sea level(MSL)while the adjoining Wasatch Mountains to the
east reach as high as 11,000 ft MSL.This relief has major impact on winter storms and results in
large contrasts in average annual precipitation.
4.3.5.1 Types of Weather Events
Vulnerability Assessment
Severe Storms: Severe storms can include thunderstorms,lightning,hailstorms,heavy snow or
rain,These storms are generally related to high precipitation events during the summer and
winter months and can happen anywhere in the region.Damage can be extensive especially for
agriculture,farming,and transportation systems;they can also disrupt business due to power
outages.
Severe Thunderstorms: Severe thunderstorms are storms that either produce tornadoes,winds
58 mph or greater,wind damage,and/or hail three-quarters of an inch or larger in diameter.
Thunderstorms can also lead to flash flooding from heavy rainfall.
Hailstorms: Hailstorms occur when freezing water(in thunderstorm clouds)accumulates in layers
around an icy core generally during the warmer months of May through September.Hail causes
damage by battering crops,structures and automobiles.When hailstorms are large,damage can
be extensive,especially when combined with high winds,
Heavy Precipitation:Heavy amounts of precipitation from rain or snow can result in flash flood
events.The Wasatch Front has been susceptible to these types of storms because of close
proximity to the mountain ranges.
Major winter storms can produce five to ten times the amount of snow in the mountains than in
the valley locations.Heavy snow can cause a secondary hazard in avalanches.
Much of the valley's development has occurred on old alluvial fans from the canyon mouths.
During heavy rain events,water and debris collect on these same alluvial fans,damaging
residential,commercial property and infrastructure.
;ict{ ta k • Tornado: A tornado is a"violently rotating column
of air extending from a thunderstorm to the
ground". Some tornadoes can have wind speeds
greater than 250 mph with a damage zone 50 miles
long and greater than a mile wide. Although they
are less common in the Intermountain Region
tornados have occurred in Salt Lake City.
Historically,atmospheric conditions have not been
favorable for tornado development in Salt Lake due
to a dry climate and mountainous terrain.Utah is
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 860 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
one of the lowest ranked in the nation for incidences of tornadoes with only one F2 or stronger
tornado every seven years.
4.3.5.2 Past Occurrence
Winter Storms: Winter storms can pose a significant threat due to vehicle traffic accidents on icy
roads,prolonged exposure to cold,damage to electrical,telephone or communication systems
from ice or heavy snow accumulation,and indirectly related health threats such as individuals
suffering heart attacks while shoveling snow. Prolonged exposure to cold can cause frostbite or
hypothermia and can become life threatening. Winter weather can also have significant economic
costs associated with snow removal,revenue and wage losses from road and airport delays or
closures,flooding damage from rapid snowmelt,and agricultural and timber losses from frost and
ice.
Fog: Temperature inversions often occur during the winter months as a result of high pressure
trapping cold air in the valley.These inversions keep cold,moist air trapped on the valley floor
forming super-cooled fog.This fog can cause visibility restrictions and icy surfaces.Wind is needed
to clear the inversion and fog.The Great Salt Lake has been shown to affect the prevalence of fog,
especially when lake levels are high.
Extreme Temperatures: Temperatures in Utah can reach the extreme ends of the thermometer.
Winter months often experience temperatures below zero degrees Fahrenheit.Summer
temperatures regularly reach into the nineties with many days above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Drastic temperature changes also occur,even in matter of hours.Temperature swings in such a
short period of time can cause severe emotional stress in people.
Sub-zero temperatures occur during most winters;however,prolonged periods of extremely cold
weather are infrequent. An exception was January 2013,the coldest month on record for Salt
Lake City since 1949,with a mean temperature of 19.4 degrees(10.1 degrees below normal),
average daily maximum temperature of only 26.6 degrees,and extended periods of inversions.
January is generally the coldest month of the year.Historically,extreme cold in the region has
disrupted agriculture,farming and crops.Especially vulnerable to extreme cold are the young,
elderly,homeless and animals.Wind chill can further the effects of extreme cold.
Extreme heat is"summertime weather that is substantially hotter and/or more human than
average for a location at that time of year". Extreme heat not only causes discomfort,but
personal health can be affected through heat cramps,heat exhaustion or heat stroke,particularly
affecting vulnerable populations such as the very young,elderly,poor,and homeless. Extreme
heat places a substantial burden on power grids through widespread use of evaporative coolers
and air conditioning. This strain can lead to brownouts or blackouts leaving many without power.
Freezing Rain:Freezing rain is rare in Salt Lake City,but occurs on occasion. A freezing rain storm
occurred along the Wasatch Front in the record cold January of 2013,causing the closure of all
runways at the Salt Lake City International Airport and resulting in numerous traffic accidents.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 861 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Tornado:Most tornadoes in Utah typically have
• winds less than 110 mph(F2 or smaller),and no
•
t ;{ wider than 60 feet and are on the ground no
.: longer than a few minutes.Tornado distribution
for the region suggests many tornadoes are
9 , funnel clouds aloft coming into contact with the
� +-...t increasing elevation of Salt Lake City's foothills
and mountains.Despite this fact,interactions of
. the relatively cool air of the Great Salt Lake and
relatively warm air of urban areas could create
situations more favorable for tornado
development.This phenomenon
possibly contributed to the formation of the August 1999 Salt Lake City tornado. The$170
million in damages caused by this tornado make it the costliest disaster in Salt Lake history.
