Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 5096 attachmenttR. King County Office of Emergency Management KING COUNTY REGIONAL HA Volume 1: Planning- Area -Wide Elemen Agency Review Submittal 11111111111111111111111111111111111 11 Sf y// TETRA TECH King County REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 1: PLANNING - AREA -WIDE ELEMENTS A' "q CY JULY 2014 Prepared for: King County Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Prepared by: TETRA TECH complex world A CLEAR SOLUTIONS' 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Tel 425 „877.2800 Fax 425.877.2899 www:tetratech.com Project #103S2548 ACT.A Page 9 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ES -1 PART 1- THE ;PLANNING!! PROCESS Chapter 1. Introduction to the Planning Process 1 -1 1.1 Why Prepare This Plan? 1 -1 1.1.1 The Big Picture 1 -1 1.1.2 Local Concerns 1 -1 1.1.3 Purposes for Planning 1 -2 1.2 Who Will Benefit From This Plan? 1 -2 1.3 How to Use This Plan 1 -2 Chapter 2. Plan Update —What Has Changed 2 -1 2.1 The Previous Plans 2 -1 2.2 Why Update? 2 -1 2.3 Changes in Development 2 -2 2.4 The 5 -Year Progress Report 2 -2 2.5 The Updated Plan —What Is Different? 2 -2 Chapter 3. Plan Methodology 3 -1 3.1 Grant Funding 3 -1 3.2 Formation of the Planning Team 3 -1 3.3 Establishment of the Planning Partnership 3 -1 3.4 Defining the Planning Area 3 -3 3.5 The Steering Committee 3 -3 3.6 Coordination with Other Agencies 3 -4 3.7 Review of Existing Programs 3 -5 3.8 Public Involvement 3 -6 3.8.1 Strategy 3 -6 3.8.2 Public Involvement Results 3 -13 3.9 Plan Development Chronology /Milestones 3 -13 Chapter 4. Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives 4 -1 4.1 Guiding Principle 4 -1 4.2 Goals 4 -1 4.3 Objectives 4 -1 PART 2- RISK ASSESSMENT Chapter 5. Identified Hazards of Concern and Risk Assessment Methodology 5 -1 5.1 Identified Hazards of Concern 5 -1 5.2 Methodology 5 -2 5.3 Risk Assessment Tools 5 -2 5.3.1 Mapping 5 -2 5.3.2 Dam Failure, Earthquake and Flood — Hazus -MH 5 -2 ACT.A / Page 11 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 5.3.3 Landslide, Tsunami, Severe Weather, Severe Winter Weather, Wildfire and Volcano 5 -4 5.3.4 Avalanche 5 -5 5.3.5 Limitations 5 -5 Chapter 6. King County Profile 6 -1 6.1 Jurisdictions and Attractions 6 -2 6.2 Historical Overview 6 -2 6.3 Major Past Hazard Events 6 -3 6.4 Physical Setting 6 -3 6.4.1 Geology 6 -3 6.4.2 Soils 6 -5 6.4.3 Seismic Features 6 -6 6.4.4 Climate 6 -6 6.5 Land Use 6 -11 6.6 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 6 -11 6.7 Demographics 6 -17 6.7.1 Population Characteristics 6 -17 6.7.2 Income 6 -17 6.7.3 Age Distribution 6 -19 6.7.4 Race, Ethnicity and Language 6 -20 6.7.5 Disabled Populations 6 -21 6.8 Economy 6 -21 6.8.1 Industry, Businesses and Institutions 6 -21 6.8.2 Employment Trends and Occupations 6 -22 6.9 Future Trends in Development 6 -23 6.10 Laws, Ordinances and programs 6 -23 6.10.1 Federal 6 -23 6.10.2 State 6 -25 6.10.3 Local Programs 6 -28 Chapter 7. Climate Change Considerations for Hazard Mitigation 7 -1 7.1 What is Climate Change? 7 -1 7.2 How Climate Change Affects Hazard Mitigation 7 -2 7.3 Current indications of Climate Change 7 -2 7.3.1 Global Indicators 7 -2 7.3.2 Indicators Tracked by King County 7 -2 7.4 Projected Future Impacts 7 -4 7.4.1 Global Projections 7 -4 7.4.2 Projections for Washington State 7 -4 7.5 Responses to Climate Change 7 -5 7.5.1 Mitigation and Adaptation 7 -5 7.5.2 Future Modeling Efforts 7 -5 7.5.3 Response To Climate Change in the Northwest 7 -6 7.6 Potential Climate Change Impact on Hazards 7 -8 7.6.1 Avalanche 7 -8 7.6.2 Dam Failure 7 -8 7.6.3 Earthquake 7 -9 7.6.4 Flood 7 -9 7.6.5 Landslide 7 -10 7.6.6 Severe Weather 7 -10 7.6.7 Severe Winter Weather 7 -12 7.6.8 Tsunami 7 -13 ACT.A Page 12 of 869 TABLE OF CONTENTS 7.6.9 Volcano 7 -13 7.6.10 Wildfire 7 -13 Chapter 8. Avalanche 8 -1 8.1 General Background 8 -1 8.2 Hazard Profile 8 -2 8.2.1 Past Events 8 -2 8.2.2 Location 8 -2 8.2.3 Frequency 8 -2 8.2.4 Severity 8 -2 8.2.5 Warning Time 8 -4 8.3 Secondary Hazards 8 -4 8.4 Exposure 8 -4 8.4.1 Population 8 -5 8.4.2 Property 8 -5 8.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 8 -5 8.4.4 Environment 8 -5 8.5 Vulnerability 8 -5 8.6 Future Trends in Development 8 -6 8.7 Scenario 8 -6 8.8 Issues 8 -6 Chapter 9. Dam Failure 9 -1 9.1 General Background 9 -1 9.1.1 Causes of Dam Failure 9 -1 9.1.2 Regulatory Oversight 9 -2 9.2 Hazard Profile 9 -4 9.2.1 Past Events 9 -4 9.2.2 Location 9 -4 9.2.3 Frequency 9 -4 9.2.4 Severity 9 -4 9.2.5 Warning Time 9 -6 9.3 Secondary Hazards 9 -6 9.4 Exposure 9 -7 9.4.1 Population 9 -7 9.4.2 Property 9 -7 9.4.3 Critical Facilities 9 -9 9.4.4 Environment 9 -9 9.5 Vulnerability 9 -11 9.5.1 Population 9 -11 9.5.2 Property 9 -11 9.5.3 Critical Facilities 9 -13 9.5.4 Environment 9 -13 9.6 Future Trends in Development 9 -14 9.7 Scenario 9 -14 9.8 Issues 9 -14 Chapter 10. Earthquake 10 -1 10.1 General Background 10 -1 10.1.1 How Earthquakes Happen 10 -1 10.1.2 Types of Earthquakes 10 -1 10.1.3 Faults 10 -3 ffi ACT.A Page 13 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 10.1.4 Earthquake Classifications 10 -3 10.1.5 Ground Motion 10 -4 10.1.6 Effect of Soil Types 10 -5 10.2 Hazard Profile 10 -6 10.2.1 Past Events 10 -6 10.2.2 Location 10 -6 10.2.3 Frequency 10 -15 10.2.4 Severity 10 -15 10.2.5 Warning Time 10 -17 10.3 Secondary Hazards 10 -17 10.4 Exposure 10 -17 10.4.1 Population 10 -17 10.4.2 Property 10 -18 10.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 10 -18 10.4.4 Environment 10 -18 10.5 Vulnerability 10 -18 10.5.1 Population 10 -18 10.5.2 Property 10 -19 10.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 10 -24 10.5.4 Environment 10 -26 10.6 Future Trends in Development 10 -26 10.7 Scenario 10 -28 10.8 Issues 10 -28 Chapter 11. Flood 11 -1 11.1 General Background 11 -1 11.1.1 Measuring Floods and Floodplains 11 -1 11.1.2 Floodplain Ecosystems 11 -2 11.1.3 Effects of Human Activities 11 -2 11.1.4 Federal Flood Programs 11 -2 11.1.5 Protection of the Floodplain Environment 11 -8 11.2 Hazard Profile 11 -11 11.2.1 Types of Flood Related Hazards 11 -12 11.2.2 Principal Flooding Sources 11 -13 11.2.3 Past Events 11 -16 11.2.4 Location 11 -16 11.2.5 Frequency 11 -16 11.2.6 Severity 11 -16 11.2.7 Warning Time 11 -20 11.3 Secondary Hazards 11 -22 11.4 Exposure 11 -22 11.4.1 Population 11 -22 11.4.2 Property 11 -22 11.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 11 -27 11.4.4 Environment 11 -32 11.5 Vulnerability 11 -33 11.5.1 Population 11 -33 11.5.2 Property 11 -35 11.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 11 -41 11.5.4 Environment 11 -42 11.6 Future Trends 11 -42 IV ACT.A Page 14 of 869 TABLE OF CONTENTS 11.7 Scenario 11 -43 11.8 Issues 11 -43 Chapter 12. Landslide 12 -1 12.1 General Background 12 -1 12.1.1 Landslide Types and Run -Out 12 -1 12.1.2 Landslide Causes 12 -2 12.1.3 Landslide Management 12 -3 12.2 Hazard Profile 12 -4 12.2.1 Past Events 12 -4 12.2.2 Location 12 -6 12.2.3 Frequency 12 -7 12.2.4 Severity 12 -10 12.2.5 Warning Time 12 -10 12.3 Secondary Hazards 12 -11 12.4 Exposure 12 -11 12.4.1 Population 12 -11 12.4.2 Property 12 -11 12.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 12 -11 12.4.4 Environment 12 -16 12.5 Vulnerability 12 -16 12.5.1 Population 12 -16 12.5.2 Property 12 -16 12.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 12 -16 12.5.4 Environment 12 -16 12.6 Future Trends in Development 12 -18 12.7 Scenario 12 -18 12.8 Issues 12 -18 Chapter 13. Severe Weather 13 -1 13.1 General Background 13 -1 13.1.1 Extreme Heat 13 -1 13.1.2 Thunderstorms 13 -2 13.1.3 Hail Storms 13 -4 13.1.4 Damaging Winds 13 -4 13.1.5 Tornado 13 -6 13.2 Hazard Profile 13 -8 13.2.1 Past Events 13 -8 13.2.2 Location 13 -13 13.2.3 Frequency 13 -13 13.2.4 Severity 13 -13 13.2.5 Warning Time 13 -14 13.3 Secondary Hazards 13 -14 13.4 Exposure 13-14 13.4.1 Population 13 -14 13.4.2 Property 13 -14 13.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 13 -15 13.4.4 Environment 13 -15 13.5 Vulnerability 13 -15 13.5.1 Population 13 -15 13.5.2 Property 13 -15 13.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 13 -16 ACT.A V Page 15 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 13.5.4 Environment 13 -16 13.6 Future Trends in Development 13 -16 13.7 Scenario 13 -16 13.8 Issues 13 -18 Chapter 14. Severe Winter Weather 14 -1 14.1 General Background 14 -1 14.1.1 Blizzards and Snowstorms 14 -1 14.1.2 Ice Storms 14 -2 14.1.3 Extreme Cold and Wind Chill 14 -2 14.2 Hazard Profile 14 -3 14.2.1 Past Events 14 -3 14.2.2 Location 14 -3 14.2.3 Frequency 14 -3 14.2.4 Severity 14 -5 14.2.5 Warning Time 14 -5 14.3 Secondary Hazards 14 -6 14.4 Exposure 14 -6 14.4.1 Population 14 -6 14.4.2 Property 14 -6 14.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 14 -6 14.4.4 Environment 14 -6 14.5 Vulnerability 14 -6 14.5.1 Population 14 -6 14.5.2 Property 14 -7 14.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 14 -7 14.5.4 Environment 14 -7 14.6 Future Trends in Development 14 -7 14.7 Scenario 14 -9 14.8 Issues 14 -9 Chapter 15. Tsunami 15 -1 15.1 General Background 15 -1 15.2 Hazard Profile 15 -2 15.2.1 Past Events 15 -2 15.2.2 Location 15 -2 15.2.3 Frequency 15 -5 15.2.4 Severity 15 -5 15.2.5 Warning Time 15 -5 15.3 Secondary Hazards 15 -6 15.4 Exposure 15 -6 15.4.1 Population 15 -6 15.4.2 Property 15 -7 15.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 15 -8 15.4.4 Environment 15 -9 15.5 Vulnerability 15 -9 15.5.1 Population 15 -9 15.5.2 Property 15 -9 15.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 15 -10 15.5.4 Environment 15 -10 15.6 Future Trends in Development 15 -10 15.7 Scenario 15 -10 VI ACT.A Page 16 of 869 TABLE OF CONTENTS 15.8 Issues 15 -10 Chapter 16. Volcano 16 -1 16.1 General Background 16 -1 16.1.1 Types of Eruptions 16 -1 16.1.2 Hazards Associated with the Eruption of Volcano 16 -2 16.1.3 Hazards That Can Occur With or Without an Eruption 16 -3 16.2 Hazard Profile 16 -4 16.2.1 Past Events 16 -4 16.2.2 Location 16 -5 16.2.3 Frequency 16 -7 16.2.4 Severity 16 -7 16.2.5 Warning Time 16 -8 16.3 Secondary Hazards 16 -9 16.4 Exposure 16 -9 16.4.1 Population 16 -9 16.4.2 Property 16 -10 16.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 16 -12 16.4.4 Environment 16 -12 16.5 Vulnerability 16 -15 16.5.1 Population 16 -15 16.5.2 Property 16 -15 16.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 16 -17 16.5.4 Environment 16 -17 16.6 Future Trends in Development 16 -17 16.7 Scenario 16 -18 16.8 Issues 16 -18 Chapter 17. Fire 17 -1 17.1 General Background 17 -1 17.1.1 Structure Fires 17 -1 17.1.2 Wildfires 17 -1 17.1.3 Wildland/Urban Interface Fires 17 -3 17.2 Hazard Profile 17 -3 17.2.1 Past Events 17 -3 17.2.2 Location 17 -4 17.2.3 Frequency 17 -8 17.2.4 Severity 17 -8 17.2.5 Warning Time 17 -10 17.3 Secondary Hazards 17 -10 17.4 Exposure 17 -10 17.4.1 Population 17 -10 17.4.2 Property 17 -10 17.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 17 -10 17.4.4 Environment 17 -16 17.5 Vulnerability 17 -16 17.5.1 Population 17 -16 17.5.2 Property 17 -17 17.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 17 -17 17.6 Future Trends in Development 17 -17 17.7 Scenario 17 -17 17.8 Issues 17 -19 vii u Page 17 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Chapter 18. Hazards of Interest 18 -1 18.1 Health Hazards 18 -1 18.1.1 Epidemic or Pandemic 18 -1 18.1.2 Bioterrorism 18 -2 18.2 Cybersecurity 18 -3 18.3 Terrorism 18 -4 18.3.1 Past Events 18 -5 18.3.2 Incendiary Devices 18 -5 18.3.3 Potential Targets 18 -7 18.3.4 Potential Economic Impacts 18 -7 Chapter 19. Planning Area Risk Ranking 19 -1 19.1.1 Probability of Occurrence 19 -1 19.1.2 Impact 19 -1 19.1.3 Risk Rating and Ranking 19 -4 PART 3- MITIGATION STRATEGY Chapter 20. Mitigation Alternatives 20 -1 Chapter 21. Area -Wide Mitigation actions and Implementation 21 -1 21.1 Selected County -Wide Mitigation actions 21 -1 21.2 Benefit/Cost review 21 -2 21.3 County -Wide Action Plan Prioritization 21 -2 21.4 Plan Adoption 21 -3 21.5 Plan Maintenance Strategy 21 -3 21.5.1 Plan Implementation 21 -4 21.5.2 Steering Committee 21 -4 21.5.3 Annual Progress Report 21 -5 21.5.4 Plan Update 21 -6 21.5.5 Continuing Public Involvement 21 -6 21.5.6 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms 21 -7 21.5.7 Grant Coordination Protocol 21 -7 Appendices A. Acronyms and Definitions B. 5 -Year Progress Report on Previous Plans C. Planning Partner Bulletins D. Hazard Mitigation Questionnaire and Survey Results E. Concepts and Methods Used for Hazard Mapping F. Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners G. Progress Report Template ACT.A viii Page 18 of 869 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page No. Table ES -1. Municipal Planning Partners 1 Table ES -2. Special Purpose District Planning Partners 2 Table ES -3. Summary of Hazard Ranking Results 4 Table ES -3. Action Plan- Countywide Mitigation actions 6 Table 2 -1. Plan Changes Crosswalk 2 -4 Table 3 -1. Municipal Planning Partners 3 -2 Table 3 -2. Special Purpose District Planning Partners 3 -3 Table 3 -3. Steering Committee Members 3 -4 Table 3 -4 Summary of Public Meetings 3 -13 Table 3 -5. Plan Development Milestones 3 -13 Table 6 -1. Federal Disaster Declarations for Events Affecting King County 6 -4 Table 6 -2. Present Land Use in Planning Area 6 -11 Table 6 -3. Critical Facilities by Jurisdiction and Category 6 -13 Table 6 -4. Critical Infrastructure by Jurisdiction and Category 6 -14 Table 6 -5. Annual Population Data 6 -18 Table 8 -1. Impact Pressures Related to Damage 8 -3 Table 9 -1. Hazard Class 1A Dams With Potential to Affect King County 9 -5 Table 9 -2. Corps of Engineers Hazard Potential Classification 9 -6 Table 9 -3. Population within Dam Failure Inundation Areas 9 -7 Table 9 -4. Exposure and Value Of Structures in Tolt River Dam Failure Inundation Area 9 -8 Table 9 -5. Exposure and Value Of Structures in Culmback Dam Failure Inundation Area 9 -8 Table 9 -6. Exposure and Value Of Structures in Lake Youngs Dam Failure Inundation Area 9 -8 Table 9 -7. Present Land Use in Dam Inundation Areas 9 -9 Table 9 -8. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Culmback Dam Inundation Area 9 -10 Table 9 -9. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Lake Youngs Dam Inundation Area 9 -10 Table 9 -10. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Tolt Dam Inundation Area 9 -11 Table 9 -11. Estimated dam failure impact on Persons and Households 9 -11 Table 9 -12. Loss Estimates for Structures in Tolt River Dam Failure Inundation Area 9 -12 Table 9 -13. Loss Estimates for Structures in Culmback Dam Failure Inundation Area 9 -12 Table 9 -14. Loss Estimates for Structures in Lake Youngs Dam Failure Inundation Area 9 -13 Table 9 -15. Estimated dam failure- Caused Debris 9 -13 Table 10 -1. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison 10 -5 Table 10 -2. NEHRP Soil Classification System 10 -5 Table 10 -3. Historical Earthquakes Impacting the Planning Area 10 -6 Table 10 -4. Estimated Earthquake Impact on Persons and Households 10 -19 Table 10 -5. Age of Structures in Planning Area 10 -20 Table 10 -6. Loss Estimates for Probabilistic Earthquakes 10 -21 Table 10 -7. Loss Estimates for Seattle and South Whidbey Fault Scenario Earthquakes 10 -22 Table 10 -8. Loss Estimates for Tacoma Fault Scenario Earthquake 10 -23 Table 10 -9. Estimated Earthquake- Caused Debris 10 -24 Table 10 -10. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from 100 -Year Earthquake 10 -25 Table 10 -11. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from 500 -Year Earthquake 10 -25 Table 10 -12. Estimated Damage to Critical Facilities from Seattle Fault Scenario 10 -26 Table 10 -13. Functionality of Critical Facilities for 100 -Year Earthquake 10 -27 Table 10 -14. Functionality of Critical Facilities for 500 -Year Earthquake 10 -27 IX ACT.A Page 19 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements Table 10 -15. Functionality of Critical Facilities for Seattle Fault Scenario 10 -28 Table 11 -1. CRS Community Status in the Planning Area 11 -5 Table 11 -2. History of Flood Events 11 -17 Table 11 -3. King County River Basin Stream Flow Characteristics 11 -19 Table 11 -4. Area and Structures in the 100 -Year Floodplain 11 -23 Table 11 -5. Area and Structures in the 500 -Year Floodplain 11 -24 Table 11 -6. Value of Structures in 100 -Year Floodplain 11 -25 Table 11 -7. Value of Structures in 500 -Year Floodplain 11 -26 Table 11 -8. Present Land Use Within the Floodplain 11 -27 Table 11 -9. Critical Facilities in The 100 -Year Floodplain 11 -28 Table 11 -10. Critical Facilities in The 500 -Year Floodplain 11 -29 Table 11 -11. Critical Infrastructure in 100 -Year Floodplain 11 -30 Table 11 -12. Critical Infrastructure in 500 -Year Floodplain 11 -31 Table 11 -13. Estimated Flood Impact on Persons and Households 11 -34 Table 11 -14. Loss Estimates for 100 -Year Flood Event 11 -36 Table 11 -15. Loss Estimates for 500 -Year Flood Event 11 -37 Table 11 -16. Flood Insurance Statistics 11 -39 Table 11 -17. Repetitive Loss Properties 11 -41 Table 12 -1. Exposure and Value of Structures in Landslide Risk Areas 12 -12 Table 12 -2. Present Land Use in Landslide Risk Areas 12 -13 Table 12 -3. Critical Facilities in Landslide Risk Areas 12 -14 Table 12 -4. Critical Infrastructure in Landslide Risk Areas 12 -15 Table 12 -5. Loss Potential for Landslide 12 -17 Table 13 -1. Past Severe Weather Events Impacting Planning Area 13 -8 Table 13 -2. Loss Potential for Severe Weather 13 -17 Table 14 -1. Past Severe Winter Weather Events Impacting Planning Area 14 -4 Table 14 -2. Loss Potential for Severe Winter Weather 14 -8 Table 15 -1. Exposure and Value of Structures in Tsunami Inundation Zone (Seattle Only) 15 -7 Table 15 -2. Present Land Use in Tsunami Inundations Area 15 -7 Table 15 -3. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure in Tsunami Inundation Zone (Seattle) 15 -8 Table 15 -4. Loss Estimates Tsunami Inundation Zone (Seattle Only) 15 -9 Table 16 -1. Past Eruptions of Washington volcanoes 16 -4 Table 16 -2. Exposure and Value of Structures in case 1 Lahar Inundation Zone 16 -10 Table 16 -3. Exposure and Value of Structures in case 2 Lahar Inundation Zone 16 -10 Table 16 -4. Exposure and Value of Structures in post -lahar sedimentation Zone 16 -11 Table 16 -5. Present Land Use in Case 1 Lahar Inundation Area 16 -11 Table 16 -6. Present Land Use in Post Lahar Sedimentation Areas 16 -12 Table 16 -7. Critical Facilities in the Case 1 Lahar Inundation Zone 16 -13 Table 16 -8. Critical Facilities in the Case 2 Lahar Inundation Zone 16 -13 Table 16 -9. Critical Facilities in the Post Lahar Sedimentation Zone 16 -13 Table 16 -10. Critical Infrastructure in the Case 1 Lahar Inundation Zone 16 -14 Table 16 -11. Critical Infrastructure in the Case 2 Lahar Inundation Zone 16 -14 Table 16 -12. Critical Infrastructure in the Post Lahar Sedimentation Zone 16 -14 Table 16 -13. Loss Estimates for Tephra 16 -16 Table 17 -1. Wildfires in King County Greater than 10 Acres, 1980 -2012 17 -4 Table 17 -2. Population Within Fire BEHAVIOR Fuel Model Classes 17 -11 Table 17 -3. Exposure and Value of Structures in Fire behavior fuel model 10 17 -12 X ACT.A Page 20 of 869 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 17 -4. Present Land Use in Wildfire Hazard Areas 17 -13 Table 17 -5. Critical Facilities in FBFM10 Areas 17 -14 Table 17 -6. Critical Infrastructure in FBFM10 Areas 17 -15 Table 17 -7. Loss Estimates for Wildfire 17 -18 Table 19 -1. Probability of Hazards 19 -1 Table 19 -2. Impact on People from Hazards 19 -3 Table 19 -3. Impact on Property from Hazards 19 -3 Table 19 -4. Impact on Economy from Hazards 19 -4 Table 19 -5. Hazard Risk Rating 19 -4 Table 19 -6. Hazard Risk Ranking 19 -5 Table 20 -1. Catalog Table 20 -2. Catalog Table 20 -3. Catalog Table 20 -4. Catalog Table 20 -5. Catalog Table 20 -6. Catalog Table 20 -7. Catalog Table 20 -8. Catalog of Mitigation Alternatives of Mitigation Alternatives of Mitigation Alternatives of Mitigation Alternatives of Mitigation Alternatives of Mitigation Alternatives of Mitigation Alternatives of Mitigation Alternatives - Dam Failure 20 -2 - Earthquake 20 -3 - Flood 20 -4 - Landslide 20 -6 - Severe Weather and Severe Winter Weather 20 -7 - Tsunami 20 -8 - Volcano 20 -9 - Wildfire 20 -10 Table 21 -1. Action Plan- Countywide Mitigation actions 21 -1 Table 21 -2. Prioritization of Countywide Mitigation actions 21 -3 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page No. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 3 -1. Sample Web Page from Questionnaire 3 -7 3 -2. Attendees Listen to Presentation at Shoreline Public Meeting 3 -8 3 -3. Stakeholder Display at Public Open House 3 -8 3 -4. Citizen Learns about Risk at Hazus Workstation 3 -8 3 -5. Citizens View Hazard Maps at Public Open House 3 -8 3 -6. Example Hazus Workstation Output 3 -9 3 -7. Poster Advertising Public Meetings and Survey 3 -10 3 -8. Pocket Information Card (Front and Back) 3 -11 3 -9. Sample Page from Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Site 3 -12 6 -1. Main Features of the Planning Area 6 -1 6 -2. Annual Average Maximum Temperature, 1981 - 2010 6 -7 6 -3. Annual Average Minimum Temperature, 1981 - 2010 6 -8 6 -4. Annual Average Precipitation, 1981 - 2010 6 -9 6 -5. Wind Power Class at 50 -Meter Height 6 -10 6 -6. Planning Area Critical Facilities 6 -15 6 -7. Planning Area Critical Infrastructure 6 -16 6 -8. Washington and King County Population Growth 6 -19 6 -9. Planning Area Age Distribution 6 -20 6 -10. Planning Area Race Distribution 6 -20 6 -11. Industry in the Planning Area 6 -21 6 -12. Washington, King County and Seattle Metropolitan Area Unemployment Rate 6 -22 XI ACT.A Page 21 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements Figure 6 -13. Occupations in the Planning Area 6 -23 Figure 6 -14. King County Flood Control District Governance Structure 6 -29 Figure 7 -1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over Time 7 -1 Figure 7 -2. Severe Weather Probabilities in Warmer Climates 7 -11 Figure 7 -3. Change in snowfall, 1930 -2007 7 -12 Figure 8 -1. Areas Vulnerable to Avalanche 8 -3 Figure 8 -2. United States Avalanche Danger Scale 8 -7 Figure 10 -1. Earthquake Types in the Pacific Northwest 10 -2 Figure 10 -2. Planning Area Active Faults and Folds 10 -8 Figure 10 -3. Planning Area 100 -Year Probability Earthquake Event Peak Ground Acceleration 10 -9 Figure 10 -4. Planning Area 500 -Year Probability Earthquake Event Peak Ground Acceleration 10 -10 Figure 10 -5. Seattle Fault - M7.2 Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration 10 -11 Figure 10 -6. South Whidbey Island Fault - M7.4 Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration 10 -12 Figure 10 -7. Tacoma Fault - M7.1 Scenario Peak Ground Acceleration 10 -13 Figure 10 -8. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Classification 10 -14 Figure 10 -9. Liquefaction Susceptibility 10 -16 Figure 10 -10. PGA with 2- Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, Northwest Region 10 -17 Figure 11 -1. CRS Communities by Class Nationwide as of May 2014 11 -4 Figure 11 -2. FEMA Flood Hazard Areas 11 -18 Figure 11 -3. King County Flood Warning Phase Threshold and Flood Peak Summary 11 -21 Figure 11 -4. Planning Area Repetitive Loss Areas 11 -40 Figure 12 -1. Deep Seated Slide 12 -2 Figure 12 -2. Shallow Colluvial Slide 12 -2 Figure 12 -3. Bench Slide 12 -2 Figure 12 -4. Large Slide 12 -2 Figure 12 -5. Landslide Hazard Areas. 12 -8 Figure 12 -6. Cumulative Precipitation Threshold 12 -9 Figure 12 -7. Intensity Duration Threshold 12 -9 Figure 13 -1. The Thunderstorm Life Cycle 13 -3 Figure 13 -2. Potential Impact and Damage from a Tornado 13 -7 Figure 13 -3. Tornado Risk Areas in the United States 13 -6 Figure 13 -4. Heat Index Table 13 -2 Figure 14 -1. The Formation of Different Kinds of Precipitation 14 -2 Figure 14 -2. Wind Chill Chart 14 -3 Figure 15 -1. Potential Tsunami Travel Times in the Pacific Ocean 15 -3 Figure 15 -2. Tsunami Inundation Area 15 -4 Figure 16 -1. Cascade Range Eruptions in the Past 4,000 Years 16 -5 Figure 16 -2. Lahar Hazard Areas (Puyallup Valley) 16 -6 Figure 16 -3. Annual Probability of Tephra Fall in the Northwest 16 -7 Figure 17 -1. Fire Regime Groups, 2008 LANDFIRE 17 -5 Figure 17 -2. Fire Behavior Fuel Model, 2008 LANDFIRE 17 -7 Figure 17 -3. Wildland Urban Interface Communities at Risk 17 -9 Figure 18 -1. Damage Potential from Explosives Based on Delivery Vehicle 18 -6 ACT.A Xu Page 22 of 869 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Project Manager Janice Rahman Emergency Management Program Manager 3511 NE 2nd St Renton, WA 98056 (206) 205 -4061 Janice.Rahma @Kingcounty.gov Other King County Staff Barnaby Dow Nora Jagielo Sam Ripley Hong Nguyen Consultants Rob Flaner, CFM- Lead Project Planner, Tetra Tech, Inc. Kristen Gelino, Junior Planner, Tetra Tech, Inc. Carol Bauman, GIS /Hazus Risk Assessment Lead, Tetra Tech, Inc. Ed Whitford, GIS Analyst, Tetra Tech, Inc. Dan Portman, Technical Editor, Tetra Tech, Inc. Special Acknowledgments The development of this plan would not have been possible without the dedication and commitment to this process by the King County Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, the planning partners, the stakeholders and citizens of King County. The dedication of the steering committee volunteers who graciously allocated their time to this process is greatly appreciated. King County citizens and all who participated in the public process are commended for their participation and contributions to this planning process. xiii u� Page 23 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACT .A Page 25 of 869 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hazard mitigation is the use of long -term and short-term policies, programs, projects, and other activities to alleviate the death, injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. King County and a partnership of local governments within the County have developed and maintained a regional hazard mitigation plan to reduce risks from natural disasters. The plan complies with hazard mitigation planning requirements to maintain eligibility for funding under Federal Emergency Management Agency grant programs. PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING IN KING COUNTY Federal regulations require periodic updates of hazard mitigation plans to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. A jurisdiction covered by a plan that has expired is no longer in compliance with the federal requirements for hazard mitigation planning. King County and a coalition of 39 planning partners prepared an initial hazard mitigation plan that was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in November 2004. This document represents the second comprehensive update (the first update was made in 2009). The 2009 plan update process was truncated after back -to -back disasters in 2009 — January flooding and March snowstorms —and the emergence of a significant flooding threat in the Green River Valley due to problems at Howard Hanson Dam. The truncated process resulted in a significant decrease in planning partners covered by the regional plan (12 local governments). Many of the original planning partners developed their own plans or let their plans expire. This 2014 update is a return to a truly regional planning effort. Fifty -four local governments are covered by this plan update, including King County, 26 city and town governments, and 27 special purpose districts, as listed in Tables ES -1 and ES -2. The team that prepared the current update also prepared a five -year progress report of actions completed by all planning partners whose existing plan is replaced by this update. In the reporting period covered by the report, the partners started or completed 165 of 283 initiatives, 58 percent. TABLE ES -1. MUNICIPAL PLANNING PARTNERS King County City of Algona City of Auburn City of Bothell City of Burien City of Carnation City of Clyde Hill City of Duvall City of Federal Way City of Issaquah City of Kent City of Kirkland City of Maple Valley City of Medina City of Mercer Island City of North Bend City of Pacific City of Redmond City of Renton City of SeaTac City of Shoreline City of Snoqualmie City of Tukwila City of Woodinville Town of Beaux Arts Village Town of Hunts Point Town of Skykomish ACT.A ES -1 Page 27 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE ES -2. SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT PLANNING PARTNERS Coal Creek Utility District Shoreline Fire Covington Water District Skyway Water & Sewer District Highline Water District Soos Creek Water & Sewer District Kent Fire Southwest Suburban Sewer District Kent School District Valley Regional Fire Authority King County Fire District No. 2 Valley View Sewer District King County Fire District No. 45 Vashon Island Fire & Rescue King County Hospital District No. 2 (EvergreenHealth) Water District 111 Midway Sewer District Water District 125 North City Water District Water District 19 Public Hospital District No. 1 (Valley Medical) Water District 20 Riverview School District Water District 90 Ronald Wastewater District Woodinville Water District Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District PLAN UPDATE PROCESS Updating the plan consisted of the following phases: • Phase 1, Organize and Review —A planning team was assembled for the plan update, consisting of staff from the King County Office of Emergency Management and a technical consultant. The team conducted outreach to establish the planning partnership. A 19- member steering committee was assembled to oversee the plan update, consisting of planning partner staff, citizens, and other stakeholders in the planning area. Coordination with other county, state and federal agencies involved in hazard mitigation occurred throughout the plan update process. This phase included a review of the existing plan, the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, and existing programs that may support hazard mitigation actions. Phase 2, Update the Risk Assessment —Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of people, buildings and infrastructure to natural hazards. Risk assessment models were enhanced with new data and technologies that have become available since 2009. The risk assessment included the following: Hazard identification and profiling Assessment of the impact of hazards on physical, social and economic assets Vulnerability identification Estimates of the cost of potential damage. Planning partners used the risk assessment to rank risk and to gauge the potential impacts of each hazard of concern on their jurisdiction. The mitigation actions recommended in this plan include some that address limitations in the modeling caused by insufficient data. For example, in light of the Oso landslide, King County has initiated an effort identified as an action item in this plan to better characterize landslide risks in the County. ES -2 ACT.A Page 28 of 869 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Phase 3, Engage the Public —The planning team implemented a public involvement strategy developed by the Steering Committee. The strategy included public meetings to present the risk assessment and the draft plan, a hazard mitigation survey, a County- sponsored website, and multiple media releases. • Phase 4, Assemble the Updated Plan —The planning team and Steering Committee assembled a document to meet federal hazard mitigation planning requirements for all partners. The updated plan contains two volumes. Volume 1 contains components that apply to all partners and the broader planning area. Volume 2 contains all components that are jurisdiction - specific. Each planning partner has a dedicated annex in Volume 2. • Phase 5, Plan Adoption /Implementation —Once pre - adoption approval has been granted by Washington State's Emergency Management Division and FEMA Region X, the final adoption phase will begin. Each planning partner will individually adopt the updated plan. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the plan's progress periodically and producing a plan revision every 5 years. This plan maintenance strategy also includes processes for continuing public involvement and integration with other programs that can support or enhance hazard mitigation. RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Based on the risk assessment, hazards were ranked as follows for the risk they pose to the overall planning area: 1. Earthquake (High) 2. Severe Weather (High) 3. Severe Winter Weather (High) 4. Flood (Medium) 5. Landslide (Medium) 6. Wildfire (Medium) 7. Dam Failure (Low) 8. Avalanche (Low) 9. Volcano (Low) 10. Tsunami (Low). Each planning partner also ranked hazards for its own area. Table ES -3 summarizes the categories of high, medium and low (relative to other rankings) based on the numerical ratings that each jurisdiction assigned each hazard. The results indicate the following general patterns: • Earthquake, severe weather and severe winter weather generally ranked as the highest risks. • Tsunami and avalanche were not ranked by most jurisdictions. • Tsunami, volcano and wildfire tended to receive medium or low rankings based on the geographic location of each jurisdiction. Tsunami was ranked as a higher risk for coastal communities; wildfire was ranked higher for jurisdictions located farther from the highly developed areas near Puget Sound. Volcano was ranked higher for jurisdictions in the southwestern portion of the County near lahar hazard areas. • Dam failure, volcano and wildland fire tended to have low ratings. ES -3 ACT.A Page 29 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE ES -3. SUMMARY OF HAZARD RANKING RESULTS Number of Jurisdictions Assigning Ranking to Hazard High Medium Low Not Ranked Avalanche 0 0 6 48 Dan Failure 1 8 20 25 Earthquake 49 5 0 0 Flood 10 25 17 2 Landslide 5 28 17 4 Severe Weather 40 13 1 0 Severe Winter Weather 44 9 1 0 Tsunami 0 3 11 40 Volcano 0 11 34 9 Wildland Fire 3 5 26 10 MITIGATION GUIDING PRINCIPLE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following principle guided the Steering Committee and the planning partnership in selecting the initiatives contained in this plan update: King County is a region that promotes community resilience by eliminating or reducing risks and adverse impacts from hazards, while encouraging hazard mitigation activities by all sectors. The Steering Committee and the planning partnership established the following goals for the plan update: 1. Protect life and property. 2. Increase public awareness of hazards and mitigation opportunities. 3. Protect, restore and enhance environmental quality. 4. Leverage partnering opportunities. 5. Enhance planning activities. 6. Develop and implement cost - effective mitigation strategies. 7. Promote a sustainable economy. The following objectives were identified that meet multiple goals, helping to establish priorities for recommended mitigation actions: 1. Increase the resilience of critical facilities, infrastructure and government operations to ensure continuity of operations during and after a hazard event. 2. Consider the impacts of hazards in all planning mechanisms that address current and future land uses and integrate hazard mitigation goals and objectives into other existing plans and programs within the planning area. ES -4 ACT.A Page 30 of 869 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. Develop, improve and protect systems that provide early warnings, emergency response communications and evacuation procedures. 4. Use the best available data, science and technologies to improve understanding and stakeholder awareness of the location and potential impacts of hazards, the vulnerability of building types and community development patterns, and the measures needed to mitigate hazards. 5. Seek feasible mitigation projects that provide the highest degree of hazard protection with the best benefit -cost ratio. 6. Emphasize the hazard mitigation message in and promote the value of public outreach and education programs, such as Take Winter By Storm and What to Do to Make it Through. 7. Improve coordination among all sectors to mitigate hazards. 8. Reduce hazard- related risks and vulnerability to potentially isolated populations within the planning area. 9. Retrofit, purchase or relocate structures in high hazard areas, including those known to be repetitively damaged. 10. Strengthen codes to improve the hazard resilience of new construction. 11. Leverage social networks and other social capital mechanisms to educate the public and stakeholders and promote resilience. 12. Seek actions that protect or improve the environment for future environmental conditions. 13. Form private /public partnerships to leverage and share resources. 14. Partner with the private sector, including small businesses, to promote hazard mitigation as part of standard business practice. 15. Educate businesses about contingency planning countywide, targeting small businesses and those located in high risk areas, and promote employee education about disaster preparedness while on the job and at home. MITIGATION ACTIONS Mitigation actions presented in this update are activities designed to reduce or eliminate losses resulting from natural hazards. The update process resulted in the identification of nearly 700 mitigation actions for implementation by individual planning partners, as presented in Volume 2 of this plan. In addition, the steering committee and planning partnership identified seven countywide initiatives benefiting the whole partnership, as listed in Table ES -4. IMPLEMENTATION Full implementation of the recommendations of this plan will require time and resources. The measure of the plan's success will be its ability to adapt to changing conditions. King County and its planning partners will assume responsibility for adopting the recommendations of this plan and committing resources toward implementation. The framework established by this plan commits all planning partners to pursue initiatives when the benefits of a project exceed its costs. The planning partnership developed this plan with extensive public input, and public support of the actions identified in this plan will help ensure the plan's success. ES -5 ACT.A Page 31 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE ES -3. ACTION PLAN — COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS Hazards Addressed Lead Agency Possible Funding Sources or Resources Time Linea Objectives CW-1 Continue to participate in and support the "Resilient King County' initiative. All hazards King County Office of Local, possible grant funding Ongoing 1, 3, 4, 7, Emergency Management (FEMA, DHS) 13, 14, 15 (OEMI CW -2 Continue to maintain a websitc that will house the regional hazard mitigation plan. its progress reports and all components or the plan's maintenance strategy to provide the planning partners and public ongoing access to tlic plan and its implementation. All Hazards King County OE \1 King County OE \1 operatinghudgct Ongoing 4. 6. 7. 1 I, 15 CW -3 Continue to leverage/support/enhance ongoing. regional public education and awareness programs (such as "Take Winter by Storm and "Make it Through ") as a method to educate the public on risk. risk reduction and community resilience. All Hazards King County and all planning Local Ongoing 4, 6, 7, 11, partners 13. 14. 15 CW-4 Continue to support the use. development and enhancement or a regional alert and notification system. All Hazards King County OEM Local, possible grant funding Ongoing 3, 4, 7, 13 (FEMA, DHS, NWS, NOAA) (\\ -5 Strive to capture time- sensitive_ perishable data such as high water marks. extent and location of hazard. and loss information following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment. All hazards All Planning partners Local, FEMA (PA) Short-term 4, 7 CW- 6-- Encourage signatories for the regional coordination framework for disasters and planned events. All Hazards King County OEM Local Ongoing 5. 7. I. 14 CW-7 Continue ongoing communication and coordination in the implementation of the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. Flood King County OEM, King Local Ongoing 2, 4, 5, 7, County Department of Natural 10, 12 Resources & Parks, King County Flood Control District ACT.A ES -6 Page 32 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements PART 1 THE PLANNING PROCESS ACT .A Page 33 of 869 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS 1.1 WHY PREPARE THIS PLAN? 1.1.1 The Big Picture Hazard mitigation is defined as a way to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster through long - and short-term strategies. It involves strategies such as planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities that can mitigate the impacts of hazards. The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including private property owners; business and industry; and local, state, and federal government. The federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 (Public Law 106 -390) required state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. Prior to 2000, federal disaster funding focused on disaster relief and recovery, with limited funding for hazard mitigation planning. The DMA increased the emphasis on planning for disasters before they occur. The DMA encourages state and local authorities to work together on pre- disaster planning, and it promotes sustainability for disaster resistance. "Sustainable hazard mitigation" includes the sound management of natural resources and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest possible social and economic context. The enhanced planning network called for by the DMA helps local governments articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost - effective risk reduction projects. 1.1.2 Local Concerns Natural hazards impact citizens, property, the environment and the economy of King County. Avalanches, flooding, landslides, windstorms, severe winter storms, volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis have exposed King County residents and businesses to the financial and emotional costs of recovering after natural disasters. The risk associated with natural hazards increases as more people move to areas affected by those hazards. The inevitability of natural hazards and the growing population and activity within King County create an urgent need to develop strategies, coordinate resources, and increase public awareness to reduce risk and prevent loss from future hazard events. Identifying risks posed by hazards and developing strategies to reduce the impact of a hazard event can assist in protecting life and property of citizens and communities. Local residents and businesses can work together with the County to create a hazard mitigation plan that addresses the potential impacts of hazard events. To accomplish these objectives, King County and a coalition of planning partners prepared a hazard mitigation plan in 2004. That initial plan was updated in 2009, and is now undergoing its second comprehensive update in accordance with federal requirements. Several factors initiated this planning effort: • The King County area has significant exposure to numerous natural hazards that have caused millions of dollars in past damage. • The participating partners wanted to be proactive in preparedness for the probable impacts of natural hazards. 1-1 ACT.A Page 35 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Local resources to undertake risk reduction initiatives are limited. Being able to leverage federal financial assistance is paramount to successful hazard mitigation. With these factors in mind, King County is committed to maintaining this plan in accordance with federal requirements on behalf of the King County partnership that has committed to this process. 1.1.3 Purposes for Planning This planning effort represents the second comprehensive update to the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan since its initial development in 2004. This update identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards. Elements and strategies in the plan were selected because they meet a program requirement and because they best meet the needs of the planning partners and their citizens. One of the benefits of multi - jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi- jurisdictional planning under its guidance for the DMA. The plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the planning area. The main purpose of this planning effort was to identify risks posed by hazards and to develop strategies to reduce the impact of hazard events on people and property in King County; however, the plan was also developed to meet the following objectives: • Meet or exceed requirements of the DMA. • Enable all planning partners to continue using federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation. • Meet the needs of each planning partner as well as state and federal requirements. • Create a risk assessment that focuses on King County hazards of concern. • Create a single planning document that integrates all planning partners into a framework that supports partnerships within the county, and puts all partners on the same planning cycle for future updates. • Meet the planning requirements of FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS), allowing planning partners that participate in the CRS program to maintain or enhance their CRS classifications. • Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high- priority initiatives and projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented. 1.2 WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS PLAN? All citizens and businesses of King County are the ultimate beneficiaries of this hazard mitigation plan update. The plan reduces risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the county. It provides a viable planning framework for all foreseeable natural hazards that may impact the county. Participation in development of the plan by key stakeholders in the county helped ensure that outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable countywide, and the plan's goals and recommendations can lay groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships. 1.3 HOW TO USE THIS PLAN This plan has been set up in two volumes so that elements that are jurisdiction - specific can easily be distinguished from those that apply to the whole planning area: 1 2 ACT.A Page 36 of 869 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS • Volume 1— Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan that apply to the entire planning area. This includes the description of the planning process, public involvement strategy, goals and objectives, countywide hazard risk assessment, countywide mitigation actions, and a plan maintenance strategy. The following appendices provided at the end of Volume 1 include information or explanations to support the main content of the plan: – Appendix A —A glossary of acronyms and definitions – Appendix B —A 5 -year progress report on actions identified in prior hazard plans Appendix C— Planning partner bulletins Appendix D— Hazard mitigation questionnaire and summary of results. Appendix E— Concepts and methods used for hazard mapping Appendix F —Plan adoption resolutions from Planning Partners Appendix G —A template for progress reports to be completed as this plan is implemented. • Volume 2— Volume 2 includes all federally required jurisdiction - specific elements, in annexes for each participating jurisdiction. It includes a description of the participation requirements established by the Steering Committee, as well as instructions and templates that the partners used to complete their annexes. Volume 2 also includes "linkage" procedures for eligible jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this plan but wish to adopt it in the future. All planning partners will adopt Volume 1 in its entirety and at least the following parts of Volume 2: Part 1; each partner's jurisdiction - specific annex; and the appendices. 1-3 ACT.A Page 37 of 869 CHAPTER 2. PLAN UPDATE -WHAT HAS CHANGED 2.1 THE PREVIOUS PLANS King County responded to DMA by developing the initial King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2004. This multi- jurisdictional planning effort provided DMA compliance to 39 local governments (King County, 13 cities and 25 special purpose districts). The initial plan was formally approved by FEMA Region X on December 14, 2004. It identified and prioritized over 170 actions to be implemented by the planning partnership. This initial plan included two major sections: • Common planning provisions — Completed by King County's Office of Emergency Management with input from individual participant agencies • Jurisdiction annexes— Completed by each planning partner and including three parts: – Strategy – Jurisdiction annex administration – Initiatives /projects. In 2009, the regional plan underwent its initial 5 -year update in conformance with DMA requirements. The update process was intended to be conducted in two concurrent phases: • Phase 1 was a King County base plan with a limited number of annexes for jurisdictions who were planning partners throughout the update process. • Phase 2 was to incorporate the majority of remaining jurisdictions in the county. A original planning schedule was shortened following back -to -back disasters in 2009 — January flooding (federal disaster declaration DR -1817) and March snowstorms (federal disaster declaration DR- 1825)- and the emergence of a significant flooding threat in the Green River Valley due to problems at Howard Hanson Dam. The planning team expedited Phase 1 to ensure King County's DMA compliance and ability to address the impacts of the disasters in unincorporated areas. This truncated process resulted in a significant decrease in planning partners covered by the regional plan. Many of the original partners developed their own plans or let their plans expire. The 2009 Regional Plan, approved by FEMA Region X on January 28, 2010, provided DMA compliance for King County, four cities and seven special purpose districts. It maintained the basic format of the initial plan, with some revisions, including the addition of a dam safety risk assessment. The update identified and prioritized over 85 actions to be implemented by the participating partners. 2.2 WHY UPDATE? Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) stipulates that hazard mitigation plans must present a schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. A jurisdiction covered by a plan that has expired is not able to pursue elements of federal funding under the Robert T. Stafford Act for which a current hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite. 2-1 1 ACT.A Page 39 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 2.3 CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT Hazard mitigation plan updates must be revised to reflect changes in development within the planning area during the previous performance period of the plan (44 CFR Section 201.6(d)(3)). The plan must describe changes in development in hazard -prone areas that increased or decreased vulnerability for each jurisdiction since the last plan was approved. If no changes in development impacted the jurisdiction's overall vulnerability, plan updates may validate the information in the previously approved plan. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the mitigation strategy continues to address the risk and vulnerability of existing and potential development and takes into consideration possible future conditions that could impact vulnerability. The King County planning area experienced a 14.6 - percent increase in population between 2000 and 2013, an average annual growth rate of 1.06 percent per year. The County and its cities have adopted comprehensive plans that govern land -use decisions and policy- making in their jurisdictions as well as building codes and specialty ordinances based on state and federal mandates. This plan update assumes that some new development triggered by the increase in population occurred in hazard areas. Because all such new development would have been regulated pursuant to local programs and codes, it is assumed that vulnerability did not increase even if exposure did. This is validated by the fact that no hazard events in the planning area during the performance period caused significant losses. The risk assessment for the initial King County regional plan was more subjective than the assessment for this update, as it used qualitative analyses and assumptions while the updated plan used a more quantitative approach. Given this difference, it is not possible to compare the results of the two assessments to see if risk has increased. Now that the planning area is equipped with a Hazus model, this type of comparative analysis will be possible for future updates to this plan. 2.4 THE 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT The 2009 plan update included a plan maintenance protocol that called for annual review and updates to the plan, with a goal of facilitating linkage to the 2009 update by all the original planning partners. This did not occur during the performance period, primarily because many of the original planning partners developed their own plans to comply with the DMA. Prior to preparing the current update with its expanded list of partners, many of whom had their own plans that this plan update will replace, the planning team prepared a five -year progress report of actions completed by all planning partners whose existing plan is replaced by this update. The progress report used the template for annual progress reporting that is described in Chapter 21 of this plan. This allowed planning partners to become familiar with the proposed process of annual progress reporting. The five -year progress report is included in Appendix B of this volume. The reporting period for this report was 2010 through 2014. The report was completed by 24 local governments with prior plan coverage. It reports on the status of 283 initiatives. Upon completion of this report, it will be posted on the hazard mitigation plan website as the placeholder for all future progress reports completed from here on out. 2.5 THE UPDATED PLAN -WHAT IS DIFFERENT? The King County Office of Emergency Management used the current update process to make significant changes to the format and content of the regional plan. The plan was re- packaged to better support a larger partnership and to establish a plan maintenance and implementation protocol that clearly defines the King County Office of Emergency Management's commitment to the plan's ongoing success: 2-2 ACT.A Page 40 of 869 PLAN UPDATE —WHAT HAS CHANGED • The planning partnership was increased to 53 planning partners. • The plan was developed in two volumes. Volume 1 contains all required elements that apply to the entire planning area; Volume 2 contains elements that are jurisdiction - specific. • A comprehensive risk assessment is included for 10 hazards of concern, and an overview is provided for other hazards of interest. • The risk assessments made robust use of FEMA's Hazus -MH risk assessment software. • A risk - ranking methodology was implemented that quantifies the impacts of each hazard so that they can be compared to one another. • A new methodology was implemented for the prioritization of actions. • A plan maintenance strategy is presented that includes a protocol and tools to support annual progress reporting, as well as a protocol for grant coordination. • A prescribed linkage procedure will allow for future expansion of the partnership outside of the 5 -year update window. • A suite of tools and templates is provided to promote consistency of all future updates to the plan These changes set a course to re- engage as many of the original planning partners as possible and to increase the coverage of the plan. This update represents a complete revision of the previous versions of the King County Regional Plan. Its content is different and the process used to develop it was different. The update process was conducted as if this were an initial planning effort. This approach accommodated the many planning partners who had not previously been covered by a hazard mitigation plan. Table 2 -1 indicates the major changes between the two plans as they relate to 44 CFR planning requirements. 2-3 3 ACT.A Page 41 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 2 -1. PLAN CHANGES CROSSWALK 44 CFR Requirement 2009 Plan update Updated Plan §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non -profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. The 2009 plan update was conducted through a Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Team made up predominantly of County staff. Due to the need to expedite the process, many of the outreach techniques used in the 2004 plan were not used in this update. A website was established, press releases were disseminated and 14 public meetings were held to disclose the plan update process. Agency coordination included Washington Emergency Management Division and FEMA Region X. The response to the Howard Hanson Dam crisis provided numerous opportunities to discuss the plan update process. The Plan update was facilitated through a Steering Committee made up of stakeholders within the planning area. The Steering Committee was responsible for : defining planning partner expectations, review of relevant plans and programs, agency coordination, identification of a vision, goals and objectives, confirmation of a public involvement strategy, development of a plan maintenance strategy and review and approval of the draft plan. The plan update used an existing Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment as the basis for the risk assessment. This followed the format and content of the 2004 plan. The Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment profiled eight natural hazards (avalanche, drought, earthquake, flood, landslide, tsunami, dam safety and) and four non - natural hazards (hazardous materials, terrorism, civil disorder and cyber - terrorism). Part 2 of Volume 1 presents a comprehensive risk assessment for the planning area that looks at 10 natural hazards of concern: avalanche, dam failure, earthquake, flood, landslide, severe weather, severe winter weather, tsunami, volcano, wildfire, and provides a profile of other hazards of interest (non - natural hazards). This assessment used the best available data and science together with the Hazus -MH (version 2.2) risk assessment software. 2-4 4 ACT.A Page 42 of 869 PLAN UPDATE —WHAT HAS CHANGED TABLE 2 -1. PLAN CHANGES CROSSWALK 44 CFR Requirement 2009 Plan update Updated Plan §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the ... location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. A profile was provided including maps that illustrate the extent and location of each identified hazard of concern. These profiles included information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. Comprehensive risk assessments of each hazard of concern are presented in Volume 1 Chapter 8 through Chapter 17. Each chapter includes the following: • Hazard profile, including maps of extent and location, historical occurrences, frequency, severity and warning time. • Secondary hazards • Exposure of people, property, critical facilities and environment. • Vulnerability of people, property, critical facilities and environment. • Future trends in development • Scenarios • Issues Each hazard is compared to each other via a risk ranking methodology in Chapter 19. §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i). This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community Vulnerability was described for each hazard of concern in a subjective context. A Level -1 hazard analysis for earthquake and flood hazards summarized losses to general building stock, critical facilities and estimated casualties. Each profile included a discussion on impacts and past mitigation efforts. Vulnerability was assessed for all hazards of concern. The Hazus -MH computer model was used for the dam failure, earthquake, flood and tsunami hazards. These were Level -2 (user - defined) analyses using planning partner and County data. Critical facilities were defined and inventoried using the Hazus Comprehensive Data Management System. Hazus outputs were generated for other hazards by applying an estimated damage function to affected assets. The asset inventory was extracted from the Hazus -MH model. Best available data was used for all analyses. Outputs were generated for each participating planning partner. §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods The plan describes the National Flood Insurance Program and the participation status of participating communities. This is contained in the flood hazard profile. The repetitive loss section was enhanced to meet new DMA and CRS planning requirements. The update includes a comprehensive analysis of repetitive loss areas that includes an inventory of the number and types of structures in the repetitive loss area. Repetitive loss areas were delineated, causes of repetitive flooding was cited, and these areas were reflected on maps. National Flood Insurance Program capability is assessed in the jurisdictional annexes for each municipal planning partner. ACT.A 2 -5 Page 43 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 2 -1. PLAN CHANGES CROSSWALK 44 CFR Requirement 2009 Plan update Updated Plan §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. A detailed vulnerability analysis that includes building counts and loss estimates was provided for the flood hazard. This level of detail was not provided for the other hazards of concern. A complete inventory of the numbers and types of buildings exposed was generated for each hazard of concern. The Steering Committee defined "critical facilities" as they pertained to the planning area, and these facilities were inventoried by exposure. Each hazard chapter provides a discussion of future development trends as they pertain to the hazard. §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. This level of detail was provided only for the flood hazard. Dollar loss estimations were generated for all hazards of concern. These were generated by Hazus for the dam failure, earthquake, flood and tsunami hazards. For the other hazards, loss estimates were generated by applying a regionally relevant damage function to the exposed inventory. In all cases, a damage function was applied to an asset inventory. The asset inventory was the same for all hazards and was generated in the Hazus -MH model. §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. The plan includes an overall description of land use with in the planning area, but does not detail that discussion by hazard. The plan includes no discussion on future land use or development trends. There is a discussion on future development trends as they pertain to each hazard of concern. This discussion looks predominantly at the existing land use and the current regulatory environment that dictates this land use. §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi - jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. Risk assessment results were reported on a countywide scale and not broken out by municipality. Risk assessment results were generated for each planning partner to support the concept of risk ranking, which was performed by each planning partner. Risk ranking was used by each planning partner to provide vision and focus to action plan development. §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. The 2009 update carried over the same action plan protocol deployed by the 2004 plan. This included a process for prioritization of mitigation actions. Action plans were developed for each planning partner via a facilitated process that includes: • Risk ranking • Capability assessment • Action alternative review • Action selection • Action prioritization • Action category analysis ACT.A 2 -6 Page 44 of 869 PLAN UPDATE —WHAT HAS CHANGED TABLE 2 -1. PLAN CHANGES CROSSWALK 44 CFR Requirement 2009 Plan update Updated Plan §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long -term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. The 2009 update carried over the mission statement, vision, 6 goals and 21 objectives from the 2004 vision statement. The objectives were listed as subsets of the goals. The plan update identifies a guiding principle, 7 goals and 15 objectives. Goals were selected that support the guiding principle, objectives were selected that meet multiple goals, and actions were selected and prioritized based on meeting multiple objectives. §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. The 2009 plan does not categorize mitigation alternatives. However, based on a review of the update, the actions identified cover the six categories of mitigation (prevention, property protection, public education , natural resource protection, emergency services and capital projects.) A hazard mitigation catalog was developed through a facilitated process that looks at strengths, weaknesses, obstacles and opportunities in the planning area. This catalog identifies actions that manipulate the hazard, reduce exposure to the hazard, reduce vulnerability, and increase mitigation capability. The catalog further segregates actions by scale of implementation. A table in the action plan section analyzes each action by mitigation type to illustrate the range of actions selected. §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, and continued compliance with the program's requirements, as appropriate. A brief discussion on the National Flood Insurance Program is provided in the flood hazard profile. There is no jurisdiction - specific discussion on National Flood Insurance Program capability. All municipal planning partners were asked to assess National Flood Insurance Program capability in their jurisdictional annexes. All participating communities have identified actions supporting continued compliance and good standing under the program. §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy shall describe] how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. All actions identified are prioritized and there is discussion on benefits and costs of each project. However, there is no direct correlation to the benefit -cost review and action prioritization specified in the plan. Each of the recommended initiatives is prioritized using a qualitative methodology that looked at the objectives the project will meet, the timeline for completion, how the project will be funded, the impact of the project, the benefits of the project and the costs of the project. This prioritization scheme is detailed in Chapter 21. §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five -year cycle. Section 2 of the plan identifies a plan maintenance protocol that includes an approach for continuing public involvement and annual review. A detailed plan maintenance strategy is provided that includes the following: • Annual review and progress reporting • Defined role for Steering Committee • Plan update triggers • Plan incorporation guidelines • Strategy for continuing public involvement • Grant coordinationprotocol ACT.A 2 -7 Page 45 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 2 -1. PLAN CHANGES CROSSWALK 44 CFR Requirement 2009 Plan update Updated Plan §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. The plan did not include this discussion This is included in the detailed plan maintenance strategy in Chapter 21. §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Section 2 of the plan includes detailed discussion on continuing public involvement, This is included in the detailed plan maintenance strategy in Chapter 21 §201.6(c)(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commission, Tribal Council). The plan includes discussion on plan implementation which includes plan adoption 53 planning partners will seek DMA compliance for this plan. Appendix F contains the resolutions of all planning partners that adopted this plan 2-8 8 ACT.A Page 46 of 869 CHAPTER 3. PLAN METHODOLOGY To develop the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, the County followed a process that had the following primary objectives: • Secure grant funding • Form a planning team • Establish a planning partnership • Define the planning area • Establish a steering committee • Coordinate with other agencies • Review existing programs • Engage the public. 3.1 GRANT FUNDING This planning effort was supplemented by a grant from FEMA. The King County Office of Emergency Management was the applicant agent for the grant. The grant was applied for in 2010 and funding was appropriated in 2011. It covered 75 percent of the cost for development of this plan; the County and its planning partners covered the balance through in -kind contributions. 3.2 FORMATION OF THE PLANNING TEAM King County hired Tetra Tech, Inc. to assist with development and implementation of the plan. The Tetra Tech project manager assumed the role of the lead planner, reporting directly to a County- designated project manager. A planning team was formed to lead the planning effort, made up of the following members: • Janice Rahman, King County Office of Emergency Management Project Manager • Sam Ripley, King County Office of Emergency Management Project Coordinator • Nora Jagielo, King County Office of Emergency Management Project Coordinator • Rob Flaner, Tetra Tech, Project Manager /Lead Project Planner • Kristen Gelino, Tetra Tech, Junior Planner • Carol Bauman, Tetra Tech, Senior GIS Analyst and Risk Assessment Lead • Dan Portman, Tetra Tech, Technical Editor. 