1. FEMA Mitigation Opportunities Colorado Rural Electric Association, Loss Control Seminar, July 13, 2010 Mitigation Team Division of Emergency Management Colorado Department of Local Affairs 9195 East Mineral Ave Centennial, CO 80112 What are they and how do we take advantage?

2. Agenda  Mitigation Overview……………………………………….11:00 – Ken Brink  FEMA Mitigation Funding Opportunities………...11:10 – Deanna Butterbaugh  Mitigation Plan Process and Structure…………….11:20 – Ken Brink  Preliminary Survey Results……………………………..11:30 – Ken Brink  Mitigation Goals & Strategies Work Session…...11:40 – Deanna Butterbaugh and Ken Brink  Closing Thoughts, Questions, and Comments….12:00 – Ken Brink  Lunch Break…….…………………………………….….……12:15

3. Mitigation Defined  Activities designed to reduce or eliminate risks to persons or property or to lessen the actual or potential effects or consequences of an incident.  Mitigation measures may be implemented prior to, during, or after an incident.  Mitigation measures are often developed in accordance with lessons learned from prior incidents.

4. Mitigation Defined  Hazard mitigation – Includes any cost-effective measure which will reduce the potential for damage to a facility from a disaster event. – Measures may include pole replacement, underground lines, infrastructure relocation, and analysis of hazard-related data.  Incident mitigation – Involves actions taken during an incident designed to minimize impacts or contain the damages to property or the environment.

5. CDEM Mitigation Team  Assist Colorado’s local jurisdictions to develop and maintain hazard mitigation plans. These plans identify natural hazards for consideration in development and planning and are essential in becoming eligible for federal mitigation funds.  Provide mitigation information, technical assistance, and funding to local jurisdictions, state agencies and public.  Administer the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance program including pre- and post-disaster mitigation funds (Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program).

6. CDEM Mitigation Team State Hazard Mitigation Officer EMPG / Recovery Manager Mitigation Team Supervisor Mitigation Specialist Administrative Assistant II 2010 Organizational Chart

7. CDEM Mitigation Team  Mitigation funding = 44% of 2009 budget for Division of Emergency Management.

8. Why are we here?  Enhancing relationships between Colorado’s rural electric cooperatives and Colorado’s emergency management community.  Identification and prioritization of critical electric infrastructure.  Ensuring a complete and comprehensive hazard analysis and risk assessment for electric cooperatives serving rural communities.  Developing mitigation goals, strategies and actions for rural electric associations to support disaster resilience and recovery capabilities.  Committing to a plan maintenance process to monitor achievements and areas of improvement.  Improve Colorado’s rural electric cooperatives access to pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation assistance.

9. Holly Tornado – Feb 2007

10. Mitigation Funding Opportunities  Post Disaster – Presidential Disaster Declaration – Public Assistance (PA) – Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)  Pre-Disaster – Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)

11. Public Assistance - PA (Post Disaster)  PA grants are for restoring damaged facilities to pre-disaster condition  Also includes Section 406 Hazard Mitigation – Consist of work applied only to the damaged portions of the facility – Restores a facility beyond its pre-disaster design – Must meet mitigation project requirements including cost- effectiveness:  No more than 15% more than pre-disaster restoration costs  For certain pre-approved measures – additional funds up to an amount equal to cost of pre-disaster restoration  Meets FEMA Benefit Cost Analysis

12. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP (Post-Disaster)  Provides funds to States, Territories, Tribal Governments, local governments and eligible private non-profits (PNPs) following a Presidential major disaster declaration  Rural Electric Cooperatives are eligible subapplicants and apply to the state  State administers the grant and selects projects which must be consistent with FEMA-approved state and local hazard mitigation plans.

13. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)  Nationally competitive program  Colorado Funding: – Over $20 million since 2005  Extensive Application Process  Private non-profits eligible with the State or local government as the subapplicant

14. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)  Federal Funds = 75% of total project cost  Local Match = 25% of total project cost ($3 million maximum federal funds per project) Example: $400,000 total project cost $300,000 federal fund (75%) $100,000 local match (25%)

15. Mitigation Project Requirements  Reduce the risk of future damage  Be Eligible & Technically Feasible  Be Cost-Effective – Will not cost more than anticipated value of benefits (FEMA Benefit Cost Analysis)  Comply with Environmental Laws/Regulations

16. Typical Examples of Eligible Mitigation Projects  Small Flood Control Projects  Safe Rooms/Tornado Shelters  Wildfire Fuels Reduction Projects  Acquisition/Demolition of property in areas prone to natural Hazards  Infrastructure Retrofit – measures to reduce risk to existing utility systems, roads and bridges

17. Summary of Hazard Mitigation Assistance Project Awards in Colorado Wildfire Mitigation/Fuels Reduction Flood Reduction/ Drainage Improvements Tornado Shelters Landslide/ Slope Stabilization/ Property Acquisition Planning Grants Number of Projects 851214 Communities who received Grants Colorado State Forest Service, Larimer County, Summit County, Colorado Springs, Jefferson County Woodland Park, Denver, Larimer County (Town of Gilcrest), Town of Erie, Grand Junction Logan County Colorado SpringsArchuleta County, Colorado Springs, Denver Regional COG, San Luis Valley, Jefferson County, Huerfano County, Bent County (for the Southeast Region), Morgan County (for the NE Planning Region), Summit County, Costilla County, Grand County, Montrose County, Delta County, Park County, Boulder County FEMA Grant FundPDM, HMGPPDM, FMAPDM PDM, FMA Total Competitive FEMA Funding 2005-2009 $ 22,807,496.65 *Note: This total does not include 4 projects from 2010 that are currently in the environmental review or final award process

18. North Dakota Hazard Mitigation Project Examples – With REAs  2007 PDM - 2 line undergrounding projects in Richland County – $147,500 fed share (3 mile of line – 200 customers) – $191,500 fed share (4 mile of line – 450 customers)  2009 HMGP: – Strengthening Steel Towers – 80 miles over 4 counties South Dakota REAs have also been successful

19. Weld County Tornado – May 2008

20. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan  In order for local governments or other eligible entities to apply for FEMA mitigation funds, there must be participation in the development of a local multi-hazard mitigation plan and must have that plan adopted by resolution.  The State of Colorado must have an approved Pre- disaster mitigation plan for state entities to be eligible for mitigation grants.

21. REA Mitigation Plan  Purpose – To develop a rural electric natural hazard mitigation plan as part of the Colorado Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan that meets national planning standards while strengthening disaster resilience and recovery capabilities of the State’s rural electric providers.

22. REA Mitigation Plan  Scope – Improve Colorado’s rural electric cooperatives access to pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation assistance. – Enhancing relationships between REAs and the emergency management community. – Ensuring a complete and comprehensive hazard analysis and risk assessment for electric cooperatives serving rural communities. – Identification and prioritization of critical electric infrastructure. – Developing mitigation goals, strategies and actions for rural electric associations to support disaster resilience and recovery capabilities. – Committing to a plan maintenance process to monitor achievements and areas of improvement.

23. REA Mitigation Plan Structure  Planning Process – Description of coordination efforts  Who was involved? How was it prepared? How did REAs participate? – Documentation of meeting outcomes, correspondences, etc.  Risk Assessment – Identifying Hazards – Profiling Hazards

24. REA Mitigation Plan Structure  Mitigation Strategies – Goals (and corresponding objectives)  Based on risk assessments – Capabilities Assessment  Discussion of pre and post-disaster management policies, programs and capabilities to mitigate hazards – Evaluation of laws, regulations, policies and programs related to hazard mitigation and development in hazard prone areas – Funding capabilities  General description and analysis of the effectiveness of local mitigation policies, programs and capabilities – Building codes – Zoning – Land use policies