4.3.5.3 Mitigation Strategy
Goal 1:Reduce threat of loss of life or property due to extreme weather events
Objective 1.1[Priority LOW):Maintain status as a StormReady Community
Action 1:Maintain Hazardous Weather Operations Plan according to StormReady
requirements.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Objective 1.2[Priority MEDIUM):Increase awareness of information services provided by NWS.
Action 1:Meet with NWS representative on an annual basis to receive information on new
services and alerts available.
Time Frame:Complete
Funding:N/A
Estimated Cost:N/A
Action 2:Assist NWS in making other agencies and departments aware of
available resources.
Ongoing: Salt Lake City(all city departments represented at meetings w/NWS),
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Objective 1.3[Priority HIGH):Examine the vulnerability of attendees at large event venues to
extreme weather events.
Action:Work with the NWS to develop large event venue weather safety and
evacuation procedures.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 862 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
4.3.6 Hazard 6-Dam Failure
Dams are usually man-made,and therefore not inherently naturals hazards;however,dam failures
can occur by natural hazard loading events. The impacts of a dam failure can also be similar to
natural flood events;however,they are often more sudden and violent than normal stream floods.
Causes include breach from flooding or overtopping,ground shaking from earthquakes,settlement
from liquefaction,slope failure and slumping,internal erosion from piping,failure of foundations
and abutments,outlet leaks or failures,and internal weakening caused by vegetation and rodents.
Possible effects include flooding,silting,loss of water resources,loss of property,and loss of life.
4.3.6.1 Location and Extent
There are 3 dams located in Salt Lake City. These dams are built by different agencies,and may
serve various functions such as flood control,water storage,recreation,and power generation.
The dam safety hazard is classified as no threat to high risk by the State Engineer. Hazard ratings
are determined by downstream uses;size,height and volume;and incremental risk/damage
assessments.This classification is based upon the damage caused if the dam were to fail,not the
dam's probability of failure.Therefore,the classification of a high hazard dam does not mean that
the dam has a high probability of failure. Utah Division of Water Rights inspects high-hazard dams
annually,moderate-hazard dams biennially,and low-hazard dams every five years(Living With
Dams,UNHH 2008).
Name Rating
Little Dell High
Mountain Dell High
Red Butte Dam High
Table 26. High and Moderate Hazard Dams,
Salt Lake City(Source:Utah Division of Water Rights)
4.3.6.2 Range of Magnitude
Dam Failure Hazard Profile
`,Catastrophic �Iiehly°I ilccly tl}5i t.'
Potential Magnitude X Critical(25-50%) Probability Likely
Limited(10-25%) X Possible
Negligible(<10%) Unlikely
Location Little Dell,Mountain Dell,and Red Butte Dam
Rainy Day
Seasonal Conditions Failure: Spring,late summer
Sunny Day Anytime
Failure:
Rainy Day Failure happens mainly during heavy precipitation
Conditions events,can have some warning time.Sunny Day Failure can happen
anytime without warning.
Hours or days-depends on spillway type and area,maximum cubic
Duration feet per second(cfs)discharge,overflow or breach type and dam
type.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 863 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Secondary Hazards Raw sewage/health risk.electrical fires.gas spills.
Re‘icy,.of BOR inundation maps and plans.FIS.I ltah Division of Water
Analysis Used
Rights.
4.3.6.3 Past Occurrence
No record was found of dam failure incidents within Salt Lake City.
4.3.6.4 Vulnerability Assessment
According to the 2011 Utah Hazard Mitigation Plan,a hazard evaluation designed by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission FERC,compiled a ranking of high priority dams based on a number
of variables which include:public access,population at risk,breach flow,inundation depth,and
dam type. 3 of the 50 highest priority dams are located within Salt Lake City.
1.Mountain Dell
2.Little Dell
10.Red Butte Dam
4.3.6.5 Mitigation strategy
Goal 1—Include dam failure inundation in future planning efforts.
Objective 1.1[Priority MEDIUM]:Review current State dam safety information on all identified high
hazard dams in the County.
Action 1:Include dam inundation maps in current City Emergency Operations Plans.
Time Frame:Not Necessary
Funding:N/A
Estimated Cost:N/A
Action 2:Utilize inundation maps to identify potential evacuation areas and routes.
Time Frame:Not Necessary
Funding:N/A
Estimated Cost:N/A
4.3.7 Hazard 9-Drought
Because the Salt Lake is a desert climate,there have always been periods of intermittent drought.
Measures must be taken to conserve water and to address water shortages for both culinary and
agricultural use.
According to the National Drought Mitigation Center,drought is a"deficiency of precipitation over
an extended period of time,resulting in a water shortage for some activity,group,or
environmental sector." Although variation in the amount of precipitation recorded each year is
normal,a drought is beyond these norms in terms of low precipitation for an extended period or
over a large area. While most natural hazards are sudden and result in immediate impacts,
droughts"sneak up on us quietly disguised as lovely sunny weather"(McKee,Doesken,and Kleist
2005)and can last a long time resulting in significant socioeconomic impacts. Drought can be
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 864 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
categorized according to unique characteristics and may be thought of as phases of the same
drought(UNHH 2008).