3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP It was important to King County that this update re- engage the original planning partnership from the 2004 plan and be open to all eligible local governments. The planning team made a presentation at a stakeholder meeting on January 24, 2013 to introduce the mitigation planning process to all eligible local governments and solicit planning partners. Key meeting objectives were as follows: 3-1 ACT.A Page 47 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act. • Describe the reasons for a plan. • Outline the County work plan. • Outline planning partner expectations. • Seek commitment to the planning partnership. • Seek volunteers for the Steering Committee. • Explain the role of the King County Office of Emergency Management in maintaining the plan and the partnership. Each jurisdiction wishing to join the planning partnership was asked to provide a "letter of intent to participate" that designated a point of contact for the jurisdiction and confirmed the jurisdiction's commitment to the process and understanding of expectations. Linkage procedures have been established (see Volume 2 of this plan) for any jurisdiction wishing to link to the King County plan in the future. The municipal planning partners covered under this plan are shown in Table 3 -1. The special purpose district planning partners are shown in Table 3 -2. To keep the partners engaged through the 14 -month planning process, the planning team issued periodic bulletins apprising the partners of plan development milestones. Five bulletins were disseminated to all planning partners during this process. These bulletins are presented in Appendix C of this volume. ACT.A 3 -2 Page 48 of 869 TABLE 3 -1. MUNICIPAL PLANNING PARTNERS Jurisdiction Point of Contact Jurisdiction Point of Contact King County Janice Rahman City of Mercer Island Jennifer Franklin City of Algona Chief Lee Gaskill City of North Bend Mark Rigos City of Auburn Sarah Miller City of Pacific Chief John Calkins City of Bothell Jennifer Warmke City of Redmond Debbie Newman City of Burien Nhan Nguyen City of Renton Deborah Needham City of Carnation Ken Carter City of SeaTac Patrick Lowery City of Clyde Hill Mitch Wasserman City of Shoreline Gail Harris City of Duvall Boyd Benson City of Snoqualmie Lauren Hollenbeck City of Federal Way Ray Gross City of Tukwila Marty Grisham City of Issaquah Bret Heath City of Woodinville Alexandra Sheeks City of Kent Kimberly Behmyer Town of Beaux Arts Village Sue Ann Spens _City of Kirkland Pattijean Hooper Town of Hunts Point Sue Ann Spens City of Maple Valley Jeff Johnson Town of Skykomish Deborah Allegri City of Medina Kris Finnigan ACT.A 3 -2 Page 48 of 869 PLAN METHODOLOGY TABLE 3 -2. SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT PLANNING PARTNERS Jurisdiction Point of Contact Jurisdiction Point of Contact Fire Districts Fire District No. 2 Fire District No. 45 Kent Fire Shoreline Fire Valley Regional Fire Authority Vashon Island Fire & Rescue Lt. Milton Guerreiro D/C Joel Kuhnhenn Kimberly Behymer B Steve Taylor D/C Mike Gerber Chief Hank Lipe Water & Sewer Districts Coal Creek Utility District Covington Water District Highline Water District North i ty Water District Midway Sewer District Ronald Wastewater District Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District Robert Russell Robert Taylor Mike Becker Di ane Pottinger Tim Campbell George Dicks Janet Sailer Hospital Districts King County Hospital District No. 2 (EvergreenHealth) Public Hospital District No. 1 (Valley Medical) Barb Jensen Jim Tritten Skyway Water & Sewer District Soos Creek Water & Sewer District Southwest Suburban Sewer District Valle View Sewer District Water District 19 Water District 20 Water District 90 Water District 111 Water District 125 Woodinville Water District Cynthia Lamothe Pamela Cobley Laura Gallez Dana Dick Jeffrey Lakin Dick Swabb Tom Hoffman Pamela Cobley Mark Parsons Kurt Oakland School Districts Kent School District Riverview School District Beth Gilbertson William Adamo 3.4 DEFINING THE PLANNING AREA The planning area was defined as all incorporated and unincorporated areas of King County as well as the incorporated areas of cities that cross County boundaries: Auburn, Bothell, Milton and Pacific. All partners to this plan have jurisdictional authority within this planning area. 3.5 THE STEERING COMMITTEE Hazard mitigation planning enhances collaboration and support among diverse parties whose interests can be affected by hazard losses. A steering committee was formed to oversee all phases of the plan. The members of this committee included key planning partner staff, citizens, and other stakeholders from within the planning area. The planning team assembled a list of candidates representing interests within the planning area that could have recommendations for the plan or be impacted by its recommendations. The partnership confirmed a committee of 19 members at the kickoff meeting. Table 3 -3 lists the committee members. ACT.A 3 -3 Page 49 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 3 -3. STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Name Title /Jurisdiction or Agency Janice Rahman (Chair) Emergency Management Program Manager /King County Office of Emergency Management Rick Wallace (Vice Chair) President/Vashon Be Prepared (Citizen) Barnaby Dow Emergency Management Program Manager /King County Office of Emergency Management Bob Freitag Director of the Institute for Hazard Mitigation Planning and Research/University of Washington Denis Uhler Director of Supply Chain Management /Overlake Hospital Dominic Maranzo Ed Reed Gail Harris James Kraman James Tritten Kimberly Behymer Emergency Manager /City of Kent Zone 3 Coordinator/King County Emergency Manager /City of Shoreline Event Manager /Century Link Field Emergency Preparedness Manager /Valley Medical Center Program Coordinator /City of Kent Lee Gaskill Police Lieutenant/City an i of Algona Mark Chubb Fire Chief/King County Fire District No. 20 Mike Ryan Zone 1 Coordinator/Kin_g County Milton Guerreiro Fire Lieutenant/Kin County Fire District No. 2 _ Burien Fire Monica Walker Project/Program Manager /King County Water and Land Resources Division Robert Taylor Water Resources Manager /Covington Water District Sarah Miller Emergency Preparedness Manager /City of Auburn Scott Emry Risk Management Manager/Lake Washington School District Leadership roles and ground rules were established during the Steering Committee's initial meeting on February 20, 2013. The Steering Committee agreed to meet monthly as needed throughout the course of the plan's development. The planning team facilitated each Steering Committee meeting, which addressed a set of objectives based on the work plan established for the plan. The Steering Committee met 10 times from February 2013 through March 2014. Meeting agendas, notes and attendance logs are available for review upon request. All Steering Committee meetings were open to the public, and agendas and meeting notes were posted to the hazard mitigation plan website. 3.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES Opportunities for involvement in the planning process must be provided to neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation, agencies with authority to regulate development, businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(2)). This task was accomplished by the planning team as follows: • Steering Committee Involvement— Agency representatives were invited to participate on the Steering Committee. ACT.A 3 -4 Page 50 of 869 PLAN METHODOLOGY • Agency Notification —The following agencies were invited to participate in the plan development from the beginning and were kept apprised of plan development milestones: — Washington Emergency Management Division Washington Department of Ecology Washington Department of Natural Resources FEMA Region X Snohomish County — Pierce County — Muckleshoot Tribe. These agencies received notices that included meeting announcements, meeting agendas, meeting minutes and bulletins by e -mail throughout the plan development process. These agencies supported the effort by attending meetings or providing feedback on issues. • Pre - Adoption Review —All the agencies listed above were provided an opportunity to review and comment on this plan, primarily through the hazard mitigation plan website (see Section 3.8). Each agency was sent an e -mail message informing them that draft portions of the plan were available for review. In addition, the complete draft plan was sent to FEMA's Community Rating System contractor, the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO), for a pre - adoption review to ensure CRS program compliance. 3.7 REVIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAMS Hazard mitigation planning must include review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports and technical information (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). Chapter 6 of this plan provides a review of laws and ordinances in effect within the planning area that can affect hazard mitigation actions. In addition, the following programs can affect mitigation within the planning area: • 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan • 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update and Progress Report and Amendment to the 2006 Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Community Rating System • 2010 King County Flood Control District Hazard Mitigation Plan • 2010 King County Strategic Plan • The "Resilient King County" Initiative • 2012 King County Comprehensive Plan • The King County Shoreline Master Program • 2007 King County Buildable Lands report • King County Critical Areas Ordinance (Title 21.A.24) • King County Strategic Climate Action Plan An assessment of all planning partners' regulatory, technical and financial capabilities to implement hazard mitigation actions is presented in Chapter 21 and in the individual jurisdiction- specific annexes in Volume 2. Many of these relevant plans, studies and regulations are cited in the capability assessment. 3-5 ACT.A Page 51 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 3.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Broad public participation in the planning process helps ensure that diverse points of view about the planning area's needs are considered and addressed. The public must have opportunities to comment on disaster mitigation plans during the drafting stages and prior to plan approval (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(1)). The Community Rating System expands on these requirements by making CRS credits available for optional public involvement activities. 3.8.1 Strategy The strategy for involving the public in this plan emphasized the following elements: • Include members of the public and other non - governmental stakeholders on the Steering Committee. • Use a questionnaire to determine if the public's perception of risk and support of hazard mitigation has changed since the initial planning process. • Attempt to reach as many planning area citizens as possible using multiple media. • Identify and involve planning area stakeholders. Stakeholders and the Steering Committee Stakeholders are the individuals, agencies and jurisdictions that have a vested interest in the recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan, including planning partners. The effort to include stakeholders in this process included stakeholder participation on the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee consisted of a diverse group of stakeholders, including planning partner representatives, citizens, local members of the business community, members of academia, government representatives and members of the emergency management community. Questionnaire A hazard mitigation plan questionnaire (see Figure 3 -1) was developed by the planning team with guidance from the Steering Committee. The questionnaire was used to gauge household preparedness for natural hazards and the level of knowledge of tools and techniques that assist in reducing risk and loss from natural hazards. This questionnaire was designed to help identify areas vulnerable to one or more natural hazards. The answers to its 34 questions helped guide the Steering Committee in selecting goals, objectives and mitigation strategies. Hard copies of the questionnaire were made available upon request, and a web -based version was made available through the hazard mitigation plan website. Over 200 questionnaires were completed. The complete questionnaire and a summary of its findings can be found in Appendix D of this volume. Public Meetings A member of the planning team staffed a public information booth at the City of Auburn Disaster Preparedness Fair on September 15, 2013. Public open houses were held in the evenings on September 24, 2013 in Shoreline City Hall, on September 25, 2013 in the Kent Senior Activity Center, and on September 26, 2013 in the Evergreen Health Auditorium in Kirkland (see Figure 3 -2 through Figure 3 -5). The meeting format allowed attendees to examine maps and handouts and have direct conversations with project staff. Reasons for planning and information generated for the risk assessment were shared with attendees via a PowerPoint presentation. Tables were set up for each of the primary hazards to which King County is most vulnerable. 3-6 ACT.A Page 52 of 869 PLAN METHODOLOGY httrillsurvey— eatk nigt idth IthhlITT '5;4$ Sharepoint Sites v I„ Tetra Tech Sites v Maps_Aerialls_Photus To Data Sources v Writing_Graphics T„ Tools & !Aso . King County Ilting County Regional Hazard Mitigation-Publio Awareness Survey 1, Survey introduction A partnership of local governments and regional stakeholders in King County is working together to update the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Ran The purpose of this plan is to help local governments reduce the exposure of County residents to risks from natural hazards, such as earthquakes and floods, By writing this plan„ local governments are able to apply to Federal programs that may provide money that can be used to reduce risks before and after natural disasters, This plan was first created in 2004 and was updated on 2009 We need your help to plan for the possibility of future disasters We would like to find projects that win help reduce or avoid impacts from natural hazard events The following questions will help us measure how much local citizens already know about disaster-related issues and will help us identify areas where we need to improve, The information you provide will help us organize activities and prioritize projects to reduce the risk of injury or damage to property from future hazard events. The survey consists of about 30 questions, and there is an opportunity to provide additional comments at the end It should take less than 10 rninutes to complete the survey and it is anonymous When you have finished the survey, please click 'Done on the final page The King County Hazard Mitigation Planning Partnership thanks you for taking the time to participate in this important information-gathering process *1. Do you live in King County? Yes tio Other mtearrie opectri *2. In what ZIP code is your home mailing address? 3. in the past 20 years, have you or anyone in your household experienced any of the following hazards within King County? (Choose all that apply) A• valanche Household Fire D• anktevee Failure Landslide D• rought Severe Weather (wand, °lightnir g. miter storm, etc N, r— Earthquake Teunank Floud 1ANdland Fees I PhreriStrearn Bank Erosion Heine:10CM Matenals S AMerease r Other (please specify) Powebed by SurvevMonkev rbbook but bur ban* vr000s and mote your Imo 00» Figure 3-1. Sample Web Page from Questionnaire 3-7 ACT.A Page 53 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Figure 3 -2. Attendees Listen to Presentation at Figure 3 -3. Stakeholder Display at Public Open Shoreline Public Meeting House IIIIIMIIERRINE „ 111111 111 Figure 3 -4. Citizen Learns about Risk at Hazus Figure 3 -5. Citizens View Hazard Maps at Public Workstation Open House A Hazus -MH workstation allowed citizens to see information on their property, including exposure and damage estimates for earthquake and flood hazard events (Figure 3 -6). Participating property owners were provided printouts of this information for their properties or could sign up to have information emailed to them. This tool was effective in illustrating risk to the public. More than 50 Hazus workstation reports were emailed to citizens following the public meetings. Planning partners and the planning team were present to answer questions. Each citizen attending the open houses was asked to complete a questionnaire, and each was given an opportunity to provide written comments to the Steering Committee. Local media outlets were informed of the open houses by a press release from the County. ACT.A 3 -8 Page 54 of 869 PLAN METHODOLOGY 1 ) Address 1152$ AVE. ":.t'H '; 2d 125 City SeaatIlc, Perc•oWt Building Damage Percent Consents Damage Building Loss Content Loss S4 ;051212 Ia smemtos7 ]Loss = 1 Legend 0 z11,.:y,dr €ts Pomis it 'Flood Zones t PC,- 71` ,r, ,nujI f lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllFY "" Ib„n:, 12,,. Figure 3 -6. Example Hazus Workstation Output ACT.A 3 -9 Page 55 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Posters and Information Cards To help advertise the survey and the public meetings, posters were printed that advertised both public outreach initiatives (see Figure 3 -7). These posters were provided to all planning partners and were posted throughout the county. In addition, over 2000, two- sided, pocket information cards were printed and disseminated to all Steering Committee members and Planning partners (see Figure 3 -8). The cards provided a QR code link to the survey and a web link to the hazard mitigation plan website, and advertised the public meetings. DO YOU KNOW YOUR RISK? it is not a matter of IF we wil'i face a disaster, but WHEN. Are we ready? All residents of King County are invited to join County and City staff, as the resits of King County's study on vulnerability are shared. This study will hellp local governments plan projects to help reduce the risk from hazards before they happen and to recover more quickly afterwards, you will learn about the hazards that we face and how vulnerable your home may be to these hazards. There are multiple ways for you to participate. 0101010101010101010101010 010101 JP , Kir County LEARN MORE ABOUT R SKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING HAZARDS: Earthquake Flood li4fitdfrire Landdide Tsunami Severe Wean*er Dam Failure Drought Other hazards FREE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS Learn about our hazards and how you can (help reduce the impacts. Receive potential damage estimates for your property. Sunday, September 115th 10:00 am - 3 :00 pm, Auburn Plaza Park Main Street and Division Street, Auburn Tuesday, September 24'h 6 :11 pm - 8 :00 pm, Shor'eline City Hal 17500 fwlidvaie Ave N, Shoreline Wednesday, September 25th 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm, Kent Senior Activity Center 600 E Smith Street , Kent Thursday, September 26th pm - 8 :00 pm, Evergreen Health Auditorium 12040 NE 328th St {Red 1-551), Kirkland Contact us at: kc PubComment(a"lkingcounty.gov www. kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation ► 0 P S O f.siu rveymort tey.ci lm/s KCHazars s Figure 3 -7. Poster Advertising Public Meetings and Survey ACT.A 3 -10 Page 56 of 869 surveyanonkey.com/s/ CHazar 9115113 9124113 9125113 9126113 Auburn Plaza Park Shoreline City Hall Kent Senior Center Evergreen Hospital 10 AM - 3 PM 6 PM - 8 PM 6PM -8PM 6PM -8PM kingcounty .gov /hazardmitigat ion iii 77 rr )0(7% '-'10 PLAN METHODOLOGY KNOW YOUR RISKS FLOODS — EARTHQUAKES— DAM FAILURE— SEVERE WEATHER— LANDSLIDES - WILDFIRE Take our survey. www.surveymonkey.co s/KC Hazards Attend a public meeting. Learn more about this effort. www.kingcounty gov /hazardmitigation Figure 3 -8. Pocket Information Card (Front and Back) Press Releases Press releases were distributed over the course of the plan's development as key milestones were achieved and prior to each public meeting. The planning effort received the following press coverage: • Press release material published in the Shoreline City News on September 20, 2013 • Press release material published in the Kirkland Reporter on August 30, 2013. http: / /www.kirklandreporter.com /community /221842301.html • Press release material published in the Bothell /Kenmore Kirkland Reporter on September 23, 2013. http: / /www.bothell- reporter .com /news/224892422.html • Press release material published on SnoValleyStar.com on July 7, 2014. http: / /snovalley star.com/ 2014 /07/07 /public- input- wanted -on- hazard- mitigation -plan Internet At the beginning of the plan development process, a website was created to keep the public posted on plan development milestones and to solicit relevant input (see Figure 3 -9): http: / /www.kingcounty .gov/ safety / prepare /Emergency ManagementProfessionals /Plans /Regio nalHazardMitigationPlan.aspx The site's address was publicized in all press releases, mailings, questionnaires and public meetings. Information on the plan development process, the Steering Committee, the questionnaire and phased drafts of the plan was made available to the public on the site throughout the process. The County intends to keep a website active after the plan's completion to keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates. Informational Bulletins As a way to the keep the large planning partnership and the public apprised of plan development milestones, six bulletins were distributed by the planning team over the course of the planning process. Bulletins provided to each planning partner helped to keep the large partnership involved in the process and informed them when planning partner deliverables were due. These bulletins were also posted on the hazard mitigation plan website to update the public on the planning process and its milestones. The bulletins are presented in Appendix C. 3 -11 ACT.A Page 57 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 1104104R*ININOW:gorran ....EiALANAAhthaalatatiAmMa A„,,,*A144,,,AAA,KA,A0 At„frie,AA, X I p onvert (M4 Select Sharepoint Site • 4,, Tetra Tech Sites • Maps_Aerials_Photos • Data Sources Writing...Graphics • Toots & Misc King County raerermennennennennenneem garingerre M aragernare needle Reardon:a, end ausnessen Emergency grannecreen pereigagendas Pleas "1"raddred and creme-Ea Greets A.1.111,40 F1'1A501,,r1INES S.,t1,0 Kind County Office of Emerrommy ammtperront 1512 NE 2rd Street Renton, vvw geom Main Pleader 2Dargefer383di Erre Fee& 800-523-5044 F um 2004meeeded ka Ertherwmd Sit Program Se/Afl C WA, 204-2Pa4tH0 E. ime ftriiieiy , Home How do Services v. About IKing County Departments IF Prepare Office of Emergency Managemen Ermergerer,, marsgegrem Emer ory man. emenk potessirreqs 'Oa Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) king County is communed to creating arid sustaining communities that are more resilient to disasters. To 'fullefi this pledge, King County Office of Ennergency Management (KCOEM) in the process of updating the Regional Hazard Mitigation Ptan tRHMP) n pattnership with cities and special purpose districts throJghout the county, Federal rufes require this plan be updated every five years ,■;pljp))),',2 'Si '2J22,■1)'',112Tiri ' VJPIVVOMNIVT!g11, 1,%1;!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!!!!!1'1'11'11 101111001000V0111111111100... 11111 ,1111111111 ill111,1,1,1,1,1,111'1111,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,11.1„1„1„1„1„1„1„1„1„Iiiil!!!!i!l!! Representatives from 5Z different cities, school's fire districts, hospitals and utility districts a e collaborating with KCOEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the hazard assessment and plan development Decisions regarding plan elements such as specific hazards to incilude, are made by a steering committee wtiose members inctude representatives from government pecale busmens, nonprolits, the public, and academia EotticiegEndiatligko torte 2014 uPdAte, Frequently Asked Questions What is hazard mitigation and what are the benefits? Hazard mitigation is defined as sustained actions taken to permanently leentinate or reduce risk to peopie, property. arid the environment Each ,deliar spent on. pre,clisaster risk assessment and mahon saves an average ot E4 in potential tosses from future hazards e. earthquake, hood, etc), Source' Na6onal ,Mstiture of Bukfing Sciences) A regional approach affews many jionsdiotions Ira be covered under a united plan, Adonally, jairistlichons covered under a FEMA,approved plan are eligible for federal mitigation grants to Pestore and strengthen communities against future disasters Far more information and local jurisdiction guidance, visit the hazard mitkation page arid Mil:lotion EEMAS welbsite. What's been done so far? 2W4, King County published its first RHMP This Pan was submitted to VVashingted State Emergency Management for halal review, and he reviewed and approved by FEMA in December of 2009 King County completed the requited five-year update cf the RHMP CFR Part 201) This Magpflatlam is in effect iota Deo 2, 2014. What comes next? Creating an effective Hazard Mitugatrun Plan requires engaged participation from planning partners. KCOEM, Tetra Tech, and boat runsdcbons are moving foment with the tarsi major step — a hazard analysis, The core of a web-informed hazard mitigation plan allows an planning partners to develop meaningful and effective strategies to reduce risks and create mote Iresullvent commundies. How can the pubic part cipate? 2013, hazard maps • Eadhquake ;12;atifie Faun • Earthquake i Taconm Fael i■ Earthquake - dthtLF4A1 • Dm OLand) Flood * Ligne faction Eggellaggi 1..S91!MIJ1alekan Public presentations " Bin meniim (King County Council) Commumtiontreacti (Public forum) ?U Pag Steering committee minutes * !LEO nil • Ardtail • Majan 3 • ,Agit..2213 • u' meehim Sep) IiiMP newsletters • ctsjober 201,1 tlelentell2W (no Dec newsletter) ▪ January_20114 poIlIViligolke',"1"11"11"1161ifill 1:1"1:1" 1"11 "0:1" :1" 1,"paI0)." 0 0 1"111111q 11111 1111111'111111111111111111111111111111111 1111 111111'111111111111 11111111111111111111)))))1111,1,1,1)11,1„1,11,11,11,11, 11,1111111,111111,111111.11.111111111)11„1.1.1.11,1,1„............,,,„,„,„„„, ad Figure 3-9. Sample Page from Hazard Mitigation Plan Web Site ACT.A 3-12 Page 58 of 869 PLAN METHODOLOGY 3.8.2 Public Involvement Results By engaging the public through the public involvement strategy, the concept of mitigation was introduced to the public, and the Steering Committee received feedback that was used in developing the components of the plan. Details of attendance and comments received are summarized in Table 3 -4. TABLE 3 -4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS Date Location Number of Citizens in Attendance Number of Comments Received Number of Questionnaires Received September 24, 2013 September 25, 2013 September 26, 2013 July 7, 2014 July 9, 2014 July 10, 2014 July 10, 2014 Total Shoreline City Hall Kent Senior Activity Center Evergreen Health Auditorium Snoqualmie City Hall Issaquah City Hall Duvall Visitor Center Shoreline City Hall 38 2 6 30 1 1 17 0 1 8 0 6 3 2 0 25 4 126 10 8 3.9 PLAN DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY /MILESTONES Table 3 -5 summarizes important milestones in the development of the plan. ACT.A 3 -13 Page 59 of 869 TABLE 3 -5. PLAN DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES Date Event Description Attendance 2012 10 /11 Contractor Support County advertises solicitation for contractor support for the plan update N/A 12/2 Select Tetra Tech to facilitate plan development Facilitation contractor secured N/A 12/15 Identify planning team Formation of the planning team N/A 2013 1/24 Planning partner kickoff Second meeting with potential planning partners. Attendees were meeting advised of planning partner expectations and asked to formally commit to the process. Steering Committee volunteers were solicited. 61 2/13 Steering Committee formed Planning partners nominated potential committee members. The planning team received commitments from 14 members, finalizing the formation of the Steering Committee. N/A ACT.A 3 -13 Page 59 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 3 -5. PLAN DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES Date Event Description Attendance 2/20 Steering Committee Meeting #1 • Review purposes for update • Organize Steering Committee • Plan review • Public Involvement Strategy 2/25 Planning partnership finalized 21 Deadline for submittal of letters of intent to participate in the planning effort. 3/21 Steering Committee meeting #2 N/A • Risk assessment update • Plan review observations • Critical Facilities • Guiding Principle /Mission Statement • Public Outreach 4/16 Steering Committee meeting #3 5/21 Steering Committee meeting #4 6/18 Steering Committee meeting #5 • Risk assessment update • "Other" Hazards of Concern • Define Critical Facilities • Guiding principle/ mission statement • Public Outreach Strategy _update 20 12 • Reviewed and approved previous month' minutes • Reported non - meeting hours • Reviewed current risk assessment update • Approve a Critical Facility definition • Approve a guiding principle /vision statement • Introduction to the goal setting exercise • Finalize the survey • Reviewed and approved previous month' minutes • Reported non - meeting hours • Reviewed current risk assessment update • Identified earthquake scenarios • Been introduced to the objectives exercise • Identified a plan maintenance strategy • Discussedpublic outreach strategy 7/16 Steering Committee meeting #6 15 15 • Reviewed and approved previous month's minutes • Reported non - meeting hours • Reviewed current risk assessment update • Selected objectives • Confirmed plan maintenance strategy • Discussed public outreach strategy 8/20 Steering Committee meeting #7 9/2 Public Outreach 12 • Reviewed and approved previous month's minutes • Reported non - meeting hours • Previewed Maps • Confirmed objectives • Confirmed plan maintenance strategy • Discussed public outreach strategy • Discussed planning partner participation 12 Press release advertising public meetings and website disseminated N/A to all media outlets. ACT.A 3 -14 Page 60 of 869 PLAN METHODOLOGY TABLE 3 -5. PLAN DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES Date Event Description Attendance 10/15 Steering Committee meeting #8 • Reviewed and approved previous month's minutes • Reported non - meeting hours • Reviewed the status of the Risk Assessment • Reviewed Status of Jurisdictional Annex deployment • Reviewed Phase 1, Public Outreach results • Confirmed revised plan maintenance strategy • Identified Strengths, Weaknesses, Obstacles and opportunities with King County 11/12 Jurisdictional Annex Workshops (Round 1) 10 Mandatory session for planning partners. Workshop focused on how 31 to complete the jurisdictional annex template. Two sessions were held. One for municipal governments and one for special purpose districts. 11/13 Jurisdictional Annex Workshops (Round 2) Mandatory session for planning partners. Workshop focused on how 37 to complete the jurisdictional annex template. Two sessions were held. One for municipal governments and one for special purpose districts. 2014 2/25 Steering Committee meeting #9 3/19 Stakeholder Engagement • Reviewed and approved previous month's minutes • Reported non - meeting hours • Reviewed status of Jurisdictional Annex deployment • Confirmed revised Plan Maintenance Strategy • Identified County Wide Initiatives • Discussed next steps 13 Presentation on earthquake scenarios assessed by plan given at the 67 Resilient King County workshop #1 4/4 Draft Plan Internal review draft provided by planning team to Steering N/A Committee 4/15 Steering Committee meeting #10 4/16 Stakeholder Engagement Discussion and comments of Volume I internal review draft. Discussion of public comment, plan review and plan approval processes. 11 Presentation on earthquake scenarios assessed by plan given at the 45 Resilient King County workshop #2 6/27 Public Comment Period Initial public comment period of draft plan opens. Draft plan posted N/A on plan website with press release notifying public of plan availability 7/7 Public Outreach 7/9 Public Outreach Finalpublic meeting on Draft Plan — City of Snoqualmie 8 Final public meeting on Draft Plan — City of Issaquah 6 7/10 Public Outreach Final public meeting on Draft Plan — City of Duvall 7/10 Public Outreach 7/31 Regulatory Review Submittal 2 Finalpublic meeting on Draft Plan — City of Shoreline 25 Final draft plan submitted to Washington State for review and approval X/X Adoption Adoption window of final plan opens X/X Plan Approval N/A N/A Final plan approved by FEMA N/A ACT.A 3 -15 Page 61 of 869 CHAPTER 4. GUIDING PRINCIPLE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Hazard mitigation plans must identify goals for reducing long -term vulnerabilities to identified hazards (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(3)(i)). The Steering Committee established a guiding principle, a set of goals and measurable objectives for this plan, based on data from the preliminary risk assessment and the results of the public involvement strategy. The guiding principle, goals, objectives and actions in this plan all support each other. Goals were selected to support the guiding principle. Objectives were selected that met multiple goals. Actions were prioritized based on the action meeting multiple objectives. 4.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLE A guiding principle focuses the range of objectives and actions to be considered. This is not a goal because it does not describe a hazard mitigation outcome, and it is broader than a hazard - specific objective. The guiding principle for the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is as follows: King County is a region that promotes community resilience by eliminating or reducing risks and adverse impacts from hazards, while encouraging hazard mitigation activities by all sectors. 4.2 GOALS The following are the mitigation goals for this plan: 1. Protect life and property. 2. Increase public awareness of hazards and mitigation opportunities. 3. Protect, restore and enhance environmental quality. 4. Leverage partnering opportunities. 5. Enhance planning activities. 6. Develop and implement cost - effective mitigation strategies. 7. Promote a sustainable economy. The effectiveness of a mitigation strategy is assessed by determining how well these goals are achieved. 4.3 OBJECTIVES Each selected objective meets multiple goals, serving as a stand -alone measurement of the effectiveness of a mitigation action, rather than as a subset of a goal. The objectives also are used to help establish priorities. The objectives are as follows: 1. Increase the resilience of critical facilities, infrastructure and government operations to ensure continuity of operations during and after a hazard event. 2. Consider the impacts of hazards in all planning mechanisms that address current and future land uses and integrate hazard mitigation goals and objectives into other existing plans and programs within the planning area. 4-1 ACT.A Page 63 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 3. Develop, improve and protect systems that provide early warnings, emergency response communications and evacuation procedures. 4. Use the best available data, science and technologies to improve understanding and stakeholder awareness of the location and potential impacts of hazards, the vulnerability of building types and community development patterns, and the measures needed to mitigate hazards. 5. Seek feasible mitigation projects that provide the highest degree of hazard protection with the best benefit -cost ratio. 6. Emphasize the hazard mitigation message in and promote the value of public outreach and education programs, such as Take Winter By Storm and What to Do to Make it Through. 7. Improve coordination among all sectors to mitigate hazards. 8. Reduce hazard- related risks and vulnerability to potentially isolated populations within the planning area. 9. Retrofit, purchase or relocate structures in high hazard areas, including those known to be repetitively damaged. 10. Strengthen codes to improve the hazard resilience of new construction. 11. Leverage social networks and other social capital mechanisms to educate the public and stakeholders and promote resilience. 12. Seek actions that protect or improve the environment for future environmental conditions. 13. Form private /public partnerships to leverage and share resources. 14. Partner with the private sector, including small businesses, to promote hazard mitigation as part of standard business practice. 15. Educate businesses about contingency planning countywide, targeting small businesses and those located in high risk areas, and promote employee education about disaster preparedness while on the job and at home. 4-2 ACT.A Page 64 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements PART 2 RISK ASSESSMENT ACT .A Page 65 of 869 CHAPTER 5. IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards. It allows emergency management personnel to establish early response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets. The process focuses on the following elements: • Hazard identification —Use all available information to determine what types of disasters may affect a jurisdiction, how often they can occur, and their potential severity. • Vulnerability identification — Determine the impact of natural hazard events on the people, property, environment, economy and lands of the region. • Cost evaluation— Estimate the cost of potential damage or cost that can be avoided by mitigation. The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan update evaluates the risk of natural hazards prevalent in the planning area and meets requirements of the DMA (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(2)). 5.1 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN For this plan, the Steering Committee considered the full range of natural hazards that could impact the planning area and then listed hazards that present the greatest concern. The process incorporated review of state and local hazard planning documents, as well as information on the frequency, magnitude and costs associated with hazards that have impacted or could impact the planning area. Anecdotal information regarding natural hazards and the perceived vulnerability of the planning area's assets to them was also used. Based on the review, this plan addresses the following hazards of concern: • Avalanche • Dam failure • Earthquake • Flood • Landslide • Severe weather • Severe winter weather • Tsunami • Volcano • Fire With the exception of dam failure, this plan does not provide a full risk assessment of technological hazards and human- caused hazards. However, Chapter 18 provides a qualitative discussion of the following additional hazards, referred to in this plan as hazards of interest: • Health hazards (epidemic, pandemic and bioterrorism) 5-1 ACT.A Page 67 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Cybersecurity • Terrorism (vehicle -borne improvised explosive device). 5.2 METHODOLOGY The risk assessments in Chapter 8 through Chapter 17 describe the risks associated with each identified hazard of concern. Each chapter describes the hazard, the planning area's vulnerabilities, and probable event scenarios. The following steps were used to define the risk of each hazard: • Identify and profile each hazard —The following information is given for each hazard: Geographic areas most affected by the hazard Event frequency estimates Severity estimates Warning time likely to be available for response. • Determine exposure to each hazard— Exposure was determined by overlaying hazard maps with an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to determine which of them would be exposed to each hazard. For each identified hazard of concern, the best available existing data delineating a hazard area was selected. Data sets were evaluated based on scale, age and source. Additionally, data available in a GIS- compatible format with coverage of the full extent of the planning area were preferentially selected for use in the analysis. • Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilities — Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was determined by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Tools such as GIS and FEMA's hazard- modeling program called Hazus -MH were used to perform this assessment for the flood, dam failure and earthquake hazards. Outputs similar to those from Hazus were generated for other hazards, using maps generated by the Hazus program. 5.3 RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS 5.3.1 Mapping A review of national, state and county databases was performed to locate available spatially based data relevant to this planning effort. Maps were produced using GIS software to show the spatial extent and location of identified hazards when such data was available. These maps are included in the hazard profile chapters of this document and many of them are available on the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan website. Information regarding the data sources and methodologies employed in these mapping efforts is located in Appendix E. 5.3.2 Dam Failure, Earthquake and Flood — Hazus -MH Overview In 1997, FEMA developed the standardized Hazards U.S., or Hazus, model to estimate losses caused by earthquakes and identify areas that face the highest risk and potential for loss. Hazus was later expanded into a multi - hazard methodology, Hazus -MH, with new models for estimating potential losses from hurricanes and floods. Hazus -MH is a GIS -based software program used to support risk assessments, mitigation planning, and emergency planning and response. It provides a wide range of inventory data, such as demographics, building stock, critical facility, transportation and utility lifeline, and multiple models to estimate 5-2 ACT.A Page 68 of 869 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY potential losses from natural disasters. The program maps and displays hazard data and the results of damage and economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure. Its advantages include the following: • Provides a consistent methodology for assessing risk across geographic and political entities. • Provides a way to save data so that it can readily be updated as population, inventory, and other factors change and as mitigation planning efforts evolve. • Facilitates the review of mitigation plans because it helps to ensure that FEMA methodologies are incorporated. • Supports grant applications by calculating benefits using FEMA definitions and terminology. • Produces hazard data and loss estimates that can be used in communication with local stakeholders. • Is administered by the local government and can be used to manage and update a hazard mitigation plan throughout its implementation. Levels of Detail for Evaluation Hazus -MH provides default data for inventory, vulnerability and hazards; this default data can be supplemented with local data to provide a more refined analysis. The model can carry out three levels of analysis, depending on the format and level of detail of information about the planning area: • Level 1 —All of the information needed to produce an estimate of losses is included in the software's default data. This data is derived from national databases and describes in general terms the characteristic parameters of the planning area. • Level 2 —More accurate estimates of losses require more detailed information about the planning area. To produce Level 2 estimates of losses, detailed information is required about local geology, hydrology, hydraulics and building inventory, as well as data about utilities and critical facilities. This information is needed in a GIS format. • Level 3 —This level of analysis generates the most accurate estimate of losses. It requires detailed engineering and geotechnical information to customize it for the planning area. Application for This Plan The Hazus model was used as follows for the hazards evaluated in this plan: • Flood —A Level 2, user - defined analysis was performed for general building stock and for critical facilities and infrastructure. GIS building and assessor data (replacement cost values and detailed structure information) were loaded into Hazus -MH. An updated inventory was used in place of the Hazus -MH defaults for essential facilities, transportation and utilities. Current planning area flood mapping was used to delineate flood hazard areas and estimate potential losses from the 100 - and 500 -year flood events. • Dam Failure —The basis for this analysis was the Lake Youngs dam failure inundation mapping. This data was imported into Hazus -MH and a Level 2 analysis was run using the flood methodology described above. • Earthquake —A Level 2 analysis was performed to assess earthquake risk and exposure. Earthquake shake maps and probabilistic data prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were used for the analysis of this hazard. An updated general building stock inventory was developed using replacement cost values and detailed structure information from assessor tables. An updated inventory of essential facilities, transportation and utility 5-3 ACT.A Page 69 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements features was used in place of the Hazus -MH defaults. Three scenario events and two probabilistic events were modeled: – The scenario events were a Magnitude -7.2 event on the Seattle Fault, a Magnitude -7.4 event on the South Whidbey Island Fault and a Magnitude -7.1 event on the Tacoma Fault. The standard Hazus analysis for the 100 - and 500 -year probabilistic events was run. 5.3.3 Landslide, Tsunami, Severe Weather, Severe Winter Weather, Wildfire and Volcano For landslide, tsunami, severe weather, severe winter weather, volcano and wildfire, historical data was not adequate to model future losses. Hazus -MH has an application for the tsunami hazard, but it was not used for this plan update because available tsunami mapping of the Puget Sound region is limited. A Washington state -led effort to map this hazard in Puget Sound is incomplete. Current mapping covers only the City of Seattle, which is not participating as a planning partner in this update. A qualitative approach was used instead. Hazus -MH is able to map hazard areas and calculate exposures if geographic information is available on the locations of the hazards and inventory data. Areas and inventory susceptible to some of the hazards of concern were mapped and exposure was evaluated. For other hazards, a qualitative analysis was conducted using the best available data and professional judgment. Locally relevant information was gathered from a variety of sources. Frequency and severity indicators include past events and the expert opinions of geologists, emergency management specialists and others. The primary data source was the King County GIS database, augmented with state and federal data sets. Additional data sources for specific hazards were as follows: • Landslide —Three sources of data were utilized to approximate the extent and location of landslide hazard areas. Landslide location data was obtained from the Washington Department of Natural Resources and a landslide hazard dataset was obtained from King County. Potential landslide hazard areas dataset was created using surface geology and digital elevation model based on LiDAR data provided by King County. The combination of the three data sources were used to identify the extent and location of the landslide hazard areas. It should be noted that this level of detail is considered approximate, awareness zone mapping and is not considered to be suitable for use in a regulatory context. As of the completion of the planning process, King County was embarking on a landslide hazard identification process that will strive to generate detailed landslide hazard mapping that is suitable for use in a regulatory context. Future updates to this plan can be enhanced by this data once it becomes available. • Severe Weather and Severe Winter Weather— Severe weather data was downloaded from the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. • Volcano — Volcanic hazard data was obtained from the Washington Department of Natural Resources. • Wildfire— Information on wildfire hazards areas was provided by U.S. Geological Survey and Washington Department of Natural Resources. • Tsunami — Information on tsunami hazard areas was provided by Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 5-4 ACT.A Page 70 of 869 IDENTIFIED HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 5.3.4 Avalanche The risk assessment methodologies used for this plan focus on damage to structures. Because there are very few structures in the county exposed to impacts from avalanches, the risk assessment was more limited and qualitative than the assessment for the other hazards of concern. 5.3.5 Limitations Loss estimates, exposure assessments and hazard - specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from the following: • Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct a study • Incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic or economic parameter data • The unique nature, geographic extent and severity of each hazard • Mitigation measures already employed • The amount of advance notice residents have to prepare for a specific hazard event. These factors can affect loss estimates by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates are approximate and should be used only to understand relative risk. Over the long term, King County and its planning partners will collect additional data to assist in estimating potential losses associated with other hazards. 5-5 ACT.A Page 71 of 869 CHAPTER 6. KING COUNTY PROFILE King County is located in Western Washington between Puget Sound and the Cascade Mountains (see Figure 6 -1). It is the most populous of Washington's 39 counties and has 39 incorporated areas. Seattle is the county seat. Figure 6 -1. Main Features of the Planning Area King County has more than 1.9 million residents. The major population centers are located in the western portion of the county along the shores of Puget Sound and Lake Washington. The most populous cities are Seattle with more than 600,000 residents, Bellevue and Kent with more than 100,000 residents, and Renton, Federal Way and Auburn with more than 60,000 residents (King County, 2011). Jurisdictions in the area are close together and form the Seattle - Bellevue- Everett metropolitan region. Approximately 13 percent of the county population lives in unincorporated areas (King County, 2011). Although there is considerable development in the county, most of the land area consists of natural resource and rural lands. Incorporated areas cover 19 percent of the total land area (404 square miles) and the remaining 81 percent (1,711 square miles) is unincorporated (King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review, 2013). The central and eastern sections have few urbanized areas. ACT.A 6 -1 Page 73 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements The aerospace, export manufacturing and natural resource industries have long been the major economic drivers for the county. The importance of the high tech industry has increased in recent years, and that industry now a base industry for the county. The county is also home to several major health care facilities and educational institutions, including the University of Washington. Elevations in the county range from sea level in the west to the almost 8,000 -foot peak of Mt. Daniel in the east. The geological features of the county tend to run north- south, which makes east -west travel more complex than north -south travel. The county's physical geography includes a portion of the Cascade Mountain Range, the Issaquah Alps and the Sammamish Plateau. Water features include Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and Lake Union. The Snoqualmie, Green, White and Cedar rivers all flow out of the Cascades toward Puget Sound. The county also includes Mercer Island in Lake Washington and Vashon -Maury Island in Puget Sound. 6.1 JURISDICTIONS AND ATTRACTIONS The county is bounded by Puget Sound on the west, Snohomish County on the north, Chelan and Kittitas Counties on the east, and Pierce County on the south. Three of its incorporated cities (Auburn, Milton and Pacific) extend into Pierce County, and one (Bothell) extends into Snohomish County. Jurisdictions in the county range in size from Seattle with over 600,000 residents to smaller communities such as Skykomish with approximately 500 residents. The western part of King County includes the communities of Algona, Auburn, Beaux Arts Village, Bellevue, Bothell, Burien, Clyde Hill, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Hunts Point, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Medina, Mercer Island, Milton, Newcastle, Normandy Park, Pacific, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Shoreline, Tukwila, Woodinville and Yarrow Point. Communities in the central area include Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, Issaquah, Maple Valley, North Bend, Sammamish and Snoqualmie. Skykomish, located in the northeastern portion of the county is the only incorporated community in eastern King County. Two Native American tribes have lands in the county. The Muckleshoot Reservation is located in south - central King County near Auburn. The Snoqualmie Tribe does not have a dedicated reservation, but its members have traditionally lived in the northeastern portion of the county. King County features abundant open space and recreational opportunities abound. Municipal park systems in the county include a wide array of attractions such as Seattle's Discovery Park. King County's Parks and Recreation Division maintains over 26,000 acres of recreational areas. Cougar Mountain National Wildland Park is located in the central portion of the county, and most of the eastern portion of the county is in the Mount Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest. 6.2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The following historical overview is summarized from the HistoryLink.org website (Long, 2006). The King County area's indigenous peoples were the Duwamish Tribe living on or near the site of Seattle, the Snoqualmie Tribe in what is now eastern King County, and the Muckleshoot Tribe on the Green and White Rivers. During the late 1700s, introduced diseases affected these tribes. British Captain George Vancouver explored Puget Sound in 1792, and saw evidence of smallpox among the Indians. By the time settlers arrived in 1852, the Indian population was much reduced. The first settlers were farmers led by Luther Collins. The Collins Party claimed land up the winding Duwamish River (later Georgetown) on September 14, 1851. A week later the Denny Party arrived on 6-2 ACT.A Page 74 of 869 KING COUNTY PROFILE Alki Point (future West Seattle). In the spring of 1852, most of the Denny Party moved to the shore of the deep and well - sheltered harbor of Elliott Bay, on the site of Pioneer Square in today's downtown Seattle. The Oregon Territorial Legislature created King County on December 22, 1852. Less than three months later, in 1853, Washington Territory came into being and King County was part of it. King County was originally named for William Rufus DeVane King, who was U.S. vice president at the time. In 1986 the County changed its namesake to Martin Luther King Jr. In eastern King County, hop - growing, logging, and coal mining developed during the 1870s. After the Great Northern Railroad chose Tacoma for its terminal over Seattle, Seattleites built the Seattle & Walla Walla, which became profitable hauling coal from Newcastle to the Seattle waterfront. By 1875 coal superseded lumber as King County's first industry. By the 1880s sawmills supported towns like Bothell, Duvall, and Enumclaw, as well as Seattle's 10 sawmills. In 1900, Frederick Weyerhaeuser purchased 1,406 square miles of Washington state timberlands. The Weyerhaeuser later incorporated and eventually absorbed smaller timber firms. Commercial canneries were located in Seattle's Belltown and in Kent. William Boeing founded the predecessor of Boeing Airplane Co. in 1917. America's entrance into World War II jump- started the economy, following the Great Depression, into wartime production of airplanes and battleships. In 1975, Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft, which came to equal Boeing in its impact on the county. Governance of King County has evolved. In 1968, voters approved a new Home Rule Charter eliminating several elected posts, including coroner and sheriff, and replacing the County's three commissioners with an elected county executive and a nine - member county council representing districts, while retaining an elected prosecutor and assessor. The post of sheriff became elective in 1996 and all positions are partisan except it. The King County Council expanded to 13 members in 1993 but shrank back to nine a dozen years later. Development proceeds in accordance with the Comprehensive Growth Plan (1994), which favors urban density to preserve green space. 6.3 MAJOR PAST HAZARD EVENTS Presidential disaster declarations are typically issued for hazard events that cause more damage than state and local governments can handle without assistance from the federal government, although no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for these declarations. A presidential disaster declaration puts federal recovery programs into motion to help disaster victims, businesses and public entities. Some of the programs are matched by state programs. The planning area has experienced 31 events since 1956 for which presidential disaster declarations were issued. These events are listed in Table 6 -1. Review of these events helps identify targets for risk reduction and ways to increase a community's capability to avoid large -scale events in the future. Still, many natural hazard events do not trigger federal disaster declaration protocol but have significant impacts on their communities. These events are also important to consider in establishing recurrence intervals for hazards of concern. 6.4 PHYSICAL SETTING 6.4.1 Geology The Pacific Northwest has a complex geological history that was shaped by geological processes over the past 200 million years. The Cascade Mountains in the eastern portion of the county were formed 4 to 7 million years ago as a result of a fold caused by the steep descent of the Juan De Fuca plate below the continental margin. The friction of this descent created two folds that formed both the Cascade and Olympic Mountain Ranges. This friction is also the source of the regional subduction -zone earthquake regime present today (Townsend and Figge, 2002). 6-3 ACT.A Page 75 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 6 -1. FEDERAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS FOR EVENTS AFFECTING KING COUNTY Disaster Number Incident Description Event Begin Date DR -50 Flood 2/25/1956 DR -70 Floods 3/6/1957 DR -137 Severe storms 10/20/1962 DR -146 Floods 3/2/1963 DR -185 Heavy rains & flooding 12/29/1964 DR -196 Earthquake 5/11/1965 DR -328 Heavy rains & flooding 3/24/1972 DR -492 Severe storms & flooding 12/13/1975 DR -545 Severe storms, mudslides, & flooding 12/10/1977 DR -612 Storms, high tides, mudslides & flooding 12/31/1979 DR -623 Volcanic eruption, Mt. St. Helens 5/21/1980 DR -757 Severe storms & flooding 1/16/1986 DR -784 Severe storms & flooding 11/22/1986 DR -852 Severe storms & flooding 1/6/1990 DR -883 Severe storms & flooding 11/9/1990 DR -896 Severe storms & high tides 12/20/1990 DR -981 Severe storms & high wind 1/20/1993 DR -1079 Severe storms, high wind, and flooding 11/7/1995 DR -1100 High winds, severe storms and flooding 1/26/1996 DR -1159 Severe winter storms, land & mudslides, flooding 12/26/1996 DR -1172 Heavy rains, snow melt, flooding, land & mud slides 3/18/1997 DR -1361 Earthquake 2/28/2001 DR -1499 Severe storms and flooding 10/15/2003 EM -3227 Hurricane Katrina evacuation 8/29/2005 DR -1671 Severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides 11/2/2006 DR -1682 Severe winter storm, landslides, and mudslides 12/14/2006 DR -1734 Severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides 12/1/2007 DR -1817 Severe winter storm, landslides, mudslides, and flooding 1/6/2009 DR -1825 Severe winter storm and record and near record snow 12/12/2008 DR -1963 Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides, and mudslides 1/11/2011 DR -4056 Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides, and mudslides 1/14/2012 Note: Presidential disaster declarations prior to 1964 were declared for entire states. Pre -1964 events listed here are for Washington. Declarations from 1964 on are county - specific, and those listed here are for King County. Source: (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012). ACT.A 6 -4 Page 76 of 869 KING COUNTY PROFILE Active volcanoes have been present along the north -south Cascade Arc for million years, and the remnants of former volcanoes make up the bedrock of the current Cascade chain. Volcanoes in the range are still active, although their presence as a result of the fold is merely incidental to the older chain. The eruptions of Mount Rainier, located in neighboring Pierce County, have also shaped the geography of the area. Major eruptions in the past 5,000 years have resulted in substantial mudflows that reached the shores of Puget Sound. The potential for future eruptions near highly populated areas makes Mount Rainier the most dangerous volcano in North America (Townsend and Figge, 2002). In addition to tectonic movements, repeated glacier movement across the region over the past 2 million years affected the geological features of the western portion of King County. The most recent period of glaciation was the Vashon period, which occurred during the late Pleistocene. Glaciers in this period advanced into Washington from Canada about 18,000 years ago and retreated 10, 000 to 12,000 years ago. These glacial episodes carved out Puget Sound and Lake Washington and deposited glacial till across the region (Townsend and Figge, 2002). 6.4.2 Soils The soils and land types of western King County formed during the glacial advancement and retreat during the Vashon period. Four major types of material were left by the glacier: till, recessional outwash, pro - glacial lacustrine and outwash sediments. After glaciers retreated, alluvium accumulated in the valleys and a mudflow from Mount Rainier covered a portion of the southern part of the county. No soil survey information is available for the eastern portion of the county; however, most development is concentrated within the western county, where, according to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service's soil survey, there are seven soil associations (Snyder et al., 1973): • Alderwood Association — Occurs on large tracts of land in the northern and southern parts of the county. These areas are moderately well drained and roll into hilly soils that have dense, very slowly permeable glacial till on uplands and terraces. This association covers 52 percent of the study area • Oridia- Seattle - Woodinville Association — Occurs in southern and northern portions of the county. It is somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained. These nearly level soils occur in major stream valleys and are the best - suited areas for crop production in the survey area. This association covers 11 percent of the survey area. • Buckley - Alderwood Association — Occurs on glacial till plains and upland in the southeastern portion of the county. It is comprised of poorly drained to moderately well drained soils that are nearly level to rolling. These areas also have dense, slowly permeable and very slowly permeable glacial till. This association covers 7 percent of the study area. • Everett Association — Occurs in the southeastern portion of the county and in smaller areas scattered in the northern portion. They are composed of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly, gently rolling soils underlain by sand and gravel on terraces. This association covers 14 percent of the survey area. • Beausite- Alderwood Association — Occurs in the central and eastern portions of the survey area. It is characterized by well drained and moderately well drained soils that very from gently rolling to very steep soils that have sandstone or shale or dense very slowly permeable glacial till on uplands. This association covers 9 percent of the survey area. • Alderwood – Kitsap- Indianola Association — Occurs in the northern half of the county. It is characterized by moderately -well drained, nearly level to steep soils that have very slowly permeable glacial till or glacial lake deposits and somewhat excessively drained, rolling, deep sandy soils, on uplands and terraces. This association covers 5 percent of survey area. 6-5 ACT.A Page 77 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Puget- Earlmont- Snohomish Association — Occurs in three areas in the Sammamish and Snoqualmie valleys in the northern half of the county. It is poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soils that have layers of peat within a few feet of the surface in major stream valleys. This association covers 3 percent of the study area. 6.4.3 Seismic Features King County is located on the Pacific Ring of Fire. This geological area is known for volcanic activity and frequent seismic activity. Washington State is located in close proximity to the convergence of several tectonic plates including the Pacific, North American, and Juan de Fuca. There are a substantial number of identified faults within the county and small earthquakes occur regularly. In general earthquakes in the area arise from three sources. The oblique subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate below the Puget Sound region can produce events as large as magnitude 7. The faults on the North American plate can produce moderate to large events on either side of the Cascades. Additionally, great earthquakes, which can have magnitudes of 9.0 or greater, can occur at the boundaries of these plates generally referred to as the Cascadia Subduction Zone (USGS, 2012). There are a significant number of active faults and folds in the Puget Sound lowlands, including the Tacoma Fault, Seattle Fault, Darrington- Devil's Mountain Fault, Utsalady Point Fault and the Southern Whidbey Island Fault. Many of the faults run from east to west and are over 20 miles in length. An event on any of these faults would likely impact King County. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the probability of one or more earthquakes of Richter magnitude 7.0 or higher occurring in the Puget Sound area within the next 30 years to be 18 to 20 percent. 6.4.4 Climate Climate across King County depends on factors such as elevation and distance from Puget Sound. Precipitation in the area is concentrated in the winter. In the Puget Sound lowlands, annual precipitation ranges from 30 to 45 inches annually. Snowfall is relatively rare, with an average of 10 to 20 inches per year. Generally, any snowfall melts within a day or two of accumulation. January average temperatures range from 28 °F to 45 °F., and July average temperatures range from 50 °F to 78 °F. Most of the lowland area is in the "rain shadow" of the Olympic Mountains. Precipitation totals and temperature variations increase from west to east across the lowlands (Western Regional Climate Center, 2014). On the western slopes and foothills of the Cascade Range in the eastern portion of the county, precipitation averages 90 inches. Snowfall averages increase with elevation to 50 inches at 500 to 800 feet. Temperature ranges are similar to those of the lowlands with January ranges between 25 °F and 45 °F and July ranges between 50 °F and 80 °F. In the western Cascades, precipitation is heavy, with annual amounts ranging from 60 to 100 inches or more. Annual snowfall averages 50 to 75 inches in the lower elevations and can be as high as 600 inches between 4,000 and 5,500 feet. Peaks above 7,000 feet generally remain snowcapped throughout the summer January temperatures range from 20 °F to 40 °F, dependent on elevation. Summer temperatures at these elevations are variable. Above 4,000 feet, temperatures may remain below freezing even in mid - summer. As a general rule, temperatures decreases by 3 °F for every 1,000 -foot increase in elevation (Western Regional Climate Center, 2014). Average climate conditions across King County for temperature, precipitation and wind are shown on Figure 6 -2 through Figure 6 -5. 6-6 ACT.A Page 78 of 869 w a 0 N O O U 1981 - 2010 R;uno3 uelay3 W W -J Degrees Farenheit 38.0 - 45.0 110 N (O R;uno3 selpm , uno3 despN op - Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey O o 8 N a 0 N N C � (6 w o N N E ns E U Y U O 2 U Ul E O o N m w -o2 - o N 'Y N x� o N g m o °- 8' �a o o o N � o o � o n _ 2 72 Y E � ▪ +• 3 4 O U = 0)a Y � U N N O 6:” O-6 Y � 3 Y N N C S (6 N t Ul C O U U O T N 4 N s • O 38 'U 6I a - yY • o • 0 .— E O 'U N Q � Ul C N (6 N E o T O ° T Q N U o ° 0o_, 0)s o O s °- w O ▪ .N E U Ty N p O sO o L E 2 E n o ns E = E n m o E ▪ U O = O N o s, > T ESQ O O N = n E t) t N = *d y. C (J V w ca 0 a 0 ca a) Z 0 N co 7 0 U L s- s- (1) Q E 1- E E ca 0) L M Q C C < w a a 0 N ca 0 U 1011010111110 O p N a N N 0 C � (6 g 'Y = oy U O 2 N U Ul E O N 1w/1 a � t O 'Y o, Q N X m O O N o= �s o a � E Y � T +• C 4 O U a Y � U N N O c” O-6 N Y 3 'Y N N C (6 N t Ul U O 1-13 O T N y O NFU U C wyY a) 2 o 2 0 0 .— E O 'U T Q D C N (6 E o T O ° T Q N U CO O N 0 cm sC m _ y TD o 0 4 - o .N Q m E E o, U Ty N p O nO m � � E• w E.s.C_ m `o 2 E n `o m o c E aL� a N U t C N O = O N (6 O 3 • N T ESQ O O N H2 E N = w F'0= O o N a 0 N N C � (6 w o 'Y E � o Q= E U y U O (6 N U Ul E O U N a N t - O off, 'Y Q N X N a 0 o o N o 1 o n _ O'6 Y E � +• 4 O U = 0,0 Y � U N O � O 6 N 3 'Y N N O 3 C 6 N Ul C O ▪ U U O T N 4 N S O NFU a - 2yY • o 0 .— E O 'U T Q Ul C N (6 N E o T O ° T Q ▪ N U O -P11 4, y o o 4 Q � n 5_ Ts E U Ty N p O sU m 6 m =2 E n O E E - ' `o m o E a U N 3 3 N O U w O N T ESQ 0 0 m = n E N t N = ayC OL L) KING COUNTY PROFILE 6.5 LAND USE Table 6 -2 shows current land use in the planning area based on King, Pierce and Snohomish County parcel data. Land use information is analyzed in this plan for each identified hazard that has a defined spatial extent and location. For hazards that lack this spatial reference, the following information serves as a baseline estimate of land use and exposure for the planning area. The distribution of land uses within the county will change over time. TABLE 6 -2. PRESENT LAND USE IN PLANNING AREA Present Use Classification Area (acres) % of total Agriculture 1,260 0.09% Church, Welfare or Religious Service 2,739 0.21% Commercial 27,788 2.08% Education 8,108 0.61% Governmental Services 3,126 0.23% Industrial/Manufacturing 9,101 0.68% Medical/Dental Services 869 0.07% Mixed Use Development (Residential & Commercial) 562 0.04% Mortuary /Cemetery /Crematory 932 0.07% Nursing Home /Retirement Facility 628 0.05% Park /Open Space /Golf Course 29,185 2.19% Residential 276,893 20.77% Terminal or Marina 5,118 0.38% Utility /Easement/Right of Way 10,840 0.81% Water /Tideland /Wetland 558 0.04% Uncategorized (includes vacant and resource lands) 955,666 71.67% Total 1,333,373 100% Note: Summarized from King, Pierce and Snohomish County parcel data. Acreage covers only mapped parcels and thus excludes many rights of way and major water features. 