25. REA Mitigation Plan Structure  Mitigation Strategies, cont. – Mitigation Actions:  Identification, evaluation and prioritization of “cost effective, environmentally sound, and technically feasible mitigation actions and activities…” – Explanation of how each contributes to the overall mitigation strategy – Should be linked to local plans  Identification of sources of Local, State and Federal and private funding for mitigation actions

26. REA Mitigation Plan Structure  Plan Maintenance Process – Established method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan  How, when and by whom? – Do the goals and objectives still address current and expected conditions – Has the nature or magnitude of hazards changed? Development pressures? – Are current resources appropriate for implementing the plan? – System for monitoring implementation of mitigation measures and project closeouts and; – reviewing progress on achieving goals, activities and projects in the Mitigation Strategies

27. REA Participation Recommendations  Natural Hazard Mitigation Survey – Complete and return to CDEM Mitigation Team  CREA Loss Control Seminar – Attend and participate in this discussion  Draft Document Review – Review draft REA mitigation plan and provide comments to CDEM Mitigation Team  Board Adoption / Acknowledgement?

28. Plan Milestones and Timeline April 2010 Kick-off meeting with CREA June 2010 REA Hazard Mitigation Survey Distributed July 2010 Loss Prevention Seminar August 2010 Draft plan distributed for review September 2010 Final REA plan in state mitigation plan October 2010 State plan submitted to FEMA for review December 2010 Plan signed off on by Governor January 2011 REA board adoption June 2011 FEMA 2011 HMA Program Announcement July 2011 Notice of Interest for mitigation funds due

29. Colorado Rural Electric Cooperative Natural Hazard Mitigation Survey  Emailed to REAs on June 23  Second email on July 6  Goal is 100% participation  I will email, call, continue to nag... – Paper Survey – Digital Survey

30.  Participation – To Date 46% (12 of 26) of State REAs – 13 surveys from 12 REAs  Concern that natural hazards would interrupt service or impact critical infrastructure – Somewhat concerned  REA hazard analysis and risk assessments – Most completed within 5 years Preliminary Survey Results

31. – Lightning (10) – Winter weather (9) – Windstorms (9) – Thunderstorms (8) – Fire (7) – Tornadoes (5) – Hailstorm (4) – Precipitation (4) – Drought (3) – Floods (3) – Erosion and Deposition (3) – Expansive Soils (2) – Extreme heat (1) – Landslides, mud/debris, rockfalls (1) – Avalanche (1) – Earthquake (1)  Natural hazards affecting/damaging critical infrastructure

32. Preliminary Survey Results High Impact – Lightning (11) – Winter Weather (10) – Windstorms (10) – Fire (9) – Thunderstorms (9) High Capability – Winter Weather (11) – Fire (8) – Windstorms (8) – Lightening (7) – Thunderstorms (7)  Natural hazards impact vs. local capability

33. Preliminary Survey Results – Substations (13) – Transmission lines (13) – Distribution lines (13) – Human capital (12) – Databases (12) – Transformers (11) – Vehicles (11) – Control center (10) – Office buildings (10) – Warehouses (10) – Networks (9) – Business systems (8) – External dependencies (8) – Internal dependencies (6) – SCADA System (6) – Telecommunications (6) – Generators (3)  Infrastructure Criticality to Overall System

34. Preliminary Survey Results – Facility backup generation (10/9) – Pole replacement (10/12) – Vegetation management (8/11) – Hot spot identification (7/7) – Underground electric lines (7/8) – Looped communication (6/8) – Cross-arm enhancement (6/9) – Improved guys / anchors (5/7) – Infrastructure relocation (5/6) – Remote facility control (5/4) – Load reduction strategies (4/3) – Pole attachment remediation (3/3) – Weather monitoring (2/4) – Harden communications (1/4) – Breakaway conductors (0/0) – Other  Raptor protection  Armor rod  Storm ties  Mitigation actions taken / prioritized