• Meteorological drought: a measure of departure of precipitation from normal for a
particular location.
• Agricultural drought: where the amount of moisture in the soil no longer meets the needs
of a particular crop.
• Hydrological drought: when surface and subsurface water supplies are below normal.
• Socioeconomic drought: when dry conditions persist long enough and are severe enough
to impact sectors beyond the agricultural community,such as community drinking supply
and other social and economic enterprises.
4.31.1 Range of Magnitude
Drought Hazard Profile
PallaktiiiMkPloNk
Potential Critical(25-50%) probability X Likely
Magnitude X Limited(10-25%) Possible
Negligible(<10%) L Unlikely
Location Citywide.
Seasonal Pattern Impacts typically noticeable in summer,conditions can be year round.
Meteorological
Drought:
Agricultural Lack of precipitation
Conditions Drought: Lack of water for crop production
Hydrologic Lack of water in the entire water supply
Drought: Lack of water sufficient to support population
Socioeconomic
Drought:
Duration Months,Years
Secondary Wildfire,dust storms,air quality.
Hazards
Analysis Used National Weather Service,Utah Climate Center,Utah Division of
Water Resources,Newspapers,Local input.
Although the agricultural community is usually the most heavily impacted by drought,direct and
indirect impacts extend into economic,social,or environmental sectors as well(UNHH 2008).
4.0 or more Extremely wet
3.0 to 3.99 Very wet
2.0 to 2.99 Moderately wet
1.0 to 1.99 Sliehtly wet
0.5 to 0.99 Incipient wet spell
0.49 to-0.49 Near normal
-0.5 to-0.99 Incipient dry spell
-1.0 to-1.99 Mild drought
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 865 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
-2.0 to-2.99 Moderate drought
-3.0 to-3.99 Severe drought
-4.0 or less Extreme drought
Table. Palmer Drought SOerih Index(;NDJ1C 2006)
The Palmer Drought Severity Index(PDSI)developed by Wayne Palmer in the 1965,measures
drought severity using temperature,precipitation and soil moisture(Utah Division of Water
Resources 2007a).The PDSI has become the"semi-official"drought index as it is standardized
across various climates.The index uses zero as normal and assigns a number between+6 and-6,
with dry periods having negative numbers and wet periods expressed using positive numbers
(NDMC 2006).
Times of extended drought can turn into socioeconomic drought,or drought that begins to affect
the general population.When this occurs,reservoirs,wells and aquifers are low and conservation
measures are required.Some forms of water conservation are water-use restrictions,
implementation of secondary water or water recycling and xeriscaping.Other conservation
options include emergency water agreements with neighboring water districts or transporting
water from elsewhere.
4.3.7.2 Location and Extent
Utah is the second driest state in the nation. Drought dramatically affects this area because of the
lack of water for agriculture and industry,which limits economic activity,irrigation and culinary
uses.The severity of the drought results in depletion of agriculture lands and deterioration of soils.
In the Wasatch Front region,the risk of drought is high.
Salt Lake City falls within two climatic regions:the North Central region(3),and the Northern
Mountains region(5). Each of these regions has differing characteristics,but often experience
similar drought periods.The two regions experience mild drought(PDSI>_-1)every 2.6-3.3 years,
moderate drought(PDSI>_-2)every 3.7-5.2 years,and severe drought(PDSI>_-3)every 6.9-8.5
years.The Northern Mountain region typically experiences droughts less frequently(Utah Division
of Water Resources 2007a). Conversely,the Northern Mountain region averages more severe
drought conditions at its peak than the Western region.It may be Northern Mountains region
simply has more water to lose as the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains receive much more
precipitation on average.
4.3.7.3 Past Occurrence
The most severe drought period in recorded history for the North Central and Northern Mountains
regions occurred in 1934 at the height of the Great Depression(Figure 8-1 above)and during the
same drought period(1930 to 1936)that caused the"Dust Bowl"on the Great Plains.The longest
drought period varies from 11 years for the North Central region(1953-1963),and 6 years for the
Northern Mountains(twice;1900-1905 and 1987-1992)(Utah Division of Water Resources 2007a).
4.3.7.4 Vulnerability Assessment
Due to the unpredictability of drought,it is difficult to identify the areas most threatened and to
provide loss estimate values. Utah is currently experiencing drought conditions,yet reports are
not yet available on the impact of the current drought. However,historical drought records
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 866 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
demonstrate that agriculture is typically the economic sector most impacted by drought(UHMP).
The 2003 Economic Report to the Governor discusses some of the statewide economic impacts of
a drought beginning in 1999. Since it is not known what the local impacts of the current drought
will be,this report will serve as the best available loss estimate. It is expected droughts in the
future will have similar losses.
4.3.7.5 Mitigation strategy
Goal 1—Reduce and prevent hardships associated with water shortages
Objective 1.1(Priority HIGH):Limit unnecessary consumption of water
Action 1:Continue to encourage water conservation utilizing and promoting outreach
material
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 2: Emergency Managers will coordinate with public utilities to support ongoing
conservation efforts.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 3:Investigate feasibility of implementing an incentive program to encourage the use
of low-flow appliances and fixtures in homes and businesses.