6.6 CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Critical facilities and infrastructure are all facilities and infrastructure, whether publicly or privately owned, that are vital to the King County planning area's ability to provide essential services and protect life and property. A short- or long -term loss of a critical facility would result in a severe economic, health and welfare, life - sustainment or other catastrophic impact. Critical facilities can be grouped in three categories: • Facilities that are essential to the ability to respond to, mitigate and recover from the impacts of natural hazards, including those potentially used as shelters • Facilities that need early warning to enable them to prepare for and respond to the impacts of natural hazards ACT.A 6 -11 Page 83 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Facilities that by the nature of their operations, produce, manufacture or store materials that create an exposure to secondary hazards of concern. Under the King County regional hazard mitigation plan definition, critical facilities include but are not limited to the following: • Police stations, fire stations, city /county government facilities (including those that house critical information technology and communication infrastructure), vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers needed for disaster response before, during, and after hazard events • Hospitals, care facilities, and housing, including facilities likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a hazard event • Other healthcare providers such as ambulatory care, free - standing surgery centers and urgent care centers that play a role in responding to regional disasters involving casualties • Public and private utilities and infrastructure vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to areas damaged by hazard events, including, but not limited to, the following: Public and private water supply infrastructure, water and wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure, potable water pumping, flow regulation, distribution and storage facilities and infrastructure Public and private power generation (electrical and non - electrical), regulation and distribution facilities and infrastructure Data and server communication facilities Structures that manage or limit the impacts of natural hazards such as regional flood conveyance systems, potable water trunk main interconnect systems and redundant pipes crossing fault lines and reservoirs Transportation systems that convey vital supplies and services to and throughout the community. • Educational facilities, including K -12, universities and community college. • Public gathering places that could be used as evacuation centers during large -scale disasters. • Infrastructure designed to help safely convey high -water from an event source to the perimeter of the planning area. • Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic, and /or water - reactive materials. The default Hazus database was distributed to planning partners for review and update. Default information was used for jurisdictions not participating in the planning effort. Table 6 -3 and Table 6 -4 provide summaries of the general types of critical facilities and infrastructure, respectively, in each municipality and unincorporated county areas. These tables indicate the location of critical facilities and infrastructure, not jurisdictional ownership. All critical facilities /infrastructure were analyzed in Hazus to help rank risk and identify mitigation actions. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical facilities with regard to that hazard. Figure 6 -6 and Figure 6 -7 show the location of critical facilities and infrastructure in unincorporated areas of the county. Critical facilities within the cities participating in this plan are shown in maps for each city provided in Volume 2. Due to the sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided. The list is on file with each planning partner. 6 -12 ACT.A Page 84 of 869 KING COUNTY PROFILE TABLE 6 -3. CRITICAL FACILITIES BY JURISDICTION AND CATEGORY Medical and Government Protective Other Critical Health Functions Function Schools Hazmat Function Total Algona 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 Auburn 10 2 7 32 13 23 87 Beaux Arts Village 0 Bellevue 7 Black Diamond 0 Bothell 11 Burien 28 Carnation 3 Clyde Hill 0 Covington 15 Des Moines 2 Duvall 1 Enumclaw 3 Federal Way 59 Hunts Point 0 Issaquah 26 Kenmore 0 Kent 46 Kirkland 56 Lake Forest Park 0 Maple Valley 6 Medina 0 Mercer Island 9 Milton 4 Newcastle 1 Normandy Park 0 North Bend 7 Pacific 0 Redmond 22 Renton 41 Sammamish 3 SeaTac 9 Seattle 72 Shoreline 13 Skykomish 0 Snoqualmie 2 Tukwila 12 Woodinville 3 Yarrow Point 0 Unincorporated 17 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 44 1 28 98 0 2 1 0 0 3 6 4 18 0 6 45 1 10 23 0 11 73 0 2 4 0 0 9 1 2 4 0 0 7 3 2 7 0 20 47 0 3 11 0 5 21 0 2 3 0 4 10 0 3 11 0 5 22 1 5 35 0 19 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 8 2 14 56 0 5 6 3 14 2 20 29 23 25 145 1 8 30 7 39 141 0 2 2 0 1 5 2 7 4 0 6 25 0 1 3 0 2 6 1 3 34 0 4 51 0 1 3 0 0 8 0 2 2 0 2 7 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 3 3 0 2 16 0 2 1 0 0 3 2 4 28 31 31 118 1 8 24 9 22 105 0 6 14 0 3 26 1 5 11 0 3 29 2 55 170 91 132 522 2 12 25 20 72 1 2 1 0 1 5 0 2 10 0 3 17 1 9 0 9 5 36 1 2 5 0 2 13 0 0 0 0 23 23 0 52 88 1 0 158 488 35 277 696 10 465 2,148 ACT.A 6 -13 Page 85 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 6 -4. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BY JURISDICTION AND CATEGORY Water Bridges Transportation Supply Wastewater Power Communications Dams Total Algona 1 0 0 27 2 0 1 31 Auburn 25 3 16 0 1 4 2 51 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Bellevue 71 3 0 3 1 7 7 92 Black Diamond 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 7 Bothell 22 1 26 5 0 3 3 60 Burien 8 2 32 10 0 0 0 52 Carnation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clyde Hill 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Covington 11 0 3 9 2 0 0 25 Des Moines 9 0 3 29 0 0 0 41 Duvall 1 0 3 9 0 0 0 13 Enumclaw 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Federal Way 15 1 2 1 0 0 5 24 Hunts Point 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Issaquah 27 0 22 3 1 0 1 54 Kenmore 13 4 0 1 1 0 1 20 Kent 43 5 17 12 2 0 5 84 Kirkland 18 2 3 4 2 2 0 31 Lake Forest Park 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 Maple Valley 3 0 14 4 1 0 0 22 Medina 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Mercer Island 10 3 0 2 0 1 0 16 Milton 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Newcastle 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Normandy Park 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 North Bend 14 0 5 2 1 0 0 22 Pacific 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 Redmond 18 6 16 16 2 0 0 58 Renton 41 3 10 2 1 0 0 57 Sammamish 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 SeaTac 19 6 15 3 0 0 2 45 Seattle 184 259 8 32 4 14 11 512 Shoreline 9 0 2 19 2 1 2 35 Skykomish 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 Snoqualmie 6 0 6 16 4 0 5 37 Tukwila 52 8 5 15 0 1 0 81 Woodinville 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 9 Yarrow Point 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Unincorporated 418 10 126 33 5 31 28 651 Total 1,061 317 354 266 32 64 76 2,170 ACT.A 6 -14 Page 86 of 869 R;uno3 uelay3 Government Function Hazardous Materials Medical Care an Protective Function Schools 8 Other Critical Function r C R;uno3 despN Pierce County Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey O p N a 0 N N C � (6 0` Ul o E ns E U U O 2 U 8 ▪ N -o2 4- - o o� N 'Y 0 4, m a o 5` `o o N � o o � 1 o n _ O'6 ▪ +• 3 O U 8 8,a Y � U N O O 6 Y � N N N N t Ul C O U U O T N _ - N sy NFU 6I • o 0 0 o � N .— E O 'U N T Q � Ul C N (6 N E o T O ° T N U 0 X O N Uo� s L• I y o o 4 Q w o.? � n Q70 E U Ty N p O nUo 8 2 E E O is k- = E Q • ,- o E N U t o U w � O N O N T ELQ O O N = n E V t U_ O o N a 0 N N C � (6 N = E 8 `,3'2) '0 (6 E � O s O U T O N U 8 m E O 0 U N a N - t - O O w N � N 3 N X N N !� N O 4. �6 O O O N Ul N O � d N N O Q _ O O O'6 C N E E ° +• 3 O U 8,8 Y � U N O O 6 Y � N N C S (6 N t Ul C O U O N _ - N s j � -§U y O N _'U 6I as 2 o 2-0 0 .— E O 'U o T Q Q (6 N E o T O ° T Q T N U 0 X O N 0 o o, y T o 4 Q w o.? � n QTo E U Ty N p O sO o m 2 � 2 E o E E e s E n ' `o m o E a U N t 3 U w N O O N - T ESQ O O N = n E t) t U F'�Y KING COUNTY PROFILE 6.7 DEMOGRAPHICS Some populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased resources or physical abilities. Elderly people, for example, may be more likely to require additional assistance. Research has shown that people living near or below the poverty line, the elderly (especially older single men), the disabled, women, children, ethnic minorities and renters all experience, to some degree, more severe effects from disasters than the general population. These vulnerable populations may vary from the general population in risk perception, living conditions, access to information before, during and after a hazard event, capabilities during an event, and access to resources for post- disaster recovery. Indicators of vulnerability —such as disability, age, poverty, and minority race and ethnicity —often overlap spatially and often in the geographically most vulnerable locations. Detailed spatial analysis to locate areas where there are higher concentrations of vulnerable community members would assist the County in extending focused public outreach and education to these most vulnerable citizens. 6.7.1 Population Characteristics Information about the composition of the population and how it has changed in the past and how it may change in the future is a critical part of planning because it directly relates to land needs such as housing, industry, public services, and transportation. King County is the most populous of Washington's 39 counties. The Washington Office of Financial Management estimated the total county population at 1,981,900 as of April 2013 (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2012). Population changes are useful socio - economic indicators. A growing population generally indicates a growing economy, while a decreasing population signifies economic decline. City annexations and incorporations of new cities have sharply reduced the unincorporated -area population of King County in recent decades. Table 6 -5 shows the population of incorporated municipalities and the combined unincorporated areas in King County since 1990. In 2012, 13 percent of the planning area's residents lived outside incorporated areas, compared to 34 percent in 1990. Overall growth in incorporated area population was 71 percent from 1990 to 2012, while the unincorporated areas of the county saw a population decrease of 50 percent during the same timeframe. Figure 6 -8 shows the overall population growth rate in the planning area from 1910 to 2010 compared to that of the State of Washington. For most of that period, King County's 10 -year growth rate has been slightly higher than the statewide rate; the county's population growth was lower than the state's in the 1930s and 1970s and in the past two decades. 6.7.2 Income In the United States, individual households are expected to use private resources to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters to some extent. This means that households living in poverty are automatically disadvantaged when confronting hazards. Additionally, the poor typically occupy more poorly built and inadequately maintained housing. Mobile or modular homes, for example, are more susceptible to damage in earthquakes and floods than other types of housing. In urban areas, the poor often live in older houses and apartment complexes, which are more likely to be made of un- reinforced masonry, a building type that is particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Furthermore, residents below the poverty level are less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses incurred from natural disasters. This means that residents below the poverty level have a great deal to lose during an event and are the least prepared to deal with potential losses. Personal household economics significantly impact people's decisions on evacuation. Individuals who cannot afford gas for their cars will likely decide not to evacuate. 6 -17 ACT.A Page 89 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 6 -5. ANNUAL POPULATION DATA Population 1990a 2000a 2010a 2012b Algona 1,694 2,460 3,014 3,070 Auburnc 33,650 43,047 70,180 71,240 Beaux Arts Village 303 307 299 300 Bellevue 86,872 109,827 122,363 124,600 Black Diamond 1,422 3,970 4,153 4,170 Bothellc 12,345 30,084 33,505 34,000 Burien d 31,881 33,313 47,730 Carnation 1,243 1,893 1,786 1,785 Clyde Hill 2,957 2,890 2,984 2,980 Covington d 13,783 17,575 17,760 Des Moines 17,283 29,267 29,673 29,700 Duvall 2,770 4,616 6,695 6,900 Enumclaw 7,227 11,116 10,669 11,030 Federal Way 67,535 83,259 89,306 89,460 Hunts Point 514 443 394 390 Issaquah 7,786 11,212 30,434 31,150 Kenmore d 18,678 20,460 21,020 Kent 37,960 79,524 92,411 119,100 Kirkland 40,059 45,054 48,787 81,480 Lake Forest Park 3,372 12,871 12,598 12,640 Maple Valley d 14,209 22,684 23,340 Medina 2,981 3,011 2,969 2,990 Mercer Island 20,816 22,036 22,699 22,690 Miltonc 4,995 5,795 6,968 6,985 Newcastle d 7,737 10,380 10,460 Normandy Park 6,709 6,392 6,335 6,350 North Bend 2,578 4,746 5,731 5,855 Pacificc 4,622 5,527 6,606 6,620 Redmond 35,800 45,256 54,144 55,360 Renton 41,688 50,052 90,927 93,910 Sammamish d 34,104 45,780 47,420 SeaTac 22,701 25,496 26,909 27,210 Seattle 516,259 563,376 608,660 616,500 Shoreline d 53,296 53,007 53,270 Skykomish 273 214 198 200 Snoqualmie 1,546 1,631 10,670 11,320 Tukwila 11,874 17,181 19,107 19,080 Woodinville d 9,809 10,938 10,960 Yarrow Point 957 1,008 1,001 1,060 Unincorporated County 513,171 349,234 325,000 255,720 King County Total 1,507,305 1,737,046 1,931,249 1,957,000 a. 1990, 2000 and 2010 populations from U.S. Census data b. 2012 population from post- census estimate developed by Washington Office of Financial Management c. Auburn, Milton and Pacific populations include parts of Pierce County. Bothell population includes part of Snohomish County d. City not yet incorporated in this year ACT.A 6 -18 Page 90 of 869 KING COUNTY PROFILE 10 -Year % Population Change 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 'WV/ King County mWashington Jj(((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((((I( {(f rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt 1,;:(6/-FT A Figure 6 -8. Washington and King County Population Growth Based on U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey estimates, per capita income in King County in 2011 was $38,286, and the median household income was $69,314. It is estimated that 33.0 percent of households receive an annual income of $100,000 or more. An estimated 16.9 percent of the households in the county made less than $25,000 per year in 2011, and 6.9 percent of families had incomes below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). 6.7.3 Age Distribution As a group, the elderly are more apt to lack the physical and economic resources necessary for response to hazard events and are more likely to suffer health - related consequences making recovery slower. They are more likely to be vision, hearing, and /or mobility impaired, and more likely to experience mental impairment or dementia. Additionally, the elderly are more likely to live in assisted -living facilities where emergency preparedness occurs at the discretion of facility operators. These facilities are typically identified as "critical facilities" by emergency managers because they require extra notice to implement evacuation. Elderly residents living in their own homes may have more difficulty evacuating their homes and could be stranded in dangerous situations. This population group is more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be readily available during natural disasters due to isolation caused by the event. Specific planning attention for the elderly is an important consideration given the current aging of the American population. Children under 14 are vulnerable to disaster events because of their young age and dependence on others for basic necessities. Very young children may additionally be vulnerable to injury or sickness; this vulnerability can be worsened during a natural disaster because they may not understand the measures that need to be taken to protect themselves from hazards. The overall age distribution for the planning area is illustrated in Figure 6 -9. Based on 2011 U.S. Census estimates, 11.0 percent of the county's population is 65 or older and 17.8 percent is 14 or younger. The Census also estimates that 13.9 percent of the population under age 18 and 9.0 percent of the population 65 or older lives in a household with income below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). 6 -19 ACT.A Page 91 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 85 years and over 75 to 84 years 65 to 74 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 45 to 54 years a) Q 35 to 44 years 25 to 34 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years 11111" 1111111111 111h11:„1,,,,;,::110::10:::01:011:01110111,1„j111111,1 AAA 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300 000 350 000 Number of People Figure 6 -9. Planning Area Age Distribution 6.7.4 Race, Ethnicity and Language Research shows that minorities are less likely to be involved in pre- disaster planning and experience higher mortality rates during a disaster event. Post - disaster recovery can be ineffective and is often characterized by cultural insensitivity. Since higher proportions of ethnic minorities live below the poverty line than the majority white population, poverty can compound vulnerability. According to the U.S. Census, the racial composition of the planning area is predominantly white, at 70.0 percent. The largest minority populations are Asian at 14.6 percent and African American at 6.2 percent. Figure 6 -10 shows the racial distribution in the planning area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). White 70.0% 1111111 11111 , 111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111=1111111111111111111111111111111111111011M 1111111 01 1111111 1111111111111=1111111111111=11111111111t k'. mum Two or More Races _ 4.9% Other 2.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.7% Asian 14.6% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.8% African American 6.2% Figure 6 -10. Planning Area Race Distribution ACT.A 6 -20 Page 92 of 869 KING COUNTY PROFILE The planning area has a 20.4 - percent foreign -born population. Other than English, the most commonly spoken languages in the planning area are Asian and Pacific Islander languages. The census estimates 10.9 percent of the residents speak English "less than very well" (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). 6.7.5 Disabled Populations The 2010 U.S. Census estimates that 54 million non - institutionalized Americans with disabilities live in the U.S. This equates to about one -in -five persons. People with disabilities are more likely to have difficulty responding to a hazard event than the general population. Local government is the first level of response to assist these individuals, and coordination of efforts to meet their access and functional needs is paramount to life safety efforts. It is important for emergency managers to distinguish between functional and medical needs in order to plan for incidents that require evacuation and sheltering. Knowing the percentage of population with a disability will allow emergency management personnel and first responders to have personnel available who can provide services needed by those with access and functional needs. According to U.S. Census estimates, 9.3 percent of the county population has some form of disability, including 35.6 percent of those 65 and older (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). 6.8 ECONOMY 6.8.1 Industry, Businesses and Institutions U.S. Census data for 2011 indicate that the industry with the greatest employment in King County is education, health care and social assistance (20.1 percent), followed by professional services (17.4 percent). Resource extraction (agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining) is the Census - designated industry with the least employment in the county (0.6 percent). Figure 6 -11 shows the breakdown of industry types in King County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 6.3% Information 3.5% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 17.3% Educational services, and health care and social assistance 20.1% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 9.2% r Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 4.7% Retail trade 11.1% Wholesale trade 3.1% Manufacturing 11.1% Construction 4.9% Other services 4.8% Public administration 3.4% Agricu ture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0.6% Figure 6 -11. Industry in the Planning Area ACT.A 6 -21 Page 93 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements King County benefits from a variety of business activity. Major businesses include the headquarters of eight Fortune 500 companies: Amazon.com, Costco Wholesale, Expediters International of Washington, Microsoft, Nordstrom, Paccar, Starbucks and Weyerhaeuser (CNN /Money, 2013). The Boeing Company also has major operations in the county. Major educational and research institutions in the county include the University of Washington, Seattle University, Harborview Medical Center and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. 6.8.2 Employment Trends and Occupations According to the 2011 American Community Survey, 70.3 percent of King County's population age 16 and older is in the labor force (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Figure 6 -12 compares Washington, King County and Seattle metropolitan area unemployment trends from 2000 through 2012 (Washington Employment Security Department, 2013). The unemployment rate in these areas was lowest in 2007, at close to 4 percent. It rose to between 9 and 10 percent in 2010 in response to the national recession, but has been falling again since then. Unemployment Rate ( %) 12 10 4 —,r— Washington .«..ali » » »» »...Seattle Metro minuarm King County 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 6 -12. Washington, King County and Seattle Metropolitan Area Unemployment Rate Almost half of employed workers in King County (48 percent) are in management, business science and arts occupations. Another 22 percent have sales and office jobs, and 15 percent are in service occupations (see Figure 6 -13) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). According to the Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County, the largest employer in the county is The Boeing Company, with 76,000 employees as of 2011, followed by Microsoft, with a 2011 employment in the county of 40,000, and the University of Washington, with 28,000 (Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County, 2013). The U.S. Census estimates that 66.1 percent of King County workers commute alone to work (by car, truck or van), and mean travel time to work is 26.4 minutes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). ACT.A 6 -22 Page 94 of 869 KING COUNTY PROFILE Production, Transportation, and Material Moving 9% Natural Resources, Construction and _ Maintenance 6% Sales & Office 22% Management, Business, Science and Arts 48% 1 Service 15% Figure 6 -13. Occupations in the Planning Area 6.9 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT The municipal planning partners have adopted comprehensive plans that govern land -use decision- and policy - making in their jurisdictions. Decisions on land use are governed by these programs. This plan will work together with these programs to support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the risk associated with natural hazards in the planning area. All municipal planning partners will incorporate this hazard mitigation plan update in their comprehensive plans by reference. This will ensure that future development trends can be established with the benefits of the information on risk and vulnerability to natural hazards identified in this plan. 6.10 LAWS, ORDINANCES AND PROGRAMS Existing laws, ordinances and plans at the federal, state and local level can support or impact hazard mitigation actions identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required to include a review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as part of the planning process (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(3)). Pertinent federal and state laws are described below. Each planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information in its jurisdictional annex, presented in Volume 2. 6.10.1 Federal Disaster Mitigation Act The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in place before Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds are available to communities. This Plan is designed to meet the requirements of DMA, improving the planning partners' eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds. 6 -23 ACT.A Page 95 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted in 1973 to conserve species facing depletion or extinction and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live. The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species and contains exceptions and exemptions. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA and the Convention. Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities in furtherance of the ESA's purposes. The ESA defines three fundamental terms: • Endangered means that a species of fish, animal or plant is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may include subspecies and distinct population segments.) • Threatened means that a species "is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future." Regulations may be less restrictive for threatened species than for endangered species. • Critical habitat means "specific geographical areas that are...essential for the conservation and management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not." Five sections of the ESA are of critical importance to understanding it: • Section 4: Listing of a Species —The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for listing marine species; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The agencies may initiate reviews for listings, or citizens may petition for them. A listing must be made "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available." After a listing has been proposed, agencies receive comment and conduct further scientific reviews for 12 to 18 months, after which they must decide if the listing is warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in this decision, but it may include an evaluation of the adequacy of local and state protections. Critical habitat for the species may be designated at the time of listing. • Section 7: Consultation — Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a federal permit. Once a final listing is made, non - federal actions are subject to the same review, termed a "consultation." If the listing agency finds that an action will "take" a species, it must propose mitigations or "reasonable and prudent" alternatives to the action; if the proponent rejects these, the action cannot proceed. • Section 9: Prohibition of Take —It is unlawful to "take" an endangered species, including killing or injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. • Section 10: Permitted Take — Through voluntary agreements with the federal government that provide protections to an endangered species, a non - federal applicant may commit a take that would otherwise be prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (such as developing land or building a road). These agreements often take the form of a "Habitat Conservation Plan." 6 -24 ACT.A Page 96 of 869 KING COUNTY PROFILE • Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits —Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing agency to enforce the ESA's prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the consultation process. With the listing of salmon and trout species as threatened or endangered, the ESA has impacted most of the Pacific Coast states. Although some of these areas have been more impacted by the ESA than others due to the known presence of listed species, the entire region has been impacted by mandates, programs and policies based on the presumption of the presence of listed species. Most West Coast jurisdictions must now take into account the impact of their programs on habitat. The Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non - regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's surface waters so that they can support "the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water." Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has included a shift from a program -by- program, source -by- source, pollutant -by- pollutant approach to more holistic watershed -based strategies. Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. A full array of issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining water quality and other environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach. National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally backed flood insurance in exchange for communities enacting floodplain regulations. Participation and good standing under NFIP are prerequisites to grant funding eligibility under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The County and most of the partner cities for this plan participate in the NFIP and have adopted regulations that meet the NFIP requirements. At the time of the preparation of this plan, all participating jurisdictions in the partnership were in good standing with NFIP requirements. 6.10.2 State Washington State Enhanced Mitigation Plan The Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA in 2010 provides guidance for hazard mitigation throughout Washington. The plan identifies hazard mitigation goals, objectives, actions and initiatives for state government to reduce injury and damage from natural hazards. By meeting federal requirements for an enhanced state plan (44 CFR parts 201.4 and 201.5), the plan allows the state to seek significantly higher funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program following presidential declared disasters (20 percent of federal disaster expenditures vs. 15 percent with a standard plan). Growth Management Act The 1990 Washington State Growth Management Act (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A) mandates that local jurisdictions adopt land use ordinances protect the following critical areas: • Wetlands • Critical aquifer recharge areas • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas 6 -25 ACT.A Page 97 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Frequently flooded areas • Geologically hazardous areas. The Growth Management Act regulates development in these areas, and therefore has the potential to affect hazard vulnerability and exposure at the local level. Planning for natural hazards is an integral element of Washington's statewide land use planning program under the Growth Management Act. Other related parts of the planning framework include the Shoreline Master Program rules and guidelines, which now provide for the integration of master programs and comprehensive plans. Natural Hazard Mitigation Elements are an optional element under the Growth Management Act. The continuing challenge faced by local officials and state government is to keep a network of coordinated local plans effective in responding to changing conditions and needs of communities. This is particularly true in the case of planning for natural and technological hazards, where communities must balance development pressures with detailed information on the nature and extent of hazards. Washington's land use program has given its communities and citizens a unique opportunity to ensure that natural and technological hazards are addressed in the development and implementation of local comprehensive plans. Shoreline Management Act The 1971 Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) was enacted to manage and protect the shorelines of the state by regulating development in the shoreline area. A major goal of the act is to prevent the "inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." Its jurisdiction includes the Pacific Ocean shoreline and the shorelines of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and rivers, streams and lakes above a certain size. It also regulates wetlands associated with these shorelines. Washington State Building Code The Washington State Building Code Council adopted the 2006 editions of national model codes, with some amendments. The Council also adopted changes to the Washington State Energy Code and Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code. Washington's state- developed codes are mandatory statewide for residential and commercial buildings. The residential code exceeds the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code standards for most homes, and the commercial code meets or exceeds standards of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air - Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE 90.1- 2004). For residential construction covered by ASHRAE 90.1 -2007 (buildings with four or more stories), the state code is more stringent. The 2009 IBC went into effect as the Washington model code on July 1, 2010. Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning Washington's Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning law (RCW 38.52) establishes parameters to ensure that preparations of the state will be adequate to deal with disasters, to ensure the administration of state and federal programs providing disaster relief to individuals, to ensure adequate support for search and rescue operations, to protect the public peace, health and safety, and to preserve the lives and property of the people of the state. It achieves the following: • Provides for emergency management by the state, and authorizes the creation of local organizations for emergency management in political subdivisions of the state. • Confers emergency powers upon the governor and upon the executive heads of political subdivisions of the state. 6 -26 ACT.A Page 98 of 869 KING COUNTY PROFILE • Provides for the rendering of mutual aid among political subdivisions of the state and with other states and for cooperation with the federal government with respect to the carrying out of emergency management functions. • Provides a means of compensating emergency management workers who may suffer any injury or death, who suffer economic harm including personal property damage or loss, or who incur expenses for transportation, telephone or other methods of communication, and the use of personal supplies as a result of participation in emergency management activities. • Provides programs, with intergovernmental cooperation, to educate and train the public to be prepared for emergencies. It is policy under this law that emergency management functions of the state and its political subdivisions be coordinated to the maximum extent with comparable functions of the federal government and agencies of other states and localities, and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective preparation and use may be made of manpower, resources, and facilities for dealing with disasters. Washington Administrative Code 118 -30- 060(1) Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 118 -30 -060 (1) requires each political subdivision to base its comprehensive emergency management plan on a hazard analysis, and makes the following definitions related to hazards: • Hazards are conditions that can threaten human life as the result of three main factors: — Natural conditions, such as weather and seismic activity — Human interference with natural processes, such as a levee that displaces the natural flow of floodwaters — Human activity and its products, such as homes on a floodplain. • The definitions for hazard, hazard event, hazard identification, and flood hazard include related concepts: — A hazard may be connected to human activity. — Hazards are extreme events. Hazards generally pose a risk of damage, loss, or harm to people and /or their property Washington State Floodplain Management Law Washington's floodplain management law (RCW 86.16, implemented through WAC 173 -158) states that prevention of flood damage is a matter of statewide public concern and places regulatory control with the Department of Ecology. RCW 86.16 is cited in floodplain management literature, including FEMA's national assessment, as one of the first and strongest in the nation. A major challenge to the law in 1978, Maple Leaf Investors v. Ecology, is cited in legal references to floodplain management issues. The court upheld the law, declaring that denial of a permit to build residential structures in the floodway is a valid exercise of police power and did not constitute a taking. RCW Chapter 86.12 (Flood Control by Counties) authorizes county governments to levy taxes, condemn properties and undertake flood control activities directed toward a public purpose. Flood Control Assistance Account Program Washington's first flood control maintenance program was passed in 1951, and was called the Flood Control Maintenance Program. In 1984, RCW 86.26 (State Participation in Flood Control Maintenance) 6 -27 ACT.A Page 99 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements established the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP), which provides funding for local flood hazard management. FCAAP rules are found in WAC 173 -145. Ecology distributes FCAAP matching grants to cities, counties and other special districts responsible for flood control. This is one of the few state programs in the U.S. that provides grant funding to local governments for floodplain management. The program has been funded for $4 million per Biennium since its establishment, with additional amounts provided after severe flooding events. To be eligible for FCAAP assistance, flood hazard management activities must be approved by Ecology in consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. A comprehensive flood hazard management plan must have been completed and adopted by the appropriate local authority or be in the process of being prepared in order to receive FCAAP flood damage reduction project funds. This policy evolved through years of the Flood Control Maintenance Program and early years of FCAAP in response to the observation that poor management in one part of a watershed may cause flooding problems in another part. Local jurisdictions must participate in the NFIP and be a member in good standing to qualify for an FCAAP grant. Grants up to 75 percent of total project cost are available for comprehensive flood hazard management planning. Flood damage reduction projects can receive grants up to 50 percent of total project cost, and must be consistent with the comprehensive flood hazard management plan. Emergency grants are available to respond to unusual flood conditions. FCAAP can also be used for the purchase of flood prone properties, for limited flood mapping and for flood warning systems. Funding currently is running about 60 percent for planning and 40 percent for projects. 6.10.3 Local Programs Each planning partner has prepared a jurisdiction - specific annex to this plan (see Volume 2). In preparing these annexes, each partner completed a capability assessment that looked at its regulatory, technical and financial capability to carry out proactive hazard mitigation. Refer to these annexes for a review of regulatory codes and ordinances applicable to each planning partner. This section provides an overview of programs in King County that can support or enhance the initiatives identified in this plan. King County Flood Control District The King County Flood Control District (District) is an independent special purpose district established by King County Council Ordinance 15728. State law authorizes King County Council members to be the members of the Board of Supervisors that is the district's governing body. The Board of Supervisors oversees the district's funding, projects, policies and programs. The District Advisory Committee provides the Board of Supervisors with policy recommendations on regional flood protection and annual budgeting issues and on priorities and implementation strategies for the district's capital improvement program. Staff from the River and Floodplain Management Section of King County's Department of Natural Resources and Parks (Water and Land Resources Division) are responsible, under an inter -local agreement between the County and the District, for developing and implementing board - approved flood protection projects and programs. Basin Technical Committees for each major river basin (Snoqualmie /South Fork Skykomish Rivers, Cedar /Sammamish Rivers, Green /Duwamish River and White River) ensure that basin -scale issues and basin - specific technical information are considered in regional decision - making. Committee members are staff from local governments in each basin, along with District staff. Tribal governments also are invited to participate. Together, basin committee members coordinate with state and federal partners, review and guide flood hazard management projects and share information on relevant flood issues. They provide 6-28 ACT.A Page 100 of 869 11 11 KING COUNTY PROFILE technical advice and recommendations to the district's Advisory Committee, which in turn makes recommendations to the District's Board of Supervisors. Figure 6 -14 illustrates the District's overall governance structure. )11111 f,lifil°1841j1j)1111111 lfff �IYW 1; � , 1 �e�! p1 J� I�Gs Commit 1 Ntril1, Tr14g County ). 11 iCity and hied ., 'strict tai f) 11 Figure 6 -14. King County Flood Control District Governance Structure The Resilient King County Initiative In 2013, King County convened a group of leaders from the corporate and nonprofit sectors to build a comprehensive strategy for how King County will recover from a major catastrophe. The group's meeting launched the Resilient King County initiative, based on King County's Regional Capabilities Assessment, the Resilient Washington State initiative, and the National Disaster Recovery Framework. The Resilient King County initiative seeks to establish a framework to assist individuals, families, businesses and government in rebuilding the community after a disaster in a way that sustains its physical, emotional, social, and economic well- being. It defines a resilient King County as follows: A resilient King County has the capacity to maintain the services and livelihoods that its residents rely on after a catastrophic hazard event. In the event that these services and livelihoods are disrupted, recovery within King County occurs in a systematic, defensible, and transparent manner that balances speed and opportunity. The purpose of the Resilient King County initiative is to obtain insights and feedback from stakeholders in King County to further the development of King County's Regional Long -Term Recovery Plan. The insights and feedback will be synthesized into a report that establishes a framework for conducting tradeoffs before and during the recovery process in coordination with other King County jurisdictions and key stakeholders. 6 -29 ACT.A Page 101 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements King County Strategic Plan 2010 -2014 The King County Council adopted the King County Strategic Plan, 2010 -2014: Working Together for One King County. The plan, created with input from residents and county employees in collaboration with the county's elected officials, is a key tool in work to reform county government by focusing on customer service, partnerships and ways to bring down the cost of government. 6 -30 ACT.A Page 102 of 869 CHAPTER 7. CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION 7.1 WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE? Climate, consisting of patterns of temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind and seasons, plays a fundamental role in shaping natural ecosystems and the human economies and cultures that depend on them. "Climate change" refers to changes over a long period of time. Worldwide, average temperatures have increased more than 1.4 °F over the last 100 years (NRC, 2010). Although this change may seem small, it can lead to large changes in climate and weather. The warming trend and its related impacts are caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a warming effect. Carbon dioxide is the most commonly known greenhouse gas; however, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases also contribute to warming. Emissions of these gases come from a variety of sources, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, agricultural production and changes in land use. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), carbon dioxide concentrations measured about 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era began in the late 1700s and have risen 41 percent since then, reaching 394 ppm in 2012 (see Figure 7 -1). The EPA attributes almost all of this increase to human activities (U.S. EPA, 2013f). E 647,4,26 BC to 2012 ,tea E 10,0 as 4 =3 0 3 250 200 O. 400 = 350 0 3+00 Go 250 X10 a, 150 No c 50 0 x700 &100 -300 ;000 1 Year (negative values = BC) is 100 50 0 BC to 2012 AD 1950 , AD to 2012 AD c 3;513. 0 ,250 GA 150 2 100 c 50 0 o -10000 -6000 -2000 0 2000 11950 119fi 1N 11970 3900 199l Year (negative values =B) Year 41111 Data source: Compilation of 12 underlying w ,4asets. See www. e, pa: goviclimrda4e +charwgefscienoe /ind4 4orsr`ghigl glhg- concentratonGs.IhtmI for specific Information. 20110 2020 Figure 7 -1. Global Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over Time Climate change will affect the people, property, economy and ecosystems of King County in a variety of ways. Some impacts will have negative consequences for the region and others may present opportunities. The most important effect for the development of this plan is that climate change will have a measurable impact on the occurrence and severity of natural hazards. ACT.A 7 -1 Page 103 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 7.2 HOW CLIMATE CHANGE AFFECTS HAZARD MITIGATION An essential aspect of hazard mitigation is predicting the likelihood of hazard events in a planning area. Typically, predictions are based on statistical projections from records of past events. This approach assumes that the likelihood of hazard events remains essentially unchanged over time. Thus, averages based on the past frequencies of, for example, floods are used to estimate future frequencies: if a river has flooded an average of once every five years for the past 100 years, then it can be expected to continue to flood an average of once every five years. For hazards that are affected by climate conditions, the assumption that future behavior will be equivalent to past behavior is not valid if climate conditions are changing. As flooding is generally associated with precipitation frequency and quantity, for example, the frequency of flooding will not remain constant if broad precipitation patterns change over time. The risks of avalanche, landslide, severe weather, severe winter weather and wildfire are all affected by climate patterns as well. For this reason, an understanding of climate change is pertinent to efforts to mitigate natural hazards. Information about how climate patterns are changing provides insight on the reliability of future hazard projections used in mitigation analysis. This chapter summarizes current understandings about climate change in order to provide a context for the recommendation and implementation of hazard mitigation measures in King County. 7.3 CURRENT INDICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 7.3.1 Global Indicators The major scientific agencies of the United States — including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) —agree that climate change is occurring (U.S. EPA, 2013). Multiple temperature records from all over the world have shown a warming trend (U.S. EPA, 2011). According to NOAA, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record, and 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record (NOAA, 2011). Worldwide, average temperatures have increased more than 1.4 °F over the last 100 years (NRC, 2010). Many of the extreme precipitation and heat events of recent years are consistent with projections based on that amount of warming (USGCRP, 2009). Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by other changes in weather and climate. Many places have experienced changes in rainfall resulting in more intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced changes: oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising (U.S. EPA, 2010). Global sea level has risen approximately 9 inches, on average, in the last 140 years (U.S. EPA, 2010). This has already put some coastal homes, beaches, roads, bridges, and wildlife at risk (USGCRP, 2009). 7.3.2 Indicators Tracked by King County Environmental changes such as increasing air and water temperatures, acidifying marine waters, increasing fall flooding, rising sea levels, decreasing snow pack, and decreasing summertime river flow have already been documented within King County (King County, 2013a). The County has been tracking a series of indicators that will provide information about local climate change impacts and help assess their severity. The County is also tracking greenhouse gas emissions for all King County residents, businesses and government operations and preparing for climate change impacts. The indicators that King County has been tracking demonstrate the following impacts to date (King County, 2013a): 7-2 ACT.A Page 104 of 869 CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION • Stream temperatures— During the period 2000 -2011, the moving 7 -day average of the daily maximum temperatures for the majority of the 63 stream and river sites in King County exceeded the 16 °C temperature standard established for the protection of salmon habitat. • Large lake temperatures —The trend in annual average lake temperatures, including Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish, is toward higher average water temperatures. • Summer Stream Flows —Trend analysis of long -term King County river discharge records (1962 -2008) in nine unregulated rivers and the naturalized flow record for the Green River at Howard Hanson Dam provide strong evidence of declining summer flow (July - September) and some evidence that severe storms and floods occur more frequently in late fall. • Rainfall — Annual precipitation in the Pacific Northwest region increased 14 percent from 1930 through 1995. There is some evidence from local weather and gauging river stations that severe storms and floods are occurring more frequently. A local study indicated a general trend toward higher precipitation in November and lower precipitation during summer. In addition, results suggest increases in the magnitude, duration, frequency, and earlier timing of extreme precipitation. • Sea level rise — Oceans rose approximately 8 inches from 1870 to 2008, an average of 0.06 inches per year. Recent years have shown an increase in the rate of change. At a station in Seattle, the trend of monthly mean sea level (1898 to 2006) is 2.06 mm /year (equivalent to a change of 0.68 feet in 100 years). • Air temperature —In the Pacific Northwest, average annual temperatures rose 1.5 °F in the last century. • Snowpack— Widespread declines in spring snowpack have occurred in much of the North American west between 1925 and 2000. Between about mid - century and 2006, decreases of about 15 to 35 percent in snow water equivalent in the Cascades Mountains were observed. • Sea surface temperature — Global sea surface temperatures increased over the 20th century at an average rate of 0.12 °F per decade. Over the last 30 years, global surface temperatures have risen at a faster rate of change of 0.21 °F per decade. Records from a station in Victoria, BC indicate a long -term warming trend of 1.7 °F since 1921 and 1.8 °F since 1950. • Ocean acidification —Over the past 250 years, oceans have absorbed about 550 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions, or about 30 percent of total carbon emissions created by human activity. Globally, ocean surface water pH is estimated to have fallen about 0.1 pH units since the beginning of the industrial revolution. • Human Health and Heat —Data from the greater Seattle area indicate that between 1980 and 2006 the risk of death and mortality due to all non - traumatic causes and circulatory causes rose for citizens 45 years and older during the hottest summer days. • Air Quality —The number of days per year with air particulates exceeding the Particulate Matter Size 2.5 daily health standard has been decreasing over the last 10 years —from about 60 days in 2000 down to fewer than 10 days in 2010. • County Operations —Over the short period for which data is available (since 2007), data show a trend in increasing hours of operation of the King County Flood Warning Center. • FEMA disasters — Flood, severe storm and coastal storm related FEMA disasters in King County have been occurring more frequently in the past decade. • Fish —Wild juvenile chinook salmon abundance in King County watersheds has been decreasing since the early 2000s. Wild chinook salmon escapement results in 2010 were far below the recovery goals —at only 7 percent of the recovery target. 3 ACT.A Page 105 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 7.4 PROJECTED FUTURE IMPACTS 7.4.1 Global Projections Scientists project that Earth's average temperatures will rise between 2 °F and 12 °F by 2100 (NRC, 2011a). Some research has concluded that every increase of 2 °F in average global average temperature can have the following impacts (NRC, 2011b): • 3 to 10 percent increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest precipitation events, which can increase flooding risks • 200 to 400 percent increases in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the western United States • 5 to 10 percent decreases in stream flow in some river basins • 5 to 15 percent reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown. The amount of sea level rise expected to occur as a result of climate change will increase the risk of coastal flooding for millions to hundreds of millions of people around the world, many of whom would have to permanently leave their homes (IPCC, 2007). By 2100, sea level is expected to rise another 1.5 to 3 feet (NRC, 2011b). Rising seas will make coastal storms and the associated storm surges more frequent and destructive. What is currently termed a once -in -a- century coastal flooding event could occur as frequently as once per decade (USGCRP, 2009). 7.4.2 Projections for Washington State The Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington used multiple climate models to evaluate potential climate change in Washington State and the Pacific Northwest region. The following are key findings of that study that are relevant for hazard mitigation planning (Climate Impacts Group, 2009): • Climate models project increases in annual temperature (compared to 1970 – 1999 and averaged across all models) of 2.0 °F by the 2020s, 3.2 °F by the 2040s, and 5.3 °F by the 2080s. • Projected changes in annual precipitation, averaged over all models, are small ( +1 to +2 percent), but some models project an enhanced seasonal precipitation cycle with changes toward wetter autumns and winters and drier summers. • Regional climate models generally predict increases in extreme high precipitation over the next half - century, particularly around Puget Sound. • April 1 snowpack is projected to decrease (compared with the 1916 – 2006 historical average) by 28 percent across the state by the 2020s, 40 percent by the 2040s, and 59 percent by the 2080s. • Due to increased summer temperature and decreased summer precipitation, the area burned by fire in the U.S. portion of the Columbia River basin is projected to double by the 2040s and triple by the 2080s. The probability that more than 2 million acres in that area will burn in a given year is projected to increase from 5 percent today to 33 percent by the 2080s. • Projected warming would likely result in 101 additional deaths during heat events in the greater Seattle area among persons 45 and older in 2025 and 156 additional deaths in 2045. • By mid - century, King County will likely experience 132 additional deaths annually between May and September due to worsened air quality caused by climate change. 4 ACT.A Page 106 of 869 CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION 7.5 RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE 7.5.1 Mitigation and Adaptation Communities and governments worldwide are working to address, evaluate and prepare for climate changes that are likely to impact communities in coming decades. Generally, climate change discussions encompass two separate but inter - related considerations: mitigation and adaptation. The term "mitigation" can be confusing, because its meaning changes across disciplines: • Mitigation in restoration ecology and related fields generally refers to policies, programs or actions that are intended to reduce or to offset the negative impacts of human activities on natural systems. Generally, mitigation can be understood as avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, or compensating for known impacts (CEQ, 1978). • Mitigation in climate change discussions is defined as "a human intervention to reduce the impact on the climate system." It includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas sources and emissions and enhance greenhouse gas sinks (U.S. EPA, 2013g). • Mitigation in emergency management is typically defined as the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters (FEMA, 2013). In this chapter, mitigation is used as defined by the climate change community. In the other chapters of this plan, mitigation is primarily used in an emergency management context. Adaptation refers to adjustments in natural or human systems in response to the actual or anticipated effects of climate change and associated impacts. These adjustments may moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities (U.S. EPA, 2013g). Mitigation and adaptation are related, as the world's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will affect the degree of adaptation that will be necessary. Some initiatives and actions can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support adaptation to likely future conditions. Societies across the world are facing the need to adapt to changing conditions associated with natural disasters and climate change. Farmers are altering crops and agricultural methods to deal with changing rainfall and rising temperature; architects and engineers are redesigning buildings; planners are looking at managing water supplies to deal with droughts or flooding. Most ecosystems show a remarkable ability to adapt to change and to buffer surrounding areas from the impacts of change. Forests can bind soils and hold large volumes of water during times of plenty, releasing it through the year; floodplains can absorb vast volumes of water during peak flows; coastal ecosystems can hold out against storms, attenuating waves and reducing erosion. Other ecosystem services —such as food provision, timber, materials, medicines and recreation —can provide a buffer to societies in the face of changing conditions. Ecosystem -based adaptation is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. This includes the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of specific ecosystems that provide key services. 7.5.2 Future Modeling Efforts Current modeling efforts are unable to assess climate change at a resolution small enough to determine specific impacts for the individual communities of King County. However, generalized assessments of larger climatic regions can be used to determine impacts that are most likely to affect these communities. 5 ACT.A Page 107 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Models are currently being developed to assess the potential impacts of climate change, but none are currently available to support hazard mitigation planning. As these models are developed in the future, the risk assessment presented in this plan may be enhanced to better measure these impacts. 7.5.3 Response To Climate Change in the Northwest King County has been a national leader in working to address climate change. The County has engaged in the following planning strategies to address greenhouse gas emissions and the expected impacts that climate change will have on people, property, economy and ecosystems: • The King County Global Warming Action Plan • 2007 King County Climate Plan • The 2012 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan • Preparing for Climate Change Guidebook in conjunction with the University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group and Local Governments for Sustainability • Participation in the Cities Climate Collaboration • Mandating that greenhouse gas emission information be included in the environmental review process required by the State Environmental Policy Act. King County government is not alone in the effort to address the sources and impacts of climate change. The State of Washington has adopted greenhouse gas reduction requirements that aim to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2035 and to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (RCW 47.01.440). Additionally, as of 2012, 17 of the 39 cities in the county are signatories to the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection greenhouse gas emissions reduction target, which was launched by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels in 2005. 2012 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan The most recent County effort to address climate change is the 2012 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan which "synthesizes and focuses King County's most critical goals, objectives, strategies and priority actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change" (King County, 2012). The Action Plan identifies goals for County operations and services in five areas that align with the King County Strategic Plan: transportation and land use; energy; forests and agriculture; consumption and materials management; and preparing for climate change impacts. Many of the actions identified in support of the goal of preparing for the likely impacts of climate change are directly related to the goals of hazard mitigation planning (King County, 2012): • Manage flood risk. • Educate and train the public and staff. • Develop preparedness plans. • Integrate climate change issues into emergency management. • Plan for impacts on public health. • Further develop reclaimed water program. Cities Climate Collaboration King County and the cities of Issaquah, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond, Renton, Seattle, Shoreline, Snoqualmie and Tukwila have formed a partnership to "coordinate and enhance the effectiveness of local 7-6 ACT.A Page 108 of 869 CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION government climate and sustainability efforts." (King County, 2014) The effort focuses on developing and coordinating the following (King County, 2014): • Outreach — Develop, refine and use messaging and tools for climate change outreach to engage decision makers, other cities and the general public. • Coordination — Collaborate on adopting consistent standards, benchmarks, strategies and overall goal related to responding to climate change. • Solution —Share local success stories, challenges, data and products that support and enhance The climate mitigation efforts by all partners. • Funding and resources — Collaborate to secure grant funding and other shared resource opportunities to support climate related project and programs. State Environmental Policy Act In Washington State, development proposals that may have an adverse impact on the environment are subject to an environmental review that adheres to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. King County was the first in the nation to take official action to add greenhouse gas emission considerations to the review of construction projects. According to the King County Sustainability Report, greenhouse gas emissions associated with development come from multiple sources: • The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of building materials • Landscape disturbance • Energy demands created by the development after it is completed • Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed. The assessment required by the King County policy provides an estimate of all greenhouse gas emissions that will be created over the life of the building. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during the building's operation, and transportation by building occupants (King County, 2013b). King County Comprehensive Plan King County is involved in efforts to link climate change planning to local land use decisions. The King County Comprehensive Plan identifies polices that will help the County prepare for the impacts of climate change. According to the Adaptation section of the comprehensive plan, King County can increase resiliency and adapt to climate change through actions such as the following (King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review, 2013): • Coordinated public health and disaster planning • Climate- sensitive land use planning • Investments in flood hazard management projects • Collaborative planning with water suppliers and development of reclaimed water sources • Comprehensive approaches to conserving biodiversity that may make habitats more resilient to climate change impacts • Information sharing and collaboration with other local governments developing strategies for climate change adaptation • Cooperation with farm and forest landowners to identify and address impacts of climate change ACT.A Page 109 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Siting facilities and using sustainable building practices to reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the following examples of County efforts to implement and learn from practical preparedness steps: • Analyzing and planning for sea level rise impacts on Vashon Island and wastewater and road infrastructure • Assessing and reducing flood impacts in partnership with the King County Flood Control District • Developing reclaimed water systems and markets. In general, actions throughout the planning area that promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors support both hazard mitigation and climate change objectives. These actions include reducing fossil fuel consumption through transit initiatives, implementing green building and infrastructure design, protecting and enhancing the provision of ecosystem services, and assessing emissions from local government purchasing and operating protocols. 7.6 POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON HAZARDS Although no modeling is currently available to develop quantitative estimates of the effect of climate change on natural hazard risks, an understanding of the basic features of climate change allows for the following qualitative assessments of impacts on hazards of concern addressed in this hazard mitigation plan. This overview serves as a basis for evaluating how risk will change as a result of future climate change impacts. The vulnerabilities identified in this plan update will ultimately be used to inform other aspects of emergency management planning, such as the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. 7.6.1 Avalanche Snow avalanches are rarely used as indicators of climate change. The effects of climate change on avalanche frequency and magnitude are uncertain and will likely be dependent on local climate change impacts, such as changes in snowfall events and temperature series. Some studies have indicated that the types of avalanche events (wet or dry) may shift as a result of changes in snow cover (Martin et al., 2001). Avalanches, however, are not influenced by snow cover alone, but by several interrelated factors including forest structure, surface energy balance, melt water routing, precipitation, air temperature and wind (Teich et al., 2012; Lazar and Williams, 2008). Secondary and tertiary impacts of climate change may also alter avalanche events. For example, climate change may modify the distribution of tree species across mountain landscapes. Some case studies in the Swiss and French Alps indicate that climate change impacts may reduce the frequency or severity of such events, while other assessments indicate that events may occur more frequently in other mountain regions (Kohler, 2009; Teich et al. 2012). No studies assessing the relative frequency and severity of avalanches in the Cascade Range were located, but an analysis of wet avalanche hazards in an Aspen ski area indicated that such effects may occur more frequently under high- emission scenarios (Lazar and Williams, 2008). Feedback loops affecting snow cover, forest structure, meteorological averages, and land use planning decisions are all likely to influence the future frequency and severity of impacts from avalanche events. 