35. Preliminary Survey Results Partnership with local jurisdiction for mitigation planning 62%38% Partnership with local, regional, or state-level jurisdiction for response planning 77%23% Participation in local, regional, or state-level response exercises 46%54% Participation in local, regional, or state-level actual event responses 62%38% Resident copy of mitigation plan or emergency response plan 31%69% Partnership with local emergency management coordinator for critical infrastructure mitigation 38%62%

36. Preliminary Survey Results – Law enforcement (10) – Fire (9) – Emergency management (8) – Public works (7) – Work independently (2) – Community development (1) – Other: CREA (1) – Private business (0) – Non-profit (0)  Existing REA relationships for disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, or recovery

37. Preliminary Survey Results – Law enforcement (7) – Fire (7) – Emergency management (6) – Public works (4) – Work independently (2) – Community development (1) – Other: CREA (1) – Private business (0) – Non-profit (0)  Entity REA works with most frequently for disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, or recovery

38. Preliminary Survey Results  Knowledge of what entity to contact regarding reducing risks of natural hazards within the service territory – Yes (31%) No (69%)  Additional information needed for mitigation from natural hazards – Correlation with hazards likely to affect REAs – Lightning, Winter weather, windstorms, fire

39. Preliminary Survey Results – Email (7) – Associations (5) – Internet (4) – Public meetings (3) – Fact sheets (3) – Training courses (2) – Newspaper (2) – Traditional mail (1) – Other: ICS Training (1) – Telephone (0)  Effective methods for receiving information on REA resilience to natural hazards

40. Preliminary Survey Results  Suggestions for other ways to make natural hazard mitigation information more available – Networking before/during events – Sharing of best practices or current/past activities  Other issues regarding reduction of risk and loss associated with natural hazards – Meet with local/state partners before disaster happens – Funding needs – Identification of hazards prior to events

41. Mitigation Goals & Strategies  Goals – Reduce damage to REA critical assets. – Minimize economic losses to REA members. – Enhance relationships between REAs and local emergency management.

42. Mitigation Goals & Strategies  Goals – Reduce damage to REA critical assets.

43. Mitigation Goals & Strategies  Goals – Minimize economic losses to REA members.

44. Mitigation Goals & Strategies  Goals – Enhance relationships between REAs and local emergency management.

45. Closing Thoughts  CDEM Mitigation Team working to fulfill its mission in partnership with REAs.  Success hinges on REA participation and subject matter expert contribution.  We look forward toward working with CREA members and other REAs serving the state in enhancing ongoing disaster resiliency efforts while identifying new opportunities.

46. Questions and Comments  Thank you to CREA for allowing us to participate in the Loss Prevention Seminar  Thank you to REA representatives for your time, attention, and participation Let’s eat!

47. Resources  CDEM Mitigation TEAM  FEMA – Public Assistance Grant – Electric Utility Repair (http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/9580_6.shtm) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/9580_6.shtm – Report - Electrical Transmission and Distribution Mitigation: Loss Avoidance Study: Nebraska and Kansas, April 2008  CREA Webpage – www.crea.coop www.crea.coop – Loss Control & Safety – Downloads and Other Information  NRECA Webpage – www.nreca.org www.nreca.org – Search on “FEMA” – An Electric Cooperative’s Introduction to FEMA

48. CDEM Mitigation Team  Ken Brink Mitigation Team Supervisor Kenneth.brink@state.co.us (720) 852-6695 (Office) (720) 947-9729 (Mobile) (720) 852-6750 (Fax)  Deanna Butterbaugh, P.E. Mitigation Specialist deanna.butterbaugh@state.co.us (720) 852-6697 (Office) (720) 519-0999(Mobile) (720) 852-6750 (Fax)  Contact Information Colorado Division of Emergency Management 9195 East Mineral Avenue Centennial, CO 80112