Time Frame:Complete
Funding:N/A
Estimated Cost:N/A
Action 4:Implement water-saving devices and practices in public facilities.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 5:Repair,maintain and improve water distribution infrastructure to prevent loss
from leakage,breaks,etc.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 6:Coordinate public safety water use,such as hydrant testing.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Action 7:Provide information on landscaping alternatives for persons subject to green area
requirements.
Time Frame:Complete
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 867 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Funding:N/A
Estimated Cost:N/A
Objective 1.2(Priority MEDIUM):Encourage development of secondary water systems
Action 1:Coordinate with water districts to plan for,develop and/or expand secondary
water systems.
Time Frame:Ongoing
Funding:Municipal
Estimated Cost:Minimal
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 868 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
5 Mitigation Strategy
5. 1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The following plan goals and objectives of the Mitigation plan were retained from the WFRC plan.
These include reducing the risk from natural hazards in Salt Lake County through coordinating with
all local governments to develop a county-wide planning process that meets each planning
component identified in the FEMA Region VIII Crosswalk document,Utah Division of Emergency
Management(DEM)planning expectations,and local input.
Short Term Local Goals
The following general goals were used in the development of the Mitigation Plan.They are shown
from highest to lowest priority.
1. Protect life safety.
2. Eliminate and/or reduce property damage.
3. Promote public awareness through education about community hazards and mitigation
measures.
4. Protect emergency response services and capabilities,critical infrastructure,critical
facilities,communication and warning systems,mobile resources,and other lifelines.
5. Ensure government continuity
6. Protect the cultural fabric of the community,including cultural resources,developed
property,homes,businesses,industry,education and other institutions.
7. Combine hazard loss reduction efforts with other environmental,social and economic
needs of the community.
8. Preserve and/or restore natural features,natural resources,and the environment.
Long Term Local Goals
1. Eliminate or reduce long-term risk to human life and property.
2. Aid private and public sectors in understanding the risks they may be exposed to and
identify mitigation strategies to reduce those risks.
3. Avoid risk of exposure to natural and technological hazards.
4. Minimize the impacts of risks that cannot be avoided.
5. Mitigate the impacts of damage as a result of identified hazards.
6. Accomplish mitigation strategies in such a way that negative environmental impacts are
minimized.
7. Provide a basis for prioritizing and funding mitigation projects.
8. Establish a county-wide platform to enable the community to take advantage of shared
goals and resources.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 869 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Objectives
The following objectives are meant to serve as a measure upon which individual hazard mitigation
strategies can be evaluated.These objectives become especially important when two or more
projects are competing for limited resources.
1. Address a repetitive problem,or one that has the potential to have a major impact on an
area or population.
2. Identify persons,agencies or organizations responsible for implementation.
3. Identify a time frame for implementation.
4. Explain how the project will be financed including the conditions for financing and
implementation(as information is available).
5. Identify alternative measures,should financing not be available.
6. Be consistent with,support,and help implement the goals and objectives of hazard
mitigation plans already in place.
7. Significantly reduce potential damages to public and/or private property and/or reduce the
cost of state and federal recovery for future disasters.
8. Are practical,cost-effective and environmentally and politically sound after consideration
of the options.
9. Can meet applicable permit requirements.
10.Benefits should outweigh the costs.
11.Have manageable maintenance and modification costs.
12.Accomplish multiple objectives when possible.
13.Should be implemented using existing resources,agencies and programs when possible.
Capital investment decisions must be considered in conjunction with natural hazard vulnerability.
Capital investments can include homes,roads,public utilities,pipelines,power plants,chemical
plants,warehouses and public works facilities.These decisions can influence the degree of hazard
vulnerability of a community.Once a capital facility is in place,few opportunities will present
themselves over the useful life of the facility to correct any errors in location or construction with
respect to hazard vulnerability.It is for these reasons that zoning ordinances,which could restrict
development in high vulnerability areas,and building codes,which could ensure that new
buildings are built to withstand the damaging forces of hazards,are the most useful mitigation
approaches a city can implement.
5.2 Mitigation Action Plan
Implementation through Existing Programs (Including NFIP)
Once the Plan is promulgated the City will integrate the strategies into existing programs and
planning processes.These could include the Master Plan,Capital Improvements Plan, Emergency
Operations Plan,etc.Many of the mitigation actions developed have elements of mitigation
implementation including the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP),the Utah Wildland-Urban
Interface Code,the Building Code Effectiveness Grading System(BCEGS),and Community Rating
System(CRS),all of which have been implemented.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 870 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Salt Lake City will integrate mitigation strategies into its building codes,the planning commission,
and the actions of the City Council and other relevant agencies by education by the Emergency
Manager during daily,weekly,and monthly city and public meetings.
The City's Community Development Director oversees enforcement of floodplain management
requirements adopted by the City,including regulating new construction in Special Flood Hazard
Areas(SFHAs).
Process
It will be the responsibility of Mayor,as he sees fit,to ensure these actions are carried out no later
than the target dates unless reasonable circumstances prevent their implementation(i.e.lack of
funding availability).