7.6.2 Dam Failure Dams are designed partly based on assumptions about a river's flow behavior, expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. s ACT.A Page 110 of 869 CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION If the hygrograph changes, it is conceivable that the dam can lose some or all of its designed margin of safety, also known as freeboard. If freeboard is reduced, dam operators may be forced to release increased volumes earlier in a storm cycle in order to maintain the required margins of safety. Such early releases of increased volumes can increase flood potential downstream. Throughout the west, communities downstream of dams are already experiencing increases in stream flows from earlier releases from dams. Dams are constructed with safety features known as "spillways." Spillways are put in place on dams as a safety measure in the event of the reservoir filling too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to as "design failures," result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential. Although climate change will not increase the probability of catastrophic dam failure, it may increase the probability of design failures. 7.6.3 Earthquake The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown. Some scientists say that melting glaciers could induce tectonic activity. As ice melts and water runs off, tremendous amounts of weight are shifted on the earth's crust. As newly freed crust returns to its original, pre - glacier shape, it could cause seismic plates to slip and stimulate volcanic activity, according to research into prehistoric earthquakes and volcanic activity. NASA and USGS scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern Alaska may be opening the way for future earthquakes (NASA, 2004). Secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. Soils saturated by repetitive storms could experience liquefaction or an increased propensity for slides during seismic activity due to the increased saturation. Dams storing increased volumes of water due to changes in the hydrograph could fail during seismic events. There are currently no models available to estimate these impacts. 7.6.4 Flood According to University of Washington scientists, global climate changes resulting in warmer, wetter winters are projected to increase flooding frequency in most Western Washington river basins. Future floods are expected to exceed the capacity and protective abilities of existing flood protection facilities, threatening lives, property, major transportation corridors, communities and regional economic centers. Changes in Hydrology Use of historical hydrologic data has long been the standard of practice for designing and operating water supply and flood protection projects. For example, historical data are used for flood forecasting models and to forecast snowmelt runoff for water supply. This method of forecasting assumes that the climate of the future will be similar to that of the period of historical record. However, the hydrologic record cannot be used to predict changes in frequency and severity of extreme climate events such as floods. Going forward, model calibration or statistical relation development must happen more frequently, new forecast - based tools must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly considers climate change must be adopted. Climate change is already impacting water resources, and resource managers have observed the following: • Historical hydrologic patterns can no longer be solely relied upon to forecast the water future. • Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water supply and quality, flood management and ecosystem functions. • Extreme climatic events will become more frequent, necessitating improvement in flood protection, drought preparedness and emergency response. s ACT.A Page 111 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements The amount of snow is critical for water supply and environmental needs, but so is the timing of snowmelt runoff into rivers and streams. Rising snowlines caused by climate change will allow more mountain area to contribute to peak storm runoff. High frequency flood events (e.g. 10 -year floods) in particular will likely increase with a changing climate. Along with reductions in the amount of the snowpack and accelerated snowmelt, scientists project greater storm intensity, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding. Changes in watershed vegetation and soil moisture conditions will likewise change runoff and recharge patterns. As stream flows and velocities change, erosion patterns will also change, altering channel shapes and depths, possibly increasing sedimentation behind dams, and affecting habitat and water quality. With potential increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to climate change, there is potential for more floods following fire, which increase sediment loads and water quality impacts. As hydrology changes, what is currently considered a 100 -year flood may strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. Planners will need to factor a new level of safety into the design, operation, and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams, bypass channels and levees, as well as the design of local sewers and storm drains. Sea Level Rise Sea level and temperature are interrelated (U.S. EPA, 2013e). Warmer temperatures result in the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. This melting means that less water is stored on land and, thus, there is a greater volume of water in the oceans. Water also expands as it warms, and the heat content of the world's oceans has been increasing over the last several decades. According to the EPA, there is likely to be 13 inches of sea level rise in the Puget Sound basin by 2100. According to the Washington State Department of Ecology the impacts of sea level rise could include the following: increased coastal community flooding, coastal erosion and landslides, seawater well intrusion, and lost wetlands and estuaries. 7.6.5 Landslide Climate change may impact storm patterns, increasing the probability of more frequent, intense storms with varying duration. Increase in global temperature could affect the snowpack and its ability to hold and store water. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would increase the probability of wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. All of these factors would increase the probability for landslide occurrences. 7.6.6 Severe Weather Climate change presents a challenge for risk management associated with severe weather. The frequency of severe weather events has increased steadily over the last century. The number of weather - related disasters during the 1990s was four times that of the 1950s, and cost 14 times as much in economic losses. Historical data shows that the probability for severe weather events increases in a warmer climate (see Figure 7 -2). According to the EPA, "Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.14 °F per decade. Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.36 to 0.55 °F per decade). Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1998, and 2012 was the warmest year on record (U.S. EPA, 2013b)." This increase in average surface temperatures can also lead to more intense heat waves that can be exacerbated in urbanized areas by what is known as urban heat island effect. Additionally, the changing hydrograph caused by climate change could have a significant impact on the intensity, duration and frequency of storm events. All of these impacts could have significant economic consequences. 7 -10 ACT.A Page 112 of 869 CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION chmate Less eathe r ore hot weather Aver ge Ot y0 «1,11,1IIIIIIIVVV VuVHH H1111111 11'1111'1111111 " t. v 111111111111111, 1111111111111111111,1111111111111111 1, 11111,114111111111HHHHHHHHH11:11:1111111111 1111111:11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111117 u44 uuouuuu 'u'uouo N Figure 7 -2. Severe Weather Probabilities in Warmer Climates ACT.A 7 -11 Page 113 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 7.6.7 Severe Winter Weather One impact of climate change is an increase in average ambient temperatures. Since the 1980s, unusually cold temperatures have become less common in the contiguous 48 states (U.S. EPA, 2013c). This trend is expected to continue and the frequency of winter cold spells will likely decrease. As ambient temperatures increase, more water evaporates from land and water sources. The timing, frequency, duration and type of precipitation events will be affected by these changes. In general, more precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow; however, the amount of snowfall may increase where temperatures remain below freezing (U.S. EPA, 2013d). Snowfall may also change if typical storm track patterns are altered. Snowfall is already changing in the United States. According to the EPA (see Figure 7 -3; U.S. EPA, 2013d): • Total snowfall has decreased in most parts of the country since widespread observations became available in 1930, with 57 percent of stations showing a decline. • More than three - fourths of the stations across the contiguous 48 states have experienced a decrease in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow. • Snowfall trends vary by region. The Pacific Northwest has seen a decline in both total snowfall and the proportion of precipitation falling as snow. Rate of change (percent per year .2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 -0.1 -0.11 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 to -1.2 to -0.9 to -04 to -0.3 to 01 0.3 to 0.6 to 0.9 to 1.2 s snow More snowfall 1.2 Figure 7 -3. Change in snowfall, 1930 -2007 ACT.A 7 -12 Page 114 of 869 CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION From 1950 to 2000, snowpack has declined in most of the western United States, compared to historical averages. Western Washington, western Oregon and northern California have seen the greatest declines (U.S. EPA, 2013d). These changes will impact ecosystems, recreation opportunities, the hydroelectric power supply, and drinking water systems. The timing and magnitude of flooding may also be impacted by changes in the region's hydrograph, due to a greater percentage of precipitation falling as rain and earlier spring melt times. 7.6.8 Tsunami The impacts of climate change on the frequency and severity of tsunami events could be significant in regions with vulnerable coastline. Global sea -level rise will affect all coastal societies, especially densely populated low -lying coastal areas. Sea level rise has two effects on low -lying coastal regions: any structures located below the new level of the sea will be flooded; and the rise in sea level may lead to coastal erosion that can further threaten coastal structures. 7.6.9 Volcano Climate change is not likely to affect the risk associated with volcanoes; however, volcanic activity can affect climate change. Volcanic clouds absorb terrestrial radiation and scatter a significant amount of incoming solar radiation. By reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, large - scale volcanic eruptions can lower temperatures in the lower atmosphere and change atmospheric circulation patterns. The massive outpouring of gases and ash can influence climate patterns for years following a volcanic eruption. 7.6.10 Wildfire Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation. Climate change also may increase winds that spread fires. Forest response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide could contribute to more tree growth and thus more fuel for fires, although the effects of carbon dioxide on mature forests are still largely unknown. In turn, increased high- elevation wildfires could release stores of carbon and further contribute to the buildup of greenhouse gases. Wildfire in western ecosystems is determined by climate variability, local topography, and human intervention. Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation. When climate alters fuel loads and fuel moisture, forest susceptibility to wildfires changes. Climate change also may increase winds that spread fires. Faster fires are harder to contain, and thus are more likely to expand into residential neighborhoods. Historically, drought patterns in the West are related to large -scale climate patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The El Nino — Southern Oscillation in the Pacific varies on a 5- to 7 -year cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation varies on a 20- to 30 -year cycle, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation varies on a 65- to 80 -year cycle. As these large -scale ocean climate patterns vary in relation to each other, drought conditions in the U.S. shift from region to region. El Nino years bring drier conditions to the Pacific Northwest and more fires. Climate scenarios project summer temperature increases between 2 °C and 5 °C and precipitation decreases of up to 15 percent. Such conditions would exacerbate summer drought and further promote high - elevation wildfires, releasing stores of carbon and further contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases. 7 -13 ACT.A Page 115 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Forest response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide could also contribute to more tree growth and thus more fuel for fires, but the effects of carbon dioxide on mature forests are still largely unknown. High carbon dioxide levels should enhance tree recovery after fire and young forest regrowth, as long as sufficient nutrients and soil moisture are available, although the latter is in question for many parts of the western United States because of climate change. 7 -14 ACT.A Page 116 of 869 CHAPTER 8. AVALANCHE 8.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Avalanches can occur whenever a sufficient depth of snow is deposited on slopes steeper than about 20 degrees, with the most dangerous coming from slopes in the 35- to 40- degree range. Avalanche -prone areas can be identified with some accuracy, since they typically follow the same paths year after year, leaving scarring on the paths. However, unusual weather conditions can produce new paths or cause avalanches to extend beyond their normal paths. Common factors contributing to the avalanche hazard are old snow depth, old snow surface, new snow depth, new snow type, snow density, snowfall intensity, precipitation intensity, settlement, wind direction and speed, temperature, and subsurface snow crystal structure. In the spring, warming of the snowpack occurs from below (from the warmer ground) and above (from warm air, rain, etc.). Warming can be enhanced near rocks or trees that transfer heat to the snowpack. The effects of a snowpack becoming weak may be enhanced in steeper terrain where the snowpack is shallow, and over smooth rock faces that may focus meltwater and produce "glide cracks." Such slopes may fail during conditions that encourage melt. Wind can affect the transfer of heat into the snowpack and associated melt rates of near - surface snow. During moderate to strong winds, the moistening near - surface air in contact with the snow is constantly mixed with drier air above through turbulence. As a result, the air is continually drying out, which enhances evaporation from the snow surface rather than melt. Heat loss from the snow necessary to drive the evaporation process cools off near - surface snow and results in substantially less melt than otherwise might occur, even if temperatures are well above freezing. When the snow surface becomes uneven in spring, air flow favors evaporation at the peaks, while calmer air in the valleys favors condensation there. Once the snow surface is wet, its ability to reflect solar energy drops dramatically; this becomes a self - perpetuating process, so that the valleys deepen (favoring calmer air and more heat transfer), while more evaporation occurs near the peaks, increasing the differential between peaks and valleys. However, a warm wet storm can quickly flatten the peaks as their larger surface area exposed to warm air, rain or condensation hastens their melt over the sheltered valleys. DEFINITIONS Avalanche —Any mass of loosened snow or ice and /or earth that suddenly and rapidly breaks loose from a snowfield and slides down a mountain slope, often growing and accumulating additional material as it descends. Slab avalanches —The most dangerous type of avalanche, occurring when a layer of coherent snow ruptures over a large area of a as a single mass. Like other avalanches, slab avalanches can be triggered by the wind, by vibration, or even by a loud noise, and will pull in surrounding rock, debris and even trees. Climax avalanches —An avalanche involving multiple layers of snow,. Loose snow avalanches —An avalanche that occurs when loose, dry snow on a slope becomes unstable and slides. Loose snow avalanches start from a point and gather more snow as they descend, fanning out to fill the topography. Powder snow avalanches —An avalanche that occurs when sliding snow has been pulverized into powder, either by rapid motion of low- density snow or by vigorous movement over rugged terrain. Surface avalanches —An avalanche that occurs only in the uppermost snow layers. Wet snow avalanche —An avalanche in wet snow, also referred to as a wet loose avalanche or a wet slab avalanche. Often the basal shear zone is a water - aturated layer that overlies an ice zone. 8 1 ACT.A Page 117 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 8.2 HAZARD PROFILE 8.2.1 Past Events Avalanches in Washington have killed over 107 people since 1950, including 35 between 2003 and 2013 (CAIC, 2014). Records of large avalanches with loss of life or serious damage to property in or near the planning area include the following (Washington Emergency Management Division 2010, King County 2009 and Northwest Avalanche Center 2014): • 1910 Stevens Pass -96 fatalities, 2 trains derailed • 1971 Snoqualmie Pass -1 fatality • 1996 Mount Index -3 fatalities • 1996 – 1997 Snoqualmie Pass — hundreds of holiday travelers stranded • 2001 Steven's Pass -2 fatalities • 2002 Snoqualmie Pass —I -90 road closures lasting several days • 2003 Alpental -1 fatality • 2003 Snoqualmie Pass -1 fatality • 2005 Alpental -1 fatality • 2007 Snoqualmie Pass -2 fatalities • 2012 Tunnel Creek -3 fatalities • 2013 Snoqualmie Pass -2 fatalities in one day from 2 separate events Avalanches also regularly close small access roads at higher elevations. 8.2.2 Location The Cascade Range in the eastern half of King County receives extensive precipitation due to its size and orientation to the flow of Pacific marine air. In the local maritime climate, it is common for air temperatures to rise above freezing and for precipitation to change from snow to rain during mid - winter storm cycles. Temperatures can change several degrees within minutes, causing abrupt changes in precipitation type. These conditions frequently cause the release of avalanches. Figure 8 -1 shows avalanche hazard areas in Washington, including the easternmost portion of King County. 8.2.3 Frequency At lower elevations of the Cascades, the avalanche season begins in November and continues until the last remnants of snow have melted in early summer. In the high alpine regions, the hazard continues year - round. Hundreds of thousands of avalanches are thought to occur each year in the Cascades. 8.2.4 Severity Large external lateral loads can cause significant damage to structures and fatalities. Table 8 -1 indicates the estimated potential damage for a given range of impact pressures. There may be an impact on the planning area's economy as a result of the avalanche hazard. The timber industry, power companies, recreational resorts, homeowners and recreational groups depend on relatively free access to wildland areas that may be restricted during periods of high avalanche threat. 8-2 ACT.A Page 118 of 869 AVALANCHE =mc 1u IHVInem "Mhzm_or, , NtioquiilloAniit IF HL .�.: ITV b "i�J ihhmu R CI LI zriq F ass 4vafbrad ar -- ant iclx1 t2A COs kfla:Fuirl� Sun,. Farkf Pond 02111111e "hint In 7J ✓r"��lo-a� 12 'u al ins "Transportation Rialutee" ullneraEille toAvalanche, Recta r Areas Viulln stra Ile to Ave Ila c ricxildTYeLe a lea ;� Figure 8 -1. Areas Vulnerable to Avalanche TABLE 8 -1. IMPACT PRESSURES RELATED TO DAMAGE Impact Pressure (pounds per square foot) Potential Damage 40 -80 Break windows 60 -100 Push in doors, damage walls, roofs 200 Severely damage wood frame structures 400 -600 Destroy wood -frame structures, break trees 1,000 -2,000 Destroy mature forests >6,000 Move large boulders Source: www.avalanche.org Avalanche control is important along Interstate 90 through Snoqualmie Pass. 1 -90 is a heavily traveled corridor that connects major Puget Sound communities to Eastern Washington through the Cascade Mountains. Snoqualmie Pass is the state's only Interstate highway link through the Cascades. It averages nearly 450 inches of snow each winter and has a daily traffic volume of 32,000 vehicles (including 8,000 trucks). Economists estimate that the closing of Snoqualmie Pass has an economic cost to the state of $500,000 to $750,000 per hour (Washington State Emergency Management Division, 2010). ACT.A 8 -3 Page 119 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements The BNSF Railway follows essentially the same east -west route as SR -2. The potential for rail service interruption, or for damage to a train carrying hazardous cargo in populated or environmentally sensitive areas, is of concern. The following weather and terrain factors affect avalanche severity and danger: • Storms —A large percentage of all snow avalanches occur during and shortly after storms. • Rate of snowfall —Snow falling at a rate of 1 inch or more per hour rapidly increases avalanche danger. • Temperature — Storms starting with low temperatures and dry snow, followed by rising temperatures and wetter snow, are more likely to cause avalanches than storms that start warm and then cool with snowfall. • Wet snow — Rainstorms or spring weather with warm, moist winds and cloudy nights can warm the snow cover, resulting in wet snow avalanches. Wet snow avalanches are more likely on sun - exposed terrain (south- facing slopes) and under exposed rocks or cliffs. • Ground cover —Large rocks, trees and heavy shrubs help anchor snow. • Slope profile— Dangerous slab avalanches are more likely to occur on convex slopes. • Slope aspect— Leeward slopes are dangerous because windblown snow adds depth and creates dense slabs. South - facing slopes are more dangerous in the springtime. • Slope steepness —Snow avalanches are most common on slopes of 30 to 45 degrees. 8.2.5 Warning Time The Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center provides daily forecasts as well as information regarding significantly increased avalanche danger that may serve as advanced warning for individuals participating in activities where avalanches may occur. These warning are generalized and simply alert exposed individuals to an increased risk of occurrence. The time of an avalanche release depends on the condition of the snow pack; which can change rapidly during a day and particularly during rainfall. Research in the Cascade Mountains has shown that most natural avalanches occurred less than 1 hour after the onset of rain; in these cases the snow pack was initially weak (Washington Emergency Management Division, 1996). In cases where the snow pack was stronger, avalanche activity was delayed or did not occur. Nonetheless an avalanche can occur with little or no warning time, which makes them particularly deadly. 8.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Avalanches can cause blocked roads, which can isolate residents and businesses and delay commercial, public and private transportation. This could result in economic losses for businesses. Other potential problems resulting from avalanches are power and communication failures. Avalanches also can damage rivers or streams, potentially harming water quality, fisheries and spawning habitat. 8.4 EXPOSURE There is minimal development in the high Cascade Range, which makes King County's exposure to an avalanche small. Most mountainous areas in the county are part of the Mount Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest and other protected forests. There is risk to the development and users that do exist. The only incorporated area near the avalanche hazard area is the Town of Skykomish; however impacts within the town limits are unlikely. 8-4 ACT.A Page 120 of 869 AVALANCHE 8.4.1 Population There are no major populations exposed to avalanches in the county. Most of the avalanche hazard area is uninhabited or has minimal development. None of the ski resorts on King County's mountains are considered to be exposed to avalanches within their boundaries due to their ski slope maintenance protocols. Skiers who ski out of bounds in these areas are exposed to avalanches. People working in the mountains, such as miners and loggers, are exposed, as are recreational users, such as hikers and cross - country skiers. Travelers moving through avalanche -prone areas, especially Steven's Pass and Snoqualmie Pass, are also exposed. 8.4.2 Property There is little property exposed to avalanches. Property and buildings exposed include National Forest huts and temporary structures belonging to mining and forestry operations. 8.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure There are no critical facilities exposed to avalanches. There is a small amount of infrastructure that could be blocked by avalanches, including hiking trails, fire roads and logging roads. SR -2 above Index is exposed to avalanches, as are several stretches of Interstate 90. The BNSF Railway passes through the mountains and could be exposed. 8.4.4 Environment Avalanches are a natural event, but they can negatively affect the environment. This includes trees located on steep slopes. A large avalanche can knock down many trees and kill the wildlife that lives in them. In spring, this loss of vegetation on the mountains may weaken the soil, causing landslides and mudflows. 8.5 VULNERABILITY In general, everything that is exposed to an avalanche event is vulnerable. More and more people are working and building in or using the high mountain areas of the Cascades in potential avalanche areas. These individuals often have little experience with, caution regarding, or preparation for, avalanche conditions. The increasing development of recreational sites in the mountains brings added exposure to the people using these sites and the access routes to them. The risk to human life is especially great at times of the year when rapid warming follows heavy, wet snowfall. Interstate 90 could be blocked by avalanches, but the Washington Department of Transportation conducts active winter avalanche control or mitigation on Interstate 90. This means avalanches are triggered intentionally on slopes above the roadways in a controlled environment to minimize traffic disruption and promote public safety. The Department of Transportation also conducts passive avalanche control by building elevated roadways so avalanches can pass under highways, snow sheds so that avalanching snow flows over highways, catchment basins to stop avalanche flow, and diversion dams and berms to keep snow off highways. King County's transportation infrastructure is also vulnerable to avalanches. In most winters, snow slides can close any of the pass highways between western and eastern Washington. The avalanche threat was not a significant consideration in either the planning or construction of Washington's older mountain highways such as SR -2. Although costs associated with removing avalanches from SR -2 are borne by the state Department of Transportation, the County's road network and substantial commercial activity are also dependent upon the connectivity provided by this main highway. 8-5 ACT.A Page 121 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 8.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT Given the likely location and density of future development based on current land use regulations, there is a small amount of housing and employment capacity that has the potential to be developed in avalanche hazard areas. Most of the land area in the avalanche hazard zone is resource or protected land. As of 2005 there were approximately 5,700 existing housing units on resource lands in King County (King County, 2007). Not all of these housing units are located in the avalanche hazard area. It is estimated that about 4 percent of the county's growth will occur in rural and resource lands for the 2001 -2022 planning period (King County, 2007). Based on the 2008 King County Annual Growth Report, only two new residential units were built in 2007 in possible avalanche hazard areas. 8.7 SCENARIO In a worst -case scenario, an avalanche would occur in the Cascade Mountains after a series of storms. Storms starting with low temperatures and dry snow, followed by rising temperatures and wetter snow, are more likely to cause avalanches than storms that start warm and then cool with snowfall. 8.8 ISSUES Avalanches pose a threat to recreational users and property and can disrupt the east -west transportation network. Specially trained Washington Department of Transportation avalanche- control teams use active and passive means to reduce the avalanche hazard near Snoqualmie and Stevens Pass each year. Their efforts limit the number and duration of highway closures. The state posts warning signs in key locations warning recreation users of avalanche dangers, although these signs are commonly ignored. There is no effective way to keep the public out of avalanche -prone recreational areas, even during times of highest risk. A coordinated effort is needed among state, county and local law enforcement, fire, emergency management and public works agencies and media to provide better avalanche risk information. A national program to rate avalanche risk has been developed to standardize terminology and provide a common basis for recognizing and describing hazardous conditions. This United States Avalanche Danger Scale relates degree of avalanche danger (low, moderate, considerable, high, extreme) to descriptors of avalanche probability and triggering mechanism, degree and distribution of avalanche hazard, and recommended action in back country. Figure 8 -2 shows key elements of the danger scale. This information, updated daily, is available during avalanche season from the joint NOAA /U.S. Forest Service Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center and can be obtained from Internet, NOAA weather wire, and Department of Transportation sources. Avalanche danger scale information should be explained to the public and made available through appropriate county and local agencies and the media. The state's maintains over 50 years of detailed records to help technicians forecast how snow might behave; however, climate change will likely alter the frequency and magnitude of avalanche events in the planning area. Methods will need to be developed to integrate forward- looking standards and best practices for avalanche management techniques. The Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center provides a source of information to recreational users regarding current conditions and danger levels as well as incident summaries by date and location and additional resources. Measures that have been used in other jurisdictions to reduce avalanche threat include monitoring timber harvest practices in slide -prone areas to ensure that snow cover is stabilized as well as possible, and encouraging reforestation in areas near highways, buildings, power lines and other improvements. The development of a standard avalanche report form, and the maintenance of a database of potential avalanche hazards likely to affect proposed developments in mountain wilderness areas, would be of significant value to permitting agencies. 8-6 ACT.A Page 122 of 869 4uimuiuiuumiuui�iiiuimu�uu�mui�!' llllllillOf' lllll�Ullfi' ldi1J' llllllllllllllllllfi' lllllllllllllllfi' llllllllll01lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllfii '�G lll0 'lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll0 �011llllllllllfi' llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll��lllllllli' lllllllld' 011lldi' l�il' �Ill> i�,' lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllld 'llllllllllllllllll� AVALANCHE Avalanche Safety Basics Avalanches don't happen by accident and most human involvement is a matter of choice not chance. Slab avalanches, which are triggered by the victim or a member of the victim's party, cause most avalanche accidents. However, any avalanche may cause injury or death and even small slides may be dangerous. Hence, always practice safe route finding skills, be aware of changing conditions, and carry avalanche rescue gear. Learn and apply avalanche terrain analysis and snow stability evaluation techniques to help minimize your risk. Remember that avalanche danger rating levels are only general guidelines. Distinctions between geographic areas, elevations, slope aspect and slope angle are approximate, and transition zones between dangers exist. No matter what the current avalanche danger is, there are avalanche -safe areas in the mountains. UNITEID STATES AVALANCHE DANGER DESCRIPTORS Danger Level (Color) 111111W IIIII 111 1110 III ���� Avalanche Probability and Avalanche Trigger Degree and Distribution of Recommended Action in the Back Avalanche Danger Country Moderate Natural avalanches unlikely, Human triggered avalanches possible. (yellow) Unstable slabs possible on Use caut on on steeper terrain on steep terrain. certain aspects I I III 11 r1�'tp�lU�11 I 111111 If �IIiiii INlii�ififlflfllllllllll1�� ylispil R441 " „,,,, ilia 11'r II rrr II)J�!)1J1J' i1��1i, �'1i�'fU1��i1d� ll� �11r�001111111�1�%,y/'Il `�lll�l %IIIU� Figure 8 -2. United States Avalanche Danger Scale ACT.A 8 -7 Page 123 of 869 CHAPTER 9. DAM FAILURE 9.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND 9.1.1 Causes of Dam Failure Dam failures in the United States typically occur in one of four ways: • Overtopping of the primary dam structure, which accounts for 34 percent of all dam failures, can occur due to inadequate spillway design, settlement of the dam crest, blockage of spillways, and other factors. • Foundation defects due to differential settlement, slides, slope instability, uplift pressures, and foundation seepage can also cause dam failure. These account for 30 percent of all dam failures. • Failure due to piping and seepage accounts for 20 percent of all failures. These are caused by internal erosion due to piping and seepage, erosion along hydraulic structures such as spillways, erosion due to animal burrows, and cracks in the dam structure. • Failure due to problems with conduits and valves, typically caused by the piping of embankment material into conduits through joints or cracks, constitutes 10 percent of all failures. The remaining 6 percent of U.S. dam failures are due to miscellaneous causes. Many dam failures in the United States have been secondary results of other disasters. The prominent causes are earthquakes, landslides, extreme storms, massive snowmelt, equipment malfunction, structural damage, foundation failures, and sabotage. Poor construction, lack of maintenance and repair, and deficient operational procedures are preventable or correctable by a program of regular inspections. Terrorism and vandalism are serious concerns that all operators of public facilities must plan for; these threats are under continuous review by public safety agencies. DEFINITIONS Dam —Any artificial barrier and /or any controlling works, together with appurtenant works, that can or does impound or divert water. (Washington Administrative Code, Title 173, Chapter 175.) Dam Failure —An uncontrolled release of impounded water due to structural deficiencies in dam. Emergency Action Plan —A document that identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies actions to be followed to minimize property damage and loss of life. The plan specifies actions the dam owner should take to alleviate problems at a dam. It contains procedures and information to assist the dam owner in issuing early warning and notification messages to responsible downstream emergency management authorities of the emergency situation. It also contains inundation maps to show emergency management authorities the critical areas for action in case of an emergency. (FEMA 64) High Hazard Dam —Dams where failure or operational error will probably cause loss of human life. (FEMA 333) Significant Hazard Dam —Dams where failure or operational error will result in no probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage or disruption of lifeline facilities, or can impact other concerns. Significant hazard dams are often located in rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas with population and significant infrastructure. (FEMA 333) 9-1 ACT.A Page 125 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 9.1.2 Regulatory Oversight National Dam Safety Act The potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Safety Act (Public Law 92 -367). The National Dam Safety Program requires a periodic engineering analysis of every major dam in the country. The goal of this FEMA- monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of dam failure so as to protect the lives and property of the public. Washington Department of Ecology Dam Safety Program The Dam Safety Office (DSO) of the Washington Department of Ecology regulates over 1,000 dams in the state that impound at least 10 acre -feet of water. The DSO has developed dam safety guidelines to provide dam owners, operators, and design engineers with information on activities, procedures, and requirements involved in the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of dams in Washington. The authority to regulate dams in Washington and to provide for public safety is contained in the following laws: • State Water Code (1917) —RCW 90.03 • Flood Control Act (1935) —RCW 86.16 • Department of Ecology (1970) —RCW 43.21A. Where water projects involve dams and reservoirs with a storage volume of 10 acre -feet or more, the laws provide for the Department of Ecology to conduct engineering review of the construction plans and specifications, to inspect the dams, and to require remedial action, as necessary, to ensure proper operation, maintenance, and safe performance. The DSO was established within Ecology's Water Resources Program to carry out these responsibilities. The DSO's five -year periodic inspection program for dams with high and significant hazard classifications achieves the following purposes (Washington Department of Ecology, 2011): • Assess the structural integrity and stability of project elements. • Identify obvious defects, especially due to aging. • Assess the stability of the structure under earthquake conditions. • Determine the adequacy of the spillways to accommodate major floods. • Evaluate project operation and maintenance. The inspections, performed by professional engineers from the DSO, consist of the following elements (Washington Department of Ecology, 2011): • Review and analysis of available data on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dam and its appurtenances • Visual inspection of the dam and its appurtenances • Evaluation of the safety of the dam and its appurtenances, which may include an assessment of the hydrological and hydraulic capabilities, structural stabilities, seismic stabilities, and any other condition that could constitute a hazard to the integrity of the structure • Evaluation of the downstream hazard classification • Evaluation of the operation, maintenance and inspection procedures employed by the owner and /or operator 9-2 ACT.A Page 126 of 869 DAM FAILURE • Review of the emergency action plan for the dam, including review or update of the dam breach inundation map. The DSO provides reasonable assurance that impoundment facilities will not pose a threat to lives and property, but dam owners bear primary responsibility for the safety of their structures, through proper design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The DSO regulates dams with the sole purpose of reasonably securing public safety; environmental and natural resource issues are addressed by other state agencies. The DSO neither advocates nor opposes the construction and operation of dams. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non - federal dams in the United States that meet the size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety Act. The Corps has inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agency's capabilities, practices and regulations regarding design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. More than 3,000 dams are part of regulated hydroelectric projects in the FERC program. Two - thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important. FERC inspects hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following: • Potential dam safety problems • Complaints about constructing and operating a project • Safety concerns related to natural disasters • Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license. Every five years, an independent engineer approved by the FERC must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters), or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre -feet. FERC monitors and evaluates seismic research and applies it in investigating and performing structural analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC visits dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently revised to reflect current information and methodologies. FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans and conducts training sessions on how to develop and test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system if there is an actual or potential sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management. These plans are frequently updated and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations. 9-3 ACT.A Page 127 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 9.2 HAZARD PROFILE 9.2.1 Past Events Three dam failure incidents have occurred in King County; accounting for all lives lost due to dam failure in the state (Washington Emergency Management Division, 2013). • December 1918 — Masonry Dam near North Bend had excessive seepage, which caused a mudflow, destroyed a railroad line and damaged the village of Eastwick; no lives lost. • February 1932 — Eastwick railroad fill failed. A slide caused railroad fill to back up and fail, destroyed a railroad line and damaged the village of Eastwick; 7 lives were lost. • July 1976 — Increased discharge from Mud Mountain Dam caused a surge in flow killing two children playing in the White River near Auburn. Another major incident involving dam safety in King County occurred in 2009, when seepage issues were discovered at Howard Hanson Dam after a January flood event. The dam is on the Green River, and dam failure would result in extreme flooding of downstream communities in the Green River valley. The Army Corps of Engineers began improvements to reduce risk at the facility immediately after the seepage was discovered. Most of the construction improvements were completed by 2011 and the dam is now operating at its design capability (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012). 9.2.2 Location In King County there are 122 dams that impound 10 acre -feet of water or more. Table 9 -1 lists the dams in King County that the Dam Safety Office rates as Hazard Class 1A, which is the highest- hazard classification for state regulated dams. Culmback Dam, located in Snohomish County also has the potential to impact residents and property in King County. 9.2.3 Frequency Dam failure events are infrequent and usually coincide with events that cause them, such as earthquakes, landslides and excessive rainfall and snowmelt. There is a "residual risk" associated with dams. Residual risk is the risk that remains after safeguards have been implemented. For dams, the residual risk is associated with events beyond those that the facility was designed to withstand. However, the probability of any type of dam failure is low in today's regulatory and dam safety oversight environment. 9.2.4 Severity The Dam Safety Office classifies regulated dams in Washington by hazard class, based on the at -risk population living in the area that could be inundated if the dam fails. The hazard class definitions and number of King County dams in each class are as follows: – 7 Hazard Class 1A (a downstream at -risk population of more than 300) 8 Hazard Class 1B (a downstream at -risk population of 31 to 300) 31 Hazard Class 1C (a downstream at -risk population of 7 to 30) 26 Hazard Class 2 (a downstream at -risk population of 1 to 6) 50 Hazard Class 3 (no downstream at -risk population). 9-4 ACT.A Page 128 of 869 DAM FAILURE TABLE 9 -1. HAZARD CLASS 1A DAMS WITH POTENTIAL TO AFFECT KING COUNTY Howard A Hanson Dam Masonry Tolt River Dam Dam Lake Youngs Outlet Dam Green Lake Reservoir Issaquah Highlands Detention Pond Madsen Creek West Basin Dam Culmback Dam National ID # Water Course Owner Year Built Dam Typea Crest Length (feet) Height (feet) Storage Capacity (acre -feet) WA00298 WA00255 WA00177 WA00254 WA00212 Green Cedar South Little Puget River River Fork Tolt Soos Sound South River Creek Tributary, Off- stream U.S. City of Seattle City of Seattle Army Seattle Public Seattle Public Corps of Utilities Utilities Engineers 1962 1914 1962 1921 1910 ER, RE VA RE RE RE 500 980 980 1,450 1,920 235 225 213 30 25 136,700 175,000 67,200 18,908 181 WA00707 East Fork Issaquah Creek, Off - stream Port Blakely Communities 2008 RE 380 22 53 WA01862 King County Natural Resources 2008 RE 775 6.5 28 WA00208 Sultan River Snohomish Co. Public Utility District 1965 ER 900 75 16,200 Drainage area (sq. mi.) 221 81.4 18.8 ER = Rock fill; VA = Concrete single arch 3.94 0.02 0 0.11 2.6 a. RE = Earth fill; The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed the classification system shown in Table 9 -2 for the hazard potential of dam failures. The DSO and Corps of Engineers hazard rating systems are based only on the potential consequences of a dam failure; they do not take into account the probability of such failures. According to the King County Office of Emergency Management, King County has four dams that would cause a countywide emergency if they should fail, located on the Tolt, Cedar, White, and Green Rivers. Areas of King County would also be adversely affected by failures of the White River Project in Pierce County or the Jackson Project in Snohomish County. Localized problems could occur if one of the minor dams in the county failed (King County Office of Emergency Management, 2013). ACT.A 9 -5 Page 129 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 9 -2. CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAZARD POTENTIAL CLASSIFICATION Hazard Environmental Categorya Direct Loss of Lifeb Lifeline Lossese Property Lossesd Lossese Low None (rural location, no No disruption of Private agricultural Minimal incremental permanent structures for services (cosmetic or lands, equipment, and damage human habitation) rapidly repairable isolated buildings damage) Significant Rural location, only transient Disruption of essential Major public and Major mitigation or day -use facilities facilities and access private facilities required High Certain (one or more) Disruption of essential Extensive public and Extensive mitigation extensive residential, facilities and access private facilities cost or impossible to commercial, or industrial mitigate development a. Categories are assigned to overall projects, not individual structures at a project. b. Loss of life potential based on inundation mapping of area downstream of the project. Analyses of loss of life potential should take into account the population at risk, time of flood wave travel, and warning time. c. Indirect threats to life caused by the interruption of lifeline services due to project failure or operational disruption; for example, loss of critical medical facilities or access to them. d. Damage to project facilities and downstream property and indirect impact due to loss of project services, such as impact due to loss of a dam and navigation pool, or impact due to loss of water or power supply. e. Environmental impact downstream caused by the incremental flood wave produced by the project failure, beyond what would normally be expected for the magnitude flood event under which the failure occurs. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995 9.2.5 Warning Time Warning time for dam failure varies depending on the cause of the failure. In events of extreme precipitation or massive snowmelt, evacuations can be planned with sufficient time. In the event of a structural failure due to earthquake, there may be no warning time. A dam's structural type also affects warning time. Earthen dams do not tend to fail completely or instantaneously. Once a breach is initiated, discharging water erodes the breach until either the reservoir water is depleted or the breach resists further erosion. Concrete gravity dams also tend to have a partial breach as one or more monolith sections are forced apart by escaping water. The time of breach formation ranges from a few minutes to a few hours (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). King County and its planning partners have established protocols for flood warning and response to imminent dam failure in the flood warning portion of its adopted emergency operations plan. These protocols are tied to the emergency action plans created by the dam owners. 9.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Dam failure can cause severe downstream flooding, depending on the magnitude of the failure. Other potential secondary hazards of dam failure are landslides around the reservoir perimeter, bank erosion on the rivers, and destruction of downstream habitat. 9-6 ACT.A Page 130 of 869 DAM FAILURE 9.4 EXPOSURE The flood module of Hazus -MH was used for a Level 2 assessment of dam failure. Hazus -MH uses census data at the block level and FEMA floodplain data, which has a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Where possible, the Hazus -MH data for this risk assessment was enhanced using GIS data from county, state and federal sources. The exposure and vulnerability analyses focused on three dams for which inundation information was available: the Culmback Dam, the Tolt River Dam, and the Lake Youngs Dam. Inundation maps were prepared for this analysis, but will not be published in the publicly available version of this plan. 9.4.1 Population All populations in a dam failure inundation zone would be exposed to the risk of a dam failure. The potential for loss of life is affected by the capacity and number of evacuation routes available to populations living in areas of potential inundation. The estimated population living in the mapped inundation areas within the planning area is 35,330 or 1.78 percent of the county's population. Table 9 -3 summarizes the at -risk population in the planning area by city, where there is available inundation mapping. TABLE 9 -3. POPULATION WITHIN DAM FAILURE INUNDATION AREAS Affected Population by Individual Dam Total Affected % of City Tolt Culmback Lake Young's Population Population Auburn 0 0 9,058 9,058 14.08 Carnation 1,785 0 0 1,785 100 Covington 0 0 7,198 7,198 39.76 Duvall 235 159 0 394 5.53 Kent 0 0 2,121 2,121 1.76 Unincorporated 7,489 3,088 4,197 14,774 5.84 Total 9,509 3,247 22,574 35,330a 1.78b a. Represents the total population in the combined inundation areas of all three evaluated dams. b. Represents the total affected population as a percent of total King County population. 9.4.2 Property The number and value of planning area buildings within the mapped inundation zones of the Tolt, Culmback and Lake Youngs dams are summarized in Table 9 -4 through Table 9 -6. Each dam should be considered to be a stand -alone hazard, considering the low probability of multiple dam failures at the same time. For that reason, and because the inundation areas for the Tolt and Culmback dams include some overlapping locations, it is not appropriate to add the totals for the three dams to generate a total planning area exposure estimate. The distribution of land uses in each dam's inundation area is in Table 9 -7 summarizes ACT.A 9 -7 Page 131 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 9 -4. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN TOLT RIVER DAM FAILURE INUNDATION AREA Buildings Exposed Value Exposed % of Total Building Contents Total Assessed Valuea Carnation 822 $187,128,000 $138,939,000 $326,067,000 99.2 Duvall 99 $79,623,000 $70,141,000 $149,764,000 13.51 Unincorporated 3,160 $899,550,000 $554,805,000 $1,454,355,000 3.25 Total 4,081 81,166,301,000 8763,885,000 81,930,186,000 4.19 a. Percentages are based on the total assessed value for individual jurisdictions, not for the planning area as a whole. The "total" percentage shown is based on the sum of assessed values for jurisdictions in this table. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. TABLE 9 -5. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN CULMBACK DAM FAILURE INUNDATION AREA Buildings Exposed Value Exposed Building % of Total Contents Total Assessed Value Duvall 67 $68,147,000 $63,078,000 $131,225,000 11.84 Unincorporated 1,303 $423,784,000 $267,227,000 $691,011,000 1.55 Total 1,370 8491,931,000 8330,305,000 8822,236,000 1.80 a. Percentages are based on the total assessed value for individual jurisdictions, not for the planning area as a whole. The "total" percentage shown is based on the sum of assessed values for jurisdictions in this table. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. TABLE 9 -6. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN LAKE YOUNGS DAM FAILURE INUNDATION AREA Buildings Exposed Value Exposed Building % of Total Contents Total Assessed Value Auburn 3,822 $2,403,089,000 $2,026,574,000 $4,429,663,000 24.62 Covington 3,037 $1,026,586,000 $734,723,000 $1,761,309,000 61.81 Kent 895 $487,108,000 $427,277,000 $914,385,000 2.76 Unincorporated 1,771 $446,138,000 $253,335,000 $699,473,000 1.57 Total 9,525 84,362,921,000 83,441,909,000 87,804,830,000 7.91 a. Percentages are based on the total assessed value for individual jurisdictions, not for the planning area as a whole. The "total" percentage shown is based on the sum of assessed values for jurisdictions in this table. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 9 -8 Page 132 of 869 DAM FAILURE TABLE 9 -7. PRESENT LAND USE IN DAM INUNDATION AREAS Present Use Classification Culmback Lake Youngs Tolt Inundation Inundation Area Inundation Area Area Area % of Area % of Area % of (acres) total (acres) total (acres) total Agriculture 179 2.0% 63 0.9% 196 0.6% Church, Welfare or Religious Service 12 0.1% 18 0.3% 21 0.1% Commercial 85 1.0% 699 10.2% 511 1.7% Education 0 0.0% 33 0.5% 62 0.2% Governmental Services 0 0.0% 8 0.1% 3 0.0% Industrial/Manufacturing 21 0.2% 228 3.3% 62 0.2% Medical/Dental Services 1 0.0% 19 0.3% 1 0.0% Mixed Use Development (Residential & Commercial) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Mortuary /Cemetery /Crematory 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0% Nursing Home /Retirement Facility 0 0.0% 8 0.1% 0 0.0% Park /Open Space /Golf Course 74 0.8% 382 5.6% 846 2.7% Residential 3,760 42.9% 2,073 30.4% 8,183 26.5% Terminal or Marina 0 0.0% 102 1.5% 12 0.0% Utility /Easement/Right of Way 3 0.0% 205 3.0% 459 1.5% Water /Tideland /Wetland 13 0.2% 83 1.2% 13 0.0% Uncategorized (includes vacant and resource lands) 4,609 52.6% 2,905 42.6% 20,465 66.4% Total 8,757 100% 6,826 100% 30,836 100% Source: Summarized from King, Pierce and Snohomish County parcel data. Acreage covers only mapped parcels and thus excludes many rights of way and major water features. 9.4.3 Critical Facilities GIS analysis determined the following numbers of critical facilities and infrastructure in each mapped inundation area (see Table 9 -8 through Table 9 -10): • Culmback Dam -17 facilities (fewer than 1 percent) • Lake Youngs Dam -27 facilities (fewer than 1 percent) • Tolt Dam -59 facilities (1 percent). Additional critical facilities are likely in inundation areas where mapping was not available. 9.4.4 Environment The environment would be exposed to a number of risks in the event of dam failure. The inundation could introduce many foreign elements into local waterways. This could result in destruction of downstream habitat and could have detrimental effects on many species of animals, especially endangered species such as salmon. ACT.A 9 -9 Page 133 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 9 -8. CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN CULMBACK DAM INUNDATION AREA Duvall Unincorporated Total Medical and Health Government Function Protective Function Schools Hazmat Other Critical Function Bridges Transportation Water Supply Wastewater Power Communications Dams Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 14 17 TABLE 9 -9. CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN LAKE YOUNGS DAM INUNDATION AREA Auburn Covington Kent Unincorporated Total Medical and Health 0 3 0 0 3 Government Function 0 2 0 0 2 Protective Function 0 1 0 0 1 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 Hazmat 2 0 0 0 2 Other Critical Function 0 2 0 0 2 Bridges 0 6 2 1 9 Transportation 0 0 0 0 0 Water Supply 0 0 0 0 0 Wastewater 2 4 0 0 6 Power 0 1 0 0 1 Communications 1 0 0 0 1 Dams 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 19 2 1 27 ACT.A 9 -10 Page 134 of 869 DAM FAILURE TABLE 9 -10. CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN TOLT DAM INUNDATION AREA Duvall Carnation Unincorporated Total Medical and Health 0 3 0 3 Government Function 0 0 0 0 Protective Function 1 2 0 3 Schools 0 4 0 4 Hazmat 0 0 0 0 Other Critical Function 0 0 0 0 Bridges 0 0 44 44 Transportation 0 0 0 0 Water Supply 0 0 0 0 Wastewater 1 0 0 1 Power 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 4 4 Dams 0 0 0 0 Total 2 9 48 59 9.5 VULNERABILITY 9.5.1 Population Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the area within the allowable time frame. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get themselves out of the inundation area. The vulnerable population also includes those who would not have adequate warning from a television or radio emergency warning system. Impacts on persons and households in the planning area were estimated for dam failure events through the Level 2 Hazus -MH analysis. Table 9 -11 summarizes the results. TABLE 9 -11. ESTIMATED DAM FAILURE IMPACT ON PERSONS AND HOUSEHOLDS Number of Displaced Households Persons Requiring Short-Term Shelter Tolt Dam Failure 3,195 2,404 Culmback Dam Failure 249 110 Lake Youngs Dam Failure 5,655 4,952 9.5.2 Property Vulnerable properties are those closest to the dam inundation area. These properties would experience the largest, most destructive surge of water. Low -lying areas are also vulnerable since they are where the dam waters would collect. Transportation routes are vulnerable to dam inundation and have the potential to be ACT.A 9 -11 Page 135 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements wiped out, creating isolation issues. This includes all roads, railroads and bridges in the path of the dam inundation. Those that are most vulnerable are those that are already in poor condition and would not be able to withstand a large water surge. Utilities such as overhead power lines, cable and phone lines could also be vulnerable. Loss of these utilities could create additional isolation issues for the inundation areas. The estimated losses associated with planning area buildings within the mapped inundation zones of the Tolt, Culmback and Lake Youngs dams are summarized in Table 9 -12 through Table 9 -14. Each dam should be considered to be a stand -alone hazard, considering the low probability of multiple dam failures at the same time. For that reason, and because the inundation areas for the Tolt and Culmback dams include some overlapping locations, it is not appropriate to add the totals for the three dams to generate a total planning area loss estimate. TABLE 9 -12. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR STRUCTURES IN TOLT RIVER DAM FAILURE INUNDATION AREA Estimated Loss Associated with Dam Failure % of Total Building Contents Total Assessed Valuea Carnation Duvall Unincorporated Total $122,464,000 $4,704,000 $94,792,000 $111,251,000 $7,594,000 $82,819,000 $233,715,000 $12,298,000 $177,611,000 S221,960,000 S201,664,000 S423,624,000 71.17 1.11 0.40 0.92 a. Percentages are based on the total assessed value for individual jurisdictions, not for the planning area as a whole. The "total" percentage shown is based on the sum of assessed values for jurisdictions in this table. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. TABLE 9 -13. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR STRUCTURES IN CULMBACK DAM FAILURE INUNDATION AREA Estimated Loss Associated with Dam Failure % of Total Building Contents Total Assessed Valuea Duvall Unincorporated Total $2,200,000 $9,934,000 $3,772,000 $8,802,000 $5,972,000 $18,736,000 S12,134,000 S12,574,000 S24,708,000 0.54 0.04 0.05 a. Percentages are based on the total assessed value for individual jurisdictions, not for the planning area as a whole. The "total" percentage shown is based on the sum of assessed values for jurisdictions in this table. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 9 -12 Page 136 of 869 DAM FAILURE TABLE 9 -14. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR STRUCTURES IN LAKE YOUNGS DAM FAILURE INUNDATION AREA Estimated Loss Associated with Dam Failure % of Total Building Contents Total Assessed Valuea Auburn $144,115,000 $327,238,000 $471,353,000 2.62 Covington $62,272,000 $86,249,000 $148,521,000 5.21 Kent $17,925,000 $33,668,000 $51,593,000 0.16 Unincorporated $17,714,000 $16,043,000 $33,757,000 0.08 Total S242,026,000 S463,198,000 S705,224,000 0.74 a. Percentages are based on the total assessed value for individual jurisdictions, not for the planning area as a whole. The "total" percentage shown is based on the sum of assessed values for jurisdictions in this table. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. 9.5.3 Critical Facilities On average, critical facilities expected to sustain damage during a dam failure event would receive 23 percent damage to the structure and 75 percent damage to the contents during a dam failure event. The estimated time to restore these facilities to 100 percent of their functionality is 716 days. 9.5.4 Environment The environment would be vulnerable to a number of risks in the event of dam failure. The inundation could introduce foreign elements into local waterways, resulting in destruction of downstream habitat and detrimental effects on many species of animals, especially endangered species such as coho salmon. The extent of the vulnerability of the environment is the same as the exposure of the environment. As with any significant natural hazard event, large of amounts of debris generated from the damages buildings and infrastructure could have significant environmental impacts. These impacts were estimated for the dam failure events through the Level 2 Hazus -MH analysis. Table 9 -15 summarizes the results. TABLE 9 -15. ESTIMATED DAM FAILURE - CAUSED DEBRIS Debris to Be Removed (tons) a Tolt Dam Failure Scenario Culmback Dam Failure Scenario Lake Young's Dam Failure Scenario 24.19 million 2.77 million 64.2 million Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 9 -13 Page 137 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 9.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT Land use in the planning area will be directed by local comprehensive plans, adopted under state law. The planning partners have established comprehensive policies regarding sound land use in identified flood hazard areas. While some of the areas vulnerable to the more severe impacts from dam failure intersect the mapped flood hazard areas, the inundation areas from a dam failure cover a much larger portion of the planning area. Flood- related policies in these comprehensive plans and in the local municipal code will help to reduce the risk associated with the dam failure hazard for development in the planning area, but will be unlikely to help reduce risk to all structures within the dam inundation area. 9.7 SCENARIO An earthquake in the region could lead to liquefaction of soils around a dam. This could occur without warning during any time of the day. A human- caused incident such as a terrorist attack also could trigger a catastrophic failure of a dam that impacts the planning area. Failure of a high hazard dam in the county would likely result in the loss of life, roadways, structures and property and cause severe impacts on the local economy. While the possibility of failure is remote, results of such an event would be devastating. While the probability of dam failure is very low, the probability of flooding associated with changes to dam operational parameters in response to climate change is higher. Dam designs and operations are developed based on hydrographs from historical records. If these hydrographs experience significant changes over time due to the impacts of climate change, the dam design and operations may no longer be valid for the changed condition. Specified release rates and impound thresholds may have to be changed. This would result in increased discharges downstream of these facilities, thus increasing the probability and severity of flooding. 9.8 ISSUES In the late 1980s, the Department of Ecology DSO was reorganized to better use its resources to minimize public safety problems. The DSO has recognized the key role of other government agencies in carrying out its public safety charge. For example, the dam approval process now requires that dams located above populated areas develop emergency action plans in conjunction with local and county emergency management agencies. The most significant issue associated with dam failure involves properties and populations in the inundation zones. Flooding as a result of a dam failure would significantly impact these areas. In certain scenarios there would be little or no warning time for dam failure. Dam failure events are frequently associated with other natural hazard events such as earthquakes, landslides or severe weather, which limits their predictability and compounds the hazard. Important issues associated with dam failure hazards include the following: • It is unclear whether dam failure warning and notification strategies will be viable if dam failure occurs as a result of a significant earthquake that interrupts communication systems. • Changes in hydrographs in the region as a result of climate change are likely to include more instances of winter flooding. This could alter dam operations and increase the potential for design failures. • Downstream populations are often not aware that they are located in a dam failure inundation area and do not know the risks associated with probable dam failure. • Balancing the need to address security concerns and the need to inform the public of the risk associated with dam failure is a challenge for public officials. 9 -14 ACT.A Page 138 of 869 DAM FAILURE • Dam failure inundation areas are often not considered special flood hazard areas under the National Flood Insurance Program, so flood insurance coverage in these areas is not common. • Most dam failure mapping required at federal levels requires determination of the probable maximum flood. While the probable maximum flood represents a worst -case scenario, it is generally the event with the lowest probability of occurrence. For non - federal - regulated dams, mapping of dam failure scenarios that are less extreme than the probable maximum flood but have a higher probability of occurrence can be valuable to emergency managers and community officials downstream of these facilities. This type of mapping can show areas potentially impacted by more frequent events, to be used in support of emergency response and preparedness measures. 9 -15 ACT.A Page 139 of 869 CHAPTER 10. EARTHQUAKE 10.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND 10.1.1 How Earthquakes Happen An earthquake is the vibration of the earth's surface following a release of energy in the earth's crust. This energy can be generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic eruption. Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocations of the crust. The crust may first bend and then, when the stress exceeds the strength of the rocks, break and snap to a new position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called "seismic waves" are generated. These waves travel outward from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds. Earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the crust. Even if a fault zone has recently experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved. Another earthquake could still occur. 10.1.2 Types of Earthquakes The earth's crust is divided into eight major pieces (or plates) and many minor plates. In Western Washington, the primary plates of interest are the Juan De Fuca and North American plates. The Juan De Fuca plate moves northeastward with respect to the North America plate at a rate of about 3 to 4 centimeters per year. The boundary where these two plates converge, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, lies approximately 50 miles offshore and extends from the middle of Vancouver Island in British Columbia to northern California. As it collides with North America, the Juan De Fuca plate slides beneath the continent and sinks into the earth's mantle. More than 90 percent of Pacific Northwest earthquakes occur along the boundary between the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate. The collision of the Juan De Fuca and North America plates produces three types of earthquakes, as shown on Figure 10 -1 and described below. DEFINITIONS Earthquake —The shaking of the ground caused by an abrupt shift of rock along a fracture in the earth or a contact zone between tectonic plates. Epicenter —The point on the earth's surface directly above the hypocenter of an earthquake. The location of an earthquake is commonly described by the geographic position of its epicenter and by its focal depth. Fault —A fracture in the earth's crust along which two blocks of the crust have slipped with respect to each other. Focal Depth —The depth from the earth's surface to the hypocenter. Hypocenter —The region underground where an earthquake's energy originates Liquefaction — Loosely packed, water- logged sediments losing their strength in response to strong shaking, causing major damage during earthquakes. Subduction Zone Earthquakes Subduction Zone earthquakes occur at the interface between tectonic plates. A subduction zone earthquake affecting King County would be centered in the Cascadia Subduction zone off the coast of Washington or Oregon. Such earthquakes typically have a minute or more of strong ground shaking, and are quickly followed by damaging tsunamis and numerous large aftershocks. The potential exists for large earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, up to an earthquake measuring 9 or more on the Richter scale. This would cause coastal areas to drop up to 6 feet in minutes and would produce a tsunami all along the fault line from British Columbia to Mendocino, California. Such an earthquake would last several minutes and produce catastrophic damage. 