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 871 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
6 Plan Maintenance
6. 1 Monitoring, Evaluating Et Updating the
Plan
Periodic monitoring and updates of this Plan are required to ensure that the goals and objectives
for the Region are kept current and that local mitigation strategies are being carried out.This Plan
has been designed to be user-friendly in terms of maintenance and implementation.This portion
of the Plan outlines the procedures for completing revisions and updates.The Plan will also be
revised to reflect lessons learned or to address specific hazard incidents arising out of a disaster.
Annual Review Procedures
The City will be responsible to annually review the mitigation strategies described in this Plan,as
required by the Utah Division of Emergency Management(UDEM),or as situations dictate such as
following a disaster declaration.The process will include the county organizing a Mitigation
Planning committee comprised of individuals from organizations responsible to implement the
described mitigation strategies.Progress toward the completion of the strategies will be assessed
and revised as warranted.If determined that a modification of the Plan is warranted,an
amendment to the Plan may be initiated as described below.
Five Year Plan Review
The entire Plan including any background studies and analysis shall be revised and updated every
five years to determine if there have been any significant changes in the city that would affect the
Plan.Increased development,increased exposure to certain hazards,the development of new
mitigation capabilities or techniques and changes to Federal or State legislation are examples of
changes that may affect the condition of the Plan.
Plan Amendments
The Utah DEM State Hazard Mitigation Officer,Local Mitigation Committee,or the Salt Lake City
Mayor will initiate amendments and updates to the Plan.
Upon initiation of an amendment to the Plan,UDEM will forward information on the proposed
amendment to all interested parties.including,but not limited to,all affected city departments,
residents and businesses.Depending on the magnitude of the amendment,the full planning
committee may be reconstituted.
At a minimum,the information will be made available through public notice in a newspaper of
general circulation or on the Salt Lake City Emergency Management website www.slcgov.com/em.
The review and comment period for the proposed Plan amendment will last for not less than forty-
five(45)days.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex
Page 872 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a Plan amendment request,the
following factors will be considered:
• There are errors or omissions made in the identification of issues or needs during the
preparation of the Plan;and/or
• New issues or needs have been identified which were not adequately addressed in the
Plan;and/or
• There has been a change in information,data or assumptions from those on which the Plan
was based.
• The nature or magnitude of risks has changed.
• There are implementation problems,such as technical,political,legal or coordination
issues with other agencies.
Then one of the following actions will take place:
1. Adopt the proposed amendment as presented.
2. Adopt the proposed amendment with modifications.
3. Defer the amendment request for further consideration and/or hearing.
4. Reject the amendment request.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 873 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
2009 Wasatch Front Mitigation Plan strategies status
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
1—Improve and maintain
communications 1—Conduct an inventory Capabilities were
capabilities for and assessment of assessed and new
All Hazards emergency operations communications completed communications
1.1—Improve equipment and systems systems have been
communication and identify needs implemented.
capabilities
1—Improve and maintain
communications 2—Conduct Training and
capabilities for awareness activities on This has to be done on
All Hazards emergency operations communication ongoing a regular basis for
1.1—Improve equipment,tools,and staffing purposes.
communication systems
capabilities
1—Improve and maintain
communications 3—Establish agreements Some of the current
capabilities for to share communications systems are shared
All Hazards emergency operations equipment between completed across the valley and
1.1—Improve agencies involved in have agreements for
communication emergency operations who is responsible for
capabilities maintenance,etc.
1—Improve and maintain
communications
capabilities for 4—Establish notification
All Hazards emergency operations capabilities and completed
1.1 Improve procedures for
communication
emergency personnel
capabilities
1—Improve and maintain
communications
capabilities for
emergency operations 1—Evaluate vulnerability
All Hazards of critical completed
1.2—Maintain
communications communications systems
capabilities for critical
facilities
1—Improve and maintain
communications
capabilities for 2—Establish redundancy New Integrated
All Hazards emergency operations for dispatch centers and completed communications
1.2—Maintain other critical system across the
communications communications valley.
capabilities for critical
facilities
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 874 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
1—Improve and maintain
communications 1 Establish a
capabilities for coordinating group to Complete A group was formed
address long-term that played a role in
All Hazards emergency operations and
communication needs the systems we have
1.3—Conduct ongoing
communications
and implementation now.
Strategic Planning strategies
1—Improve and maintain
2—Acquire,upgrade,
communications
capabilities for and/or integrate
communications
All Hazards emergency operations equipment and systems Completed See answers above
1.3—Conduct
communications as determined by
Strategic Planning coordinating group
2—Improve awareness
and analysis of hazards 1—Establish a A GIS position and
2.1—Improved Quality coordinating group to capabilities were
All Hazards Ongoing added to our EOC.
and Access to digital address geographic data
geographic(GIS)hazards issues A GIS working group
data has been established
2—Improve awareness
and analysis of hazards 2—Examine current data GIS working group is
2.1—Improved Quality availability and sharing trying to address these
All Hazards capabilities,evaluate Ongoing issue by forming a
and Access to digital
geographic(GIS)hazards needs,and identify Common Operating
data shortcomings Picture(COP).
2—Improve awareness
3—Update and expand
and analysis of hazards In conjunction with
data on hazards,critical
All Hazards 2.1—Improved Quality facilities,and critical Ongoing our other projects
and Access to digital new data is added to
geographic(GIS)hazards infrastructure according the GIS layers
data to assessed needs
2—Improve awareness
and analysis of hazards 4—Provide centralized
2.1—Improved Quality access to geographic See comment above
All Hazards Ongoing
and Access to digital data to emergency on forming a COP
geographic(GIS)hazards planners and responders
data
1—Integrate existing
hazard monitoring
2—Improve awareness networks in emergency
and analysis of hazards operations centers.
All Hazards 2.2—Improve and Utilize sensors such as NA
expand hazard weather stations,stream
monitoring capabilities gages,seismograph
stations,road conditions,
etc.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 875 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
2—Improve awareness
and analysis of hazards 2 Identify and
All Hazards 2.2—Improve and mplement additional NA
expand hazard hazard monitoring
monitoring capabilities capabilities.
3 Ensure critical GIS data used to
facilities can sustain estimate which
operations for buildings will fail and
emergency response and 1—Utilize GIS to identify how much debris they
All Hazards facilities and Ongoing will create.
recovery
3.1—Prevent damage to infrastructure at risk Data on URMs was
critical facilities and used to create maps,
intical ucture planning tools and
educational materials.
3—Ensure critical 2—Assess critical
facilities can sustain
facilities for hazard Gathered data while
exposure,structural participating in various
operations for weaknesses,power, programs(LEAP,
emergency response and
All Hazards communications and Ongoing RRAP,etc.)to use in
recovery
3.1 Prevent damage to equipment resources planning/response.
critical facilities and and redundancy,and Plan to implement use
nfrastructure adequate emergency of IP gateway.
iprocedures
3—Ensure critical Having mobile
facilities can sustain command center
operations for 3—Implement capabilities.Keep 96hr
emergency response and improvements to supplies and
All Hazards Ongoing equipment in various
recovery address identified in
3.1—Prevent damage to assessment key locations for rapid
access to after an
critical facilities and
event.
infrastructure
4—Improve response
capabilities through
mutual-aid agreements 1—Compile inventory of
4.1—Utilize mutual-aid mutual-aid agreements Putting them in places
All Hazards agreements in and memoranda of Ongoing that be readily
accordance with National understanding(MOU) accessed like the
Incident Management and identify deficiencies WebEOC library
System(NIMS)
requirements
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 876 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
4—Improve response
capabilities through
mutual-aid agreements
4.1—Utilize mutual-aid 2—Pursue and
All Hazards agreements in implement needed Ongoing
accordance with National mutual-aid agreements
Incident Management
System(NIMS)
requirements
Added a community
5—Increase citizen safety 1—Provide education preparedness
through improved hazard regarding all natural coordinator to staff
awareness hazards through live and we utilize several
All Hazards Ongoing
5.1—establish a trainings,as well as web- forms of outreach
comprehensive public based,print and (fairs,workshops,web
education program broadcast media pages,social media,
etc.)
Increasing Hazard
5—Increase citizen safety awareness through
through improved hazard 2—Incorporate our Fix the Bricks
information about program and URM
awareness
All Hazards 5.1—Establish a cascading effects of Ongoing maps.Promote
comprehensive public
hazards in education community
education program
programs participation in
programs like SAFE
neighborhoods
5—Increase citizen safety 3—Develop education
through improved hazard programs to target
specific groups including
awareness Via Fix the Bricks and
All Hazards 5.1—Establish a homeowners, Ongoing SAFE Neighborhoods
comprehensive public developers,schools and
education program people with special
needs
5—Increase citizen safety 4—Utilize maps and
through improved hazard similar products on However we do post
awareness County EM website and hazard maps and
All Hazards NA public outreach
5.1—Establish a other media to educate
comprehensive public public on areas at risk to materials on our local
education program hazards jurisdictions webpage.
We partner with the
5 Increase citizen safety 5—Coordinate with local Red cross and
through improved hazard existing public education SLC district on SAFE
awareness
programs such as the Neighborhoods
All Hazards American Red Cross, Ongoing Program.We also
5.1—Establish a
comprehensive public Utah Living with Fire,be promote other public
education program Ready Utah,the National educations programs;
Weather Service,etc. such as Be Ready
Utah.