10 -1 ACT.A Page 141 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements VAVa Vancouver 44 Seat�e ,1114 � �� � 1�i1 D „J.11,11111111111 Illlllhri IPIIIIIIfl � �r� il�� I � ( N� n t, f � ` �sm 111111111111111Tummoomoo 111111111111u 11 , I � 8; i 11 I 1,, �� � 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111011111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 D }e Crustal earthquakes (900AD, 1872) 11111111111111111111,1011111-.. py IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIII - � . Subduction zone earthquakes (1700 IVV earthquakes (1949, 1965, 2001) Figure 10 -1. Earthquake Types in the Pacific Northwest Benioff Zone (Deep) Earthquakes Benioff Zone earthquakes occur within the Juan De Fuca plate as it sinks into the mantle. These are primarily deep earthquakes, 25 to 100 kilometers in depth. Due to their depth, aftershocks are typically not felt in association with these earthquakes. These earthquakes are caused by mineral changes as the plate moves deeper into the mantle. Minerals that make up the plates are altered to denser, more stable forms as temperature and pressure increase. This results in a decrease in the size of the plate, and stresses build up that pull the plate apart (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2014). Deep earthquakes generally last 20 to 30 seconds and have the potential of reaching 7.5 on the Richter scale. The last major one in the Puget Sound region was the 6.8 magnitude Nisqually Earthquake on February 28, 2001. Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Shallow crustal earthquakes occur within the North America plate at depths of 30 kilometers or less. Shallow earthquakes within the North America plate account for most of the earthquakes in the Puget Sound region. Most are relatively small but the potential exists for major shallow earthquakes as well. Generally, these earthquakes are expected to have magnitudes less than 8 and last from 20 to 60 seconds. Of the three types of earthquake, crustal events are the least understood. Ongoing research suggests that Magnitude 7 or greater events have occurred on at least eight faults in the Puget Sound basin. Large events on these faults have the potential to cause greater loss of life and property than any other disaster likely to affect the area. It is estimated that the St. Helens seismic zone could produce a Magnitude 6.2 to 6.8 earthquake. Evidence of a fault running east -west through south Seattle (the Seattle Fault) suggests that a major earthquake with a magnitude of 7 or greater affected the Seattle area about 1,100 years ago. 10-2 ACT.A Page 142 of 869 EARTHQUAKE 10.1.3 Faults Earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of weakness in the crust. Even if a fault zone has recently experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the stress has been relieved. Another earthquake could still occur. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. Active faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). Potentially active faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is "active" or "potentially active" depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault. Although there are probably still some unrecognized active faults, nearly all the movement between the two plates, and therefore the majority of the seismic hazards, are on the well -known active faults. Faults are more likely to have earthquakes on them if they have more rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve accumulating tectonic stresses. A direct relationship exists between a fault's length and location and its ability to generate damaging ground motion at a given site. In some areas, smaller, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong, and damage can be significant as a result of the fault's proximity to the area. In contrast, large regional faults can generate great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, may result in only moderate shaking in the area. 10.1.4 Earthquake Classifications Earthquakes are typically classified in one of two ways: By the amount of energy released, measured as magnitude; or by the impact on people and structures, measured as intensity. Magnitude Currently the most commonly used magnitude scale is the moment magnitude (Mw) scale, with the follow classifications of magnitude: • Great —Mw > 8 • Major—Mw =7.0- 7.9 • Strong —Mw = 6.0 - 6.9 • Moderate —MW = 5.0 - 5.9 • Light—Mw = 4.0 - 4.9 • Minor —Mw = 3.0 - 3.9 • Micro —Mw < 3 Estimates of moment magnitude roughly match the local magnitude scale (ML) commonly called the Richter scale. One advantage of the moment magnitude scale is that, unlike other magnitude scales, it does not saturate at the upper end. That is, there is no value beyond which all large earthquakes have about the same magnitude. For this reason, moment magnitude is now the most often used estimate of large earthquake magnitudes. 10 -3 ACT.A Page 143 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Intensity Currently the most commonly used intensity scale is the modified Mercalli intensity scale, with ratings defined as follows (USGS, 1989): • I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions • II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. • III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it is an earthquake. Standing cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. • IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like a heavy truck striking building. Standing cars rocked noticeably. • V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. • VI. Felt by all; many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. • VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight in well -built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures. Some chimneys broken. • VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. • IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well- designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. • X. Some well -built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. • XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. • XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. 10.1.5 Ground Motion Earthquake hazard assessment is also based on expected ground motion. This involves determining the annual probability that certain ground motion accelerations will be exceeded, then summing the annual probabilities over the time period of interest. The most commonly mapped ground motion parameters are the horizontal and vertical peak ground accelerations (PGA) for a given soil or rock type. Instruments called accelerographs record levels of ground motion due to earthquakes at stations throughout a region. These readings are recorded by state and federal agencies that monitor and predict seismic activity. Maps of PGA values form the basis of seismic zone maps that are included in building codes such as the International Building Code. Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force due to lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. PGA values are directly related to these lateral forces that could damage "short period structures" (e.g. single - family dwellings). Longer period response components determine the lateral forces that damage larger structures with longer natural periods (apartment buildings, factories, high- rises, bridges). Table 10 -1 lists damage potential and perceived shaking by PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale. 10 -4 ACT.A Page 144 of 869 EARTHQUAKE TABLE 10 -1. MERCALLI SCALE AND PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION COMPARISON Modified Potential Structure Damage Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking Resistant Buildings Vulnerable Buildings Estimated PGAa ( %g) I Not Felt None None <0.17% II -III Weak None None 0.17% - 1.4% IV Light None None 1.4% - 3.9% V Moderate Very Light Light 3.9% - 9.2% VI Strong Light Moderate 9.2% - 18% VII Very Strong Moderate Moderate /Heavy 18% - 34% VIII Severe Moderate /Heavy Heavy 34% - 65% IX Violent Heavy Very Heavy 65% - 124% X - XII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124% a. PGA measured in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity Sources: USGS, 2008; USGS, 2010 10.1.6 Effect of Soil Types The impact of an earthquake on structures and infrastructure is largely a function of ground shaking, distance from the source of the quake, and liquefaction, a secondary effect of an earthquake in which soils lose their shear strength and flow or behave as liquid, thereby damaging structures that derive their support from the soil. Liquefaction generally occurs in soft sedimentary soils. A program called the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) creates maps based on soil characteristics to help identify locations subject to liquefaction. Table 10 -2 summarizes NEHRP soil classifications. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain ground shaking without much effect, dependent on the earthquake magnitude. The areas that are commonly most affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F. In general, these areas are also most susceptible to liquefaction. TABLE 10 -2. NEHRP SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM NEHRP Mean Shear Velocity Soil Type Description to 30 m (m /s) A Hard Rock 1,500 B Firm to Hard Rock 760 -1,500 C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360 -760 D Stiff Soil 180 -360 E Soft Clays < 180 F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft clays >36 m thick) ACT.A 10 -5 Page 145 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 10.2 HAZARD PROFILE Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes; they may also occur as a series of tremors over several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Casualties generally result from falling objects and debris, because the shocks shake, damage or demolish buildings and other structures. Disruption of communications, electrical power supplies and gas, sewer and water lines should be expected. Earthquakes may trigger fires, dam failures, landslides or releases of hazardous material, compounding their disastrous effects. Small, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong and damage can be significant in areas close to the fault. In contrast, large regional faults can generate earthquakes of great magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, they may result in only moderate shaking in an area. 10.2.1 Past Events There are about a dozen fault zones in the Puget Sound lowlands. Evidence exists that Magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes have occurred on at least eight of these —the Seattle Fault, the Tacoma Fault, the Darrington - Devils Mountain Fault, the Utsalady Point Fault, the Southern Whidbey Island Fault, the Frigid Creek Fault, the Canyon River Fault, and the Lake Creek Fault. Each year more than a thousand earthquakes are recorded in Washington. Fifteen to 20 of these are strong enough to be felt. Seismic events that have been felt in or have impacted King County since 1945 are listed in Table 10 -3. Earthquakes that caused damage occurred in the county in 1909, 1939, 1946, 1949, 1965 and 2001. 10.2.2 Location Identifying the extent and location of an earthquake is not as simple as it is for other hazards such as flood, landslide or wild fire. The impact of an earthquake is largely a function of the following components: • Ground shaking (ground motion accelerations) • Liquefaction (soil instability) • Distance from the source (both horizontally and vertically). ACT.A 10 -6 Page 146 of 869 TABLE 10 -3. HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES IMPACTING THE PLANNING AREA Year Magnitude Region Impacted Year Magnitude Region Impacted 1945 5.7 SSE of North Bend 1997 3.1 Duvall 1949 7.1 ENE of Olympia 1998 2.9 Seattle 1965 6.5 N of Tacoma 1998 3.1 Pierce County 1995 5.0 NNE Tacoma 1998 2.9 Skykomish 1996 5.4 ENE of Duvall 1999 3.9 Tacoma 1996 2.9 Puget Sound 2001 7.2 Nisqually - Olympia 1997 3.0 SE of Seattle 2002 4.2 Friday Harbor, San Juan Islands 1997 4.9 Puget Sound off Vashon Island 2003 3.7 Bremerton, Kitsap County 1997 2.7 Puget Sound 2009 4.5 Bremerton 10.2.2 Location Identifying the extent and location of an earthquake is not as simple as it is for other hazards such as flood, landslide or wild fire. The impact of an earthquake is largely a function of the following components: • Ground shaking (ground motion accelerations) • Liquefaction (soil instability) • Distance from the source (both horizontally and vertically). ACT.A 10 -6 Page 146 of 869 EARTHQUAKE Mapping that shows the impacts of these components was used to assess the risk of earthquakes within the planning area. While the impacts from each of these components can build upon each other during an earthquake event, the mapping looks at each component individually. The mapping used in this assessment is described below. In 1993, the U.S. Geological Survey began developing a database for Quaternary faults and folds for the United States. The database includes information on geographic, geologic, and seismic parameters for making assessments of seismic hazards. Figure 10 -2 shows the identified faults within the planning area. Shake Maps A shake map is a representation of ground shaking produced by an earthquake. The information it presents is different from the earthquake magnitude and epicenter that are released after an earthquake because shake maps focus on the ground shaking resulting from the earthquake, rather than the parameters describing the earthquake source. An earthquake has only one magnitude and one epicenter, but it produces a range of ground shaking at sites throughout the region, depending on the distance from the earthquake, the rock and soil conditions at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the structure of the earth's crust. A shake map shows the extent and variation of ground shaking in a region immediately following significant earthquakes. Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on estimated amplitudes where data are lacking, and site amplification corrections. Color -coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. Two types of shake map are typically generated from the data: • A probabilistic seismic hazard map shows the hazard from earthquakes that geologists and seismologists agree could occur. The maps are expressed in terms of probability of exceeding a certain ground motion, such as the 10- percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This level of ground shaking has been used for designing buildings in high seismic areas. Figure 10 -3 and Figure 10 -4 show the estimated ground motion for the 100 -year and 500 -year probabilistic earthquakes in the planning area. • Earthquake scenario maps describe the expected ground motions and effects of hypothetical large earthquakes for a region. Maps of these scenarios can be used to support all phases of emergency management. Three scenarios were chosen for this plan: Seattle Fault Scenario —A Magnitude 7.2 event with a shallow depth and epicenter approximately 6 miles south - southwest of downtown Seattle. See Figure 10 -5 South Whidbey Island Fault Scenario —A Magnitude 7.4 event with a shallow depth and epicenter approximately 13.5 miles west - northwest of Everett. See Figure 10 -6. Tacoma Fault Scenario —A Magnitude 7.1 event with a shallow depth and epicenter approximately 16.5 miles northwest of Tacoma. See Figure 10 -7. NEHRP Soil Maps NEHRP soil types define the locations that will be significantly impacted by an earthquake. NEHRP Soils B and C typically can sustain low- magnitude ground shaking without much effect. The areas that are most commonly affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F. Figure 10 -8 shows NEHRP soil classifications in King County. 10 -7 ACT.A Page 147 of 869 Southern Whidbey Island 2 \ Tokul Creek Pierce County ±C5 33 }\ \ \\ 2° \g 2 TD f2 tj v ° \ k)§ 7{] [2 £ / Base Map Data Sources: o%E » a / 0=w �9 i ^W W Y 0- s t W 0 - o w L d O O V V Q L v co Q 0 c CD cal itaa Snohomish County R;uno3 uelay3 0 `o , uno3 despN W W J Potential Shaking VII (Very Strong) R;uno3 selpm N 0 0 co C N O X E N X W X Pierce County O Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey O p a N N C 0` (6 w 2 N E E U T O (6 N U 8 E O N m w a - o off, N 'Y Q X N o N N a o 8' �a o o o N � o o 1 o n _ �o E � +• 3 O U = 22 u U N O O 6 Y � 3 'Y N N O) 3 C S 6 N O U O N = 4 N NFU 0) a s 2 yY o a O .— E O 'U N Q Q U) C N (6 N E o T O ° T Q N U 0 X O N s LI y o o 4 Q w o.? _ E E= U Ty p sU m 61 2 E n� o Ew ui E O o E N U t o U w o > - T ESQ O = n E N t U_ - Faye - -1 4- +J- vHS99 w co ca 0 0 1V co 0 U i ^W W Y 0- s W 0 a oo L O o O o V d L 4 Q S O O ,2 E • EL a_ R;uno3 uelay3 E E 11 , uno3 despN W^ W -J Potential Shaking O z 110 II - III (Weak) VII (Very Strong) R;uno3 selpm E N X W X L Pierce County op - O o N a 0 N N C � (6 w o N N 8 E U y T O U N (6 8 E O U N a N - t - O off, N 'Y Q1 �a 5` `o o N � o o 1 2 72 o n _ Y E � ▪ +• s o U = 0,0 Y u U N N O 6:” O-6 Y � 3 Y 0 0 O C (6 N t Ul C O U U O N _ 4 N s j� y O N3U _'U 6I • o .o o - N Ts E O 'U o T Q Q :A (6 N E o T O ° T Q N U 0 O N 0s y o 0 o 4 Q w o.? � n E,�N 8 Ty O C O O m 6 ▪ m 0_� E ` E O `o 2- o E ▪ E o O N om > - T ELQ O O N = n E N t U_ Base Map Data Sources: 9 Peak Ground Acceleration 0) R;uno3 uelay3 L) , uno3 despN W^ W J T2 1 Potential Shaking 110 II - III (Weak) VII (Very Strong) R;uno3 selpm 0 Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey X N N N g m 8' �a o o o N � o o � o n _ Y E � +• 3 4 O U = U N N O = E O-6 N 3 Y N N O) C S 2a; N U) OU O C U U O T N 4 _ N 0 j � y N3U a - �yY a) 2 o 42 -6 0 Ts O 'U N Q N N N (6 N E o T O T Q N U 0 O 0 0 0 0s s y o o n °- w o.? � n Q s o T'E y U N p O s U o m = E E E E n `o m o E a U Y N O O N O N - T _2 Q O N = n E N t - F . = 9 w ca 0 O 1V O U O •L W Vi cti LI v 0 c 1711 o N L 0 •D < S p L, O -c ° o a) cna R;uno3 uelay3 , uno3 despN W • E 0 W^ W -J Potential Shaking 110 II - III (Weak) C O ro > VII (Very Strong) R;uno3 selpm 0 E N X W x L Pierce County 0 oO - Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey O p N a 0 N N C � (6 0= u E E U T O (6 U 8 E O 0 ■U 0 a N � t - O s r13 4 Q0 . 2 Y °� �a 5` `o o N � o o 1 2 72 o n _ Y 2 T +• o 2 U = Y � U 0 _ o o E o a Y � 2 0 0 m o s � C 0 U U O N 4 N s NFU 6I • o -0 0 Ts O 'U N T Q Q � Ul C 0 ma�• `3 E o T O ° T Q N U 0 O N �s s y o os 0 a n E o U Ty N p O s U o 8 E 2 E o E o i• s `o E n m o E a 3�0 O 0 os> T ESQ O O N = n E V t U_ 9 w co ca 0 a 0 c0 co N O U O U R;uno3 uelay3 Peak Ground Accelerat E FI , uno3 despN W^ W -J Potential Shaking Vit II - III (Weak) VII (Very Strong) R;uno3 selp { IE I 0 a) E a) X W x L O p a Ul N N C T7.) (6 0 w o N N E U T O U N (6 U 8 E O 0 2 a N t - O NY ▪ Q0 g °� o .Y m �a o 5` `o o N � o o 1 o n _ Y E � +• o U = Y � U o N ti .. E o a Y To 3Y 0 0 0 m o � C O U U O T N _ - N sy NFU a -. 2 yY a)2o ao Ts O 'U N T Q Q N N N (6 N E o T O ° T Q 0 `o Uo� s _ y o O s 0 O ▪ .N Qm E U Ty O C O O U) U sU m 61 AYE o Ew = E O 2- o E O U t N O U w � O N O N - T ESQ O N = n E N t U_ F '�Y Base Map Data Sources: 9 w a Snohomish County c O cst 4- N cst U 0 0) E L 0) O L Y r^^ 0 o I, L N 2 0• s t 1 0 _ W C L Q c LL Z R;uno3 uelay3 , uno3 despN C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock D - Stiff Soil E - Soft Soil R;uno3 selpm Pierce County Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey O p N a 0 N N t= T7.) (6 ` w o o m 8 E ns E U Y U O 2 U 8 mE O o (t 2 N 3 - o `O r13 'Y Q N X N o N uiY °- �a o o N � o o= n o Y T +• 4 O U = I: Y � U N N IT Y E o O -6 N 3 'Y N N N N t Ul C O U U O N _ - N s j � -§U y O N _ 6I 42 .-0 .— E O 'U T Q ma�`3 E o T O ° w T Q T N U 0 O 0 0 0 �s s y o O s 0 O .N a = 6 E N N U Ty moo sO o =2 2 E E E 4 S = E n m o E a N U t N O O N O 2 N — T ELQ O N = n E N t - = 9 EARTHQUAKE Liquefaction Maps Soil liquefaction maps are useful tools to assess potential damage from earthquakes. When the ground liquefies, sandy or silty materials saturated with water behave like a liquid, causing pipes to leak, roads and airport runways to buckle, and building foundations to be damaged. In general, areas with NEHRP Soils D, E and F are also susceptible to liquefaction. If there is a dry soil crust, excess water will sometimes come to the surface through cracks in the confining layer, bringing liquefied sand with it, creating sand boils. Figure 10 -9 shows the liquefaction susceptibility in the planning area. 10.2.3 Frequency The recurrence rate for a Magnitude 6.5 or greater earthquake is estimated to be about 350 years anywhere in the Puget Sound basin and 1,000 years on the Seattle Fault (Washington Emergency Management Division, 2014). In general, it is difficult to estimate the probability of occurrence of crustal earthquake events. Earthquakes on the South Whidbey Island and Seattle Faults have a 2 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years. The USGS estimated that a crustal zone earthquake has a recurrence interval of about 500 to 600 years. Recurrence intervals for Benioff Zone earthquakes are estimated to be 30 to 40 years for Magnitude 6.5 and 50 to 100 years for Magnitude 7.0. A Benioff Zone earthquake has an 85 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years, making it the most likely of the three types. Earthquake events occurring along the Cascadia Subduction Zone reoccur with far less frequency. Such events occur on average every 550 years, although the recurrence interval appears to be irregular. The intervals between earthquakes in this subduction zone have ranged from 100 years to more than 1,000 years. The USGS estimated that a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake has a 10 to 15 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years. 10.2.4 Severity The severity of an earthquake can be expressed in terms of intensity or magnitude. Intensity represents the observed effects of ground shaking on people, buildings, and natural features. The USGS has created ground motion maps based on current information about several fault zones. These maps show the PGA that has a certain probability (2 percent or 10 percent) of being exceeded in a 50 -year period. The PGA is measured in numbers of g's (the acceleration associated with gravity). Figure 10 -10 shows the PGAs with a 2- percent exceedance chance in 50 years in Washington. King County is a medium- to high -risk area. Magnitude is related to the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of an earthquake. It is determined by the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments. Whereas intensity varies depending on location with respect to the earthquake epicenter, magnitude is represented by a single, instrumentally determined value for each earthquake event. In simplistic terms, the severity of an earthquake event can be measured in the following terms: • How hard did the ground shake? • How did the ground move? (Horizontally or vertically) • How stable was the soil? • What is the fragility of the built environment in the area of impact? 10 -15 ACT.A Page 155 of 869 R;uno3 uelay3 , uno3 despN W C7 UJ -J Liquefaction Susceptibility Moderate to High a) a) C Low to Moderate O J Very Low to Low R;uno3 selpm Not Susceptible 0 O L } a) a) a) 0_ op - Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey O 0 a Ul N N C � (6 N = 8 w o o m E ns E U Y U O 2 8 E O N m w -o2 � s Q .. - o `o w o o, N x o o N 8' �a o o o N � o o 1 o n _ a 0 O E E ° ▪ +• 3 4 O U 0 0a Y � U N N O 6:” O-6 Y � 3 Y 0 0 O 3 C S (6 N t Ul C O U U O T N 4 N 0 j� y O N 3 6I E • o 42 -6 0 .— E O 'U N Q � Ul C N (6 E o T O T Q N U 0 O N U o 0s y o O s °- w O ▪ .N Q7,5 E U Ty N p O s U o m A E YE E E n m o E ▪ U � O U w O 3 N - T ESQ O O N = n E V t U_ 9 EARTHQUAKE 1J u8 i m8 Hazard Cgi r02 ym -rs a2 -.14 [ raa -.18 _r8. _a8 28 - =AO - am- Cw "7- - - i. his - tlb�9iu.,, 244o — T rrms,no moM - I,r41441 ', Them vngilE�^u, Ih&a Ii Figure 10 -10. PGA with 2- Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, Northwest Region 10.2.5 Warning Time There is currently no reliable way to predict the day or month that an earthquake will occur at any given location. Research is being done with warning systems that use the low energy waves that precede major earthquakes. These potential warning systems give approximately 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to occur. The warning time is very short but it could allow for someone to get under a desk, step away from a hazardous material they are working with, or shut down a computer system. 10.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Earthquakes can cause large and sometimes disastrous landslides and mudslides. River valleys are vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay -rich soils. Soil liquefaction occurs when water - saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose contact with one another and float freely in the water, turning the ground into a pudding -like liquid. Building and road foundations lose load - bearing strength and may sink into what was previously solid ground. Unless properly secured, hazardous materials can be released, causing significant damage to the environment and people. Earthen dams and levees are highly susceptible to seismic events and the impacts of their eventual failures can be considered secondary risks for earthquakes. Disruptions in utility services including power, communication, gas, wastewater and potable water may also occur. 10.4 EXPOSURE 10.4.1 Population The entire population of King County is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. The degree of exposure is dependent on many factors, including the age and construction 10 -17 ACT.A Page 157 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements type of the structures people live in, the soil type their homes are constructed on, their proximity to fault location, etc. Whether directly impacted or indirectly impact, the entire population will have to deal with the consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered no direct damage from an event itself. 10.4.2 Property According to County Assessor records, there are 545,846 buildings in the planning area, with a total assessed value of $556.7 billion. Since all structures in the planning area are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees, this total represents the countywide property exposure to seismic events. Most of the buildings (87.6 percent) are residential. 10.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure All critical facilities in the planning area are exposed to the earthquake hazard. Table 6 -3 and Table 6 -4 list the number of each type of facility by jurisdiction. Hazardous materials releases can occur during an earthquake from fixed facilities or transportation- related incidents. Transportation corridors can be disrupted during an earthquake, leading to the release of materials to the surrounding environment. Facilities holding hazardous materials are of particular concern because of possible isolation of neighborhoods surrounding them. During an earthquake, structures storing these materials could rupture and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway, having a disastrous effect on the environment. 10.4.4 Environment Secondary hazards associated with earthquakes will likely have some of the most damaging effects on the environment. Earthquake - induced landslides can significantly impact surrounding habitat. It is also possible for streams to be rerouted after an earthquake. This can change the water quality, possibly damaging habitat and feeding areas. There is a possibility of streams fed by groundwater drying up because of changes in underlying geology. 10.5 VULNERABILITY Earthquake vulnerability data was generated using a Level 2 Hazus -MH analysis. Once the location and size of a hypothetical earthquake are identified, Hazus -MH estimates the intensity of the ground shaking, the number of buildings damaged, the number of casualties, the damage to transportation systems and utilities, the number of people displaced from their homes, and the estimated cost of repair and clean up. 10.5.1 Population There are estimated to be 611,662 people in over 250,000 households living on NEHRP Class D or E soils within the planning area. This represents about 30 percent of the total population. Of this population, two groups are particularly vulnerable to earthquake hazards. • Population Below Poverty Level —An estimated 37,857 households in the planning area census blocks on NEHRP D and E soils have household incomes less than $20,000 per year. This is about 15 percent of all households located on Class D and E soils. These households may lack the financial resources to improve their homes to prevent or mitigate earthquake damage. Poorer residents are also less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses in earthquakes. 10 -18 ACT.A Page 158 of 869 EARTHQUAKE • Population Over 65 Years Old —An estimated 63,530 residents in the planning area census blocks on NEHRP D and E soils are over 65 years old. This is about 10 percent of all residents in these census blocks. This population group is vulnerable because they are more likely to need special medical attention, which may not be available due to isolation caused by earthquakes. Elderly residents also have more difficulty leaving their homes during earthquake events and could be stranded in dangerous situations. Impacts on persons and households in the planning area were estimated for the 100 -year and 500 -year earthquakes and the three scenario events through the Level 2 Hazus -MH analysis. Table 10 -4 summarizes the results. TABLE 10-4. ESTIMATED EARTHQUAKE IMPACT ON PERSONS AND HOUSEHOLDS Number of Displaced Number of Persons Requiring Households Short-Term Shelter 100 -Year Earthquake 500 -Year Earthquake Seattle Fault, M7.2 Scenario South Whidbey Island Fault, M7.4 Scenario Tacoma Fault, M 7.1 Scenario 6,016 29,204 27,205 3,579 8,737 3,192 15,613 14,657 1,855 5,551 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. 10.5.2 Property Building Age Table 10 -5 identifies significant milestones in building and seismic code requirements that directly affect the structural integrity of development. Using these time periods, the planning team used King County Assessor's data to identify the number of structures in the planning area by date of construction. The number of structures does not reflect the number of total housing units, as many multi - family units and attached housing units are reported as one structure. Approximately 21.7 percent of the planning area's structures were constructed after the Uniform Building Code was amended in 1994 to include seismic safety provisions. Approximately 11.9 percent were built before 1933 when there were no building permits, inspections, or seismic standards. Loss Potential Property losses were estimated through the Level 2 Hazus -MH analysis for the 100 -year and 500 -year earthquakes and the three scenario events. Table 10 -6 through Table 10 -8 show the results for two types of property loss (and the total of the two): • Structural loss, representing damage to building structures • Non - structural loss, representing the value of lost contents. 10 -19 ACT.A Page 159 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 10 -5. AGE OF STRUCTURES IN PLANNING AREA Time Period Number of Current Planning Area Structures Built in Perioda Significance of Time Frame Pre -1933 65,301 Before 1933, there were no explicit earthquake requirements in building codes. State law did not require local governments to have building officials or issue building permits_ 1933 -1940 11,929 In 1940, the first strong motion recording was made.______ _______________. 1941 -1960 106,435 In 1960, the Structural Engineers Association of California published guidelines on recommended earthquake provisions. 1961 -1975 93,346 In 1975, significant improvements were made to lateral force requirements. 1976 -1994 150,504 1994 -2009 106,698 In 1994, the Uniform Building Code was amended to include provisions for seismic safety. Seismic code is currently enforced. 2010 present 11,633 Total 545,846 Revised calculations for shear loads and reinstated thresholds removed from the 2005 IBC. a. Year built information was collected from King and Snohomish County tax assessor data. Information for Pierce County was collected from Hazus inventory data at the Census block level and was estimated based on the relative distribution of year built information in King County 10-20 ACT.A Page 160 of 869 EARTHQUAKE TABLE 10 -6. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR PROBABILISTIC EARTHQUAKES Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake 100- Year Earthquake 500- Year Earthquake Jurisdiction Structure Contents Total Structure Contents Total Algona $28,447,034 $9,367,613 $37,814,647 $77,301,198 $24,322,771 $101,623,969 Auburn $462,154,483 $160,282,043 $622,436,526 $1,415,743,454 $464,744,577 $1,880,488,032 Beaux Arts $168,562 $45,743 $214,304 $1,044,067 $303,208 $1,347,275 Bellevue $640,848,452 $201,922,013 $842,770,465 $2,566,496,520 $758,116,466 $3,324,612,986 Black Diamond $3,718,136 $1,123,323 $4,841,458 $16,397,826 $5,046,132 $21,443,958 Bothell $47,686,655 $16,009,519 $63,696,174 $262,737,548 $84,295,405 $347,032,954 Burien $66,229,851 $21,414,579 $87,644,430 $364,002,299 $114,120,614 $478,122,913 Carnation $42,539 $12,856 $55,394 $281,864 $93,759 $375,623 Clyde Hill $2,743,099 $810,212 $3,553,311 $16,113,575 $5,133,877 $21,247,452 Covington $12,880,273 $4,174,703 $17,054,976 $72,646,564 $23,519,893 $96,166,457 Des Moines $38,475,228 $11,925,280 $50,400,508 $222,438,812 $66,177,913 $288,616,724 Duvall $1,630,530 $504,177 $2,134,707 $5,971,102 $1,811,135 $7,782,237 Enumclaw $38,567,959 $13,483,601 $52,051,560 $119,278,159 $38,579,020 $157,857,179 Federal Way $114,071,243 $35,450,841 $149,522,085 $654,529,936 $196,456,992 $850,986,928 Hunts Point $1,085,822 $319,057 $1,404,879 $6,541,221 $2,091,174 $8,632,395 Issaquah $102,581,533 $33,161,003 $135,742,536 $369,935,555 $110,492,179 $480,427,734 Kenmore $45,239,642 $13,006,393 $58,246,035 $156,005,873 $44,162,406 $200,168,279 Kent $802,731,743 $289,992,114 $1,092,723,857 $2,396,185,649 $804,078,666 $3,200,264,315 Kirkland $142,578,938 $46,237,343 $188,816,280 $730,179,385 $226,714,883 $956,894,268 Lake Forest Park $24,573,498 $7,261,385 $31,834,883 $85,121,620 $24,256,690 $109,378,310 Maple Valley $31,523,875 $8,765,966 $40,289,841 $99,588,196 $27,261,781 $126,849,977 Medina $1,354,018 $403,645 $1,757,663 $8,039,972 $2,589,848 $10,629,820 Mercer Island $16,177,204 $4,847,694 $21,024,898 $102,869,281 $31,584,065 $134,453,347 Milton $4,217,202 $906,387 $5,123,589 $20,164,901 $4,164,041 $24,328,942 Newcastle $7,654,196 $2,164,575 $9,818,771 $48,101,089 $14,407,339 $62,508,428 Normandy Park $7,577,980 $2,240,173 $9,818,153 $46,424,547 $14,321,858 $60,746,405 North Bend $18,183,467 $6,086,403 $24,269,870 $63,214,492 $19,337,840 $82,552,332 Pacific $30,296,181 $8,713,663 $39,009,844 $80,128,485 $21,851,511 $101,979,996 Redmond $232,685,007 $75,928,306 $308,613,313 $1,080,967,467 $328,831,222 $1,409,798,689 Renton $406,572,748 $143,040,134 $549,612,882 $1,403,586,992 $460,272,342 $1,863,859,335 Sammamish $52,760,902 $15,504,039 $68,264,942 $299,547,772 $87,520,398 $387,068,170 SeaTac $155,623,933 $44,819,212 $200,443,145 $630,497,808 $167,386,552 $797,884,361 Seattle $2,802,657,956 $961,072,154 $3,763,730,110 $11,215,069,752 $3,547,034,568 $14,762,104,319 Shoreline $59,560,229 $18,830,291 $78,390,520 $357,176,854 $110,576,261 $467,753,115 Skykomish $597 $185 $782 $4,095 $1,460 $5,554 Snoqualmie $10,675,550 $3,604,971 $14,280,521 $47,677,353 $15,278,946 $62,956,299 Tukwila $310,376,519 $119,723,909 $430,100,428 $1,046,914,316 $373,510,850 $1,420,425,165 Woodinville $39,567,847 $13,634,733 $53,202,580 $215,153,720 $69,553,103 $284,706,823 Yarrow Point $1,212,508 $357,543 $1,570,051 $7,124,863 $2,271,934 $9,396,797 Unincorporated $719,803,874 $223,678,465 $943,482,339 $2,919,721,583 $890,818,695 $3,810,090,279 Total $7,484,937,013 $2,520,826,246 $10,005,763,257 $29,230,925,765 $9,183,092,374 $38,413,568,141 Note: Values in this table are accurate discussion of data limitations. only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a ACT.A 10 -21 Page 161 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 10 -7. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR SEATTLE AND SOUTH WHIDBEY FAULT SCENARIO EARTHQUAKES Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake Seattle Fault, M 7.2 South Whidbey M7.4 Jurisdiction Structure Contents Total Structure Contents Total Algona $9,312,999 $3,468,595 $12,781,594 $2,256,845 $1,072,789 $3,329,634 Auburn $278,902,902 $96,326,332 $375,229,234 $56,209,661 $26,777,444 $82,987,105 Beaux Arts $2,361,618 $709,987 $3,071,605 $257,280 $92,864 $350,145 Bellevue $3,434,139,472 $1,016,785,836 $4,450,925,308 $589,907,633 $217,484,801 $807,392,434 Black Diamond $5,923,269 $2,327,217 $8,250,486 $767,579 $368,249 $1,135,828 Bothell $51,649,438 $20,977,752 $72,627,190 $298,371,005 $98,375,990 $396,746,994 Burien $695,692,064 $219,559,285 $915,251,348 $20,414,661 $9,651,441 $30,066,102 Carnation $118,081 $49,977 $168,059 $192,109 $73,170 $265,278 Clyde Hill $14,948,435 $5,328,871 $20,277,306 $5,352,228 $2,206,565 $7,558,793 Covington $43,932,177 $16,833,097 $60,765,274 $3,467,376 $1,768,741 $5,236,118 Des Moines $171,506,484 $54,888,620 $226,395,104 $8,952,242 $4,369,474 $13,321,716 Duvall $1,441,045 $553,755 $1,994,800 $8,523,642 $2,699,870 $11,223,512 Enumclaw $7,227,401 $3,348,255 $10,575,656 $2,605,245 $1,424,519 $4,029,764 Federal Way $195,621,507 $73,320,392 $268,941,899 $18,826,043 $9,806,837 $28,632,880 Hunts Point $6,089,105 $2,185,490 $8,274,594 $2,196,291 $908,421 $3,104,712 Issaquah $720,990,789 $218,014,142 $939,004,931 $56,101,833 $20,452,250 $76,554,083 Kenmore $25,548,859 $9,642,815 $35,191,674 $95,448,426 $29,632,334 $125,080,759 Kent $1,593,538,555 $554,489,067 $2,148,027,622 $157,486,958 $67,723,691 $225,210,649 Kirkland $314,897,434 $110,689,224 $425,586,657 $396,996,350 $136,191,688 $533,188,038 Lake Forest Park $14,091,542 $5,417,427 $19,508,969 $42,430,262 $14,180,063 $56,610,324 Maple Valley $56,360,481 $17,793,913 $74,154,393 $3,781,304 $1,627,758 $5,409,062 Medina $8,230,280 $3,028,650 $11,258,930 $2,048,667 $822,023 $2,870,690 Mercer Island $252,055,774 $77,686,233 $329,742,007 $19,666,773 $7,870,084 $27,536,858 Milton $3,213,992 $926,353 $4,140,345 $630,147 $194,175 $824,322 Newcastle $142,040,003 $42,469,585 $184,509,589 $8,009,079 $3,333,689 $11,342,768 Normandy Park $68,743,162 $21,869,288 $90,612,450 $1,923,654 $892,479 $2,816,133 North Bend $14,482,858 $5,008,343 $19,491,201 $4,724,690 $1,880,176 $6,604,866 Pacific $9,293,567 $3,139,036 $12,432,603 $2,416,717 $946,355 $3,363,071 Redmond $622,049,570 $197,255,876 $819,305,445 $580,144,955 $185,646,136 $765,791,091 Renton $2,022,643,852 $652,940,003 $2,675,583,855 $117,991,166 $49,442,315 $167,433,481 Sammamish $561,031,386 $171,233,052 $732,264,439 $138,125,055 $48,175,995 $186,301,050 SeaTac $706,090,996 $188,194,129 $894,285,125 $34,980,585 $13,309,802 $48,290,387 Seattle $12,313,031,567 $3,960,809,129 $16,273,840,696 $1,588,271,087 $641,139,232 $2,229,410,319 Shoreline $77,527,321 $31,039,988 $108,567,308 $157,647,074 $57,091,714 $214,738,788 Skykomish $433 $257 $690 $433 $257 $690 Snoqualmie $35,639,246 $12,059,460 $47,698,706 $7,257,336 $2,913,100 $10,170,437 Tukwila $1,292,691,431 $468,844,224 $1,761,535,655 $67,809,964 $31,598,954 $99,408,918 Woodinville $43,353,068 $16,758,096 $60,111,164 $251,325,857 $79,680,559 $331,006,416 Yarrow Point $6,548,732 $2,347,007 $8,895,739 $2,369,676 $978,430 $3,348,106 Unincorporated $3,232,912,649 $1,031,014,151 $4,263,926,800 $1,049,421,802 $355,234,888 $1,404,656,690 Total $29,055,873,544 $9,319,332,909 $38,375,206,450 $5,805,309,690 $2,128,039,322 $7,933,349,011 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of discussion of data limitations. comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a ACT.A 10 -22 Page 162 of 869 EARTHQUAKE TABLE 10 -8. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR TACOMA FAULT SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE Jurisdiction Estimated Loss Associated with Earthquake Tacoma Fault, M 7.1 Structure Contents Total Algona Auburn Beaux Arts Bellevue Black Diamond Bothell Burien Carnation Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Duvall Enumclaw Federal Way Hunts Point Issaquah Kenmore Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Maple Valley Medina Mercer Island Milton Newcastle Normandy Park North Bend Pacific Redmond Renton Sammamish SeaTac Seattle Shoreline Skykomish Snoqualmie Tukwila Woodinville Yarrow Point Unincorporated Total $40,512,324 $1,247,393,305 $209,164 $254,157,710 $4,807,101 $8,302,472 $294,099,260 $8,100 $1,809,649 $44,578,433 $513,424,310 $193,449 $12,174,444 $916,550,997 $746,142 $35,569,541 $6,391,276 $2,541,600,283 $46,087,747 $3,481,676 $27,312,496 $914,868 $23,621,689 $3,805,993 $12,769,901 $87,150,788 $3,496,593 $30,136,839 $77,985,476 $623,151,688 $30,146,607 $567,020,003 $1,681,515,599 $18,909,273 $88 $2,970,520 $476,852,397 $8,510,708 $800,648 $1,094,557,431 $12,995,487 $435,651,072 $81,917 $109,375,526 $2,002,608 $4,189,973 $98,017,858 $3,875 $808,320 $16,781,240 $155,360,307 $94,644 $5,266,960 $267,213,881 $333,091 $14,947,148 $2,765,540 $866,538,730 $21,834,971 $1,515,039 $9,638,681 $410,372 $9,565,851 $1,155,397 $4,973,465 $27,610,973 $1,602,392 $9,700,839 $38,214,491 $209,993,765 $12,136,180 $155,817,792 $664,668,695 $9,013,808 $57 $1,382,272 $161,727,663 $4,466,626 $357,663 $373,765,410 $53,507,811 $1,683,044,377 $291,081 $363,533,235 $6,809,709 $12,492,445 $392,117,118 $11,975 $2,617,969 $61,359,672 $668,784,618 $288,092 $17,441,404 $1,183,764,878 $1,079,233 $50,516,689 $9,156,816 $3,408,139,013 $67,922,718 $4,996,715 $36,951,177 $1,325,240 $33,187,540 $4,961,391 $17,743,366 $114,761,761 $5,098,985 $39,837,679 $116,199,967 $833,145,453 $42,282,787 $722,837,795 $2,346,184,294 $27,923,080 $145 $4,352,792 $638,580,060 $12,977,334 $1,158,311 $1,468,322,841 $10,743,726,988 $3,711,980,579 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented for a discussion of data limitations. $14,455,707,566 in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 10 -23 ACT.A Page 163 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements A summary of the property- related loss results is as follows: For a 100 -year probabilistic earthquake, the estimated damage potential is $10.0 billion, or 2.03 percent of the total assessed value for the planning area. For a 500 -year probabilistic earthquake, the estimated damage potential is $38.4 billion or 7.80 percent of the total assessed value for the planning area. For a 7.2- magnitude Seattle Fault event, the estimated damage potential is $38.4 billion, or 7.80 percent of the total assessed value for the planning area. For a 7.4- magnitude South Whidbey Fault event, the estimated damage potential is $7.9 billion, or 1.61 percent of the total assessed value for the planning area. For a 7.1- magnitude Tacoma Fault event, the estimated damage potential is $14.5 billion, or 2.94 percent of the total assessed value for the planning area. The Hazus -MH analysis also estimated the amount of earthquake- caused debris in the planning area for the 100 -year and 500 -year earthquakes and the three scenario events, as summarized in Table 10 -9. TABLE 10 -9. ESTIMATED EARTHQUAKE- CAUSED DEBRIS Debris to Be Removed (tons) 100 -Year Earthquake 500 -Year Earthquake M 7.2, Seattle Fault Scenario M 7.4 South Whidbey Island Fault Scenario M 7.1 Tacoma Fault Scenario 3,514,423 14,217,942 13,940,730 2,154,450 5,137,030 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. 10.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Level of Damage Hazus -MH classifies the vulnerability of critical facilities to earthquake damage in five categories: no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, or complete damage. The model was used to assign a vulnerability category to each critical facility in the planning area except hazmat facilities and "other infrastructure" facilities, for which there are no established damage functions. The analysis was performed for all scenario events. Results from the 100 -year probability event, the 500 -year probability event and the Seattle Fault scenario are summarized in Table 10 -10 through Table 10 -12. ACT.A 10 -24 Page 164 of 869 EARTHQUAKE TABLE 10 -10. ESTIMATED DAMAGE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM 100 -YEAR EARTHQUAKE Categorya Damage Extent None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Medical and Health 28 425 0 0 35 Government Function 2 26 0 0 2 Protective Function 14 234 3 0 26 Schools 5 676 0 0 15 Other Critical Function 50 420 0 0 0 Bridges 1,061 0 0 0 0 Transportation 35 262 4 0 7 Water supply 263 87 3 0 1 Wastewater 216 49 0 0 1 Power 13 19 0 0 0 Communications 47 17 0 0 0 Total 1,734 2,215 10 0 87 a. Vulnerability not estimated for hazmat facilities or for "other infrastructure" facilities due to lack of established damage functions for these type facilities. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. TABLE 10 -11. ESTIMATED DAMAGE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM 500 -YEAR EARTHQUAKE Categorya Damage Extent None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Medical and Health 13 9 232 90 144 Government Function 2 1 10 9 8 Protective Function 8 13 150 39 67 Schools 5 24 452 90 125 Other Critical Function 39 1 31 375 24 Bridges 905 0 0 127 29 Transportation 28 265 4 0 11 Water supply 56 20 268 4 6 Wastewater 97 67 100 0 2 Power 0 0 32 0 0 Communications 2 17 45 0 0 Total 1,155 417 1,324 734 416 a. Vulnerability not estimated for hazmat facilities or for "other infrastructure" facilities due to lack of established damage functions for these type facilities. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 10 -25 Page 165 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 10 -12. ESTIMATED DAMAGE TO CRITICAL FACILITIES FROM SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO Categorya Damage Extent None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Medical and Health 8 200 47 20 213 Government Function 1 12 5 1 11 Protective Function 10 88 21 13 145 Schools 5 246 55 30 360 Other Critical Function 15 178 87 20 170 Bridges 977 0 0 17 67 Transportation 21 216 30 5 36 Water supply 22 100 178 49 5 Wastewater 92 72 96 5 1 Power 0 13 17 2 0 Communications 3 7 31 23 0 Total 1,154 1,132 567 185 1,008 a. Vulnerability not estimated for hazmat facilities or for "other infrastructure" facilities due to lack of established damage functions for these type facilities. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. Time to Return to Functionality Hazus -MH estimates the time to restore critical facilities to fully functional use. Results are presented as probability of being functional at specified time increments: 1, 3, 7, 14, 30 and 90 days after the event. For example, Hazus -MH may estimate that a facility has 5 percent chance of being fully functional at Day 3, and a 95- percent chance of being fully functional at Day 90. The analysis of critical facilities in the planning area was performed for all scenario earthquake events. Results from the 100 -year probability event, the 500 -year probability event and the Seattle Fault scenario are summarized in Table 10 -13 through Table 10 -15. 10.5.4 Environment The environment vulnerable to earthquake hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard. 10.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT Land use in the planning area will be directed by comprehensive plans adopted under Washington's Growth Management Act. The information in this plan provides the participating partners a tool to ensure that there is no increase in exposure in areas of high seismic risk. Development in the planning area will be regulated through building standards and performance measures so that the degree of risk will be reduced. The geologic hazard portions of the planning area are regulated under each jurisdiction's critical areas ordinances. The International Building Code establishes provisions to address seismic risk. 10 -26 ACT.A Page 166 of 869 EARTHQUAKE TABLE 10 -13. FUNCTIONALITY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES FOR 100 -YEAR EARTHQUAKE # of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional ( %)a Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Medical and Health 488 9.5 10.7 60.2 61.5 82.7 87.5 Government Function 30 10 11.2 60.7 61.9 83.3 88.1 Protective Function 277 9.4 10.6 61.7 63 83.6 88.1 Schools 696 7.6 8.9 64.8 66.2 86.8 91 Other Critical Function 470 12.1 13.3 63.3 64.5 87.3 92.2 Bridges 1,061 96.6 97.8 98.4 98.5 98.6 99.2 Transportation 308 78 85.3 87.9 88.2 89.1 92.7 Water supply 354 74.9 94.2 97.5 98.0 98.5 99.5 Wastewater 266 67.6 87.8 95.1 95.9 96.6 98.3 Power 32 59.3 83.8 93.7 96.9 98.6 99.7 Communications 64 90.9 97.5 98.3 99 99.4 99.8 TotaLAverage 4,046 46.9 54.6 80.1 81.2 91.3 94.2 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. TABLE 10 -14. FUNCTIONALITY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES FOR 500 -YEAR EARTHQUAKE # of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional ( %)a Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Medical and Health 488 2 2.4 20.7 21.2 46.8 59.4 Government Function 30 3 3.4 21.7 22.2 47.5 60 Protective Function 277 1.9 2.4 21.8 22.3 48.2 60.7 Schools 696 0.7 1.2 22 22.6 50 63 Other Critical Function 470 4.5 4.9 23.2 23.7 50.1 63.3 Bridges 1,061 79.4 84.2 86.7 87.2 87.8 92.1 Transportation 308 63.5 73.9 77.7 78.3 79.9 86.9 Water supply 354 43.3 74.0 84.0 86.5 90.0 96.4 Wastewater 266 38.8 68.4 84.5 86.8 90.0 96.5 Power 32 32.1 61 82.9 91.6 96 99.5 Communications 64 67.2 86.9 90.7 95.4 98 99.6 TotaLAverage 4,046 30.6 42.1 56.0 58.0 71.3 79.8 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 10 -27 Page 167 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 10 -15. FUNCTIONALITY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES FOR SEATTLE FAULT SCENARIO # of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional ( %)a Planning Unit Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90 Medical and Health 488 2.4 2.9 24.4 24.9 45.2 54.2 Government Function 30 4.3 4.8 28.4 29 48.5 57.4 Protective Function 277 3.3 3.8 22 22.5 39.8 48.4 Schools 696 1.4 1.8 21 21.4 39.5 48.3 Other Critical Function 470 4.2 4.7 28.1 28.6 49.7 59 Bridges 1,061 80.6 84.5 86.7 87.2 87.7 91.7 Transportation 308 59.1 70 74 74.8 76.8 85.4 Water supply 354 38.7 64.6 74.6 78.1 83.6 93.5 Wastewater 266 41.3 68.9 83.0 85.3 89.3 96.6 Power 32 37.6 64.6 83.1 91.1 95.6 99.5 Communications 64 52.4 71.7 78.5 88.2 93.8 98.8 TotaLAverage 4,046 29.6 40.2 54.9 57.4 68.1 75.7 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. 10.7 SCENARIO Any seismic activity of 6.0 or greater on faults within the planning area's general region would have significant impacts throughout the planning area. Potential warning systems could give about 40 seconds' notice that a major earthquake is about to occur. This would not provide adequate time for preparation. Earthquakes of this magnitude or higher would lead to massive structural failure of property on NEHRP C, D, E, and F soils. Dams, levees and revetments built on these poor soils would likely fail, representing a loss of critical infrastructure. These events could cause secondary hazards, including landslides and mudslides that would further damage structures. River valley hydraulic -fill sediment areas are also vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay -rich soils. Soil liquefaction would occur in water - saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils. 10.8 ISSUES Important issues associated with an earthquake include but are not limited to the following: • Over 78 percent of the planning area's building stock was built prior to 1994, when seismic provisions became uniformly applied through building code applications. • Critical facility owners should be encouraged to create or enhance continuity of operations plans using the information on risk and vulnerability contained in this plan. • Geotechnical standards should be established that take into account the probable impacts from earthquakes in the design and construction of new or enhanced facilities. • Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as dam failures and landslides, which could severely impact the planning area. • There are likely additional faults in or around King County that have not yet been discovered. 10-28 ACT.A Page 168 of 869 EARTHQUAKE • After a major seismic event, King County is likely to experience disruptions in the flow of goods and services due to the destruction of major transportation infrastructure across the broader region. • Citizens are expected to be self - sufficient up to three days following a major earthquake without government response agencies, utilities, private sector services and infrastructure components. Education programs are currently in place to facilitate the development of individual, family, neighborhood and business earthquake preparedness. Government alone can never make this region fully prepared. It takes individuals, families, and communities working in concert with one another to truly be prepared for disaster. • Natural hazards have a devastating impact on businesses. Of all businesses that close following a disaster, more than 43 percent never reopen, and an additional 29 percent close for good within the next two years. The Institute of Business and Home Safety has developed "Open for Business," which is a disaster planning toolkit to help guide businesses in preparing for and dealing with the adverse effects of natural hazards. The kit integrates protection from natural disasters into companies' risk reduction measures to safeguard employees, customers, and the investment itself. The guide helps businesses secure human and physical resources during disasters, and helps to develop strategies to maintain business continuity before, during, and after a disaster occurs. • King County has over 114 miles of earthen levees and revetments on soft, unstable soil. These soils are prone to liquefaction, which would severely undermine the integrity of these facilities. • A worst -case scenario would be the occurrence of a large seismic event during a flood or high -water event. Levee failures would happen at multiple locations, increasing the impacts of the individual events. • Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as dam failures, landslides or volcanic activity, which could severely impact district facilities. 10 -29 ACT.A Page 169 of 869 CHAPTER 11. FLOOD King County prepared a comprehensive flood hazard management plan in 2006 that is the principal policy document for the King County Flood Control District. The plan was updated in 2013 and is the basis for much of the information contained in this chapter (King County, 2013c) The comprehensive flood hazard management plan is hereby linked to this regional hazard mitigation plan by reference. 11.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND A floodplain is the area adjacent to a river, creek or lake that becomes inundated during a flood. Floodplains may be broad, as when a river crosses an extensive flat landscape, or narrow, as when a river is confined in a canyon. When floodwaters recede after a flood event, they leave behind layers of rock and mud. These gradually build up to create a new floor of the floodplain. Floodplains generally contain accumulations of sand, gravel, loam, silt, and /or clay, often extending below the bed of the stream. These sediments provide a natural filtering system, with water percolating back into the ground and replenishing groundwater. These are often important aquifers, the water drawn from them being filtered compared to the water in the stream. Fertile, flat reclaimed floodplain lands are commonly used for agriculture, commerce and residential development. DEFINITIONS Flood —The inundation of normally dry land resulting from the rising and overflowing of a body of water. Floodplain —The land area along the sides of a river that becomes inundated with water during a flood. 100 -Year Floodplain —The area flooded by a flood that has a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. This is a statistical average only; a 100 -year flood can occur more than once in a short period of time. The 1- percent annual chance flood is the standard used by most federal and state agencies. Return Period —The average number of years between occurrences of a hazard (equal to the inverse of the annual likelihood of occurrence). Riparian Zone —The area along the banks of a natural watercourse. Connections between a river and its floodplain are most apparent during and after major flood events. These areas form a complex physical and biological system that not only supports a variety of natural resources but also provides natural flood and erosion control. When a river is separated from its floodplain with levees and other flood control facilities, natural, built -in benefits can be lost, altered, or significantly reduced. 11.1.1 Measuring Floods and Floodplains The frequency and severity of flooding are measured using a discharge probability, which is the probability that a certain river discharge (flow) level will be equaled or exceeded in a given year. Flood studies use historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for the different discharge levels. The flood frequency equals 100 divided by the discharge probability. For example, the 100 -year discharge has a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The "annual flood" is the greatest flood event expected to occur in a typical year. These measurements reflect statistical averages only; it is possible for two or more floods with a 100 -year or higher recurrence interval to occur in a short time period. The same flood can have different recurrence intervals at different points on a river. For example, the 1990 flood event was a 100 -year flood on the Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie but a 50 -year flood on some tributaries. 11 -1 ACT.A Page 171 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements The extent of flooding associated with a 1- percent annual probability of occurrence (the base flood or 100 -year flood) is used as the regulatory boundary by many agencies. Also referred to as the special flood hazard area (SFHA), this boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood -prone communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base flood. Corresponding water - surface elevations describe the elevation of water that will result from a given discharge level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage. 11.1.2 Floodplain Ecosystems Floodplains can support ecosystems that are rich in plant and animal species. A floodplain can contain 100 or even 1,000 times as many species as a river. Wetting of the floodplain soil releases an immediate surge of nutrients: those left over from the last flood, and those that result from the rapid decomposition of organic matter that has accumulated since then. Microscopic organisms thrive and larger species enter a rapid breeding cycle. Opportunistic feeders (particularly birds) move in to take advantage. The production of nutrients peaks and falls away quickly, but the surge of new growth endures for some time. This makes floodplains valuable for agriculture. Species growing in floodplains are markedly different from those that grow outside floodplains. For instance, riparian trees (trees that grow in floodplains) tend to be very tolerant of root disturbance and very quick - growing compared to non - riparian trees. 11.1.3 Effects of Human Activities Because they border water bodies, floodplains have historically been popular sites to establish settlements. Human activities tend to concentrate in floodplains for a number of reasons: water is readily available; land is fertile and suitable for farming; transportation by water is easily accessible; and land is flatter and easier to develop. But human activity in floodplains frequently interferes with the natural function of floodplains. It can affect the distribution and timing of drainage, thereby increasing flood problems. Human development can create local flooding problems by altering or confining drainage channels. This increases flood potential in two ways: it reduces the stream's capacity to contain flows, and it increases flow rates or velocities downstream during flood events. Human activities can interface effectively with a floodplain as long as steps are taken to mitigate the activities' adverse impacts on floodplain functions. 11.1.4 Federal Flood Programs National Flood Insurance Program The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. For most participating communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study. The study presents water surface elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1- percent annual chance flood and the 0.2- percent annual chance flood (the 500 -year flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100 - and 500 -year floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their floodplain management program. Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that three criteria are met: • New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be elevated to protect against damage by the 100 -year flood. 11 -2 ACT.A Page 172 of 869 FLOOD • New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. • New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species. In participating communities, structures permitted or built in the planning area before NFIP and related building code regulations went into effect are called "pre- FIRM" structures, and structures built afterwards are called "post- FIRM." The insurance rate is different for the two types of structures. Communities participating in the NFIP may adopt regulations that are more stringent than those contained in 44 CFR 60.3, but not less stringent. The Washington State Building Code Act requires new construction to be elevated to 1 foot above the base flood elevation or to the design flood elevation, whichever is higher. Some communities in King County have adopted more stringent standards. For example, a 3 -foot freeboard (height above the 100 -year flood elevation) is standard for most structures in unincorporated King County. The most recent preliminary FIRMs in the County are dated February 1, 2013. These maps include revisions that were made as part of the 2013 Flood Insurance Study for some parts of the County: the Sammamish River and tributaries (Bear Creek, Evans Creek, North Creek, Swamp Creek); coastal areas (Vashon Island and mainland); and the White River (from a quarter mile downstream of Highway 410 near Enumclaw to the Outlet Works at Mud Mountain Dam). These preliminary FIRMs encompass changes that were made to the November 6, 2010 Flood Insurance Study that covers all floodplains in King County (King County, 2013). King County and 34 of the 39 incorporated areas in the County are participants in NFIP; all are currently in good standing with the provisions of the NFIP. The five jurisdictions that do not currently participate in NFIP are Beaux Arts Village, Hunts Point, Maple Valley, Newcastle and Yarrow Point. Except for Newcastle, these communities have no special flood hazard areas. In Washington State, the Department of Ecology is the coordinating agency for floodplain management. Ecology works with FEMA and local governments by providing grants and technical assistance, evaluating community floodplain management programs, reviewing local floodplain ordinances, and participating in statewide flood hazard mitigation planning. Compliance is monitored by FEMA regional staff and by Ecology. Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. All planning partners that participate in the NFIP have identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good standing. Planning partners who do not currently participate have identified initiatives to consider enrollment in the program. The Community Rating System The CRS is a voluntary program within the NFIP that encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following three goals of the CRS: • Reduce flood losses. • Facilitate accurate insurance rating. • Promote awareness of flood insurance. For participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent. For example, a Class 1 community receives a 45- percent premium discount, and a Class 9 community receives a 5- percent discount. (Class 10 communities are those that do not participate in the CRS; they receive no discount.) The CRS classes are based on 18 creditable activities in the following categories: 11 -3 ACT.A Page 173 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Public information • Mapping and regulations • Flood damage reduction • Flood preparedness. Figure 11 -1 shows the nationwide number of CRS communities by class as of March 2014, when there were 1,296 communities receiving flood insurance premium discounts under the CRS program. Although CRS communities represent only 5 percent of the over 22,000 communities participating in the NFIP, more than 67 percent of all flood insurance policies are written in CRS communities. CRS activities can help to save lives and reduce property damage. Number of Communities 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 9 11111111111 ➢1111111 1111.1i11 8 7 6 5 Rating Class 4 Figure 11 -1. CRS Communities by Class Nationwide as of May 2014 3 2 1 King County and the cities of Auburn, Bellevue, Issaquah, Kent, North Bend, Renton and Snoqualmie currently participate in the CRS program. Their CRS status is summarized in Table 11 -1. The total annual savings on flood insurance premiums within the planning area is $1.33 million. Many of the mitigation actions identified in Volume 2 of this plan are creditable activities under the CRS program. Therefore successful implementation of this plan offers the potential for these communities to enhance their CRS classifications and for currently non - participating communities to join the program. National Flood Insurance Program Biological Opinion Background On September 22, 2008, NOAA Fisheries issued a biological opinion that implementing the NFIP causes risk to several Endangered Species Act and Magnuson- Stevens Act listed Puget Sound salmonids and southern resident orca whales, as well as adverse modification of their habitat. NOAA Fisheries drafted the biological opinion following consultation with FEMA, in accordance with the judicial order for National Wildlife Federation v. FEMA (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington 2004). 