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 877 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
6—Improve public safety
through preventative
regulations 1 Establish and enforce Adopted current
All Hazards 6.1—Minimize hazard appropriate planning, Ongoing international building
zoning,and building code
impacts through the code
adoption of appropriate ordinances
prevention measures
6—Improve public safety
through preventative
regulations 2—Ensure current
All Hazards 6.1—Minimize hazard hazard ordinances are Complete
mpactsthroughthe available for viewing
adoption of appropriate online
prevention measures
1—Include dam failure
inundation in future
County and City planning 1—Include dam
efforts inundation maps in
Dam current County,City and
Failure 1.1—Review current Special Service District Complete
State dam safety
nformation on all Emergency Operations
iidentified high hazard Plans
dams in the County
1—Include dam failure
inundation in future
County and City planning
efforts 2—Utilize inundation
Dam maps to identify
Failure 1.1—Review current potential evacuation Complete
State dam safety
information on all areas and routes
identified high hazard
dams in the County
1—Reduce and prevent 1—Continue to
hardships associated encourage water
Drought with water shortages conservation utilizing Complete
1.1—Limit unnecessary and promoting outreach
consumption of water material from all water
throughout the County districts in the County
1—Reduce and prevent 2—Emergency Managers
hardships associated will coordinate with local We coordinate
Drought with water shortages water districts/public Complete regularly with our
1.1—Limit unnecessary utilities to support Public Utilities
consumption of water ongoing conservation Department
throughout the County efforts
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 878 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
1—Reduce and prevent 3 Investigate feasibility
hardships associated of implementing an
with water shortages ncentive program to
Drought encourage the use of complete
1.1—Limit unnecessary
consumption of water low-flow appliances and
throughout the County fixtures in homes and
businesses
1—Reduce and prevent
hardships associated 4—Implement water- SLC policy that public
with water shortages saving devices and facilities meet LEEDs
Draught Ongoing
1.1—Limit unnecessary practices in public silver standard at a
consumption of water facilities minimum
throughout the County
1—Reduce and prevent 5—Repair,maintain and
hardships associated improve water
with water shortages distribution
Drought Ongoing
1.1—Limit unnecessary infrastructure to prevent
consumption of water loss from leakage,
throughout the County breaks,etc.
1—Reduce and prevent
hardships associated
with water shortages 6 Coordinate public
Drought safety water use,such as Ongoing
1.1—Limit unnecessary
consumption of water hydrant testing
throughout the County
1—Reduce and prevent
hardships associated 7—Provide information
with water shortages on landscaping
Drought alternatives for persons Ongoing
1.1—Limit unnecessary
consumption of water subject to green area
throughout the County requirements
1—Reduce and prevent
hardships associated
with water shortages 1 Set up livestock
Drought 1.2 Address agricultural water rotation in areas of NA
water shortages in the agricultural use
County
1—Reduce and prevent
hardships associated 1—Coordinate with
with water shortages water districts to plan
Drought 1.3—Encourage for,develop and/or NA
development of expand secondary water
secondary water systems
1—Reduce earthquakes
losses to infrastructure Used data to create
1.1—Encourage retrofit 1 Identify structures at URM maps,planning
Earthquake risk to earthquake Complete
and rehabilitation of tools and education
highly susceptible damage materials.
infrastructure
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 879 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
1—Reduce earthquakes 2—Research feasibility of
losses to infrastructure an incentive program for
Earthquake 1.1—Encourage retrofit retrofitting privately- Complete Established Fix the
and rehabilitation of owned buildings, Bricks Program
highly susceptible particularly unreinforced
infrastructure masonry
1—Reduce earthquakes
losses to infrastructure 3—Complete seismic
1.1—Encourage retrofit rehabilitation/retrofitting
Earthquake Ongoing
and rehabilitation of projects of public
highly susceptible buildings at risk
infrastructure
1—Reduce earthquakes
losses to infrastructure 1—Provide educational Fix the Bricks was
1.2—Improve public materials to added to our
Earthquake education regarding unreinforced masonry Ongoing community outreach
earthquake risks to home and business materials and
unreinforced masonry owners publications
buildings
1—Reduce earthquakes
losses to infrastructure 1—Procure Engineering
1.3—Improve Seismic Consultant to perform
Earthquake Hazard understanding the nonstructural design NA
and seismic resistance of and geotechnical
CUWCD Red Butte Dam assessment and review.
in Salt Lake County.
1—Protection of life and
property before,during
and after a flooding
Floodin event 1—Assist Cities with NFIP NA
g 1.1—Provide 100% application
availability of the
National Flood Insurance
Program
1—Protection of life and
property before,during
and after a flooding
2—Encourage
event
Flooding Communities to actively Ongoing
1.1—Provide 100% participate in NFIP
availability of the
National Flood Insurance
Program
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 880 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
1—Protection of life and
property before,during
and after a flooding 1—Determine potential
flood impacts and
Flooding event identify areas in need of Ongoing Evaluated Regularly
1.2—Encourage
appropriate flood control additional flood control
measures,particularly in structures
new developments
1—Protection of life and
property before,during 2—Address identified
and after a flooding problems through
construction of debris
Flooding event basins,flood retention Ongoing Evaluated Regularly
1.2—Encourage
appropriate flood control Ponds,energy dissipaters
measures,particularly in or other flood control
new developments structures
1—Protection of life and
property before,during 1—Establish
and after a flooding maintenance and repair
event programs to remove
Flooding 1.3 Provide debris,improve Ongoing Evaluated Regularly
maintenance,repairs and resistance and otherwise
improvements to maintain effectiveness of
drainage structures, storm water and flood
storm water systems and control systems
flood control structures
2—Reduce threat of
unstable or inadequate
flood control structures 1—Identify and assess
Flooding 2.1 Reduce potential structures for Ongoing Evaluated Regularly
for failure of flood deficiencies
control structures
2—Reduce threat of
unstable or inadequate