11 -4 ACT.A Page 174 of 869 FLOOD TABLE 11 -1. CRS COMMUNITY STATUS IN THE PLANNING AREA Community NFIP CRS Entry Current CRS % Premium Discount, Community # Date Classification SFHA /non -SFHA Total Premium Savings King County Auburn Bellevue Issaquah Kent North Bend Renton Snoqualmie Total 530071 530073 530074 530079 530080 530085 530088 530090 10/01/91 10/01/92 10/01/92 10/01/92 05/01/2010 10/01/1995 10/01/1994 10/01/1992 2 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 40/10 25/10 25/10 25/10 20/10 20/10 20/10 25/10 $741,962 $27,240 $36,778 $67,494 $214,942 $60,690 $31,436 $149,367 S1,329,909 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Analysis focused on three elements of the NFIP— floodplain mapping, minimum floodplain management criteria, and the Community Rating System. The intent was to assess whether activities carried out under the NFIP lead to habitat changes that adversely affect listed species and their critical habitat. The biological opinion establishes seven elements of a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative to modify implementation of the NFIP in a manner that would reduce the risk to a level that may affect, but would not be likely to adversely affect, the listed species: • Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 1, Notification of Consultation Outcome —FEMA is required to notify all communities that participate in the NFIP that development under the program could cause risk to several Endangered Species Act and Magnuson- Stevens Act listed Puget Sound salmonids and southern resident orca whales as well as adverse modification of their habitat. • Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 2, Mapping —FEMA should only process Letters of Map Change addressing manmade alterations after determining that the alteration avoids habitat function changes or mitigates for those impacts. FEMA must also ensure that floodplain modeling incorporates on- the - ground data to increase the accuracy of maps depicting the floodplain and considers future conditions and cumulative effects from future land -use changes, including the risk of flooding behind 100 -year levees. • Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 3, Floodplain Management Criteria —This element describes land use and development criteria for development within mapped floodplains. • Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 4, Community Rating System —FEMA will change the credit given under the CRS to incorporate habitat -based objectives. King County should benefit greatly under these changes because of the County's strong environmental protection policies, regulations, programs and projects. • Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 5, Addressing the Effects of Levee Vegetation Maintenance and Certain Types of Construction in the Floodplain —FEMA shall not recognize levees that are certified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers using Public 11 -5 ACT.A Page 175 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Law 84 -99 vegetation standards unless it is demonstrated that the standard will not adversely affect species or their habitat. King County and other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region, as well as other communities on the west coast, are working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to modify the Corps' levee vegetation standards for participation in the PL 84 -99 program or to allow regional variances to those standards. • Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 6, Floodplain Mitigation Activities —Any development in floodplains that degrades channel or floodplain habitat and occurs prior to full implementation of Elements 2, 3 and 5 must provide mitigation. • Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 7, Monitoring and Adaptive Management —FEMA is required to report annually to NOAA Fisheries regarding progress on implementing the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative elements. NOAA Fisheries will determine, in coordination with FEMA, if some alternative actions or additional changes in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative elements are needed to avoid risk and adverse modification of critical habitat. Effect of Biological Opinion on NFIP Communities The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative element that most significantly impacts local jurisdictions is Element 3: Floodplain Management Criteria. Under that element, FEMA must modify its floodplain management criteria as soon as possible to require NFIP communities to do the following: • Carry out at least one of the following measures: 1) Allow no development in the riparian buffer zone, identified as the greater of the channel migration zone plus a 50 -foot buffer, the riparian buffer width specified by stream type, or the floodway. OR 2) Demonstrate to FEMA that proposed riparian buffer zone development does not adversely affect salmon habitat needs. • In addition to either 1 or 2 above, carry out at least one of the following measures: 1) Prohibit development in the 100 -year flood floodplain. OR 2) Avoid, rectify or compensate for any loss of floodplain storage and fish habitat from development in the 100 -year floodplain outside the riparian buffer zone. Any development allowed must use low impact development methods to minimize or avoid stormwater effects. Any indirect adverse effects must be mitigated. OR 3) Mitigate adverse effects on fish or their habitats from structural improvements or repairs resulting in greater than 10- percent increase in structure footprint. Local Response to Biological Opinion More than 120 communities in the Puget Sound region are affected by FEMA's response to the biological opinion. These communities have been divided into three tiers: • Tier One communities, which include King County, must restore fish populations to a low extinction risk status because their contribution to the abundance, diversity, spatial structure and productivity of the evolutionary significant unit or distinct population segment is critical. 11 -6 ACT.A Page 176 of 869 FLOOD • Tier Two communities may have traits that are important to evolutionary significant unit or distinct population segment viability, but their contribution is less critical. • All other Puget Sound NFIP communities are in Tier Three. FEMA has identified three options for NFIP communities to document compliance with the biological opinion: • Option 1 —Adopt the model ordinance developed by FEMA. • Option 2— Complete a FEMA - developed checklist to document that local regulations and best available science will reduce risk to a level that may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the listed species. • Option 3— Perform a case -by -case habitat assessment for development within the mapped 100 -year floodplain. King County selected Option 2 by preparing a programmatic habitat assessment to demonstrate its compliance with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative elements. This document provides a broad description of salmonid habitat within main stem rivers, streams and lakes, along saltwater shorelines, and in the associated 100 -year floodplains. The document identifies the Endangered Species Act- or Magnuson- Stevens Act -listed salmonid species that occupy these areas, and estimates the probable biological effects resulting from development after implementing all of King County's regulatory and non - regulatory programs that are aimed at protecting and restoring these habitats. The assessment was performed at the programmatic level following guidance from FEMA's Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation: Draft Regional Guidance (FEMA 2011). Using NOAA Fisheries' matrix of pathways and indicators to summarize the environmental parameters affecting Endangered Species Act - listed salmonids, King County assessed current conditions of all the indicators as either "not properly functioning" or "at risk" given the legacy of past land uses. King County does not anticipate additional degradation of any of these pathways and indicators; instead, they are likely on an improving trajectory due to a combined effort of regulations and non - regulatory protection and restoration actions. However, it will likely take years or decades for conditions to change to the point of being considered "restored" under NOAA Fisheries criteria. As a result, King County conservatively anticipates that the conditions are expected to be maintained. Consequently, although the biological opinion establishes a take exemption of 44.16 acres per year for King County, the assessment is that take will not occur, although there may be some minor changes in land use based on development potential in the floodplain. Take, as defined by the Endangered Species Act, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Development in unincorporated King County is subject to a range of recently updated shoreline, critical area, clearing and grading, and stormwater regulations, all of which were developed through substantial use of best available science as required under the Washington State Shorelines and Growth Management Acts. Furthermore, as noted in the biological opinion, the County's floodplain regulations exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP. Taken together with non- floodplain regulations and a wide range of King County programmatic actions —such as the transfer of development rights program, open space acquisitions, ecological restoration projects, and low density zoning —the floodplain regulations "minimize the effects of floodplain development on fish habitat and habitat forming processes" (NOAA Fisheries, 2008). The programmatic habitat assessment and evaluation of potential future development impacts confirms NOAA Fisheries' conclusion and further demonstrates that future development impacts may affect but are not likely to adversely affect protected species in King County's watersheds. 11 -7 ACT.A Page 177 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 11.1.5 Protection of the Floodplain Environment Protection of biological resources within floodplains is important to King County. Through comprehensive planning, critical areas ordinances, open space planning, participation in regional planning initiatives such as the Puget Sound Partnership, proactive land use regulations, and property acquisitions that have identified critical habitat to be preserved, King County established a diverse inventory of preserve areas that maintain the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain. These efforts have resulted in a floodplain that is predominantly free of high- density development. Key parks and preserve areas that promote the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains within the planning area are described in the following sections. Green River Natural Resources Area The 922 -acre Green River Natural Area extends slightly north from the edge of the Enumclaw Plateau. It is about 7 miles east of Auburn along State Route 164 and roughly 6 miles northwest of Enumclaw. The natural area consists of the former Metzler, O'Grady and Green River Waterway Parks, all adjacent to the Green River. The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks acquired the parcels between 1973 and 2003 with funds from a variety of sources. Steep valley walls and a broad valley floor combine to create rich mosaics of plant communities that characterize the natural area. Mixed forest and deciduous upland forests cover much of the valley wall, with several forested and scrub -shrub wetlands nestled in the benches. Gallery cottonwood forests, deciduous forests, meadows (old pasture /agricultural fields), and forested, scrub - shrub, and emergent wetlands are common on the valley bottom. Native plant installation and invasive plant control enhancement efforts have occurred, along with streambed restoration projects focused on improving salmonid habitat. Several of these wetlands form the headwaters of short tributaries to the Green River. The lower reaches of the wall -based streams in this area are used for spawning by coho and chum and for rearing by chinook, coho, chum and winter steelhead. Cutthroat trout have also been reported. Visitors to Green River Natural Area engage in activities such as walking, bicycling, nature observation and horseback riding, as well as fishing and river running activities such as rafting, tubing and kayaking. The O'Grady public access point is 500 feet north of the intersection of SE 373rd Street and 188th Avenue SE, Auburn, and the Metzler public access point is via a gravel road on the south side of SE Green Valley Road 2 miles west of its intersection with 218th Avenue. Other sections of the natural area have little use due to limited access. The site is managed for the protection of its ecological value. Public access that does not harm the ecological value of the site is accommodated. Griffin Creek Natural Area The Griffin Creek Natural Area covers about 46 acres of forestland on non - contiguous parcels between Carnation and Fall City. These sites are adjacent to the Carnation -Fall City Road (State Highway 203) and the Snoqualmie Valley Regional Trail. Griffin Creek, a King County Class I stream system, provides significant habitat for a number of salmonids including coho and steelhead, as well as some of the most concentrated coho spawning densities in the Snoqualmie River system. Griffin Creek Natural Area also provides low- impact passive recreation, interpretive and educational opportunities. The northern parcel, over 27 acres of forest and former pasture lands, is bisected by the Snoqualmie Valley Regional Trail and is directly adjacent to the Archdiocese of Seattle's Camp Don Bosco. This parcel's proximity to the creek, forest lands, and regional trail will provide excellent opportunities for habitat protection as well as for continued low- impact passive recreation. The 19 -acre southern group of small holdings is roughly three - quarters of a mile upstream, isolated and undeveloped. 11 -8 ACT.A Page 178 of 869 FLOOD Significant resources at Griffin Creek include: • Griffin Creek, a King County Class I stream system, which provides significant habitat for a number of salmonids including coho and steelhead as well as some of the most concentrated coho spawning densities in the Snoqualmie River system. • Habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, including native amphibians. • Beaver ponds in the creek's main stem. • Opportunities for the restoration of natural floodplain features as well as enhancement of in- stream and riparian habitats. • Natural terraced topography that provides varied levels of public access and potential for restoration. • Passive recreational, interpretive and educational opportunities adjacent to the Snoqualmie Valley Trail. Mouth of Taylor Reach Natural Area Mouth of Taylor Reach Natural Area consists of nearly 8 acres of open space at the mouth of Taylor Creek in unincorporated King County, approximately 5 miles southeast of Renton and 1.5 miles north of Maple Valley. The properties were acquired as part of the Cedar River Legacy program to protect and restore habitat. The primary restoration goal of the Mouth of Taylor Reach Natural Area is to establish a better connection between the channel and the floodplain. The Lower Cedar River Basin Plan, the Flood Hazard Reduction Plan, and the Water Resource Inventory Area 8 Draft Plan Framework and Preliminary Actions List contain a series of recommendations for levee setback and habitat restoration at or near the site. More in -depth analysis of historical river conditions, hydraulics and hydrology will be needed to determine the best approach for improving the channel - floodplain connection. Although parking is constrained (there is no parking area, but parking may occur along the road shoulders), certain parts of the site are appropriate for low- impact passive recreation such as walking or nature observation. The primary area for use is the upland area off Maxwell Road SE. Wetlands and backwater areas that run north -south on the property limit access to the Getchman levee, which runs along the Cedar River on the southern parcels. Dense shrub vegetation may limit access on portions of the site, in particular to the northern parcels on Maxwell Road and on SE 197th Place, where there are no trails through the vegetation into the parcels. Big Bend and Landsburg Reach Natural Areas Big Bend and Landsburg Reach Natural Areas are both located in the Landsburg Reach of the Cedar River, from River Mile 19.6 to River Mile 21.2. Big Bend consists of three parcels (96 acres) and Landsburg Reach Natural Area consists of nine parcels (24 acres). The sites are about a mile east of Maple Valley, near the Cedar River Watershed's western boundary at Landsburg Road SE. Portions of the sites are adjacent to the King County Cedar River Regional Trail, as well as to City of Seattle's Cedar River Pipeline Road, which is also used as a trail. The sites span both sides of the Cedar River. The Walsh Lake Diversion Ditch flows through Big Bend Natural Area, and other side channels and valley floor wetlands occur on the natural area. This reach of the Cedar River contains high -bank bluffs noted for their contribution of gravel to the river. The sites support mixed coniferous /deciduous second - growth forest relatively mature in age, along with stands predominated by coniferous, deciduous, or wetland vegetation. Invasive vegetation is present particularly along disturbed portions of the Cedar River channel. 11 -9 ACT.A Page 179 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians traveling the Cedar River Trail pass through Big Bend Natural Area along the regional trail corridor, to or from the trailhead parking a mile east at Landsburg Road SE. There are no other parking areas for these natural areas. The natural area itself (outside the Cedar River Trail) is primarily used by pedestrians and equestrians, who follow the informal trails extending from the Cedar River Trail. The riverfront is also used seasonally by boaters and fishermen. Landsburg Reach Natural Area supports little public use except for trail connections between nearby Danville /Georgetown trails and the Cedar River Pipeline Road. The Backcountry Horsemen and the Friends of Rock Creek Valley are key community partners at these sites, contributing significant time and energy to observing site and trail conditions, picking up litter, and other activities related to trails at the site. Carnation Marsh Natural Area The Carnation Marsh Natural Area is a 67 -acre portion of the 190 -acre Carnation Marsh wetland system along the Snoqualmie River. In 1992, King County received funds from an Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account grant to purchase the natural area. Carnation Marsh is rated as a Class 1 wetland in the King County Wetland Inventory. The marsh has direct hydrologic connection to the Snoqualmie River and provides significant storage for floodwaters. It is characterized by an abundance of large woody debris; a high diversity of woody vegetation, including mature trees and snags; and a complex hydrology supplied by valley floor springs, tributaries and seeps draining the west valley wall. Carnation Marsh is environmentally significant for a multitude of plant and animal species that use it for all or part of their life cycles. Carnation Marsh is 30 miles east of Seattle near the town of Carnation. The public can access this natural area for passive recreation and educational use via Highway 203 at West Snoqualmie Valley Rd. NE and NE 8th Street. Ricardi Reach, Cedar Grove, and Jones Reach Natural Areas Ricardi Reach Natural Area, Cedar Grove Natural Area, and Jones Reach Natural Area contain adjacent properties along the Cedar River. These natural areas are along the Ricardi and Jones Reaches of the Lower Cedar River. The sites are about 1.5 miles east of Renton's urban growth boundary and are bounded by the Cedar River Trail and SR 169 to the south. These three natural areas contain nearly 1.25 miles of contiguous forested habitat along the Cedar River. The riparian forest and associated wetlands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife and bird species. Ricardi Reach Natural Area is 7.45 acres and consists of three contiguous parcels on the left bank (facing downstream) of the Cedar River between RM 7.7 and RM 7.4. The site is bounded by the Cedar River Trail to the south and the Cedar River to the north. A mobile home park lies just west of the site. Ricardi Reach Natural Area contains a 6 -acre forested wetland along the Cedar River, including a side channel off the main stem. The site is mostly forested, with a dense shrub understory. Vegetation and wetlands limit access points from the Cedar River Trail, though there may be small informal trails into the site. There is no parking at the site. Cedar Grove Natural Area is a 73 -acre parcel on the left bank of the river between RM 9.3 and RM 7.8, also bounded by the Cedar River Trail to the south and meander bends of the Cedar River to the north. This area contains a 30 -acre forested /scrub -shrub wetland and multiple side channels that convey river flow during times of high water. It contains typical riparian red alder and black cottonwood forest, with a smaller proportion of coniferous trees and a dense shrub understory. There is no parking area (although drivers sometimes park on the highway shoulder at this site, Washington State Department of Transportation typically prohibits parking along state highway shoulders). There is one main access point on the west edge of Cedar Grove Natural Area, where a short informal trail extends from the Cedar River Trail to the water. This trail experiences regular use by pedestrians to view the river. 11 -10 ACT.A Page 180 of 869 FLOOD Jones Reach Natural Area contains just under 3 acres of land on the right bank at RM 8.9. Jones Reach Natural Area is bounded by Jones Road to the northeast and the Cedar River to the southwest. It is on the extremely steep north valley wall along the Cedar River (40- percent slopes in some places). The steep slopes and lack of parking on the road shoulder limit safe public access to this site. Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie Natural Area The Middle Fork Snoqualmie Natural Area consists of almost 150 acres of forested land on four parcels on the south side of the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River, about 9 miles east of North Bend. The natural area is served by only one road, the Lake Dorothy Road, which crosses the western edge of the area then crosses the river at a concrete bridge. The Middle Fork Snoqualmie is a King County Class I river and a shoreline of statewide significance because of its flow. Although anadromous fish do not spawn or rear above Snoqualmie Falls, the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River supports a valuable non - anadromous recreational fishery of cutthroat and rainbow trout, as well as whitefish. Although current use of the entire Middle Fork Snoqualmie Natural Area is minimal, passive recreational users and anglers access the river and small sandy beach via an old road just downstream of the concrete bridge. Significant resources and public access opportunities at the natural area include the following: • The Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River, a King County Class I stream and shoreline of statewide significance. • Granite Creek, a King County Class II, non - anadromous salmonid- bearing stream. • Numerous unnamed perennial creeks that drain to the river and beaver ponds in backwater areas. • Deciduous forested wetlands within the floodplain. • Habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife including bear, elk, cougar, and amphibian species. • High quality, diverse habitat for a variety of resident and migratory bird species. • Good river viewing and relatively easy foot access to the river at a site adjacent to the Lake Dorothy Road bridge. 11.2 HAZARD PROFILE King County's floodplains reflect a geologic past that includes large -scale tectonic and volcanic processes that occurred over tens of millions of years, a period of extensive glaciation that ended about 15,000 years ago (Booth et al. 2003), and at least one major mudflow, the Osceola Mudflow, which occurred roughly 5,700 years ago. The tectonic and volcanic processes created large -scale landforms, such as the Cascade and Olympic Mountain ranges, the Olympic Peninsula, and Puget Sound. The more recent glaciers and mudflows shaped many of the lowland surface features apparent today, including the topography and soils of King County's lowland river valleys. The Osceola Mudflow, which occurred when a flank of Mount Rainier collapsed, released sediment that filled the White River Basin to a depth of 75 feet and eventually settled in the lower Green River valley, converting it from an arm of Puget Sound to the fertile, low- gradient valley that it is today (Booth et al. 2003). These processes and events influenced the length, width, steepness, and sediment load and channel forms of King County's large rivers. The headwaters and middle reaches of rivers in King County are typically steep and dominated by bedrock and boulders. In these areas, floodplains are often narrow or absent. When these rivers eventually reach the Puget Sound lowlands, they flatten out, deposit sediments, and form floodplains that are often broad, ecologically complex, and biologically productive. 11 -11 ACT.A Page 181 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements In the relatively brief time since Euro - American settlement began in the Puget Sound basin, the region's floodplains have been altered extensively by development. Initially these changes were caused by land clearing and installation of drainage systems that supported land uses such as farming, mining, and railroad transportation. Despite the relatively small population of settlers in the region, major changes occurred at an accelerating pace, including conversion of forested and vegetated floodplains to farmland, removal of woody debris from stream and river channels, channelization and bank armoring, rerouting of major rivers, and the construction of dams for water supply, flood control, or hydropower. These activities changed, often radically, the nature of King County rivers. The filling or disconnection of river side channels caused substantial losses of floodwater conveyance and habitat. Bank stabilization, typically using large, angular rock, reduced or eliminated natural riparian structures. Channel roughness was reduced and erosive water velocities increased. Large dams reduced peak flood flows and disrupted the natural flow of sediment and woody debris. Cumulatively, these actions changed many miles of rivers from hydraulically complex, multiple- thread or braided channels to higher- energy, flume -like, single - thread channels, sometimes in a matter of years. More recently, intensive residential, commercial and industrial land uses have come to occupy the downstream portions of King County's river valleys, exacerbating floodplain management conflicts and costs. It is in these flat, lowland floodplain areas that human development and flooding coincide, posing some of the greatest management challenges. 11.2.1 Types of Flood Related Hazards Flooding in the planning area typically occurs after the Cascades experience large, wet and warm weather systems after winter snow pack has accumulated. Thus, most flooding in the planning area occurs during the winter months. During these flood events, river channels can be overwhelmed in hours, although water levels typically build over one to three days. Three types of flooding primarily affect King County: riverine, coastal and urban flooding. Riverine Flooding Riverine flooding is the overbank flooding of rivers and streams. The natural processes of riverine flooding add sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. Flooding in large river systems typically results from large -scale weather systems that generate prolonged rainfall over a wide geographic area, causing flooding in hundreds of smaller streams, which then drain into the major rivers. Shallow area flooding is a special type of riverine flooding. FEMA defines shallow flood hazards as areas that are inundated by the 100 -year flood with flood depths of only 1 to 3 feet. These areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheet flows of water. Two types of flood hazards are generally associated with riverine flooding: • Inundation — Inundation occurs when there is floodwater and debris flowing through an area that is not normally covered by water. Such events cause minor to sever damage, depending on the velocity and depth of flows, the duration of the flood event, the quantity of logs and other debris carried by the flows, and the amount and type of development and personal property along the floodwater's path. • Channel Migration — Channel migration is erosion that results from the wearing away of banks and soils due to flowing water. This erosion, combined with sediment deposition, causes the migration or lateral movement of a river channel across a floodplain. A channel can also move by abrupt change in location, called avulsion, which can shift the channel location a large distance in as short a time as one flood event. 11 -12 ACT.A Page 182 of 869 FLOOD Urban Flooding In urbanized areas of the County, localized or urban flooding not associated with stream overflow can occur where there are no drainage facilities to control flows or when runoff volumes exceed the design capacity of drainage facilities. As land is converted from fields or woodlands to roads and parking lots, it loses its ability to absorb rainfall. Urbanization of a watershed changes the hydrologic systems of the basin. Heavy rainfall collects and flows faster on impervious concrete and asphalt surfaces. The water moves from the clouds to the ground and then into streams at a much faster rate in urban areas. Adding these elements to the hydrological systems can result in floodwaters that rise very rapidly and peak with violent force. During periods of urban flooding, streets can become swiftly moving rivers and basements can fill with water. Storm drains often back up with vegetative debris, causing additional, localized flooding. Urban flooding issues are generally addressed through stormwater management plans at the local level. Coastal Flooding Coastal flooding is the result of storm surges and tides. Maximum flood levels occur when high tides coincide with peak storm surges. The severity of coastal flooding varies with flood depths, wave effects and debris impacts. Wave pounding exerts substantial forces on structures. Frequent pounding by waves may destroy structures not designed to withstand wave forces. Wave action may also destroy structures by erosion that undermines foundations. Debris impacts can greatly increase damage as well (EMD, 2013). 11.2.2 Principal Flooding Sources King County covers six drainage basins and coastal flood hazard areas, as described below. South Fork Skykomish River Basin The South Fork Skykomish River basin lies primarily in the northeast portion of King County and is a part of Water Resource Inventory Area 7. The King County portion of the South Fork Skykomish drains 234 square miles of mountainous terrain within the forest production zone and Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. Major tributaries in King County include the Foss, Tye, Miller, and Beckler Rivers. There are no significant dams or reservoirs on the South Fork Skykomish or its tributaries. With its steep upper basin slopes in high elevation terrain forming the entire watershed, significant runoff can be delivered directly to the flood hazard management corridor along the South Fork Skykomish. Precipitation at these high elevations can generate flooding from rain -on -snow events. Snoqualmie River Basin The Snoqualmie River basin in northeast King County drains to the Snohomish River and ultimately to Puget Sound. It is a part of Water Resource Inventory Area 7. The watershed includes the Tolt River, the Raging River, Tokul Creek, Griffin Creek, Harris Creek, Patterson Creek and other tributaries. With the geologic segmentation of Snoqualmie Falls, the Snoqualmie River basin can be divided into two components: the Upper Snoqualmie and the Lower Snoqualmie. Upper Snoqualmie River There are no significant dams on the upper Snoqualmie River to regulate flood flows. All three forks of the Snoqualmie River are relatively steep and confined through most of their course upstream of the confluence area. The combination of no flood control impoundments and steep, confined upstream channels that open to lower - gradient floodplains creates widespread risk of inundation and channel migration during winter. Rain -on -snow events can have a significant effect in this unregulated system since the headwaters are in the high elevations of the Cascades. 11 -13 ACT.A Page 183 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Lower Snoqualmie River With headwaters and much of the eastern basin in the Cascades and a drainage area of about 600 square miles at Carnation, the lower Snoqualmie River typically responds to winter rains with flood levels that rise and fall slowly and steadily. The low- gradient channel of the lower Snoqualmie meets the relatively steeper and faster - responding Skykomish River in Snohomish County, which can result in Skykomish River backwater influencing the lower Snoqualmie as far upstream as Duvall. Sammamish River Basin The Sammamish River originates at Lake Sammamish and drains a 240 - square -mile watershed that includes 97 square miles of the Lake Sammamish basin, 50 square miles in the Bear Creek basin and 67 square miles of the combined Little Bear, North, and Swamp Creek basins. Water from the Lake Sammamish basin originally flowed into Lake Washington through the old Sammamish Slough, a widely meandering, low- gradient river bordered by extensive wetlands and floodplains. When Lake Washington was lowered by 9 feet after construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1912, property owners along the slough formed a drainage district to straighten and deepen the channel in order to reclaim the adjacent lands for agriculture. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed river channelization in 1966 and constructed a low weir at the outlet of Lake Sammamish. The weir outlet slows release from Lake Sammamish during low -flow periods. During high flows, the weir is completely submerged by the river, acting as an uncontrolled spillway. The project was designed to pass approximately a 40 -year springtime flood —equivalent to a 10 -year winter storm —over the weir without the water surface elevation in Lake Sammamish exceeding 29.0 feet. The project has significantly reduced the frequency and severity of flooding risks around the lake and adjacent to the river. Cedar River Basin The Cedar River flows west and north from the Cascade Mountains into the south end of Lake Washington. The Cedar River is approximately 36 miles long from its mouth at Lake Washington in the City of Renton to Chester Morse Lake. The hydrology and hydraulics of the Cedar River basin have been substantially altered from natural conditions. The lowest mile of the river was rerouted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1914 in order to provide additional water for operation of the locks between Lake Washington and Puget Sound. The mouth of the Cedar River, which previously drained to the Black River and subsequently the Green River and into Puget Sound, was diverted into Lake Washington through a straightened, dredged channel with rock - stabilized banks. In the upper Cedar River watershed, the City of Seattle operates three dams designed for municipal water supply and hydropower purposes: • The rock -fill, timber - structured Crib Dam was constructed in 1903 and rebuilt as the Overflow Dike in 1987 at the outlet of what is now Chester Morse Lake. • Masonry Dam controls storage capacity in Chester Morse Lake and the outflows used to produce hydroelectric power. The Masonry Dam was not designed or built to serve as a flood control dam, but in addition to its hydropower generation and water supply functions, it has the capacity to store up to 15,000 acre -feet of floodwater. However, flood -prone areas downstream remain vulnerable to severe flood risks. • Eleven miles farther downstream is the Landsburg Diversion, constructed in 1899, which diverts municipal and industrial water supply for the City of Seattle. Green River Basin The Green/Duwamish River is a 93 -mile long river system that originates in the Cascade Mountains at an approximate elevation of 4,500 feet and is entirely within King County. The headwaters are in the vicinity of Blowout Mountain and Snowshoe Butte, about 30 miles northeast of Mount Rainier. The river basin is 11 -14 ACT.A Page 184 of 869 FLOOD part of Water Resource Inventory Area 9. The river flows through several cities, including Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila and Seattle. The basin is divided into four subbasins: the upper watershed above Howard Hanson Dam; the middle Green; the lower Green; and the Duwamish estuary. The middle Green River runs from the outlet of the Green River Gorge at about River Mile 45 near Flaming Geyser down to Auburn at about River Mile 31. The lower Green River runs from Auburn down to the Duwamish River at River Mile 11. Major structural flood risk reduction features along the Green River include Howard Hanson Dam in the upper watershed and the levee system that lines the riverbanks along much of the lower Green River and portions of the middle Green River. Howard Hanson Dam and the levee system combine to reduce flooding in the lower river to a fraction of its historical magnitude. The dam is designed to store over 100,000 acre -feet, converting large storm flows to a flow at the Auburn flow gage equivalent to the 2 -year pre -dam event - 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The capacity of the leveed portion of the river is approximately 12,800 cfs, with approximately 2 feet of freeboard in most locations. Since 1962, dam operations, in combination with the levees, have contained most major river flood events from Auburn downstream to the mouth of the Duwamish River. Prior to construction of the dam, the river exceeded the target 12,000 cfs 15 times between 1932 and 1962. It is estimated that without the dam, the flows on the Green River would have exceeded this flood threshold 17 to 22 times since 1962. White River Basin The White River originates in the glaciers on the northeast face of Mount Rainier. The White River drains an area of about 490 square miles, approximately 30 percent of which lies within King County. The White River flows from its headwaters to the northwest, where it is joined by its major tributaries, the Greenwater River and Boise Creek. It then turns south to join with the Puyallup River in Pierce County, which flows to its outlet in Puget Sound at Commencement Bay. Historically, the bulk of what is now the lower White River flowed northward to the join the Green River near Auburn. By the early 1900s, legal intervention resulted in an Inter - County agreement and permanent diversion of the White River to flow south to the Stuck River and the Puyallup. Mud Mountain Dam is a flood control dam near River Mile 30 that has had a significant effect on flooding in the White River since its completion in 1948. Puget Sound Energy's diversion of flows since 1912 for hydropower generation through Lake Tapps near River Mile 24 lowers the overall White River flow regime, although the effect has been insignificant with regard to flood magnitudes. Above the dam, the entire watershed is largely undeveloped, although it includes some scattered residential and commercial property around the community of Greenwater. The river then flows through the White River canyon, a deep and generally undeveloped valley on the county line, and portions of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Reservation. Development generally is concentrated in the downstream end of the basin, where both industrial and residential land uses are common. With headwaters on Mount Rainier glaciers, the White River experiences flow increases from snowmelt in late summer, but not to a level of flood concern. The primary determinant for flooding in the White River is operation of Mud Mountain Dam. The river basin is part of Water Resource Inventory Area 10. Coastal Flood Hazard Areas Coastal areas are subject to a variety of natural processes that present significant hazards to public safety and property, including storm surge flooding, waves, erosion, rainfall and wind. Coastal flood hazards with potential to impact the sheltered waters of King County include coastal flooding and coastal erosion. 11 -15 ACT.A Page 185 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Changes in sea level and climate change further increase the potential impact of these hazards. Coastal flooding results from high water and wave action produced by storm systems. Storm surges, also referred to as storm tides, can affect a number of beachfront areas in King County. Generally, storm surges are caused by an increase in the usual tide level by a combination of low atmospheric pressure and onshore winds. During a storm surge, water levels and waves may run significantly higher than the predicted tide level, and these higher waters may result in flooding and erosion. Areas of coastline subject to wave attack are referred to as coastal high hazard zones. Factors that affect wave run -up include length of water over which wind blows, sustained wind velocity, coastal water depth, land slope and other coastline features. Much of the coastline along Des Moines is protected by a breakwater that extends north and south along the coast to protect the Des Moines Marina. The area west of this breakwater and the unprotected area north and south of the breakwater have been designated as coastal high hazard zones by FEMA. The unprotected sections of the coastline are subject to waves generated by high winds from a southwest direction across Puget Sound. 11.2.3 Past Events On average, major floods in King County occur every two to five years. In past floods, water depths above grade have exceeded 6 feet in some residential areas. To date, major river flooding in King County has infrequently contributed to injury or loss of life; more typically, it results in property damage. There has been one documented flood - related fatality since 2006. Major flood events in King County have resulted in significant property damage. Table 11 -2 lists severe flood events in King County. The January 1990 event is considered to be the flood of record for most of the county except along the Lower Snoqualmie and Tolt Rivers. 11.2.4 Location Approximately 7.5 percent of the County is located within mapped 100 -year floodplains. Flooding in King County has been documented by gage records, high water marks, damage surveys and personal accounts. This documentation was the basis for the April 19, 2005, Flood Insurance Study that is incorporated in the currently effective FIRMs. The FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data source available for determining flood extent. The 2005 Flood Insurance Study is the sole source of data used in this risk assessment to map the extent and location of the flood hazard, as shown in Figure 11 -2. 11.2.5 Frequency King County has experienced 27 flooding events since 1965 that have resulted in federal disaster declarations and, on average, one episode of minor river flooding each winter. Large, damaging floods typically occur every two to five years. Urban portions of the county annually experience nuisance flooding related to drainage issues. 11.2.6 Severity The principal factors affecting flood damage are flood depth and velocity. The deeper and faster flood flows become, the more damage they can cause. Shallow flooding with high velocities can cause as much damage as deep flooding with slow velocity. This is especially true when a channel migrates over a broad floodplain, redirecting high velocity flows and transporting debris and sediment. Flood severity is often evaluated by examining peak discharges; Table 11 -3 lists peak flows used by FEMA to map the floodplains of King County. 11 -16 ACT.A Page 186 of 869 FLOOD TABLE 11 -2. HISTORY OF FLOOD EVENTS Date Declaration # Type of event Estimated Damage 12/29/64 DR 185 Heavy rains, flooding N/A 03/24/72 DR 328 Heavy rains, flooding N/A 12/13/75 DR 492 Severe storms, flooding N/A 12/10/77 DR 545 Severe storms, mudslides, flooding N/A 12/31/79 DR 612 Storms, high tides, mudslides, flooding N/A 01/16/86 DR 757 Severe storms, flooding $294,117 ($616,128) 11/22/86 DR 784 Severe storms, flooding N/A 01/06/90 DR 852 Flooding, severe storm $5,246, 4110 11/09/90 DR 883 Flooding, severe storm $3,694,824 b 12/20/90 DR 896 High tides, severe storm $477,737b 11/07/95 DR 1079 Storms, high winds, floods $3,031,519b 01/26/96 DR 1100 Severe storms, flooding $4,226,719b 12/26/96 DR 1159 Severe storms, flooding, landslides and mudslides $3,576,309b 03/18/97 DR 1172 Severe storms, flooding, landslides and mudslides $1,266,446b 10/15/03 DR 1499 Severe storms, flooding $863,636 ($1.0 million)a 11/02/06 DR 1671 Severe storms, flooding, landslides and mudslides $5,386,323b 12/14/06 DR 1682 Severe Winter Storm, Landslides, and Mudslides $15,578,717b 12/01/07 DR 1734 Severe storms, flooding, landslides and mudslides $5,123,841b 12/12/08 DR 1825 Washington Severe Winter Storm and Record and Near $7,606,550b Record Snow 02/27/09 DR 1817 Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides and mudslides $16,444,775 01 /11 /11 DR 1963 Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides and mudslides N/A 01/14/12 DR 4056 Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides and mudslides N/A a. Data obtained from Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) b. Information obtained from the 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan- Update and Progress report N/A = Information is not available ACT.A 11 -17 Page 187 of 869 FEMA Flood Hazard Areas R;uno3 uelay3 W w 500 -Year Flood Hazard Area 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area R;uno3 , uno3 despN o N a U) N N C � (6 8 u o o U m E E U Y U O N U 8 E O 0 N U) a N � t - O N 'Y N 2 Q2 X N o N 2 m 8' o O N � o o= 1 0 n _ O '6 N C Y E � +• 3 4 O U 8' a u U N N O 6,, 3 N O-6 Y � 3 'Y N N O) C N Uo ) C O U O N _ 4 N ss NFU U 0) a C 2 13 o 0 O . E — 'U � Q U) N N E 0 T O �s T Q N U CO O N Uo� 0,s s y o os w o.? _ E E U Ty O C O O m 6 m =YE n� o Ew N j E o co - Y o E O U a C C N O U w m oE � - T ESQ O O N = n E N t = Base Map Data Faye - -168 vHS99 FLOOD TABLE 11 -3. KING COUNTY RIVER BASIN STREAM FLOW CHARACTERISTICS USGS River Station Mile Drainage Area (square miles) 100 -Year Flow (cfs) Flood of Record Date; Peak Flow (cfs) South Fork Skykomish River Gold Bar 12134500 43.0 535 119,300 11/6/2006; 129,000 Snoqualmie River Basin North Fork 12142000 9.2 64.0 18,000 1/7/09; 17,100d Middle Fork 12141300 55.6 154.0 37,100 11/6/2006; 31,700 South Fork 12143400 17.3 41.6 11,000 11/6/2006; 8,910 Snoqualmie @Snoqualmie. 12144500 40.0 375 79,100 11/24/1990; 78,800 Snoqualmie @ Carnation 12149000 23 603.0 91,800 1/8/09; 83,400 Raging @ Fall City 12145500 2.75 30.6 6,970 11/24/1990; 6,220 North Fork Tolt 12147500 11.7 39.9 11,200 12/15/1959; 9,560 South Fork Tolt 12148000 6.8 19.7 8,720 12/15/1959; 6,500 Tolt @ Carnation 12148500 8.7 81.4 18,800 1/8/09; 17,900 Sammamish River Basin Sammamish River @ Mouth 12122000 5.6 99.6 4,300 1/1/1997; 2,870 Issaquah Creek @ Mouth 12121600 1.2 55.6 3,960 01/09/1990; 3,200 Cedar River basin Cedar Falls 12116500 33.2 84.2 8,030 11/24/1990; 12,300 Landsburg 12117500 23.4 121.0 10,300 11/18/1911; 14,200 Renton 12119000 1.6 184.0 12,000 11/24/1990; 10,600 Green River Basin Howard Hanson Dam 12105900 63.8 221.0 12,000a 12/21/1960; 12,200 (pre -dam) Auburn 12113000 32.0 399.0 12,000a 11/23/1959; 28,100 (pre -dam) Tukwila 12113350 NA 440.0 12,400 01/31/1965; 12,100 White River Basin Buckley 12098500 27.9 401.0 12,000b 12/01/1933; 28,000 (pre -dam) Auburn 12100496 6.30 464.0 15,500 02/10/1996; 15,000 Greenwater 12097500 1.10 73.5 6,7870 12/02/1977; 10,500 a. Flows regulated by Howard Hanson Dam b. Maximum release from Mud Mountain Dam c. Provisional USGS data ACT.A 11 -19 Page 189 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 11.2.7 Warning Time Due to the sequential pattern of meteorological conditions needed to cause serious flooding, it is unusual for a flood to occur without warning. Warning times for floods can be between 24 and 48 hours. Flash flooding can be less predictable, but potential hazard areas can be warned in advanced of potential flash flooding danger. Due to the extended precipitation needed to cause serious flooding, it is unusual for a flood to occur without warning. King County's flood - warning program warns of impending flooding on major rivers so residents and agencies can prepare before serious flooding occurs. In most locations, the warning system provides at least 2 hours of lead -time before floodwaters reach damaging levels. King County has an extensive flood warning capability that targets the six major river basins within the County, as described below. The Flood Warning Center The Flood Warning Center is the center of operations for the Flood Warning Program during flood events. The flood emergency director activates the Flood Warning Center whenever a river reaches Phase II of the four -phase flow -based flood warning alert system illustrated in Figure 11 -3. At Phase III or greater, or at the flood emergency director's discretion, field inspection teams are sent out by the Flood Warning Center to monitor flood protection infrastructure and investigate potential flood risks. Flood Alert System Early flood warning notifications are critical in providing additional time for property owners, floodplain occupants and those responsible for their safety to respond to flood threats. The Flood Alert System was implemented to quickly and simultaneously send voice calls, text messages and emails to anyone who chooses to receive notifications. Subscribers can sign up for free flood alerts on a King County website or by phone. Messages are sent by King County staff using a software service when reliable river data is received that meets or exceeds Phase II, III and IV thresholds on individual rivers. Additionally, messages may be sent with flood - related emergency information. The following is an example of a flood alert message: "The Snoqualmie River has reached flood phase 2. Minor flooding is expected in low -lying areas. More information at www.kingcounty.gov /flood or 1- 800 - 768 - 7932" Subscribers have options to receive alerts regarding six different river systems using three separate phase thresholds on multiple phone, text and email contacts. Other agencies offer emergency notifications, including the U.S. Geological Survey. King County's flood alert website provides information on various notification systems to assist the public in selecting the services that are best suited to their needs. Multiple public outreach efforts are ongoing to encourage the public to sign -up for flood alerts. Currently the system has over 5,000 subscribers. Coordination With Other Agencies The Flood Warning Center works closely with The King County Office of Emergency Management, the Road Services Division, local jurisdictions and other agencies to obtain and share up -to -date information about major flood risks, road closures, evacuations and other emergency services. Coordination also occurs with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Seattle Public Utilities regarding dam operations. 11 -20 ACT.A Page 190 of 869 FLOOD To It RI r r lirrrlglu lml I artu h ry le Cedar It r 113noth River (r r Chime* Oure + 460 Oear keel) fluldsbur > Mtn) eft 4,080 6'5Q ft 1 500 tit 11 River r I0u4,4r;) 5,500 eh; iuluer Wf541 a1Na vri e; gads 1wala) d5QO cf 12,1 a eft, 750 ft 2500 ' r3 1,00 cf ,, 8500 eft 5,000 dt 210,0 050 ft 4,200 eft 9,,000 cfs. II a 8,5 rig 38,0 m ^m th 9.0Q ft , 500 rf p ,00 Q eft II RECENT LARGE FIL OD PEAKS `elk RI r Inaglualnruie I raaugmuauh Creek Cedar River Green River White River (mar Carder lll( l uurll el Ilia i4a'k (emar Marl l[, adsl r p (hem) ilierrar II:u Nu e I 1 „400 els 48,280 cf 11129'195 p 1141 II I,800 at 535 12i 1 5179' 111610 3,100 c 54,1 IIIQ cr't 1,11409 930 ft 10,800 tit 11,500 t 14,1100 °rfn 1 1)24090 111201190 1I1241' 9M73 181' 1113 01a95 1 18409 /00 de I 1 18109 wed *II Corps data on flow releases •fi rmm Mud Mountain L z rra. 11 1 106 19191 IfFM PT 1,191901' 13.200 efis 211195 11;709 enrSiJ 11111 nand M109. 114 I U,kI 1'J I M !;;141:1, Figure 11 -3. King County Flood Warning Phase Threshold and Flood Peak Summary The King County Flood Warning Center has coordinated closely with the National Weather Service for many decades. The National Weather Service Seattle Forecast Office provides weather observations and forecasts for western Washington and issues warnings for many types of hazards, including floods, severe weather, windstorms, snowstorms and fire conditions. The National Weather Service issues a statement when heavy rain is expected to cause flooding or aggravate existing flood conditions. These statements are generally issued two to three days before the potential event. Flood watches for specific areas and rivers are issued one to two days before an event. Flood warnings are issued up to one day in advance when flooding is imminent. This applies to a specific river forecast point that is expected to exceed a flood stage based on predictive computer river modeling output, including dam operation information, and to other streams and urban areas. For large storms and major floods, the National Weather Service conducts direct Internet briefings and uses follow -up phone calls to King County. National Weather Service statements and information are communicated to other government agencies and the public via NOAA Weather Radio, radio and television, the Internet, telephone recordings and media outlets. ACT.A 11 -21 Page 191 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 11.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS The main secondary hazard for flooding is bank erosion, which in some cases can be more harmful than actual flooding. This is especially true in the upper courses of rivers with steep gradients, where floodwaters may pass quickly and without much damage, but scour the banks, edging properties closer to the floodplain or causing them to fall in. Flooding is also responsible for hazards such as landslides when high flows over - saturate soils on steep slopes, causing them to fail. Hazardous materials spills are also a secondary hazard of flooding if storage tanks rupture and spill into streams, rivers or storm sewers. 11.4 EXPOSURE The Level 2 Hazus -MH protocol was used to assess the risk and vulnerability to flooding in the planning area. The model used census data at the block level and FEMA floodplain data, which has a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Where possible, the Hazus -MH default data was enhanced using local GIS data from county, state and federal sources. 11.4.1 Population Population counts of those living in the floodplain in the planning area were generated by analyzing census blocks that intersect with the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplains identified on FIRMs. Census blocks do not follow the boundaries of the floodplain. Therefore, the methodology used to generate these estimates counted census block groups whose centers are in the floodplain or where the majority of the population most likely lives in or near the floodplain. Hazus -MH estimated the number of buildings within the floodplain in each block, and then estimated the total population by multiplying the number of residential structures by the average King County household size of 2.39 persons per household. Using this approach, it was estimated that the exposed population for the entire county is 18,197 within the 100 -year floodplain (0.90 percent of the total county population) and 22,857 within the 500 -year floodplain (1.13 percent of the total). For unincorporated portions of the county, it is estimated that the exposed population is 1,946 within the 100 -year floodplain (0.77 percent of the total unincorporated county population) and 2,140 within the 500 -year floodplain (0.85 percent of the total). 11.4.2 Property Structures in the Floodplain Table 11 -4 and Table 11 -5 summarize the total area and number of structures in the floodplain by municipality. The Hazus -MH model determined that there are 6,469 structures within the 100 -year floodplain and 10,235 structures within the 500 -year floodplain. In the 100 -year floodplain, about 32 percent of these structures are in unincorporated areas. Seventy -five percent are residential, and the balance are commercial, industrial or agricultural. Exposed Value Table 11 -6 and Table 11 -7 summarize the estimated value of exposed buildings in the planning area. This methodology estimated $11.07 billion worth of building- and - contents exposed to the 100 -year flood, representing 1.98 percent of the total assessed value of the planning area, and $19.8 billion worth of building - and - contents exposed to the 500 -year flood, representing 3.54 percent of the total. 11 -22 ACT.A Page 192 of 869 FLOOD TABLE 11-4. AREA AND STRUCTURES IN THE 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN Area in Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain (Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 1,472 41 85 7 0 0 0 2 135 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellevue 1,408 128 22 1 0 0 0 0 151 Black Diamond 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bothell 563 12 52 5 0 0 0 1 70 Burien 119 80 0 0 0 1 0 0 81 Carnation 236 64 3 1 0 0 0 1 69 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Covington 213 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 26 Des Moines 239 36 2 0 0 0 0 2 40 Duvall 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enumclaw 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Way 136 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 484 221 40 13 0 1 0 1 276 Kenmore 205 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 Kent 3,611 187 463 40 13 1 6 0 710 Kirkland 95 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lake Forest Park 14 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 Maple Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 79 26 3 1 0 0 0 0 30 Newcastle 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 87 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 North Bend 1,194 588 127 15 0 4 9 12 755 Pacific 193 137 2 0 0 1 0 0 140 Redmond 1,361 11 62 3 0 0 0 0 76 Renton 1,074 55 75 5 0 0 1 0 136 Sammamish 2,208 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 SeaTac 75 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 Seattle 29,234 295 83 80 0 0 8 0 466 Shoreline 49 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Skykomish 110 109 12 0 0 1 4 2 128 Snoqualmie 2,044 547 64 6 1 7 3 13 641 Tukwila 661 6 25 1 0 0 0 0 32 Woodinville 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 83,137 2,024 36 7 2 0 3 0 2,072 Total 130,482 4,859 1,164 185 16 16 34 34 6,308 ACT.A 11 -23 Page 193 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 11 -5. AREA AND STRUCTURES IN THE 500 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN Area in Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain (Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 1,959 125 146 23 0 0 0 2 296 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellevue 1,445 127 22 1 0 0 0 0 150 Black Diamond 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bothell 582 14 52 5 0 0 0 1 72 Burien 159 227 0 0 0 1 0 0 228 Carnation 490 463 42 9 0 7 3 6 530 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Covington 214 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 26 Des Moines 248 47 2 0 0 0 0 2 51 Duvall 98 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Enumclaw 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Way 159 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 862 609 190 19 1 4 5 8 836 Kenmore 229 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Kent 5,065 331 793 79 15 2 8 4 1,232 Kirkland 95 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lake Forest Park 14 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 Maple Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 99 33 4 1 0 0 0 0 38 Newcastle 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 90 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 North Bend 1,283 588 130 15 0 4 9 12 758 Pacific 281 317 4 0 0 1 0 0 322 Redmond 1,508 11 90 9 0 1 3 0 114 Renton 2,101 913 243 28 0 5 4 3 1,196 Sammamish 2,208 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 SeaTac 82 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 Seattle 29,440 589 106 80 0 0 10 0 785 Shoreline 53 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Skykomish 111 110 12 0 0 1 4 2 129 Snoqualmie 2,079 548 64 6 1 7 3 13 642 Tukwila 686 6 30 1 0 0 0 0 37 Woodinville 79 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 85,928 2,265 41 8 6 0 4 1 2,325 Total 137,887 7,640 1,983 285 23 33 53 54 10,071 11 -24 ACT.A Page 194 of 869 FLOOD TABLE 11 -6. VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN Value Exposed % of Total Structure Contents Total Assessed Value Algona $0 $0 $0 0.00% Auburn $411,707,349 $406,167,669 $817,875,017 4.55% Beaux Arts $0 $0 $0 0.00% Bellevue $177,903,677 $138,806,964 $316,710,641 0.64% Black Diamond $0 $0 $0 0.00% Bothell $362,519,629 $375,933,302 $738,452,931 14.52% Burien $20,878,299 $12,685,111 $33,563,410 0.37% Carnation $28,574,984 $21,276,841 $49,851,825 15.18% Clyde Hill $0 $0 $0 0.00% Covington $6,209,083 $4,169,400 $10,378,483 0.36% Des Moines $42,115,261 $22,133,285 $64,248,546 1.12% Duvall $0 $0 $0 0.00% Enumclaw $0 $0 $0 0.00% Federal Way $4,502,609 $2,251,305 $6,753,914 0.04% Hunts Point $0 $0 $0 0.00% Issaquah $162,812,100 $131,248,996 $294,061,096 3.07% Kenmore $8,179,446 $4,089,723 $12,269,169 0.31% Kent $2,458,097,904 $2,397,209,118 $4,855,307,022 14.63% Kirkland $9,403,641 $9,403,641 $18,807,282 0.08% Lake Forest Park $8,410,610 $4,441,048 $12,851,658 0.58% Maple Valley $0 $0 $0 0.00% Medina $0 $0 $0 0.00% Mercer Island $0 $0 $0 0.00% Milton $5,269,700 $2,634,850 $7,904,550 1.40% Newcastle $0 $0 $0 0.00% Normandy Park $5,951,156 $2,975,578 $8,926,734 0.68% North Bend $266,769,190 $209,843,232 $476,612,422 32.79% Pacific $26,210,249 $13,379,670 $39,589,919 4.78% Redmond $257,373,349 $251,016,037 $508,389,386 2.19% Renton $550,250,735 $550,245,491 $1,100,496,226 4.26% Sammamish $44,235,226 $22,117,613 $66,352,839 0.71% SeaTac $509,910 $366,251 $876,161 0.01% Seattle $344,329,867 $318,907,453 $663,237,320 0.31% Shoreline $2,902,641 $1,451,320 $4,353,961 0.04% Skykomish $31,323,663 $23,672,424 $54,996,086 73.59% Snoqualmie $224,779,632 $189,496,963 $414,276,595 18.03% Tukwila $140,044,318 $140,367,907 $280,412,226 2.41% Woodinville $0 $0 $0 0.00% Yarrow Point $0 $0 $0 0.00% Unincorporated $353,718,632 $188,865,256 $542,583,888 1.21% Total $5,954,982,860 $5,445,156,448 $11,400,139,307 2.33% Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 11 -25 Page 195 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 11 -7. VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN 500 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN Value Exposed % of Total Structure Contents Total Assessed Value Algona $0 $0 $0 0.00% Auburn $631,703,751 $620,251,194 $1,251,954,945 10.14% Beaux Arts $0 $0 $0 0.00% Bellevue $178,329,780 $139,020,015 $317,349,796 0.65% Black Diamond $0 $0 $0 0.00% Bothell $362,519,629 $375,933,302 $738,425,931 14.53% Burien $55,207,842 $29,849,882 $85,057,725 0.93% Carnation $125,303,729 $91,359,336 $216,663,065 65.97% Clyde Hill $0 $0 $0 0.00% Covington $6,209,083 $4,169,400 $10,378,483 0.36% Des Moines $44,226,001 $23,188,655 $67,414,656 1.17% Duvall $446,448 $669,672 $1,116,120 0.10% Enumclaw $0 $0 $0 0.00% Federal Way $8,879,160 $4,439,580 $13,318,739 0.07% Hunts Point $0 $0 $0 0.00% Issaquah $573,904,868 $470,754,810 $1,044,659,678 10.90% Kenmore $9,394,053 $4,697,027 $14,091,080 0.35% Kent $3,849,872,069 $3,782,107,671 $7,631,979,740 23.00% Kirkland $9,403,641 $9,403,641 $18,807,282 0.08% Lake Forest Park $8,410,610 $4,441,048 $12,851,658 0.58% Maple Valley $0 $0 $0 0.00% Medina $0 $0 $0 0.00% Mercer Island $0 $0 $0 0.00% Milton $6,422,646 $3,211,323 $9,633,970 2.87% Newcastle $0 $0 $0 0.00% Normandy Park $6,498,278 $3,249,139 $9,747,417 0.75% North Bend $302,642,728 $245,716,770 $548,359,498 37.72% Pacific $57,953,167 $29,676,711 $87,629,878 10.56% Redmond $419,783,605 $413,056,189 $832,839,794 3.58% Renton $1,718,390,761 $1,642,153,577 $3,360,544,338 13.01% Sammamish $44,235,226 $22,117,613 $66,352,839 0.71% SeaTac $581,415 $437,756 $1,019,171 0.01% Seattle $495,555,561 $404,116,690 $899,672,250 0.42% Shoreline $3,412,544 $1,706,272 $5,118,816 0.05% Skykomish $31,440,884 $23,731,034 $55,171,918 73.83% Snoqualmie $225,647,285 $189,930,789 $415,578,074 18.09% Tukwila $165,016,102 $165,339,691 $330,355,794 2.84% Woodinville $3,313,452 $3,170,899 $6,484,352 0.14% Yarrow Point $0 $0 $0 0.00% Unincorporated $408,428,035 $220,674,791 $629,102,825 1.41% Total $9,753,132,353 $8,928,574,477 $18,681,679,832 3.81 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 11 -26 Page 196 of 869 FLOOD Land Use in the Floodplain Some land uses, such as single - family homes, are more vulnerable to flooding than others, such as agricultural land or parks. Table 11 -8 shows the existing land use of parcels in the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplain, including vacant parcels and those in public /open space uses, broken down for the planning area. About 48 percent of the parcels in the 100 -year floodplain are uncategorized uses, which contains many vacant, unimproved parcels and resource lands. These are favorable, lower -risk uses for the floodplain. The precise amount of the floodplain that contains vacant, developable land is not known. This would be valuable information for gauging the future development potential of the floodplain. TABLE 11 -8. PRESENT LAND USE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN 100 -Year Floodplain 500 -Year Floodplain Area % of Area % of Land Use (acres) Total Area (acres) Total Area Agriculture 677 0.6% 677 0.6% Church, Welfare or Religious Service 254 0.2% 276 0.2% Commercial 6,784 6.4% 7528 6.8% Education 505 0.5% 589 0.5% Governmental Services 1,074 1.0% 1155 1.0% Industrial/Manufacturing 2,850 2.7% 3175 2.9% Medical /Dental Services 66 0.1% 108 0.1% Mixed Use Development (Residential & Commercial) 16 0.0% 23 0.0% Mortuary /Cemetery /Crematory 7 0.0% 12 0.0% Nursing Home /Retirement Facility 85 0.1% 104 0.1% Park /Open Space /Golf Course 8,596 8.1% 8,968 8.1% Residential 28,752 27.0% 29,945 27.1% Terminal or Marina 3,129 2.9% 3,297 3.0% Utility /Easement/Right of Way 2,212 2.1% 2,346 2.1% Water /Tideland /Wetland 376 0.4% 384 0.3% Uncategorized (includes vacant and resource lands) 50,943 47.9% 52,035 47.0% Total 106,326 100% 110,622 100% Source: Summarized from King, Pierce and Snohomish County parcel data. Acreage covers only mapped parcels and thus excludes many rights of way and major water features. 11.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities are buildings and infrastructure that must remain operable during hazard events to maintain essential services. Critical facilities and infrastructure in the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplains of the planning area are summarized in Table 11 -9 through Table 11 -12. Details are provided in the following sections. ACT.A 11 -27 Page 197 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 11 -9. CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN Medical & Other Health Government Protective Hazardous Critical Services Function Function Schools Materials Function Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellevue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black Diamond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bothell 4 0 0 1 0 1 6 Burien 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carnation 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Covington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Des Moines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duvall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enumclaw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Kenmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent 8 0 3 0 7 2 20 Kirkland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Forest Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maple Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newcastle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Bend 7 0 2 2 0 2 13 Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redmond 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 Renton 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 Sammamish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SeaTac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seattle 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 Shoreline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skykomish 0 1 2 1 0 1 5 Snoqualmie 1 0 0 8 0 1 10 Tukwila 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodinville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 25 1 8 14 12 11 71 ACT.A 11 -28 Page 198 of 869 FLOOD TABLE 11 -10. CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE 500 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN Medical & Other Health Government Protective Hazardous Critical Services Function Function Schools Materials Function Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellevue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black Diamond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bothell 4 0 0 1 0 1 6 Burien 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carnation 3 0 1 3 0 0 7 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Covington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Des Moines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duvall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enumclaw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 4 0 2 2 1 3 12 Kenmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent 13 0 3 2 13 2 33 Kirkland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Forest Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maple Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newcastle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Bend 7 0 2 2 0 2 13 Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redmond 3 1 1 2 3 4 14 Renton 3 0 0 4 0 2 9 Sammamish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SeaTac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seattle 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 Shoreline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skykomish 0 1 2 1 0 1 5 Snoqualmie 1 0 0 8 0 1 10 Tukwila 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodinville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 38 2 12 25 25 17 119 ACT.A 11 -29 Page 199 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 11 -11. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN Transporta Water Wastewate Communic Bridges tion Supply r Power ations Dams Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellevue 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Black Diamond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bothell 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Burien 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carnation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Covington 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 Des Moines 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Duvall 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Enumclaw 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Federal Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Kenmore 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Kent 10 2 0 0 1 0 0 13 Kirkland 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lake Forest Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maple Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newcastle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Bend 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 9 Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redmond 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 Renton 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Sammamish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SeaTac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seattle 11 54 0 1 0 0 0 66 Shoreline 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Skykomish 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 Snoqualmie 5 0 1 5 2 0 1 14 Tukwila 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Woodinville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 97 1 3 1 1 2 1 106 Total 165 59 9 15 5 2 2 257 ACT.A 11 -30 Page 200 of 869 FLOOD TABLE 11 -12. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN 500 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN Transportati Water Bridges on Supply Wastewater Power Communications Dams Total Algona 0 0 0 0 Auburn 5 0 0 3 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 0 0 Bellevue 2 0 0 0 Black Diamond 0 0 0 0 Bothell 5 0 0 0 Burien 0 0 0 1 Carnation 0 0 0 0 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 Covington 5 0 0 1 Des Moines 3 0 0 3 Duvall 0 0 0 1 Enumclaw 0 0 0 1 Federal Way 0 0 0 0 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 4 0 0 1 Kenmore 2 0 0 0 Kent 17 2 0 0 Kirkland 1 0 0 0 Lake Forest Park 0 0 0 0 Maple Valley 0 0 0 0 Medina 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 Milton 0 0 0 0 Newcastle 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 0 0 0 0 North Bend 7 0 1 1 Pacific 0 0 1 Redmond 3 0 3 0 Renton 7 2 0 0 Sammamish 0 0 0 0 SeaTac 0 0 0 0 Seattle 11 68 0 3 Shoreline 1 0 0 0 Skykomish 2 1 1 0 Snoqualmie 5 0 2 6 Tukwila 2 1 0 0 Woodinville 0 0 0 0 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 97 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 O 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 21 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 O 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 O 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 1 0 0 83 O 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 2 0 1 16 0 0 0 3 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 106 Total 179 75 10 23 11 2 2 302 ACT.A 11 -31 Page 201 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Tier II Facilities Tier II facilities are those that use or store materials that can harm the environment if damaged by a flood. The planning area includes 12 businesses in the 100 -year floodplain and 25 businesses in the 500 -year floodplain that report having Tier II hazardous materials. During a flood event, containers holding these materials can rupture and leak into the surrounding area, having a disastrous effect on the environment as well as residents. Utilities and Infrastructure Flood damage to infrastructure presents numerous risks. Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can isolate residents and can prevent access throughout the county, including for emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by floods or debris also can cause isolation. Floodwaters can back up drainage systems, causing localized flooding. Culverts can be blocked by debris from flood events, also causing localized urban flooding. Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies, causing contamination. Sewer systems can be backed up, causing waste to spill into homes, neighborhoods, rivers and streams. Underground utilities can also be damaged. Dikes can fail or be overtopped, inundating the land that they protect. Roads and Bridges The following major roads pass through the 100 -year floodplain and thus are exposed to flooding: • Interstate 405 • State Road 167 • State Road 518 • Interstate 5 • State Road 99 • State Road 520 • Interstate 90 • State Road 18 • State Road 522 Some of these roads are built above the flood level, and others function as levees to prevent flooding. Still, in severe flood events these roads can be blocked or damaged, preventing access to some areas. Flooding can affect bridges, which provide the only ingress and egress to some neighborhoods. There are 165 bridges in or over the 100 -year floodplain and 179 bridges in or over the 500 -year floodplain. Levees King County's flood protection system includes more than 119 miles of levees that protect lives and more than $7 billion in economic infrastructure in the county's 106,000 acres of floodplain. Most of these levees are operated and maintained by the King County Flood Control District. A detailed inventory of these facilities is provided in the 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update. There are also levees on many smaller rivers, streams and creeks that protect small areas of land. Many of the levees are older and were built under earlier flood management goals. Many of these older levees are exposed to scouring and failure due to old age and construction methods. Existing levees in King County provide a highly variable level of service or level of protection. Flood flows contained by levees may have a recurrence interval ranging from 10 years to 100 years. 11.4.4 Environment Flooding is a natural event, and floodplains provide many natural and beneficial functions. Nonetheless, with human development factored in, flooding can impact the environment in negative ways. Migrating fish can wash into roads or over dikes into flooded fields, with no possibility of escape. Pollution from roads, such as oil, and hazardous materials can wash into rivers and streams. During floods, these can settle onto normally dry soils, polluting them for agricultural uses. Human development such as bridge abutments and levees, and logjams from timber harvesting can increase stream bank erosion, causing rivers and streams to migrate into non - natural courses. 11 -32 ACT.A Page 202 of 869 FLOOD Many species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish live in King County in plant communities that are dependent upon streams, wetlands and floodplains. Changes in hydrologic conditions can result in a change in the plant community. Wildlife and fish are impacted when plant communities are eliminated or fundamentally altered to reduce habitat. Wildlife populations are limited by shelter, space, food and water. Since water supply is a major limiting factor for many animals, riparian communities are of special importance. Riparian areas are the zones along the edge of a river or stream that are influenced by or are an influence upon the water body. Human disturbance to riparian areas can limit wildlife's access to water, remove breeding or nesting sites, and eliminate suitable areas for rearing young. Wildlife rely on riparian areas and are associated with the flood hazard in the following ways: • Mammals depend upon a supply of water for their existence. Riparian communities have a greater diversity and structure of vegetation than other upland areas. Beavers and muskrats are now recolonizing streams, wetlands and fallow farm fields, which are converted wetlands. As residences are built in rural areas, there is an increasing concern with beaver dams causing flooding of low -lying areas and abandoned farm ditches being filled in, which can lead to localized flooding. • A great number of birds are associated with riparian areas. They swim, dive, feed along the shoreline, or snatch food from above. Puget Sound, rivers, lakes and wetlands are important feeding and resting areas for migratory and resident waterfowl. Other threatened or endangered species (such as the bald eagle or the peregrine falcon) eat prey from these riparian areas. • Amphibians and reptiles are some of the least common forms of wildlife in riparian areas. However, some state threatened species, such as the western pond turtle and the spotted frog, are known to inhabit the waterways and wetlands. • Fish habitat throughout the county varies widely based on natural conditions and human influence. Many ditches were dug throughout the county to make low, wet ground better for farming. As the water drained away and the wetlands were converted to farm fields, natural stream conditions were altered throughout the county. Agriculture along many rivers extends to the water's edge and smaller side channels have been tiled to drain better. Within developing areas, small streams were placed in pipes and wetland was filled in to support urban development. While salmonids prefer clear, free - flowing streams, other species like the Olympic mud - minnow inhabit the calm, backwater areas of sloughs and wetlands. 11.5 VULNERABILITY 11.5.1 Population Vulnerable Populations A geographic analysis of demographics using the Hazus -MH model identified populations vulnerable to the flood hazard as follows: • Economically Disadvantaged Populations —An estimated 14 percent (1,805) of households within the 100 -year floodplain are economically disadvantaged, defined as having household incomes of $20,000 or less. • Population over 65 Years Old —An estimated 11 percent (3,388) of the population in the census blocks that intersect the 100 -year floodplain are over 65 years old. • Population under 16 Years Old —An estimated 21 percent (6,529) of the population within census blocks located in or near the 100 -year floodplain are under 16 years of age. ACT.A 11 -33 Page 203 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Impacts on Persons and Households Table 11 -13 summarizes estimated impacts on persons and households in the planning area for the 100 -year and 500 -year flood events. TABLE 11 -13. ESTIMATED FLOOD IMPACT ON PERSONS AND HOUSEHOLDS Number of Displaced Households a Number of Persons Requiring Short-Term Shelter 100 -Year Flood 30789 24,382 500 -Year Flood 43,251 35,926 a. Hazus -MH results in this table are not intended to be precise estimates of damage after a hazard event. They represent generalized estimates of damage that may occur as the result of the modeled scenario, based on the available data. Public Health and Safety Floods and their aftermath present the following threats to public health and safety: • Unsafe food — Floodwaters contain disease - causing bacteria, dirt, oil, human and animal waste, and farm and industrial chemicals. They carry away whatever lies on the ground and upstream. Their contact with food items, including food crops in agricultural lands, can make that food unsafe to eat and hazardous to human health. Power failures caused by floods damage stored food. Refrigerated and frozen foods are affected during the outage periods, and must be carefully monitored and examined prior to consumption. Foods kept inside cardboard, plastic bags, jars, bottles, and paper packaging are subject to disposal if contaminated by floodwaters. Even though the packages do not appear to be wet, they may be unhygienic with mold contamination and deteriorate rapidly. • Contaminated drinking and washing water and poor sanitation — Flooding impairs clean water sources with pollutants. Contact with the contaminants— whether through direct food intake, vector insects such as flies, unclean hands, or dirty plates and utensils —can result in waterborne illnesses and life - threatening infectious disease. The pollutants also saturate into the groundwater or can infiltrate into sanitary sewer lines through the ground. Wastewater treatment plants, if flooded and caused to malfunction, can be overloaded with polluted runoff waters and sewage beyond their disposal capacity, resulting in backflows of raw sewage to homes and low -lying grounds. Private wells can be contaminated or damaged severely by floodwaters, while private sewage disposal systems can become a cause of infection if they are broken or overflow. Unclean drinking and washing water and sanitation, coupled with lack of adequate sewage treatment, can lead to disease outbreaks. • Mosquitoes and animals — Prolonged rainfall and floods provide new breeding grounds for mosquitoes —wet areas and stagnant pools —and can lead to an increase in the number of mosquito -borne diseases such as malaria and dengue and West Nile fevers. Rats and other rodents and wild animals also can carry viruses and diseases. The public should avoid such animals and should dispose of dead animals in accordance with guidelines issued by local animal control authorities. Leptospirosis —a bacterial disease associated predominantly with rats —often accompanies floods in developing countries, although the risk is low in industrialized regions unless cuts or wounds have direct contact with disease - contaminated floodwaters or animals. 11 -34 ACT.A Page 204 of 869 FLOOD • Mold and mildew— Excessive exposure to mold and mildew can cause flood victims — especially those with allergies and asthma —to contract upper respiratory diseases, triggering cold -like symptoms. Molds grow in as short a period as 24 to 48 hours in wet and damp areas of buildings and homes that have not been cleaned after flooding, such as water - infiltrated walls, floors, carpets, toilets and bathrooms. Very small mold spores can be easily inhaled by human bodies and, in large enough quantities, cause allergic reactions, asthma episodes, and other respiratory problems. Infants, children, elderly people and pregnant women are considered most vulnerable to mold- induced health problems. • Carbon monoxide poisoning— Carbon monoxide poisoning is as a potential hazard after major floods. In the event of power outages following floods, flood victims tend to use alternative sources of fuels for heating or cooking inside enclosed or partly enclosed houses, garages or buildings without an adequate level of air ventilation. Carbon monoxide can be found in combustion fumes such as those generated by small gasoline engines, stoves, generators, lanterns, gas ranges, or the burning of charcoal or wood. Built -up carbon monoxide from these sources can poison people and animals. • Hazards when reentering and cleaning flooded homes and buildings — Flooded buildings can pose significant health hazards to people entering and cleaning damaged buildings or working to restore utility service after floodwaters recede. Electrical power systems, including fallen power lines, can become hazardous. Gas leaks from pipelines or propane tanks can trigger fire and explosion. Flood debris —such as broken bottles, wood, stones and walls —may cause wounds and injuries to those removing contaminated mud and cleaning damaged buildings. Containers of hazardous chemicals, including pesticides, insecticides, fertilizers, car batteries, propane tanks and other industrial chemicals, may be hidden or buried under flood debris. A health hazard can also occur when hazardous dust and mold in ducts, fans and ventilators of air - conditioning and heating equipment are circulated through a building and inhaled by those engaged in cleanup and restoration. • Mental stress and fatigue— Having experienced a devastating flood and seen loved ones lost or injured and homes damaged or destroyed, flood victims can experience long -term psychological impact. The expense and effort required to repair flood - damaged homes places severe financial and psychological burdens on the people affected, in particular the unprepared and uninsured. Post -flood recovery— especially when it becomes prolonged —can cause mental disorders, anxiety, anger, depression, lethargy, hyperactivity, sleeplessness, and, in an extreme case, suicide. Behavior changes may also occur in children such as an increase in bed - wetting and aggression. There is also a long -term concern among the affected that their homes can be flooded again in the future. Current loss estimation models such as Hazus are not equipped to measure public health impacts such as these. The best level of mitigation for these impacts is to be aware that they can occur, educate the public on prevention, and be prepared to deal with them in responding to flood events. 11.5.2 Property Hazus -MH calculates flood losses to structures based on flooding depth and structure type. Using historical flood insurance claim data, Hazus -MH estimates the percentage of damage to structures and their contents by applying established damage functions to an inventory. For this analysis, local data on facilities was used instead of the default inventory data provided with Hazus -MH. The analysis is summarized in Table 11 -14 and Table 11 -15 for the 100 -year and 500 -year flood events, respectively. 11 -35 ACT.A Page 205 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 11 -14. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR 100 -YEAR FLOOD EVENT Structures Estimated Loss Associated with Flood Impacteda Structure Contents Total % of Total Assessed Value Algona 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Auburn 58 $7,503,762 $9,985,134 $17,488,897 0.10 Beaux Arts 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Bellevue 67 $2,095,740 $976,058 $3,071,798 0.01 Black Diamond 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Bothell 32 $20,158,177 $73,899,529 $94,057,706 1.84 Burien 56 $1,854,889 $1,294,250 $3,149,139 0.03 Carnation 24 $621,401 $386,436 $1,007,837 0.31 Clyde Hill 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Covington 12 $195,286 $123,303 $318,589 0.01 Des Moines 26 $6,689,850 $4,029,779 $10,719,629 0.19 Duvall 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Enumclaw 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Federal Way 22 $750,623 $417,817 $1,168,439 0.01 Hunts Point 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Issaquah 116 $5,232,104 $5,240,025 $10,472,129 0.11 Kenmore 10 $176,420 $76,108 $252,527 0.01 Kent 596 $156,011,992 $502,555,169 $658,567,161 1.98 Kirkland 1 $94,036 $188,073 $282,109 0.00 Lake Forest Park 30 $1,577,002 $1,072,523 $2,649,525 0.12 Maple Valley 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Medina 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Mercer Island 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Milton 17 $199,565 $82,654 $282,218 0.07 Newcastle 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Normandy Park 21 $436,161 $182,895 $619,056 0.05 North Bend 404 $16,164,488 $24,689,852 $40,854,339 2.81 Pacific 111 $1,936,208 $788,329 $2,724,536 0.33 Redmond 28 $951,468 $2,950,857 $3,902,324 0.02 Renton 78 $29,802,495 $95,059,777 $124,862,272 0.48 Sammamish 47 $1,088,099 $463,054 $1,551,153 0.02 SeaTac 2 $6,735 $7,043 $13,778 0.00 Seattle 360 $42,472,552 $47,231,893 $89,704,445 0.04 Shoreline 6 $267,268 $128,517 $395,784 0.00 Skykomish 68 $1,888,564 $5,193,194 $7,081,758 9.48 Snoqualmie 468 $23,560,747 $47,908,382 $71,469,129 3.11 Tukwila 28 $17,950,090 $64,705,994 $82,656,084 0.71 Woodinville 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Yarrow Point 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 Unincorporated 1,206 $31,459,320 $19,211,450 $50,670,771 0.11 Total 3,894 $371,145,042 $908,848,095 $1,279,993,132 0.26 a. Impacted structures are those structures with finished floor elevations below the 100 -year water surface elevation. These structures are the most likely to receive significant damage in a 100 -year flood event Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 11 -36 Page 206 of 869 FLOOD TABLE 11 -15. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR 500 -YEAR FLOOD EVENT Structures Estimated Loss Associated with Flood Impacteda Structure Contents Total % of Total Assessed Value Algona Auburn Beaux Arts Bellevue Black Diamond Bothell Burien Carnation Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Duvall Enumclaw Federal Way Hunts Point Issaquah Kenmore Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Maple Valley Medina Mercer Island Milton Newcastle Normandy Park North Bend Pacific Redmond Renton Sammamish SeaTac Seattle Shoreline Skykomish Snoqualmie Tukwila Woodinville Yarrow Point Unincorporated 1,921 0 $0 135 $10,190,074 0 $0 135 $45,274,716 0 $0 52 $25,504,524 199 $23,010,516 466 $12,207,072 0 $0 25 $1,861,207 31 $15,844,654 0 $0 0 $0 30 $3,348,463 0 $0 155 $19,652,486 10 $1,231,726 596 $156,011,992 1 $1,411,387 28 $1,441,823 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 23 $396,766 0 $0 21 $1,772,968 596 $20,205,860 258 52,129,830 117 $25,200,967 199 $31,888,670 119 $12,254,163 5 $47,452 502 $33,280,783 8 $1,275,211 127 54,794,612 371 $51,362,428 56 $21,181,106 2 5505,498 0 $0 $85,185,560 $0 $30,467,915 $0 $54,053,230 $0 $78,148,137 $13,490,836 $14,710,931 $0 $1,131,300 $10,821,901 $0 $0 $1,755,706 $0 $31,685,737 $766,356 $502,555,169 $4,613,670 5891,205 $0 $0 $0 $210,166 $0 $1,052,160 $26,587,391 5906,578 $80,007,513 $98,862,168 $7,645,982 590,231 $63,233,488 $581,675 $8,673,871 $159,055,828 $80,882,493 $1,510,471 $0 $56,198,221 $0 $40,657,989 $0 $99,327,946 $0 $103,652,661 $36,501,352 $26,918,004 $0 $2,992,507 $26,666,555 $0 $0 $5,104,169 $0 $51,338,223 $1,998,081 $658,567,161 $6,025,057 $2,333,028 $0 $0 $0 $606,932 $0 $2,825,127 $46,793,250 $3,036,408 $105,208,480 $130,750,838 $19,900,145 $137,683 $96,514,271 $1,856,886 $13,468,484 $210,418,256 $102,063,599 $2,015,969 $0 $141,338,781 0.00% 0.22% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 2.02% 0.40% 8.20% 0.00% 0.11% 0.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.54% 0.05% 1.98% 0.03% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.22% 3.22% 0.37% 0.45% 0.51% 0.21% 0.00% 0.05% 0.02% 18.02% 9.16% 0.88% 0.04% 0.00% 0.32% Total 6,188 $608,472,514 $1,330,590,329 $1,939,017,842 0.35% a. Impacted structures are those structures with finished floor elevations below the 100 -year water surface elevation. These structures are the most likely to receive significant damage in a 100 -year flood event Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 11 -37 Page 207 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements It is estimated that there would be up to $1.28 billion of flood loss from a 100 -year flood event in the planning area. This represents 11.57 percent of the total exposure to the 100 -year flood and 0.25 percent of the total assessed value for the planning area. It is estimated that there would be $1.16 billion of flood loss from a 500 -year flood event, representing 5.87 percent of the total exposure to a 500 -year flood event and 0.21 percent of the total assessed value. National Flood Insurance Program Table 11 -16 lists flood insurance statistics for the jurisdictions in the planning area that participate in the NFIP. In these jurisdictions, 8,801 flood insurance policies provide $2.5 billion in insurance coverage. According to FEMA, 2,823 flood insurance claims were paid between January 1, 1978 and December 31, 2010, for a total of $49.5 million, an average of $17,551 per claim. Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. The first FIRMs in King County were available in 1978. Repetitive Loss A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as an NFIP- insured property that has experienced any of the following since 1978, regardless of any changes in ownership: • Four or more paid losses in excess of $1,000 • Two paid losses in excess of $1,000 within any rolling 10 -year period • Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property. Repetitive loss properties make up only 1 to 2 percent of flood insurance policies in force nationally, yet they account for 40 percent of the nation's flood insurance claim payments. The government has instituted programs encouraging communities to identify and mitigate the causes of repetitive losses. A recent report on repetitive losses by the National Wildlife Federation found that 20 percent of these properties are outside any mapped 100 -year floodplain. The key identifiers for repetitive loss properties are the existence of flood insurance policies and claims paid by the policies. With the potential for minor flood events every year and major events every two to five years, the County and its planning partners consider all of the mapped floodplain areas as susceptible to repetitive flooding. A repetitive loss area is the portion of a floodplain holding structures that FEMA has identified as meeting the definition of repetitive loss. The CRS requires participating communities to identify repetitive loss areas. Identifying the broader area helps to identify structures that are at risk but are not on FEMA's list of repetitive loss structures because no flood insurance policy was in force at the time of loss. Figure 11 -4 shows the repetitive loss areas in King County. FEMA has identified 313 repetitive loss properties in the planning area as of January 31, 2014. The breakdown of the properties by jurisdiction is presented in Table 11 -17. Of the identified properties, 306 were able to be geocoded for spatial analysis. A review of properties on this list indicated that 286 are located in the 100 -year floodplain and three are outside the 100 -year floodplain but within the 500 -year floodplain. 11 -38 ACT.A Page 208 of 869 FLOOD TABLE 11 -16. FLOOD INSURANCE STATISTICS Jurisdiction Date of Entry Initial FIRM Effective Date # of Flood Insurance Policies Insurance In as of 12/31/2013 Force Total Annual Premium Claims, Value of Claims 11/1978 to paid, 11/1978 to 12/31/2013 12/31/2013 Algona Auburn Bellevue Black Diamond Bothell Burien Carnation Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Duvall Enumclaw Federal Way Issaquah Kenmore Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Medina Mercer Island Milton Normandy Park North Bend Pacific Redmond Renton Sammamish SeaTac Seattle Shoreline Skykomish Snoqualmie Tukwila Woodinville Unincorporated Total 05/16/95 06/01/81 12/01/78 10/30/79 06/01/82 09/30/94 03/04/80 05/16/95 04/19/01 05/15/80 06/04/80 09/29/89 05/16/95 05/01/80 11/13/98 04/01/81 06/15/81 02/15/80 05/16/95 05/16/95 02/17/82 11/02/77 08/01/84 12/02/80 02/01/79 05/05/81 11/18/99 09/30/94 07/19/77 03/04/97 07/02/81 07/05/84 08/03/81 05/16/95 09/29/78 53 681 259 1 49 84 108 8 6 20 7 10 48 230 4 1181 65 9 8 41 12 23 578 162 605 271 4 13 840 1 39 509 256 34 2582 14,812,000 202,795,500 69,242,800 350,000 17,179,600 21,180,700 30,572, 100 2,800,000 1,772,200 5,156,000 2,222,400 2,860,000 14,451,000 58,770,700 1,051,300 431,273,700 15,170,000 2,675,000 2,800,000 11,826,000 2,210,400 6,282,000 141,754,100 49,796,700 158,484,200 104,678,700 1, 198,700 3,764,000 225,234,200 350,000 8,009,700 120,403,000 119,042,900 11,386,900 668,274,400 21,769 0 0 426,445 11 43,341.02 132,524 46 539,887.08 460 0 0 54,496 10 33,665.27 96,594 18 84,053.59 72,767 26 786,646.68 3,488 0 0 7,013 0 0 21,114 4 211,934.98 8,241 4 146,511.59 8,283 3 69,500.65 29,717 3 18,172.55 217,807 148 3,974,505.06 5,345 1 14,697.30 1,224,710 31 129,404.88 26,132 7 44,518.84 7,261 4 1,886.44 3,440 0 0 19,725 5 6,952.20 10,563 4 70,379.73 22,951 7 13,978.43 642,665 78 985,053.86 78,229 26 437,038.95 313,492 10 21,542.88 293,749 17 84,974.92 6,780 2 41,996.22 5,044 1 1,319.24 481,145 201 2,020,690.16 414 1 4,021.74 50,616 18 304,215.24 635,009 952 17,994,157.86 404,672 3 1,309.89 48,067 0 0 1,981,647 1,182 21,459,886.16 8,801 2,529,830,900 7,362,374 2,823 49,546,243.41 ACT.A 11 -39 Page 209 of 869 , uno3 despN O 0 O U U E 0 00 - 0 Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey p N C �8 �o Ul 'Y E Q= E = U+• T O U (6 UI U asE O `O N 0 (0 N N t E N'Y Q0 x� ▪ Q om m, tur �a o o O u o, o o 2 0 � o Q- 20 O-6 Y T +• C 4 O gU = 0a Y � U o - a) O 0 -0 Y N 3 'Y 0 (6 t Ul L'0 U O j a N j N" O �U N a � U O O C 8 UI — O U 0 Ta) - O' Ul O °s T 0 6 N U O '6 N � U a 2s s as Y O 4 w O a Q Q � O U y N U T IA0 O as�as - 2 5 °- , `O 5 5 E .o m .� `O = E o 5 E .s o � Y o U w � O a) O N O 3 • T O • N = > E o= o, = Faye- 2- IU- vH5-99 FLOOD TABLE 11 -17. REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES Jurisdiction Repetitive Loss Properties Properties Shown to Have Been Mitigated Bellevue 1 1 Burien 6 0 Issaquah 14 1 Kenmore 2 0 Kent 1 0 Kirkland 1 0 Lake Forest Park 1 0 Mercer Island 1 0 Normandy Park 1 0 North Bend 4 0 Seattle 13 0 Shoreline 1 1 Skykomish 1 0 Snoqualmie 156 43 Woodinville 2 0 Unincorporated 108 3 Total 313 49 Source: FEMA January 31, 2014 Seventeen identified repetitive loss properties are outside the County's special flood hazard area. These appear to have minor flooding issues associated with localized stormwater flooding that does not cause repetitive flooding of any structures other than those listed on the repetitive loss list. The average claim paid for these properties was $11,595, which is typical of shallow flood damage associated with stormwater issues. 11.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Hazus -MH was used to estimate potential flood damage to critical facilities exposed to the flood risk. Using depth/damage function curves to estimate the percent of damage to the building and contents of critical facilities, Hazus -MH correlates these estimates into an estimate of functional down -time (the estimated time it will take to restore a facility to 100 percent of its functionality). This helps to gauge how long the planning area could have limited usage of facilities deemed critical to flood response and recovery. The Hazus critical facility results are as follows: • 100 -year flood event —On average, critical facilities would receive 5.12 percent damage to the structure and 8.28 percent damage to the contents during a 100 -year flood event. The estimated time to restore these facilities to 100 percent of their functionality is 424 days. • 500 -year flood event —A 500 -year flood event would damage the structures an average of 5.63 percent and the contents an average 13.31 percent. The estimated time to restore these facilities to 100 percent of their functionality after a 500 -year event is 438 days. ACT.A 11 -41 Page 211 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 11.5.4 Environment The environment vulnerable to flood hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard. Loss estimation platforms such as Hazus -MH are not currently equipped to measure environmental impacts of flood hazards. The best gauge of vulnerability of the environment would be a review of damage from past flood events. Loss data that segregates damage to the environment was not available at the time of this plan. Capturing this data from future events could be beneficial in measuring the vulnerability of the environment for future updates. 11.6 FUTURE TRENDS Several comprehensive plans guide development in the planning area. The County's Comprehensive Plan sets goals, objectives, policies and actions for frequently flooded areas. The County has developed several plans and initiatives to promote healthy watersheds and to manage stormwater runoff by directing future development away from flood risk areas. King County's critical areas regulations regulate how development and redevelopment can safely occur on lands that contain critical areas. Additionally, King County participates in the NFIP and has adopted flood damage prevention regulations in response to its requirements. King County and all planning partners that participate in the NFIP have committed to maintaining their good standing under the NFIP through initiatives identified in this plan. King County's population increased an average of 1.07 percent per year between 2000 and 2010, a total of 10.05 percent. It is estimated that King County's population will increase by an additional 20 percent by 2040. County plans and regulations will reduce the impacts of this future growth on floodplains and critical areas and lessen the impacts of flooding on future development. State - mandated growth management, stormwater management and critical areas regulation has been effective in limiting an increase in flood risk throughout Washington. Development trends by basin are described below. South Fork Skykomish River Basin The South Fork Skykomish River basin has maintained a rural land use environment. Significant development has not and likely will not occur in this area because a large portion of it is protected wilderness area and forest production areas. Future land use is projected to be similar to current land use. Only a small increase in households is projected for the period through 2022 (King County 2004). Snoqualmie River Basin Much of the urbanization in the Snoqualmie River basin is in incorporated areas. While urban areas constitute only about 3 percent of the basin, they make up a significant portion of some subbasins, including the main stem Snoqualmie (15 percent), Patterson Creek (10 percent), and Cherry Creek (6 percent). The potential for high- density development is increased by the presence of vested lots and plats, particularly in the Patterson and Ames Creeks areas. Sammamish River Basin The Sammamish River basin has been urbanizing rapidly since the 1950s. Future development is expected to continue throughout the basin. Bellevue, Kirkland and Redmond have designated potential annexation areas, some of which are within the floodplain. Cedar River Basin The greater part of the Cedar River floodplain is in unincorporated King County, with a smaller portion in the City of Renton. There is commercial, industrial and residential development throughout the incorporated areas of the Cedar River floodplain. Residential development has also occurred in 11 -42 ACT.A Page 212 of 869 FLOOD unincorporated King County along the lower floodplain reaches, which is likely due to its proximity to Renton. Renton is expected to annex portions of the land along the Cedar River. There is expected to be a significant amount of growth in Renton by 2022 (King County 2005). Green River Basin The Green River basin has been urbanizing since the 1970s. In the 1990s, Black Diamond, Enumclaw and Covington experienced rapid growth. Land development estimates indicate that the largest areas of future development will be in the lower and middle Green River areas. White River Basin The majority of the White River basin is in unincorporated King County, with a smaller portion in the cities and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Reservation. There is commercial, industrial and residential development throughout the incorporated areas of the White River floodplain. The majority of development is along the White River in the Auburn and Pacific area. This area has significant potential for new residential, commercial and industrial development. 11.7 SCENARIO Historically, floods have had significant impacts in King County. The County can expect significant flooding every two to five years. The duration and intensity of the storms that cause flooding may increase due to climate change. The floodplains mapped and identified by King County will continue to take the brunt of these floods. County residents prepare themselves for flooding by being informed and by pursuing mitigation. The impacts of flood events should decrease as the county, the Flood Control District and residents continue to promote and implement hazard mitigation and preparedness 11.8 ISSUES Important issues associated with flood hazards include but are not limited to the following: • FEMA map updates have been on hold due to federal levee policy concerns. This delay perpetuates reliance on obsolete information for flood insurance purposes. It also creates confusion for the public regarding which maps should be used, as some local governments have completed new studies for regulatory purposes. • The Revised King County Channel Migration Zone Public Rule became effective on March 31, 2014. The revised rule affects mapping efforts and does not alter land use regulations in these areas. The preparation of channel migration zone maps using updated mapping methods will proceed through 2014 and beyond. • There are many Zone A areas in the County. These areas lack detailed hydraulic analyses, so base flood elevation and flood depth information is unavailable. Updates in these areas would provide more accurate information for hazard awareness and flood insurance rates. • Although a significant number of flood studies have been completed, further effort is needed to continue to update the remaining major river reaches and larger tributary streams: Greenwater River —This is a major tributary to the White River. Detailed flood mapping is only available from Pierce County's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map. But that study is based on regression equations that relate peak discharge- frequency data to drainage area and mean annual precipitation. An updated, detailed flood study is needed to reflect current conditions at a riverside residential community along the lowermost portion of the river. ACT.A 11 -43 Page 213 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements White River Above Mud Mountain Dam —This segment of the White River has only an approximate flood study, with no flood elevations and no delineated floodway. Significant flood inundation of State Route 410 has occurred, forcing closure of this state roadway. Fast erosive floodwaters have exposed riverside residents to life - threatening conditions and loss of homes. New flood hazard information could be used to educate area residents about potential risks and as a basis for planning effective flood risk reduction solutions. White River Muckleshoot Reach —This segment of the White River has no flood hazard mapping. While much of the river is within Muckleshoot Indian Tribe jurisdiction, developable areas would benefit from accurate delineation of hazard areas to avoid future at -risk land uses. • Although King County has completed numerous river flood studies, many studies are based on older data. King County should evaluate whether these studies adequately represent current flood hazards. • More information on flood risk is needed to support risk -based analysis of capital projects. • A sustained effort should be made to gather historical damage data, such as high water marks on structures and damages reports. The collection of this information will assist with determining the cost - effectiveness of future mitigation projects and will provide more information on the nature of the hazard. • Ongoing flood hazard mitigation will require funding from multiple sources to continue. • Flood hazards do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries, and actions in jurisdictions can impact upstream or downstream neighbors. Coordination is necessary to ensure that these connections are understood and hazards are effectively mitigated. • Floodplain residents need to continue to be educated about flood preparedness and the resources available during and after floods. Flood preparedness can help residents reduce risk to property and lives. Resources that are made available after flood events can help residents make informed decisions that may mitigate future risk to lives and property. • The risk associated with the flood hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards, such as earthquake and landslide. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards. • The location of hazardous materials within the floodplain could result in secondary hazards during or after a flood event. Additional risk analysis should be performed on any such facilities within the County. • The accuracy of existing FEMA flood hazard mapping for the planning area in reflecting the true flood risk is questionable. FEMA maps do not recognize residual risk outside the mapped area. Where levees are accredited, there may be a misperception that there is no flood risk. Public outreach and awareness efforts should, therefore, emphasize the residual risk behind levees. Additionally, the risk to areas protected by levees not accredited by the FEMA mapping process may not be understood by residents. Furthermore, FEMA map data is often outdated and does not reflect updated flood studies. • The concept of residual risk should be considered in the design of future capital flood control projects and should be communicated with residents living in the floodplain. • There is no degree of consistency of land -use practices and regulatory floodplain management scope within the planning area. An external advisory review panel convened by King County to look at conditions along the Green River concluded: "Considering the 11 -44 ACT.A Page 214 of 869 FLOOD development that has occurred in the Lower Green River floodplain, it is evident to the review panel that this lack of regulatory consistency has resulted in a significant increase in risk exposure over time." The panel identified actions that would strive to achieve regulatory consistency for the Green River that could be applied county -wide. • The impacts of climate change on flood impacts in the planning area are uncertain. • The promotion of flood insurance as a means of protecting private property owners from the economic impacts of frequent flood events should continue. • Existing floodplain- compatible uses such as agricultural and open space need to be maintained. There is constant pressure to convert these existing uses to more intense uses within the planning area during times of moderate to high growth. • Jurisdictions should be adequately resourced to maintain up -to -date hazard information and take appropriate mitigation actions to reduce risk in their community. ACT.A 11 -45 Page 215 of 869 CHAPTER 12. LANDSLIDE 12.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND A landslide is a mass of rock, earth or debris moving down a slope. Landslides may be minor or very large, and can move at slow to very high speeds. They can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions or human modification of the land. Mudslides (or mudflows or debris flows) are rivers of rock, earth, organic matter and other soil materials saturated with water. They develop in the soil overlying bedrock on sloping surfaces when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt. Water pressure in the pore spaces of the material increases to the point that the internal strength of the soil is drastically weakened. The soil's reduced resistance can then easily be overcome by gravity, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud. A mudflow can move rapidly down slopes or through channels and DEFINITIONS Landslide —The sliding movemen masses of loosened rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Such failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope is exceeded by the pressure, such as weight or saturation, acting upon them. Mass Movement —A collective term for landslides, debris flows, falls and sinkholes. Mudslide (or Mudflow or Debris Flow) -A river of rock, earth, organic natter and other materials saturated with water. can strike with little or no warning. The material can travel miles from its source, growing as it descends, picking up trees, boulders, cars and anything else in its path. Although these slides behave as fluids, they pack many times the hydraulic force of water due to the mass of material included in them. Landslides can be some of the most destructive events in nature, posing a serious hazard to properties on or below hillsides. When landslides occur —in response to such changes as increased water content, earthquake shaking, addition of load, or removal of downslope support—they deform and tilt the ground surface. The result can be destruction of foundations, offset of roads, breaking of underground pipes, or overriding of downslope property and structures. 12.1.1 Landslide Types and Run -Out Two characteristics are essential to conducting an accurate risk assessment of the landslide hazard: • The type of initial ground failure that occurs • The post - failure movement of the loosened material ( "run- out "), including travel distance and velocity. Landslides are commonly categorized by the type of initial ground failure. Figure 12 -1 through Figure 12 -4 show common types of slides (Ecology, 2014). The most common is the shallow colluvial slide, occurring particularly in response to intense, short- duration storms. The largest and most destructive are deep- seated slides, although they are less common than other types. 12 -1 ACT.A Page 217 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Large Mocks tfearth shift wlhr.rr g Bun d wat'4 r & wad:ti' Irll5�k9. „„ 1,111,11111111111,111(1111;i yr Figure 12 -1. Deep Seated Slide Mid-slope lbench ts typically indicate snide prone areas. Figure 12 -3. Bench Slide A klhi n Mayer of sold ailmrl d eta is Iftroyes rapidly clown a steep slope, III /,.,.Iw�l III, Figure 12 -2. Shallow Colluvial Slide A large slide cults deep Illlrltoth slope, deposit rig tins o soil and adebris art the Ihase. Figure 12 -4. Large Slide All current landslide models —those in practical applications and those more recently developed —use simplified hypothetical descriptions of mass movement to simulate the complex behavior of actual flow. The models attempt to reproduce the general features of the moving mass of material through measurable factors, such as base shear, that define a system and determine its behavior. Due to the lack of experimental data and the limited current knowledge about the behavior of the moving flows, landslide models use simplified parameters to account for complex aspects that may not be defined. These simplified parameters are not related to specific physical processes that can be directly measured, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in their definition. Some, but not all, models provide estimates of the level of uncertainty associated with the modeling approach. Run -out modeling is complicated because the movement of materials may change over the course of a landslide event, depending on the initial composition, the extent of saturation by water, the ground shape of the path traveled and whether there is additional material incorporated during the event (Savage and Hutter 1991; Rickenmann 2000; Iverson et al. 2004). 12.1.2 Landslide Causes Mass movements are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions, as well as the encroaching influence of urbanization. Vulnerable natural conditions are affected by human residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial development and the infrastructure that supports it. The following 12-2 ACT.A Page 218 of 869 LANDSLIDE factors can contribute to landslide: change in slope of the terrain, increased load on the land, shocks and vibrations, change in water content, groundwater movement, frost action, weathering of rocks, and removing or changing the type of vegetation covering slopes. Excavation and Grading Slope excavation is common in the development of home sites or roads on sloping terrain. Grading can result in some slopes that are steeper than the pre - existing natural slopes. Since slope steepness is a major factor in landslides, these steeper slopes can be at an increased risk for landslides. The added weight of fill placed on slopes can also result in an increased landslide hazard. Small landslides can be fairly common along roads, in either the road cut or the road fill. Landslides occurring below new construction sites are indicators of the potential impacts stemming from excavation. A study conducted by Burns and others at Portland State University found that changes to the slope through cutting or filling increased the risk of 76 percent of inventoried landslides in the Portland Metro region. The study documented 48 landslides that occurred in Oregon City in February 1996, and found that only about half the slides were considered natural. Drainage and Groundwater Alterations Water flowing through or above ground is often the trigger for landslides. Any activity that increases the amount of water flowing into landslide -prone slopes can increase landslide hazards. Broken or leaking water or sewer lines can be especially problematic, as can water retention facilities that direct water onto slopes. However, even lawn irrigation and minor alterations to small streams in landslide prone locations can result in damaging landslides. Ineffective stormwater management and excess runoff can also cause erosion and increase the risk of landslide hazards. Drainage can be affected naturally by the geology and topography of an area. Development that results in an increase in impervious surface impairs the ability of the land to absorb water and may redirect water to other areas. Channels, streams, flooding, and erosion on slopes all indicate potential slope problems. Road and driveway drains, gutters, downspouts, and other constructed drainage facilities can concentrate and accelerate flow. Ground saturation and concentrated velocity flow are major causes of slope problems and may trigger landslides. Changes in Vegetation Removing vegetation from very steep slopes can increase landslide hazards. A study by the Oregon Department of Forestry found that landslide hazards in three out of four steeply sloped areas were highest for a period of roughly 10 years after timber harvesting (Oregon Department of Forestry, 1999). Areas that have experienced wildfire and land clearing for development may have long periods of increased landslide hazard. In addition, woody debris in stream channels (both natural and man -made from logging) may cause the impacts from debris flows to be more severe. 12.1.3 Landslide Management Landslides are common features in river and stream valleys across King County. While small landslides are often a result of human activity, the largest landslides are often naturally occurring phenomena with little or no human contribution. The sites of large landslides are typically areas of previous landslide movement that are periodically reactivated by significant precipitation or seismic events. Such naturally occurring landslides can disrupt roadways and other infrastructure lifelines, destroy private property, and cause flooding, bank erosion and rapid channel migration. 12 -3 ACT.A Page 219 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Landslides can create immediate, critical threats to public safety. Engineering solutions to protect structures on or adjacent to large active landslides are often extremely or prohibitively expensive. In spite of their destructive potential, landslides are a part of the natural landscape of King County river valleys. They supply sediment and large wood to the channel network and can contribute to complexity and dynamic channel behavior critical for aquatic and riparian ecological diversity. Effective landslide management should include the following elements: • Continuing investigation to identify natural landslides, understand their mechanics, assess their risk to public health and welfare, and understand their role in ecological systems • Regulation of development in or near existing landslides or areas of natural instability through the King County Critical Areas Ordinance in King County Code Chapter 21A.24, the clearing and grading standards in King County Code Chapter 16.82, and the King County Surface Water Design Manual • Preparation for emergency response to landslides to facilitate rapid, coordinated action among King County, local cities, and state and federal agencies, and to provide emergency assistance to affected or at -risk citizens • Evaluation of options including landslide stabilization or structure relocation where landslides are identified that threaten critical public structures or infrastructure, such as the Auburn -Black Diamond Road project and the Sinnema Quaale Upper Project. Because landslides regularly disrupt freight and commuter rail services that follow the Puget Sound shoreline, the Washington State Department of Transportation and BNSF Railway are involved in a federally funded project to increase the reliability of the rail corridor service between Vancouver, Washington and the Canadian border. Actions being taken to reduce impacts include geotechnical investigations, historical slide research, investigation of potential slide area investigations, construction of retaining walls, improvements to drainage systems, and implementation of erosion control strategies (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014a). Washington State also has provided funding for preventive drainage maintenance and debris removal activities between Seattle and Shoreline (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014b). 12.2 HAZARD PROFILE 12.2.1 Past Events The majority of significant slide events in King County have occurred during or shortly after storm events. The following are significant slide events that have occurred in the county (King County, 2009; Washington Emergency Management Division, 2010; Seattle Office of Emergency Management, 2014): • 900 AD —After a Seattle Fault event, landslides were triggered on Mercer Island and Lake Sammamish (Washington Emergency Management Division, 2010). • 1949 — Multiple landslides occurred in the Puget Sound region after a Magnitude -7.1 earthquake event. Urban slides occurred in areas of fill and areas made unstable by undercutting (Washington Emergency Management Division, 2010). • 1965 —At least 21 landslides were triggered from ground shaking within 60 miles of the epicenter of the Seattle- Tacoma earthquake event, including events in West and South Seattle, Auburn, near Maple Valley and at Mount Si near North Bend (Washington Emergency Management, 2010). • 1972 —King County experienced $1.8 million in public damage as a result of slide events. • 1983 —A slide in the Queen Anne neighborhood of Seattle closed Aurora Avenue. 12 -4 ACT.A Page 220 of 869 LANDSLIDE • 1994 —Five homes were destroyed in the Magnolia neighborhood of Seattle as the result of a slump. • 1996 —More than 40 slides were recorded in Seattle over the duration of the 1995/1996 winter, two- thirds of which were a result of a February storm. A slide also occurred east of Enumclaw, blocking State Route 410. • 1996- 1997 —King County experienced $9.0 million in combined public damage after hundreds of landslides were triggered, predominantly along the shorelines of Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Union and Portage Bay, and in West Seattle, Magnolia Bluff and the 1 -5 corridor. There were more than 130 recorded slides on the shorelines between Seattle and Everett, including one that derailed five cars of a freight train. • 2001 — Slides on the Cedar River triggered by the Nisqually Earthquake caused $1.71 million in public damage. Five homes in Burien were damaged. Damage was also reported at the King County International Airport/Boeing Field, Harbor Island, State Route 202 near Snoqualmie and Interstate 405 in Renton. • 2004 —Two slide events in January disrupted transportation routes: a North Seattle slide disrupted Sounder commuter train service; and a slide closed the 1 -90 on -ramp in Issaquah. In March, a landslide near Renton partially dammed the Cedar River. • 2005 —In May, 11 homes were isolated after a small slide on Mercer Island. In September, two lanes of 1 -90 west of Snoqualmie Pass were closed after a rockslide. In December, Juanita Drive in northeast Kirkland was closed after a slide. • 2006 —In January, landslides closed numerous lanes of Interstate 5. Four slides were triggered between Seattle and Everett. At least two slides occurred on Mercer Island and one occurred in Seattle's University District. A slide closed Issaquah Hobart Road near Tiger Mountain. A slide partially buried a house east of Renton. Three slides occurred near Maple Valley and the Cedar River. A slide closed Lake Dorothy Road in North Bend. Multiple slides closed commuter rail service, including one in Shoreline. In March, a slide isolated five homes on Mercer Island. Slides across King County in November included one that isolated 200 homes after access was blocked to Upper Preston Road. In mid - December, there were five landslides in Seattle and another slide that covered railroad tracks. • 2007 —Five slides were recorded in King County. • 2008 —In July, a slide occurred in Bellevue at a construction site for a subdivision after a thunderstorm. In November, State Road 410 was closed as the result of a debris flow east of Enumclaw. A landslide caused damage to the Green River Bridge on State Route 169 that resulted in the bridge being closed for repairs for eight months. • 2009 —There were 51 recorded slides. Numerous slides occurred in the Cascade foothills in January. This storm also created the potential for the reactivation of movement underneath Howard Hansen Dam. • 2014 —The multiple - fatality Oso landslide in Snohomish County occurred as this hazard mitigation plan was being prepared. The number of fatalities and damage costs had not been finalized by the time of this plan's completion. Over the past decade, more than 200 landslides occurred along the Seattle to Everett coastline, and more than 800 trains have been canceled since 2009 as a result of landslide events (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014). Between December 2012 and January 2013, coastline rail service disruption due to landslide events occurred at record levels. 12 -5 ACT.A Page 221 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 12.2.2 Location Slides occur in urban and rural areas throughout the County. The shorelines of Puget Sound are particularly vulnerable to slide events. In general, landslide hazard areas are where the land has characteristics that contribute to the risk of the downhill movement of material, such as the following: • A slope greater than 33 percent • A history of landslide activity or movement during the last 10,000 years • Stream or wave activity, which has caused erosion, undercut a bank or cut into a bank to cause the surrounding land to be unstable • The presence or potential for snow avalanches • The presence of an alluvial fan, indicating vulnerability to the flow of debris or sediments • The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, which are mixed with granular soils such as sand and gravel. The best available predictor of where movement of slides and earth flows might occur is the location of past movements. Past landslides can be recognized by their distinctive topographic shapes, which can remain in place for thousands of years. Most landslides recognizable in this fashion range from a few acres to several square miles. Most show no evidence of recent movement and are not currently active. A small proportion of them may become active in any given year, with movements concentrated within all or part of the landslide masses or around their edges. Ancient dormant mass movement sites can be reactivated by earthquakes or by exceptionally wet weather. Also, because they consist of broken materials and frequently involve disruption of groundwater flow, these dormant sites are vulnerable to construction- triggered sliding. A landslide study for the City of Seattle analyzed more than 1,300 slides that had occurred in the City since 1890 and found that only 58 percent occurred in what were then known to be potential slide areas. Potential slide areas were remapped using the historical record of slide activity as the primary factor (Shannon & Wilson, 2000). Landslides also occur in areas where no previous slides have been recorded. According to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the geology of the Puget Sound lowlands predisposes much of the terrain to slide events, especially along steep coastal bluffs. The last continental glaciation deposited unconsolidated glacial till on top of impermeable bedrock. Channels eroded by glacial melt water and further eroded by precipitation and wave action have left over - steepened and unsupported slopes (Washington Emergency Management Division, 2010). Under the right conditions, these slopes are prone to landslides. The Seattle landslide study found that human influence played some role in 84 percent of recorded slides. Critical area ordinances at the local level reduce the impacts of human alterations on critical areas, which include geologically hazardous areas such as areas prone to landslide, erosion, mass - wasting, debris flows and rock falls. The designation of critical areas, including geologically hazardous areas, is a requirement of the Washington State Growth Management Act (WAC 365- 190 - 080(4). The King County zoning code generally discourages development in landslide hazard areas, but it allows development in certain instances where avoidance is not desirable or practical. The King County Critical Areas Ordinance establishes differential regulations for landslide hazard areas on slopes greater than 40 percent (King County DPER, 2014). According to the King County Critical Areas Ordinance Manual, "In general, all alterations are allowed on landslide hazard areas provided that the landslide hazard itself is mitigated through proper engineering of the development so that the risk of property damage and injury is minimized or eliminated." Each incorporated area in the County has established its own rules and regulations pertaining to development in critical areas. 12 -6 ACT.A Page 222 of 869 LANDSLIDE Landslide hazard areas and steep slopes within the planning area are shown on Figure 12 -5. The map represents landslide location data from the Washington Department of Natural Resources, a landslide hazard data set from King County, and a data set created using surface geology and digital elevation model data provided by King County, as follows: • Digital elevation model data defining slopes was taken from a LiDAR- derived bare -earth elevation raster collected in 2002. • Surface geology data was taken from Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies, 2006. • Potential landslide hazard areas were defined as all areas with a slope greater than 40 percent (from the LiDAR data) and one of the following soil types (from the surface geology data): Qi soils, indicating areas of discrete landslide Qmw soils, indicating areas of colluvium and the cumulative debris from small indistinct landslides that accumulate on and at the base of unstable slopes Qf soils, indicating alluvial fans, which are formed by the deposition of sediment from floods and debris flows at a point where a steep drainage course discharges onto an area of low gradient. 12.2.3 Frequency Several landslides occur in King County every year. According to records from the Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS), the planning area has been impacted by severe storms at least once every other year since 1960. Until better countywide data is generated for the landslide hazard, this frequency is appropriate for ranking the risk associated with the landslide hazard. Landslides are often triggered by other natural hazards such as earthquakes, heavy rain, floods or wildfires, so landslide frequency is often related to the frequency of these other hazards. Slides can occur at any time, although most occur during the rainy season. Most local landslides occur in January after the water table has risen during the wet months of November and December. In King County, landslides typically occur during and after major storms, so the potential for landslides largely coincides with the potential for sequential severe storms that saturate steep, vulnerable soils. Precipitation influences the timing of landslides on three scales: total annual rainfall, monthly rainfall, and single precipitation events. In general, landslides are most likely during periods of higher than average rainfall. The ground must be saturated prior to the onset of a major storm for significant landsliding to occur. Studies conducted by the USGS have identified two precipitation thresholds to help identify when landslides are likely (USGS, 2007): • Cumulative Precipitation Threshold (Figure 12 -6) —A measure of precipitation over the last 18 days, indicating when the ground is wet enough to be susceptible to landslides. Rainfall of 3.5 to 5.3 inches is required to exceed this threshold, depending on how much rain falls in the last 3 days. • Intensity Duration Threshold (Figure 12 -7) —A measure of rainfall during a storm, indicating when it is raining hard enough to cause multiple landslides if the ground is already wet. These thresholds are most likely to be crossed during the rainy season, so slide events in the planning area most commonly occur from January through March. 12 -7 ACT.A Page 223 of 869 9 lluno3 uelay3 0 Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey o p 41 � 41 N N c c• 7, w+ o m m E m n� 2 a`o m m • E 0 0 . N m � E _o s2 2 x • Q m o 0 o y 2 o m > m .. m o n _ 2o o -o ss o � U _ Y 2 N . U N 0 m .. E O 0 Y m r. fi N N s � s m m ° u m o > _ � Q m Cc) � � s u �Y • v • `o `o m E m a m n m y � m � � o ss m u ` o o ) o m sss � m _ m o • s g- o_ E u N m o 0 Q U � m � m Y E o-� m E o � • E o_ • `o m � E `o ` m o m N 3 `Q 0 o m 42 - E L ACT.A c • C g . C 224 V r 85 LANDSLIDE 4 w cr Q3 w < 2 2 1 >- 90 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 o.7 P15, 15-DAY CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION Landslides unlikely 7 8 9 10 EFORE P3, INCHES Figure 12-6. Cumulative Precipitation Threshold cc 0 = 0.2 cc uu 0.18 a. Cf) 0 ' 16 LIJ 0 0.14 z 0.l2 00 0.1 0.08 z 0.06 < 0.04 u_ .7r. 0.02 cc z 0 uJ 2 Landslides very likely , 3.257D- '13 Threshold March 1997 A January 1986 • Other Landslides unlikely 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 RAINFALL DURATION, HOURS Figure 12-7. Intensity Duration Threshold ACT.A 12-9 Page 225 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 12.2.4 Severity Landslides destroy property and infrastructure and can take the lives of people. Slope failures in the United States result in an average of 25 lives lost per year and an annual cost to society of about $1.5 billion. The recent event in Oso, Washington showed the devastating potential that can be caused by landslides. The costs in lives and property damage have not been finalized as of the time that this hazard mitigation plan is being prepared, but this event may be the deadliest landslide event in Washington State history. Its proximity to King County has heightened the awareness of the severity of this hazard in the planning area. Thousands of landslides have occurred within King County, but there is no consolidated database of them. Landslide events often occur concurrently with other hazard events, so damage estimates specifically related to landslide are difficult to obtain. SHELDUS lists 10 landslide events in the planning area since 1965. The combined estimated damage for these events exceeded $3.3 million. There have been hundreds of slide events in the County over the last several decades, so it is likely that the true costs of landslide damage in the County has been far greater. There are no records of fatalities attributed to mass movement in the County. However, deaths have occurred in neighboring Washington counties and across the west coast as a result of slides and slope collapses. 12.2.5 Warning Time Mass movements can occur suddenly or slowly. The velocity of movement may range from a slow creep of inches per year to many feet per second, depending on slope angle, material and water content. Generally accepted warning signs for landslide activity include the following: • Springs, seeps, or saturated ground in areas that have not typically been wet before • New cracks or unusual bulges in the ground, street pavements or sidewalks • Soil moving away from foundations • Ancillary structures such as decks and patios tilting and /or moving relative to the main house • Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations • Broken water lines and other underground utilities • Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences • Offset fence lines • Sunken or down - dropped road beds • Rapid increase in creek water levels, possibly accompanied by increased turbidity (soil content) • Sudden decrease in creek water levels though rain is still falling or just recently stopped • Sticking doors and windows, and visible open spaces indicating frames out of plumb • A faint rumbling sound that increases in volume as the landslide nears • Unusual sounds, such as trees cracking or boulders knocking together. Some methods used to monitor mass movements can provide an idea of the type of movement and the amount of time prior to failure. Assessing the geology, vegetation and amount of predicted precipitation for an area can help in predictions of what areas are at risk during general time periods. Currently, there is no practical warning system for individual landslides. The standard operating procedure is to monitor situations on a case -by -case basis and respond after an event has occurred. 12 -10 ACT.A Page 226 of 869 LANDSLIDE The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, in cooperation with NOAA, has developed a landslide warning system that is currently in beta testing. The forecasting model is based on storm and landslide data. It is unlikely that this model will be able to forecast individual landslide events before they occur, but it will be a useful system for alerting residents to be more vigilant about landslide risk. 12.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Landslides can cause several types of secondary effects, such as blocking access to roads, which can isolate residents and businesses and delay commercial, public and private transportation. This could result in economic losses for businesses. Other potential problems resulting from landslides are power and communication failures. Vegetation or poles on slopes can be knocked over, resulting in possible losses to power and communication lines. Landslides also have the potential of destabilizing the foundation of structures, which may result in monetary loss for residents. They also can damage rivers or streams, potentially harming water quality, fisheries and spawning habitat. 12.4 EXPOSURE 12.4.1 Population Population could not be examined by landslide hazard area because census block group areas do not coincide with the hazard areas. A population estimate was made using the structure count of buildings within the landslide hazard areas and applying the census value of 2.39 persons per household for King County. Using this approach, the estimated population living in the landslide risk area is 35,000 or 2.8 percent of the total planning area population. 12.4.2 Property Table 12 -1 shows the number and assessed value of structures exposed to the landslide risk. There are approximately 24,000 structures on parcels in the landslide risk areas, with an estimated value of $10.1 billion. This represents approximately 1.82 percent of the total assessed value for the planning area. Over 90 percent of the exposed structures are dwellings. Table 12 -2 shows the general land use of parcels exposed to landslides in King County. The vast majority of the land area of parcels (86.5 percent) intersecting landslide hazard areas are uncategorized, which includes vacant and resource lands. Residential parcels make up 8.4 percent of the total acreage. 12.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Table 12 -3 and Table 12 -4 summarize the critical facilities exposed to the landslide hazard. No loss estimates were developed due to the lack of established damage functions for the landslide hazard. A significant amount of infrastructure can be exposed to mass movements: • Roads — Access to major roads is crucial to life - safety after a disaster event and to response and recovery operations. Landslides can block egress and ingress on roads, causing isolation for neighborhoods, traffic problems and delays for public and private transportation. This can result in economic losses for businesses. • Bridges — Landslides can block or damage road bridges. They can knock out bridge abutments or significantly weaken the soil supporting them, making them hazardous for use. • Power Lines —Power lines are generally elevated above steep slopes, but the towers supporting them affected by landslides. A landslide can trigger failure of the soil underneath a tower, causing it to collapse and ripping down the lines. Power and communication failures due to landslides can create problems for vulnerable populations and businesses. 