flood control structures 2—Modify structures as
Flooding 2.1 Reduce potential needed to address Ongoing Evaluated Regularly
for failure of flood deficiencies
control structures
1—Reduce threat of loss
of life or property due to 1 Maintain Hazardous
Severe Weather Operations Plan
Weather extreme weather events according to StormReady Ongoing
1.1—Maintain status as a
StormReady Community requirements
1—Reduce threat of loss
Severe of life or property due to 2—Maintain Contact
Weather extreme weather events with NWS prior to re- Complete
1.1—Maintain status as a application in 2010
StormReady Community
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 881 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
1—Reduce threat of loss 1—Meet with NWS
of life or property due to representative on an
Severe extreme weather events annual basis to receive
Ongoing
Weather 1.2—Increase awareness information on new
of information services services and alerts
provided by NWS available
1—Reduce threat of loss
of life or property due to 2—Assist NWS in making
Severe extreme weather events other agencies and
Weather 1.2—Increase awareness departments aware of Ongoing
of information services available resources
provided by NWS
1—Reduce threat of loss 1—Assist Forest Service
of life or property due to Utah Avalanche Forecast
Severe extreme weather events Center and other
Weather 1.3—Encourage safe organizations in NA
practices in avalanche promoting avalanche
hazard awareness for
prone areas
backcountry users
1—Reduce threat of loss
of life or property due to 1—Work with NWS to
Severe extreme weather events develop large event
Weather 1.4—Examine the venue weather safety Ongoing
vulnerability of patrons and evacuation
at large event venues to procedures
extreme weather events
1—Reduce or eliminate 1—Develop protocol for
the threat of slope failure working with State and
Slope damage Federal agencies in
Failure 1.1—Reduce the threat reducing the impact of Ongoing
of slope failures following post-fire debris flow
wildfires hazard
1—Reduce or eliminate 1—Coordinate with the
Slope the threat of slope failure Utah Geological Survey
damage and other agencies to Ongoing
Failure
1.2—Monitor historic understand current slope
landslide areas failure threats/potential
1—Utilize
1—Reduce or eliminate recommendations
the threat of slope failure provided by the State
Slope damage Geological Hazards
Failure 1.3—Address landslide Working Group to Ongoing
hazards in new sub- address land-use and
divisions planning for new
developments
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 882 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
1—Community
education on wildfire
1—Increase public
Wildland hazard We promote Firewise
awareness through Ongoing
Fire Reduce risk from when applicable
wildfire through "Firewise"program
education programs
1—Community
education on wildfire 2—Educate homeowners
Wildland hazard on the need to create
Fire 1.1—Reduce risk from defensible space near Ongoing Part of Firewise
wildfire through structures in WUI
education programs
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
planning,protective
actions and improved fire 1—Designate and
Wildland promote county-wide
response capabilities NA
Fire 2.1—Assist homeowners annual initiative for
with creating defensible clearing fuels
space near structures in
WUI areas
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
planning,protective 2—Provide waste
actions and improved fire removal,such as
Wildland chipping of green waste
Fire response capabilities by public works, Ongoing
2.1—Assist homeowners
with creating defensible following designated fuel
space near structures in clearing day/week
WUI areas
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
1—Work with experts
Wildland planning,protective and communities to
Fire actions and improved fire develop or update Ongoing
response capabilities
2.2—Improve evacuation evacuation plans
capabilities for WUI areas
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through 2—Evaluate
planning,protective transportation network
Wildland and address needed
actions and improved fire Ongoing
Fire improvements to
response capabilities
2.2—Improve evacuation facilitate evacuation and
capabilities for WUI areas emergency response
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 883 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through 1—Identify all facilities,
planning, businesses,and
p g,protective residences,particularly
Wildland actions and improved fire in the canyons,and
Fire response capabilities assign addresses NA
2.3—Improve addressing
system in WUI areas to according to current
county addressing
facilitate emergency standards
response
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
planning,protective
actions and improved fire 2—Incorporate
Wildland response capabilities improved addresses in Ongoing
Fire fire-dispatch and other
2.3—Improve addressing
system in WUI areas to databases
facilitate emergency
response
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
Wildland planning,protective 1—Reduce fuels around
actions and improved fire publically owned Ongoing
Fire
response capabilities structures
2.4—Complete wildfire
protection projects
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
Wildland planning,protective 2—Implement fire
actions and improved fire breaks and other NA
Fire response capabilities protective measures
2.4—Complete wildfire
protection projects
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
planning,protective 3—Assess existing water
Wildland flow capabilities,both
Fire actions and improved fire public and private,and Ongoing
response capabilities
2.4—Complete wildfire address deficiencies
protection projects
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
4—Assist communities in
Wildland planning,protective developing Community
actions and improved fire Ongoing
Fire esponse capabilities Wildfire Protection Plans
r2.4—Complete wildfire or similar plans
protection projects
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1
Page 884 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
Category Goal/Objective Action Status Comments
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
planning,protective 1 Adopt the Utah
Wildland actions and improved fire
Fire esponse capabilities Wildland-Urban Interface Complete
2.5—Encourage proper Code
development practices in
the WUI
2—Improve safety from
wildfire hazards through
planning,protective 2—Define wildland-
Wildland actions and improved fire urban interface and
Fire response capabilities develop digital maps of Complete
2.5—Encourage proper the WUI
development practices in
the WUI
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 885 of 1430
Salt Lake City, Utah
This page intentionally left blank
Salt Lake County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex J
Page 886 of 1430