12 -11 ACT.A Page 227 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 12 -1. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN LANDSLIDE RISK AREAS Buildings Value Exposed % of Total Assessed Exposed Structure Contents Total Value Algona 14.0 $7,522,861 $6,957,820 $14,480,680 1.60% Auburn 132.0 $115,123,083 $61,450,630 $176,573,713 0.98% Beaux Arts Village 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Bellevue 1748.0 $1,151,250,598 $829,911,013 $1,981,161,610 4.03% Black Diamond 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Bothell 225.0 $135,200,750 $68,341,843 $203,542,593 3.90% Burien 735.0 $206,988,490 $104,654,051 $311,642,541 3.40% Carnation 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Clyde Hill 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Covington 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Des Moines 468.0 $163,908,888 $87,218,482 $251,127,370 4.37% Duvall 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Enumclaw 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Federal Way 478.0 $152,956,101 $76,736,012 $229,692,113 1.20% Hunts Point 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Issaquah 505.0 $652,601,463 $337,219,604 $989,821,067 10.32% Kenmore 473.0 $122,363,761 $65,289,738 $187,653,499 4.69% Kent 122.0 $56,656,876 $28,328,438 $84,985,314 0.26% Kirkland 899.0 $312,493,103 $159,494,731 $471,987,834 2.13% Lake Forest Park 756.0 $211,960,182 $108,041,231 $320,001,413 14.45% Maple Valley 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Medina 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Mercer Island 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Milton 6.0 $978,634 $489,317 $1,467,951 1.04% Newcastle 122.0 $50,608,456 $25,304,228 $75,912,685 3.35% Normandy Park 13.0 $3,280,477 $1,640,239 $4,920,716 0.38% North Bend 30.0 $7,564,531 $3,782,266 $11,346,797 0.78% Pacific 1.0 $274,382 $137,191 $411,572 0.05% Redmond 544.0 $199,914,136 $113,443,620 $313,357,757 1.35% Renton 193.0 $190,774,870 $110,754,702 $301,529,572 1.17% Sammamish 561.0 $215,893,243 $107,946,621 $323,839,864 3.48% SeaTac 21.0 $3,829,801 $1,914,900 $5,744,701 0.08% Seattle 2008.0 $1,112,503,753 $743,694,102 $1,856,197,855 0.87% Shoreline 548.0 $191,365,011 $96,360,779 $287,725,789 2.58% Skykomish 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Snoqualmie 54.0 $20,169,969 $11,020,692 $31,190,661 1.36% Tukwila 7.0 $83,309,675 $85,070,953 $168,380,628 1.45% Woodinville 130.0 $101,006,592 $73,710,254 $174,716,846 3.86% Yarrow Point 0.0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Unincorporated 3,711 $866,952,616 $460,938,164 $1,347,890,780 3.02 Total 14,504 $6,337,452,302 $3,769,851,621 $10,127,303,921 1.82% Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 12 -12 Page 228 of 869 LANDSLIDE TABLE 12 -2. PRESENT LAND USE IN LANDSLIDE RISK AREAS Present Use Category Area in Landslide Risk Area (acres) % of total Agriculture 257 0.1% Church, Welfare or Religious Service 293 0.1% Commercial 2,310 0.5% Education 546 0.1% Governmental Services 1,355 0.3% Industrial/Manufacturing 2,085 0.5% Medical /Dental Services 5 0.0% Mixed Use Development (Residential & Commercial) 4 0.0% Mortuary /Cemetery /Crematory 149 0.0% Nursing Home /Retirement Facility 90 0.0% Park /Open Space /Golf Course 12,009 2.8% Residential 36,382 8.4% Terminal or Marina 178 0.0% Water /Tideland /Wetland 6 0.0% Uncategorized (includes vacant and resource lands) 375,153 86.5% Utility /Easement/Right of Way 3,128 0.0% Total 433,951 100% Source: Summarized from King, Pierce and Snohomish County parcel data. Acreage covers only mapped parcel extents and thus excludes many rights of way and major water features. Acreage consists only of those areas intersecting mapped hazard layers. ACT.A 12 -13 Page 229 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 12 -3. CRITICAL FACILITIES IN LANDSLIDE RISK AREAS Medical Government Protective Other Critical and Health Functions Functions Schools Hazmat Functions Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Auburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellevue 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 Black Diamond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bothell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burien 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Carnation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Covington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Des Moines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duvall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enumclaw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kenmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kirkland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Forest Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maple Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newcastle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Bend 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redmond 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Renton 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sammamish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SeaTac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seattle 3 0 2 0 1 2 8 Shoreline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skykomish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snoqualmie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tukwila 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodinville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 Total 5 0 4 4 1 7 21 ACT.A 12 -14 Page 230 of 869 LANDSLIDE TABLE 12-4. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN LANDSLIDE RISK AREAS Water Bridges Transportation Supply Wastewater Power Communications Dams Total Algona 0 Auburn 1 Beaux Arts Village 0 Bellevue 0 Black Diamond 0 Bothell 0 Burien 0 Carnation 0 Clyde Hill 0 Covington 0 Des Moines 4 Duvall 0 Enumclaw 0 Federal Way 1 Hunts Point 0 Issaquah 3 Kenmore 5 Kent 0 Kirkland 0 Lake Forest Park 0 Maple Valley 0 Medina 0 Mercer Island 0 Milton 0 Newcastle 1 Normandy Park 0 North Bend 0 Pacific 0 Redmond 0 Renton 0 Sammamish 1 SeaTac 1 Seattle 1 Shoreline 1 Skykomish 0 Snoqualmie 0 Tukwila 3 Woodinville 0 Yarrow Point 0 Unincorporated 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 26 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 9 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 O 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 O 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 O 0 5 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 O 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 3 43 Total 54 3 25 37 0 0 7 126 ACT.A 12 -15 Page 231 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 12.4.4 Environment Landslides that fall into streams may significantly impact fish and wildlife habitat, as well as affecting water quality. Hillsides that provide wildlife habitat can be lost for prolonged periods of time due to landslides. However, landslides also provide integral resources for many ecosystems. They contribute needed sediment and wood for building complex in- stream habitats, estuarine marshes, and beaches that are important for fisheries, wildlife and recreation (Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, 2007). 12.5 VULNERABILITY 12.5.1 Population Due to the nature of census block group data, it is difficult to estimate populations vulnerable to landslides. In general, all of the estimated 35,000 persons exposed to the landslide hazard are considered to be vulnerable. Increasing population, and the fact that many homes are built on view property atop or below bluffs and on steep slopes subject to mass movement, increases the number of lives endangered by this hazard. 12.5.2 Property Although complete historical documentation of the landslide threat in the planning area is lacking, the landslides of 1997 and 2006 suggest a significant vulnerability to such hazards. The millions of dollars in damage countywide attributable to mass movement during those storms affected private property and public infrastructure and facilities. Loss estimations for the landslide hazard are not based on modeling using damage functions, because no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, loss potential was developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 12 -5 shows the general building stock loss estimates in landslide risk areas. 12.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure There are 147 critical facilities and infrastructure exposed to the landslide hazard to some degree. A more in -depth analysis of the mitigation measures taken by these facilities to prevent damage from mass movements should be done to determine if they could withstand impacts of a mass movement. Infrastructure exposed to landslides includes transportation, water and sewer and power infrastructure. Highly susceptible areas of the county include mountain and coastal roads and transportation infrastructure. At this time all infrastructure and transportation corridors identified as exposed to the landslide hazard are considered vulnerable until more information becomes available. 12.5.4 Environment The environment vulnerable to landslide hazard is the same as the environment exposed to the hazard. 12 -16 ACT.A Page 232 of 869 LANDSLIDE TABLE 12 -5. LOSS POTENTIAL FOR LANDSLIDE Exposed Value Estimated Loss Potential from Landslide 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage Algona Auburn Beaux Arts Village Bellevue Black Diamond Bothell Burien Carnation Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Duvall Enumclaw Federal Way Hunts Point Issaquah Kenmore Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Maple Valley Medina Mercer Island Milton Newcastle Normandy Park North Bend Pacific Redmond Renton Sammamish SeaTac Seattle Shoreline Skykomish Snoqualmie Tukwila Woodinville Yarrow Point Unincorporated Total $14,480,680 $176,573,713 $0 $1,981,161,610 $0 $203,542,593 $311,642,541 $0 $0 $0 $251,127,370 $0 $0 $229,692,113 $0 $989,821,067 $187,653,499 $84,985,314 $471,987,834 $320,001,413 $0 $0 $0 $1,467,951 $75,912,685 $4,920,716 $11,346,797 $411,572 $313,357,757 $301,529,572 $323,839,864 $5,744,701 $1,856,197,855 $287,725,789 $0 $31,190,661 $168,380,628 $174,716,846 $0 1,347,890,780 $1,448,068 $17,657,371 $0 $198,116,161 $0 $20,354,259 $31,164,254 $0 $0 $0 $25,112,737 $0 $0 $22,969,211 $0 $98,982,107 $18,765,350 $8,498,531 $47,198,783 $32,000,141 $0 $0 $0 $146,795 $7,591,268 $492,072 $1,134,680 $41,157 $31,335,776 $30,152,957 $32,383,986 $574,470 $185,619,785 $28,772,579 $0 $3,119,066 $16,838,063 $17,471,685 $0 $134,789,078 $4,344,204 $52,972,114 $0 $594,348,483 $0 $61,062,778 $93,492,762 $0 $0 $0 $75,338,211 $0 $0 $68,907,634 $0 $296,946,320 $56,296,050 $25,495,594 $141,596,350 $96,000,424 $0 $0 $0 $440,385 $22,773,805 $1,476,215 $3,404,039 $123,472 $94,007,327 $90,458,872 $97,151,959 $1,723,410 $556,859,356 $86,317,737 $0 $9,357,198 $50,514,188 $52,415,054 $0 $404,367,204 $7,240,340 $88,286,856 $0 $990,580,805 $0 $101,771,297 $155,821,270 $0 $0 $0 $125,563,685 $0 $0 $114,846,057 $0 $494,910,533 $93,826,749 $42,492,657 $235,993,917 $160,000,707 $0 $0 $0 $733,975 $37,956,342 $2,460,358 $5,673,398 $205,786 $156,678,878 $150,764,786 $161,919,932 $2,872,351 $928,098,927 $143,862,895 $0 $15,595,330 $84,190,314 $87,358,423 $0 $673,945,390 $10,127,303,921 $1,012,730,390 $3,038,191,145 $5,063,651,958 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 12 -17 Page 233 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 12.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT The County and its planning partners are equipped to handle future growth in landslide hazard areas. All municipal planning partners have comprehensive plans that define landslide hazard areas as critical areas. All partners have committed to linking their comprehensive plans to this hazard mitigation plan update. This will facilitate wise land use decisions as future growth impacts landslide hazard areas. The State of Washington has adopted the International Building Code (IBC) by reference in its Washington Building Standards Code. The IBC includes provisions for geotechnical analyses in steep slope areas that have soil types considered susceptible to landslide hazards. These provisions ensure that new construction is built to standards that reduce vulnerability to the landslide risk. 12.7 SCENARIO The worst -case scenario for landslide in the planning area would be a severe storm with heavy rain that pushes precipitation levels above the thresholds identified by USGS, followed by an earthquake. This scenario is most likely to occur during late winter when the water table is high. A recent study by Kate Allstadt and others and published online by the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America assessed the effects of landslides on the City of Seattle following a Seattle Fault event. The analysis found that the southern portion of the city and its coastal bluffs would sustain the greatest impacts. Hundreds to thousands of buildings within the city could be impacted (University of Washington, 2013). The analysis also found that many landslides outside of mapped hazard areas may occur, impacting transportation routes. These slides could disrupt emergency response operations. Continued heavy rains and flooding would complicate the problem further. 12.8 ISSUES Landslides are often a secondary hazard related to other natural disasters. Landslide - triggering rainstorms often produce damaging floods. Earthquakes often induce landslides that can cause additional damage. The identification of areas susceptible to landslides is necessary to support grading, building, foundation design, housing density, and other land development regulations in reducing the risk of property damage and personal injury. The most significant effect of landslides in King County is the disruption of transportation and the destruction of private and public property. Important issues associated with landslides in the planning area include the following: • There are existing homes in landslide risk areas throughout the County. The degree of vulnerability of these structures depends on the codes and standards to which the structures were constructed. • Although known landslide hazard areas and steep slopes are subject to regulation under critical area ordinances, continued development pressures could lead to more homes in landslide risk areas. Furthermore, landslides may occur that threaten people and property outside of these mapped areas. • Mapping and assessment of landslide hazards are constantly evolving. As new data and science become available, assessments of landslide risk should be reevaluated. • The impact of climate change on landslides is uncertain. Climate change impacts that alter vegetation patterns, increase the occurrence of wildfires or alter precipitation patterns may increase exposure to landslide risks. • Landslides may cause negative environmental consequences, including water quality degradation. 12 -18 ACT.A Page 234 of 869 LANDSLIDE • The risk associated with the landslide hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such as earthquake, flood and wildfire. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation alternatives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards. • Facilities that contain hazardous materials located in landslide hazard areas may present additional risks for the planning area. Future analysis should assess the exposure and vulnerability of such facilities to landslide hazards. • Mine hazard areas constitute additional geological hazards in the planning area. Future analyses should assess the exposure and vulnerability of the planning area to these sites. According to critical areas guidance, factors that should considered in such an assessment include proximity to development, depth from ground surface to the mine working, and geological material (Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, 2007). • Additional studies should be performed that assess the risks from seismically induced landslides in the planning area. • Numerous geological maps published since the 1990s cover portions of the planning area. This updated data may not be reflected in the risk analysis. The numerous landslide events in the planning area since 1990 are also unlikely to be included in the data set used for this analysis. • LIDAR imagery allows for dramatically greater resolution in delineating landslide features and was not available in the 1990s. A simple, advisory analysis using data derived from LIDAR was performed for this plan, but a more sophisticated analysis should be performed. • Currently available maps do not indicate run -out (where a landslide might go). Current maps show the area that might be unstable, but do not offer a complete picture of areas at risk. • As of the completion of this planning effort, King County was convening a landslide task force to look at the landslide risk within King County more in depth. Products and recommendations from this task force should be considered in future updates to this plan. 12 -19 ACT.A Page 235 of 869 CHAPTER 13. SEVERE WEATHER 13.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Severe weather refers to any dangerous meteorological phenomena with the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, or loss of human life. It includes thunderstorms, hail storms, damaging winds, tornadoes and excessive heat. Severe weather can be categorized into two groups: systems that form over wide geographic areas are classified as general severe weather; those with a more limited geographic area are classified as localized severe weather. Severe weather, technically, is not the same as extreme weather, which refers to unusual weather events at the extremes of the historical distribution for a given area. The most common severe weather events that impact the planning area are thunderstorms, damaging winds and hail storms. These types of severe weather, as well as excessive heat events and tornadoes, are described in the following sections. Flooding issues associated with severe weather are discussed in Chapter 11. 13.1.1 Extreme Heat Excessive heat events are defined by the U.S. EPA as "summertime weather that is substantially hotter and /or more humid than average for a location at that time of year" (U.S. EPA, 2006). Heat waves are excessive heat events that typically last two or more days (CDC, 2014b). Because extreme heat is relative to the usual weather in a region, criteria that define an extreme heat event may differ among jurisdictions and with the time of year. In general, extreme heat events can be characterized by temperatures greater than 90 °F, warm stagnant air masses and consecutive nights with higher- than -usual minimum temperatures (CDC, 2009). Heat Index Extreme heat events are often a result of more than ambient air temperature. Heat index tables (see Figure 13 -1) are commonly used to provide information about how hot it feels based on several meteorological conditions. Heat index values are for shady, light wind conditions; exposure to full sunshine can increase heat index values by up to 15 °F. Strong winds with very hot, dry air also can be extremely hazardous (NWS, 2014b). DEFINITIONS Extreme Heat Event/Heat Wave — Summertime weather that is substantially hotter and /or more humid than average for a location at that time of year. Typically a heat wave lasts two or more days. Severe Local Storm—Small-scalei atmospheric systems, including tornadoes, thunderstorms, and windstorms. These storms may cause a great deal of destruction and even death, but their impact is generally confined to a small area. Typical impacts are on transportation infrastructure and utilities. Thunderstorm —A storm featuring heavy rains, strong winds, thunder and lightning, typically about 15 miles in diameter and lasting about 30 minutes. Hail and tornadoes are also dangers associated with thunderstorms. Lightning is a serious threat to human life. Heavy rains over a small area in a short time can lead to flash flooding. Tornado — Funnel clouds that generate winds up to 500 miles per hour. They can affect an area up to three - quarters of a mile wide, with a path of varying length. Tornadoes can come from lines of cumulonimbus clouds or from a single storm cloud. They are measured using the Fujita Scale, ranging from FO to F5. Windstorm —A storm featuring violent winds. Southwesterly winds are associated with strong storms moving onto the coast from the Pacific Ocean. Southern winds parallel to the coastal mountains are the strongest and most destructive winds. Windstorms tend to damage ridgelines that face into the winds. 13 -1 ACT.A Page 237 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements NOAA's National Weather Service Heat Index Temperature (°F) 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 40 80 81 83 85 88 91 94 97 101 105 109 114 119 124 130 136 45 80 82 84 87 89 93 96 100 104 109 114 119 124 ''130 137 50 81 83 85 88 91 95 99 103 108 113 118 124 (131 137 55 81 84 86 89 93 97 101 106 112 117 124'130 137 60 82 84 88 91 95 100 105 110 116 123 129 137 65 82 85 89 93 98 103 108 114 121 ` "128 136 70 83 86 90 95 100 105 112 119 !,16 134 75 84 38 92 97 103 109 116 124'132 80 84 89 94 100 106 113 121 129 85 85 90 96 102 110 117 26 135 90 86 91 98 105 113 122 131 95 86 93 100 108 117 127 100 87 95 103 112 121 132 Likelihood of Heat Disorders with Prolonged Exposure or Strenuous Activity D Caution E3 Extreme Caution NM Danger • Extreme Danger Figure 13 -1. Heat Index Table Heat Islands Extreme heat events may be exacerbated in urban areas, where reduced air flow, reduced vegetation and increased generation of waste heat can contribute to temperatures that are several degrees higher than in surrounding rural or less urbanized areas. When urban buildings, roads and other infrastructure replace open land and vegetation, surfaces that were once permeable and moist become impermeable and dry. These changes cause urban areas to become warmer than the surrounding areas, serving as contiguous regions of higher temperatures. This phenomenon is known as urban heat island effect. Heat islands can affect communities by increasing peak summer energy demand, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, heat - related illness and death, and water quality degradation. 13.1.2 Thunderstorms A thunderstorm is a rain event that includes thunder and lightning. A thunderstorm is classified as "severe" when it contains one or more of the following: hail with a diameter of three - quarter inch or greater, winds gusting in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph), or tornado. Approximately 10 percent of the 100,000 thunderstorm that occur nationally every year are classified as severe (NOAA, 2014). Three factors cause thunderstorms to form: moisture, rising unstable air (air that keeps rising when disturbed), and a lifting mechanism to provide the disturbance. The sun heats the surface of the earth, which warms the air above it. If this warm surface air is forced to rise (hills or mountains can cause rising motion, as can the interaction of warm air and cold air or wet air and dry air) it will continue to rise as long as it weighs less and stays warmer than the air around it. As the air rises, it transfers heat from the surface of the earth to the upper levels of the atmosphere (the process of convection). The water vapor it contains begins to cool and it condenses into a cloud. The cloud eventually grows upward into areas where the temperature is below freezing. Some of the water vapor turns to ice and some of it turns into 13 -2 ACT.A Page 238 of 869 SEVERE WEATHER water droplets. Both have electrical charges. Ice particles usually have positive charges, and rain droplets usually have negative charges. When the charges build up enough, they are discharged in a bolt of lightning, which causes the sound waves we hear as thunder. Thunderstorms have three stages (see Figure 13 -2): The developing stage of a thunderstorm is marked by a cumulus cloud that is being pushed upward by a rising column of air (updraft). The cumulus cloud soon looks like a tower (called towering cumulus) as the updraft continues to develop. There is little to no rain during this stage but occasional lightning The developing stage lasts about 10 minutes. The thunderstorm enters the mature stage when the updraft continues to feed the storm, but precipitation begins to fall out of the storm, and a downdraft begins (a column of air pushing downward). When the downdraft and rain - cooled air spread out along the ground, they form a gust front, or a line of gusty winds. The mature stage is the most likely time for hail, heavy rain, frequent lightning, strong winds, and tornadoes. The storm occasionally has a black or dark green appearance. Eventually, a large amount of precipitation is produced and the updraft is overcome by the downdraft beginning the dissipating stage. At the ground, the gust front moves out a long distance from the storm and cuts off the warm moist air that was feeding the thunderstorm. Rainfall decreases in intensity, but lightning remains a danger. i iilf'i'i' '"ui'i ' 000000001 uii VIII H-5-8 km—1 Developing Stage 8,16 km Mature Stage 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001lmu 0000000 wwuw 0000000000e 010 00004 400III00�)0000 000111101 J 4i0 10111110000000000001000111104001000101000101000000000 0u��u00, 1811 km Dissipating Stage Figure 13 -2. The Thunderstorm Life Cycle There are four types of thunderstorms: • Single -Cell Thunderstorms — Single -cell thunderstorms usually last 20 to 30 minutes. A true single -cell storm is rare, because the gust front of one cell often triggers the growth of another. Most single -cell storms are not usually severe, but a single -cell storm can produce a brief severe weather event. When this happens, it is called a pulse severe storm. • Multi -Cell Cluster Storm —A multi -cell cluster is the most common type of thunderstorm. The multi -cell cluster consists of a group of cells, moving as one unit, with each cell in a different phase of the thunderstorm life cycle. Mature cells are usually found at the center of the cluster and dissipating cells at the downwind edge. Multi -cell cluster storms can produce moderate -size hail, flash floods and weak tornadoes. Each cell in a multi -cell cluster lasts 13 -3 ACT.A Page 239 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements only about 20 minutes; the multi -cell cluster itself may persist for several hours. This type of storm is usually more intense than a single cell storm. • Multi -Cell Squall Line —A multi -cell line storm, or squall line, consists of a long line of storms with a continuous well - developed gust front at the leading edge. The line of storms can be solid, or there can be gaps and breaks in the line. Squall lines can produce hail up to golf -ball size, heavy rainfall, and weak tornadoes, but they are best known as the producers of strong downdrafts. Occasionally, a strong downburst will accelerate a portion of the squall line ahead of the rest of the line. This produces what is called a bow echo. Bow echoes can develop with isolated cells as well as squall lines. Bow echoes are easily detected on radar but are difficult to observe visually. • Super -Cell Storm —A super -cell is a highly organized thunderstorm that poses a high threat to life and property. It is similar to a single -cell storm in that it has one main updraft, but the updraft is extremely strong, reaching speeds of 150 to 175 miles per hour. Super -cells are rare. The main characteristic that sets them apart from other thunderstorms is the presence of rotation. The rotating updraft of a super -cell (called a mesocyclone when visible on radar) helps the super -cell to produce extreme weather events, such as giant hail (more than 2 inches in diameter), strong downbursts of 80 miles an hour or more, and strong to violent tornadoes. Lightning occurs in all thunderstorms. There are two main types of lightning: intra -cloud lightning and cloud -to- ground lightning. Cloud -to- ground lightning consists of at least one leader and at least one return stroke. The leader initiates the first phase of the a lightning discharge, while a return stroke moves upward along a lightning channel from the ground to the cloud (National Weather Service, 2014). 13.1.3 Hail Storms Hail occurs when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops upward into extremely cold areas of the atmosphere where they freeze into ice. Recent studies suggest that super - cooled water may accumulate on frozen particles near the back -side of a storm as they are pushed forward across and above the updraft by the prevailing winds near the top of the storm. Eventually, the hailstones encounter downdraft air and fall to the ground. Hailstones grow two ways: by wet growth or dry growth. In wet growth, a tiny piece of ice is in an area where the air temperature is below freezing, but not super cold. When the tiny piece of ice collides with a super - cooled drop, the water does not freeze on the ice immediately. Instead, liquid water spreads across tumbling hailstones and slowly freezes. Since the process is slow, air bubbles can escape, resulting in a layer of clear ice. Dry growth hailstones grow when the air temperature is well below freezing and the water droplet freezes immediately as it collides with the ice particle. The air bubbles are "frozen" in place, leaving cloudy ice. Hailstones can have layers like an onion if they travel up and down in an updraft, or they can have few or no layers if they are "balanced" in an updraft. One can tell how many times a hailstone traveled to the top of the storm by counting its layers. Hailstones can begin to melt and then re- freeze together, forming large and very irregularly shaped hail. 13.1.4 Damaging Winds Damaging winds are classified as those exceeding 60 mph. Damage from such winds accounts for half of all severe weather reports in the lower 48 states. Wind speeds can reach up to 100 mph and can produce a damage path extending for hundreds of miles. Isolated wind events in mountainous regions have more 13 -4 ACT.A Page 240 of 869 SEVERE WEATHER localized effects. Windstorms in Washington typically occur from October through March (Washington Emergency Management, 2010). There are seven types of damaging winds: • Straight -line winds —Any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation; this term is used mainly to differentiate from tornado winds. Most thunderstorms produce some straight - line winds as a result of outflow generated by the thunderstorm downdraft. • Downdrafts A small -scale column of air that rapidly sinks toward the ground. • Downbursts—A strong downdraft with horizontal dimensions larger than 2.5 miles resulting in an outward burst or damaging winds on or near the ground. Downburst winds may begin as a microburst and spread out over a wider area, sometimes producing damage similar to a strong tornado. Although usually associated with thunderstorms, downbursts can occur with showers too weak to produce thunder. • Microbursts A small concentrated downburst that produces an outward burst of damaging winds at the surface. Microbursts are generally less than 2.5 miles across and short- lived, lasting only 5 to 10 minutes, with maximum wind speeds up to 168 mph. There are two kinds of microbursts: wet and dry. A wet microburst is accompanied by heavy precipitation at the surface. Dry microbursts, common in places like the high plains and the intermountain west, occur with little or no precipitation reaching the ground. • Gust front —A gust front is the leading edge of rain - cooled air that clashes with warmer thunderstorm inflow. Gust fronts are characterized by a wind shift, temperature drop, and gusty winds out ahead of a thunderstorm. Sometimes the winds push up air above them, forming a shelf cloud or detached roll cloud. • Derecho—A derecho is a widespread thunderstorm wind caused when new thunderstorms form along the leading edge of an outflow boundary (the boundary formed by horizontal spreading of thunderstorm - cooled air). The word "derecho" is of Spanish origin and means "straight ahead." Thunderstorms feed on the boundary and continue to reproduce. Derechos typically occur in summer when complexes of thunderstorms form over plains, producing heavy rain and severe wind. The damaging winds can last a long time and cover a large area. • Bow Echo —A bow echo is a linear wind front bent outward in a bow shape. Damaging straight -line winds often occur near the center of a bow echo. Bow echoes can be 200 miles long, last for several hours, and produce extensive wind damage at the ground. Windstorms can result in collapsed or damaged buildings, damaged or blocked roads and bridges, damaged traffic signals, streetlights and parks, and other damage. They can also cause direct losses to buildings, people, and vital equipment. There are direct consequences to the local economy resulting from windstorms related to both physical damage and interrupted services. Wind pressure can create a direct and frontal assault on a structure, pushing walls, doors, and windows inward. Conversely, passing currents can create lift and suction forces that act to pull building components and surfaces outward. As positive and negative forces impact a building's doors, windows and walls, the result can be roof or building component failures and considerable structural damage. The effects of winds are magnified in the upper levels of multi -story structures. Debris carried along by extreme winds can contribute directly to loss of life and indirectly to the failure of protective building envelopes. Falling trees and branches can damage buildings, power lines, and other property and infrastructure. Tree limbs breaking in winds of only 45 mph can be thrown over 75 feet, so overhead power lines can be damaged even in relatively minor windstorm events. During wet winters, saturated soils cause trees to become less stable and more vulnerable to uprooting from high winds. Utility lines brought down by summer thunderstorms have also been known to cause fires, which start in 13 -5 ACT.A Page 241 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements dry roadside vegetation. Electric power lines falling down to the pavement create the possibility of lethal electric shock. Downed trees and power lines, and damaged property also can be major hindrances to emergency response and disaster recovery. Emergency response operations can be complicated when roads are blocked or when power supplies are interrupted. Industry and commerce can suffer losses from interruptions in electric service and from extended road closures. 13.1.5 Tornado A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between, and in contact with, a cloud and the surface of the earth. As shown in Figure 13 -3, Washington has a relatively low risk compared to states in the Midwestern and Southern U.S. Washington has experienced tornadoes on occasion. Some have produced significant damage, injury or death. Washington's tornadoes can be formed in association with large Pacific storms arriving from the west. Most of them, however, are caused by intense local thunderstorms. These storms also produce lightning, hail and heavy rain, and are more common during the warm season from April to October. Tornadoes are often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud. On a local - scale, tornadoes are the most intense of all atmospheric circulations and wind can reach destructive speeds of more than 300 mph. A tornado's vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths can be up to 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Tornadoes can occur throughout the year at any time of day but are most frequent in the spring during the late afternoon. Figure 13 -4 illustrates the potential impacts and damage from tornadoes of different magnitudes. Highest High ail �����b • ,wwn; Figure 13 -3. Tornado Risk Areas in the United States ACT.A 13 -6 Page 242 of 869 SEVERE WEATHER 1111, 'HI '11111111111,it IA'1(*#fcf11 11110 e41,11c1frir ( 00.-••••• • •••• rn Managing Damage RtSk Caktr cocis Description of Damage 0.; Ilse Threat to Property and Personal Safety Can Be Minimized Through Compliance With Up-To.Date Model Building Codes and Engineering Standards Property and Personal Protection Can Bo Improved Through Wind Hazard Mitigation Tel,hniques Not Normally Required by Current Building Codes Personal Protection Can Only B. Achieved Through Use of a Specially Designed Extreme Wind Refuge Area, Shelter, or Safe Room [!11 r'Sts..f Some darno ca,n be ren to poorly maintained roots„ Unsecured light.weight oblects. such as trash cans, are displaced. Minor damage to roots and broker windows occur, Larger and heavier objects bocorno dispfaCod, Minor damage to trees and landscaping ,can bo Observed RoOfs aro darn d. oricludivao the foss of shingles and some sheathing Manulactured homes. on nonpermanent foundations can bo sluiced off Moir foundations Trees and landscaping either snap or run Wein over. Mediuniesitzed debris boComott airborne, damaging other structures. Roofs and seam watts, eiseecially unreinforco masonry. to tom tern Stfuclurgs, Small ancreary 'millings aro Q0en destroyed Manufactured Wines on notleirri at foundations can be ovtultened, Some Imes are uprooted . WOI renstructed norms, es web as manufactured homes, aro destroyed and soma structures aro Med oft their loundatiOns. Automobrio-sized debris ts displaced and often himblos, Trees aro ottort uprooted and blown CNOT, Strong frame houses and engineered buildings are tilted horn their foundations or are nilicantly dame, d or destroyed Antrim ie-sized debris is morroci significant distances, Trees are uprooted and sphnteuxl, Figure 13-4. Potential Impact and Damage from a Tornado ACT.A 13-7 Page 243 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 13.2 HAZARD PROFILE 13.2.1 Past Events Table 13 -1 summarizes severe weather events in the planning area since 1996, as recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). TABLE 13 -1. PAST SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS IMPACTING PLANNING AREA Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage 09/03/1996 Flood 0 $0 Description: A couple of thunderstorms moved through Puget Sound, knocking out power, and forcing the closure of some roads due to flooding. There was also some marble sized hail. Most of the problems were due to urban flooding. Traffic was slowed to a crawl in most areas because of standing water and several apartments in Bellevue had flooded. Reports of a half an inch in 20 min and three quarters of an inch of rain in 30 min were common. 10/15/1996 Lightning 0 $95,000 Description: Lightning was the probable cause to a house fire that caused $95, 000 in damage. 11/30/1996 Lightning 1 injury $0 Description: A woman suffered burns to her fingers when lightning struck a telephone line. Lightning also knocked out power in several areas of Bellevue when it struck transformers. 12/10/1996 Lightning 0 $350,000 Description: Lightning damaged a home, struck another mobile home and struck a tree near Lake Ballinger. 12/29/1996 Heavy Rain 0 $31.5 million Description: Overall, the total damage from the storm that lasted from December 26 – 31, caused about $315 million in both insured and uninsured damage (in all of WA). Although not all directly caused by the weather (some indirect) the storms claimed 16 lives and sparked a state of emergency in 30 counties. Seattle normally averages 1.44" of precipitation between Dec. 26 and Jan 2nd. This winter it received 8.35" during those eight days. The total number of customers without power at one time was nearly 300,000 and some people went a week without power. The damage affected people for weeks. In Seattle the Magnolia bridge had supports wiped out by mudslides and forced evacuations of 85 homes in the area due to mudslides and sinkholes.. 01/02/1997 Lightning 0 $ 0 Description: Lightning struck a home knocking gutters off blew the electric box out of the wall, left burn marks across the floor and melted a sewing machine. The lightning also affected two other homes, disabling a garage door and blacking out a computer. 04/03/1997 Lightning 1 injury $0 Description: A woman holding an umbrella was struck by lightning. 06/03/1997 Funnel Cloud 0 $0 Description: A spotter observed a small funnel cloud. 07/05/1997 Lightning 2 injuries $0 Description: Two people, a 30 year old woman and a 24 year old man, suffered minor injuries after being struck by lightning. Both were indirect hits, with one of the strikes travelling through a chain link fence before zapping the woman. 08/06/1997 Lightning 1 injury $0 Description: Two people were struck by lightning. Only one was injured with burns on his leg. Lightning also damaged a church furnace and split trees. Power was knocked out to about 1000 customers. ACT.A 13 -8 Page 244 of 869 SEVERE WEATHER TABLE 13 -1. PAST SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS IMPACTING PLANNING AREA Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage 10/04/1997 Lightning 0 $5,000 Description: A lightning bolt struck a home, blowing an 8 foot hole in the living -room wall. It also damaged a nearby tree. 04/08/1998 Lightning 0 0 Description: Lightning struck a fir tree and a shed. It burned a hole through the roof of the shed and exploded two bags of lawn chemicals. 03/01/1999 Heavy Rain 0 $5.5 million Description: The heavy rain, which in turn caused flooding and mudslides, over the winter season has caused 18.5 million damage to Washington State roads. The two hardest hit counties were Mason with 10.2 and King with 5.5 million in damage. 06/01/1999 Lightning 0 $0 Description: Lightning struck a tree and damaged about 50 windows in an apartment complex. 07/16/1999 Lightning 0 $130,000 Description: Lightning struck a house and knocked out power to about 8000 homes. 08/03/1999 Lightning 2 injuries $650,000 Description: Over 1000 lightning strikes were recorded in a four hour period. One man was struck by lightning while standing under a tree, and another man while standing in water next to his boat. At its peak the storm knocked out power to about 20,000 customers. 08/30/1999 Hail 0 $0 Description: A thunderstorm left up to 2 inches of hail on the ground after it was over. There was also a funnel cloud spotted by a NWS employee. 11/17/1999 Heavy Rain 0 $85,000 Description: Heavy rains led to a road being washed out by Issaquah Creek. 01/14/2000 Heavy Rain 15 injuries $0 Description: More than two dozen vehicles collided on Interstate 5 during a brief but heavy, rain shower. Traffic was backed up for about 7 miles. 02/08/2000 Thunderstorm & Wind 0 $25,000 Description: A microburst with winds estimated at 50 mph hit West Seattle knocking down a few trees, damaging two homes and a car. 06/11/2001 Tornado 0 $0 Description: A very weak tornado tossed a teacher and a few children into the air. No one was injured. 08/21/2001 Heavy Rain 0 $0 Description: Record rainfall amounts were set in several locations throughout western Washington on the 22nd. Nearly a month's worth of rain (for Aug —1 inch) fell over most of the area with 2 to 5 inches common along the coast and in the mountains. The greatest storm total was 6.38 inches at Finney Creek in the north Cascades. The heavy rains caused a few power outages and flooding of some roads including SR -16. A woman was swept to her death while trying to cross the Quinault River's east fork in Jefferson County. 11/13/2001 Heavy Rain 0 $0 Description: Heavy rain caused several mudslides which closed several roads across western Washington. In a 48 hour period 3 -5 inches of rain fell in the interior with 4 -8 inches along the coast. Several sites set records for rainfall on Wed Nov 14th - from midnight to midnight, Olympia received 3.64 inches while SeaTac got 2.61 inches. Several buildings were flooded and small mudslides flowed over a few homeowners property, but no significant damage was reported. ACT.A 13 -9 Page 245 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 13 -1. PAST SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS IMPACTING PLANNING AREA Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage 09/08/2003 Heavy Rain 0 $5,000 Description: After about a month with little or no rainfall, a few heavy showers opened up over eastern King and Snohomish counties. Up to 1.5 inches fell in Kirkland, where a couple of homes and a church were flooded. In Duvall, 3500 customers lost power due to toppled trees. 10/20/2003 Heavy Rain 0 $100,000 Description: An all -time daily record rainfall total was set at SeaTac Airport with 5.02 inches. Almost all reporting stations had at least 2 inches of rain in the 24 hour period from midnight to midnight. In all, nearly 50 homes spread over several counties suffered damage from minor flooding especially in basements and garages. Traffic snarls were common as many roads throughout the region were temporarily closed. The national parks and forests suffered fairly extensive damage to several bridges and many trails or the roads that lead to the trails. 02/06/2004 Lightning 0 $0 Description: An airport ramp worker was dazed after lightning struck the plane he was attending at SeaTac Airport. 05/27/2004 Funnel Cloud 0 $0 Description: No description available. 08/22/2004 Heavy Rain 0 $50,000 Description: Heavy rain flooded a Qwest copper cable, which disrupted phone service to 1,500 customers. 26 homes in Seattle's Madison valley neighborhood suffered damage, when a storm water overflow tank backed up. 02/04/2005 Lightning 0 $1,000 Description: A lightning strike caused a small fire on the roof of a gas station. 03/16/2005 Funnel Cloud 0 $0 Description: No description available. 12/24/2005 Heavy Rain 0 $10,000 Description: Heavy rain caused a local creek to flood and damage 3 local businesses in north Seattle. 01/05/2006 Heavy Rain 0 $800,000 Description: The Governor declared a state of emergency after rain, at times heavy, over a period of about 10 days, caused over 7 million in damage, mainly to transportation infrastructure throughout western Washington. Mudslides closed parts of I -5 near the Pierce - Thurston county line, part of Highway 20 about a half mile east of Concrete, Highway 107 near Raymond, and Highway 166 near Port Orchard - where 3 cars crashed in the mud. In King County, there were 19 road closures from water over the roadway. Many homes had flooded basements or crawlspaces. 03/10/2006 Hail 0 $0 Description: A thunderstorm briefly dumped 1 inch hail in Redmond. 11/04/2006 Flood 0 $11.1 million Description: A strong, warm and very wet Pacific weather system brought copious amounts of rainfall to Washington from November 2 through 7, with subsequent major flooding through November 11. This storm produced rain amounts of 10 to 38 inches in the Cascades and Olympics and 4 to 10 inches in western Washington lowlands. Floods occurred at 34 forecast points on 25 rivers. There were 22 locations with major flooding or greater. There were 20 record floods. Widespread and excessive urban and small stream flooding also occurred. 11 counties were declared disaster areas. A tally had 104 homes destroyed, 206 homes with major damage, and 572 received minor damage. ACT.A 13 -10 Page 246 of 869 SEVERE WEATHER TABLE 13 -1. PAST SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS IMPACTING PLANNING AREA Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage 12/14/2006 Heavy Rain/Flash Flood 1 death $1.75 million Description: A strong rain and wind storm on Dec 14 —1 5 initially brought 1 to 2 inches of heavy rainfall to parts of western Washington, producing areas of urban and small stream flooding and overwhelming drainage systems. Widespread strong damaging winds followed. In western Washington, peak winds reached 80 to 90 mph along the coast and 60 to 75 mph elsewhere. A few locations had gusts as high 85 mph in the interior. Mountain areas recorded peak wind speeds in excess of 100 mph. The wind storm blew down thousands of trees and knocked power out to close to 1.5 million customers. There were four fatalities as a direct result of the storm and 11 indirect fatalities following the storm: Three people in western Washington were killed by fallen trees; one person drowned in Seattle when a basement filled with rain runoff; two people were electrocuted by downed power lines and one man died after his home burned apparently started by a candle used for light. 36people were directly injured by the wind storm. Another 275 people in King county were treated for carbon monoxide poisoning. 07/13/2007 Lightning 0 $5,000 Description: Lightning struck a home in Kirkland causing minor damage. 12/03/2007 Heavy Rain 0 $12 million Description: Flooding occurred on the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers and Issaquah Creek. Significant urban and small stream flooding occurred in King County as 3 to 8 inches of rain fell over the area. A storm system initially generated lowland snow in western Washington and later created strong winds in the coastal region and avalanches in the Cascades. Four apartment buildings were evacuated in North Seattle, where some basement apartments had 3 feet of water in them. About 30 people were evacuated from apartments in Woodinville. Many roads were closed. About 20 roads were damaged. Nearly 5 inches of rain fell at SeaTac airport. Nathan Hale High School in north Seattle was closed for a week due to water damage from Thornton Creek. Homes and businesses had water damage. 05/17/2008 Heat 2 indirect deaths, $0 14 indirect injuries Description: Western Washington had its first hot spell of the year following below normal spring temperatures. The heat helped push mountain snow melt streams higher (below flood levels) with swift running and cold water temperatures. This combination led to people seeking relief from the heat by heading to these swift running streams. There were two indirect fatalities due to the heat. Both are missing and likely drowned. One kayaker spilled into the Green River and disappeared. One of four rafters who were thrown into the Green River when their raft flipped disappeared (King County). 06/06/2008 Funnel Cloud 0 $0 Description: A January type storm hit western Washington with strong winds and 2 funnel clouds. Winds gusting to 45 mph knocked out power to nearly 35,000 customers. One fallen tree struck three mobile homes in Purdy. South Kitsap high school students got the day off because of a power outage at the school. The final evening run of the Port Townsend - Keystone ferry was canceled. Funnel cloud reached about half way toward the ground. 07/02/2008 Hail 0 $0 Description: Lots of lightning and small hail was reported from the afternoon of the 2nd through the early morning hours of the 3rd. 08/25/2008 Funnel Cloud 0 $0 Description: Two funnel clouds were spotted. One over Lake Washington, and another near Black Diamond. 11/12/2008 Heavy Rain 0 $100,000 Description: Heavy rain caused flooding on 15 western Washington rivers, with eight river forecast points reaching major flood stage. Major flooding on the Snoqualmie River. ACT.A 13 -11 Page 247 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 13 -1. PAST SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS IMPACTING PLANNING AREA Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage 01/07/2009 Heavy Rain 0 $14 million Description: Rainfall of 8 -20 inches in the mountains and 1 to 9 inches in the lowlands occurred Jan 6 — 8. Record flooding occurred on the Snoqualmie, Tolt, and North Fork Stillaguamish Rivers. Major flooding occurred on 18 rivers and 21 forecast points. Surveys found an estimated 497 residences that were destroyed or suffered major damage, and another 2,340 residences that needed repairs. Over 44,000 people were evacuated. The cities of Snoqualmie, Carnation, Duvall and Fall City flooded. Issaquah Creek flooded some residences and businesses. It also eroded part of the riverbank, which caused a guest house to fall into the creek. About 40 King County roads were closed. In Pacific, about 1000 people evacuated due to flooding from releases from the Mud Mountain dam. 04/28/2009 Funnel Cloud 0 $0 Description: A funnel cloud was spotted near Maple Valley for a few minutes and photographed. 07/27/2009 Excessive Heat 1 death $0 Description: Strong high pressure aloft led to a major heat event for Western Washington. The average temperature for July 2009 at Seattle - Tacoma airport was 69.5 degrees, the warmest July on record for the airport, and tying the record for the warmest July on record in Seattle. Many record high temperatures were broken, including 103 °F at Seattle - Tacoma airport, 104 °F at Olympia and 96 °F at Bellingham. A heat related death occurred when a 66 year old male died in Seattle. The downtown Bremerton library closed for two days due to excessive heat. Some University of Washington libraries closed and several classes were held outside due to the lack of air conditioning in classrooms. 09/06/2009 Lightning 0 $20,000 Description: Lightning struck a tree next to a home, causing damage to the home's siding and electronics inside. 05/08/2010 Funnel Cloud 0 $0 Description: Some bicycles were tossed and a tent blew apart at Genesee Park in the Rainier Valley of Seattle. 06/09/2010 Funnel Cloud 0 $0 Description: A spotter saw a small funnel cloud east of Enumclaw. It was brief and spotter could not see if it touched the ground due to the trees. 12/12/2010 Heavy Rain 0 $3 million Description: There was major flooding along the Snoqualmie River. Westside Hwy on Vashon island was closed due to a portion of the road sinking. Some basements flooded in Newcastle. Several roads around North Bend and Carnation were closed due to flooding. 12/14/2010 Thunderstorm & Wind 0 $25,000 Description: A squall line produced outflow winds with gusts between 45 and 70 mph. About 8600 Seattle City Light customers lost power. About 300 homes in the Sammamish area lost power. A Maple valley lumber storage building had its roof ripped off. 01/16/2011 Heavy Rain 1 $20,000 Description: A DOT worker was killed when a tree fell on Highway 203 south of Carnation. Several mudslides blocked roads. The Snoqualmie Falls golf course and parts of Highway 202 were flooded. 07/13/2012 Lightning 1 injury $100,000 Description: A lightning strike cause minor damage to a home and minor injuries to the homeowner when he was blown across the room. After the lightning strike, a fire started, which caused nearly $100,000 damage to the house. 01/09/2013 Debris Flow 0 $5,000 Description: Two mudslides between Jan 8th and 9th caused minor damage in King and Whatcom counties. A road was partially blocked and minivan damaged when a mudslide occurred just south of Alki Beach. 05/13/2013 Thunderstorm, Wind 0 $25,000 Description: A tree and power lines fell across cars in a parking lot at Green River Community College in Auburn. Classes were canceled for the rest of the day due to a power outage ACT.A 13 -12 Page 248 of 869 SEVERE WEATHER TABLE 13 -1. PAST SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS IMPACTING PLANNING AREA Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage 07/17/2013 Lightning 0 $5,000 Description: One lightning strike damaged a transformer, which knocked out power to customers in Shoreline. 07/31/2013 Lightning 0 $10,000 Description: Thunderstorms damaged two homes and an underground pipeline near Sammamish. 09/05/2013 Heavy Rain 0 $10,000 Description: Heavy rain caused a sinkhole that damaged a road in Burien. Source: http:// www. ncdc. noaa. gov/ stormevents/ choosedates .jsp ?statefips= 53 %2CWASHINGTON 13.2.2 Location Severe weather events have the potential to happen anywhere in the planning area. Communities in low - lying areas next to streams or lakes are more susceptible to flooding. Wind events are most damaging to areas that are heavily wooded and areas with exposed property, major infrastructure, and above ground utility lines. The distribution of average weather conditions over the planning area is shown in Figure 6 -2 through Figure 6 -5. 13.2.3 Frequency The severe weather events for King County shown in Table 13 -1 are often related to high winds, heavy rain or lightning associated with storms. The planning area can expect to experience exposure to some type of severe weather event at least annually. In 18 years, the county has experienced 57 severe weather events with an average of 3 events per year. According to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, King County is vulnerable to high winds. The County is likely to experience at least one high wind event per year. Washington averaged three tornadoes per year between 1991 and 2010, none with a rating of EF3 or greater. The state ranks low in the U.S. for average annual tornadoes per square mile —only Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Alaska have fewer yearly tornadoes per area than Washington's 0.4 per 10,000 square miles (NOAA, 2014b). Lightning strikes occur occasionally in the planning area, although much less frequently than in other parts of the country. Since 1996, NOAA reports 19 lightning strikes in King County, with 7 injuries, no deaths, and $925,500 in damage. Flooding as a result of severe weather occurs annually within the planning area (see Chapter 11). Only two instances of extreme heat events are listed for the planning area between 1996 and 2013; however, this data likely underestimates the occurrence of such events in the planning area. Extreme heat events can occur several times per year, especially in the summer. 13.2.4 Severity The most common problems associated with severe storms are immobility and loss of utilities. Fatalities are uncommon, but can occur. Roads may become impassable due to flooding, downed trees or a landslide. Power lines may be downed due to high winds, and services such as water or phone may not be able to operate without power. Lightning can cause severe damage and injury. Windstorms can be a frequent problem in the planning area and have been known to cause damage to utilities. The predicted wind speed given in wind warnings issued by the National Weather Service is for a 13 -13 ACT.A Page 249 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements one - minute average; gusts may be 25 to 30 percent higher. Lower wind speeds typical in the lower valleys are still high enough to knock down trees and power lines and cause other property damage. Mountainous sections of the County experience much higher winds under more varied conditions. Tornadoes are potentially the most dangerous of local storms, but they are not common in the planning area. If a major tornado were to strike within the populated areas of the county, damage could be widespread. Businesses could be forced to close for an extended period or permanently, fatalities could be high, many people could be homeless for an extended period, and routine services such as telephone or power could be disrupted. Buildings may be damaged or destroyed. The severity of an extreme heat event depends on how early the event occurs in the summer and the number of consecutive days it lasts (EPA, 2006). Urban heat island effect can exacerbate the severity of an extreme heat event. 13.2.5 Warning Time Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe storm or other severe weather event. This can give several days of warning time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of the storm. Some storms may come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time. The Seattle Office of the National Weather Service monitors weather stations and issues watches and warnings when appropriate to alert government agencies and the public of possible or impending weather events. The watches and warnings are broadcast over NOAA weather radio and are forwarded to the local media for retransmission using the Emergency Alert System. NWS and NOAA also issue outlooks, watches, warnings and advisory information for extreme heat. 13.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS The most significant secondary hazards associated with severe local storms are floods, falling and downed trees, landslides and downed power lines. Rapidly melting snow combined with heavy rain can overwhelm both natural and man -made drainage systems, causing overflow and property destruction. Landslides occur when the soil on slopes becomes oversaturated and fails. Excessive heat events can cause failure of motorized systems, such as ventilation systems used to control temperatures inside buildings, if these systems are operating above typical operating standards. Additionally, demand for cooling systems during these events can overload energy systems and result in controlled or unexpected power outages. Fires can occur as a result of lightning strikes. 13.4 EXPOSURE 13.4.1 Population A lack of data separating severe weather damage from flooding and landslide damage prevented a detailed analysis for exposure and vulnerability. However, it can be assumed that the entire planning area is exposed to some extent to severe weather events. Certain areas are more exposed due to geographic location and local weather patterns. Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees or power lines may be more susceptible to wind damage and black out, while populations in low -lying areas are at risk for possible flooding. Populations living in densely populated urban areas are likely to be more exposed to extreme heat events. 13.4.2 Property According to the King County Assessor, there are 545,846 structures within the census tracts that define the planning area. Most of these buildings are residential. It is estimated that 70 percent of the residential 13 -14 ACT.A Page 250 of 869 SEVERE WEATHER structures were built without the influence of a structure building code with provisions for wind loads. All of these buildings are considered to be exposed to the severe weather hazard, but structures in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations (located on hilltops or exposed open areas) may risk the most damage. The frequency and degree of damage will depend on specific locations. 13.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure All critical facilities exposed to flooding (Chapter 11) are also likely exposed to severe weather. Additional facilities on higher ground may also be exposed to wind damage or damage from falling trees. The most common problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities. Downed power lines can cause blackouts, leaving large areas isolated. Phone, water and sewer systems may not function. Roads may become impassable due secondary hazards such as landslides. 13.4.4 Environment The environment is highly exposed to severe weather events. Natural habitats such as streams and trees are exposed to the elements during a severe storm and risk major damage and destruction. Prolonged rains can saturate soils and lead to slope failure. Flooding events caused by severe weather can produce river channel migration or damage riparian habitat. Storm surges can erode beachfront bluffs and redistribute sediment loads. 13.5 VULNERABILITY 13.5.1 Population Vulnerable populations are the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life - threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are isolated from major roads. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant concern. These populations face isolation and exposure during severe weather events and could suffer more secondary effects of the hazard. Nationally, lighting is one of the leading causes of weather - related fatalities (CDC, 2013). Lightning strikes are far more common in other areas of the country than they are in the Pacific Northwest. The majority of injuries and deaths associated with lighting strikes occur when people are out of doors; however, almost one -third of lightning related injuries occur indoors. Males are five times more likely than females to be struck by lighting and people between the ages of 15 and 34 account for 41 percent of all lightning strike victims (CDC, 2013). According to the U.S. EPA, the individuals with one or more of the following characteristics are typically at greater risk to the adverse effects of excessive heat events: Individuals with physical or mobility constraints, cognitive impairments, economic constraints, and social isolation. The average summertime mortality for excessive heat events is dependent upon the methodology used to derive such estimates. Certain medical conditions, such as heat stroke, can be directly attributable to excessive heat, while others may be exasperated by excessive heat, resulting in medical emergencies. The U.S. EPA cites two studies that estimate excessive heat attributable deaths in select metropolitan regions in the U.S. based on 1990 population levels (EPA, 2006). Average estimated heat - attributed mortality in Seattle is between 5 (Kalkstein and Greene, 1997) and 96 (Davis et al., 2003). 13.5.2 Property All property is vulnerable during severe weather events, but properties in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. Those in higher elevations and on ridges may be more 13 -15 ACT.A Page 251 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements prone to wind damage. Those that are located under or near overhead lines or near large trees may be damaged in the event of a collapse. Loss estimates for the severe weather hazard are not based on damage functions, because no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, estimates were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of potential economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 13 -2 lists the loss estimates. 13.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Incapacity and loss of roads are the primary transportation failures resulting from severe weather, mostly associated with secondary hazards. Landslides caused by heavy prolonged rains can block roads. High winds can cause significant damage to trees and power lines, blocking roads with debris, incapacitating transportation, isolating population, and disrupting ingress and egress. Of particular concern are roads providing access to isolated areas and to the elderly. Prolonged obstruction of major routes due to landslides, debris or floodwaters can disrupt the shipment of goods and other commerce. Large, prolonged storms can have negative economic impacts for an entire region. Severe windstorms and downed trees can create serious impacts on power and above - ground communication lines. Loss of electricity and phone connection would leave certain populations isolated because residents would be unable to call for assistance. 13.5.4 Environment The vulnerability of the environment to severe weather is the same as the exposure. 13.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The planning partners have adopted the International Building Code in response to Washington State mandates. This code is equipped to deal with the impacts of severe weather events. Land use policies identified in comprehensive plans within the planning area also address many of the secondary impacts (flood and landslide) of the severe weather hazard. To combat the effects of urban heat island effect, communities can implement design standards and urban planning principles that reduce the impacts of excessive heat events. With these tools, the planning partnership is well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather. 13.7 SCENARIO Impacts of severe weather can be significant, particularly when secondary hazards of flood and landslide occur. A worst -case event would involve prolonged high winds accompanied by thunderstorms. Such an event would have both short-term and longer -term effects. Initially, schools and roads would be closed due to power outages caused by high winds and downed tree obstructions. In more rural areas, some subdivisions could experience limited ingress and egress. Prolonged rain could produce flooding, overtopped culverts with ponded water on roads, and landslides on steep slopes. Flooding and landslides could further obstruct roads and bridges, further isolating residents. 13 -16 ACT.A Page 252 of 869 SEVERE WEATHER TABLE 13 -2. LOSS POTENTIAL FOR SEVERE WEATHER Total Assessed Value Estimated Loss Potential from Severe Weather 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage Algona Auburn Beaux Arts Bellevue Black Diamond Bothell Burien Carnation Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Duvall Enumclaw Federal Way Hunts Point Issaquah Kenmore Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Maple Valley Medina Mercer Island Milton Newcastle Normandy Park North Bend Pacific Redmond Renton Sammamish SeaTac Seattle Shoreline Skykomish Snoqualmie Tukwila Woodinville Yarrow Point Unincorporated Total $902,612,000 $17,992,313,000 $60,778,000 $49,163,714,000 $600,388,000 $5,215,897,000 $9,165,566,000 $328,410,000 $845,586,000 $2,849,591,000 $5,742,226,000 $1,108,322,000 $2,667,155,000 $19,102,220,000 $160,100,000 $9,587,897,000 $4,000,207,000 $33,182,020,000 $22,202,262,000 $2,214,717,000 $3,129,530,000 $947,196,000 $6,598,328,000 $140,733,000 $2,266,792,000 $1,306,626,000 $1,453,593,000 $830,743,000 $23,234,414,000 $25,825,586,000 $9,306,835,000 $7,572,236,000 $212,337,688,000 $11,169,471,000 $74,730,000 $2,297,236,000 $11,628,108,000 $4,522,687,000 $300,638,000 $44,641,548,000 $90,261,200 $1,799,231,300 $6,077,800 $4,916,371,400 $60,038,800 $521,589,700 $916,556,600 $32,841,000 $84,558,600 $284,959,100 $574,222,600 $110,832,200 $266,715,500 $1,910,222,000 $16,010,000 $958,789,700 $400,020,700 $3,318,202,000 $2,220,226,200 $221,471,700 $312,953,000 $94,719,600 $659,832,800 $14,073,300 $226,679,200 $130,662,600 $145,359,300 $83,074,300 $2,323,441,400 $2,582,558,600 $930,683,500 $757,223,600 $21,233,768,800 $1,116,947,100 $7,473,000 $229,723,600 $1,162,810,800 $452,268,700 $30,063,800 $4,648,154,800 $270,783,600 $5,397,693,900 $18,233,400 $14,749,114,200 $180,116,400 $1,564,769,100 $2,749,669,800 $98,523,000 $253,675,800 $854,877,300 $1,722,667,800 $332,496,600 $800,146,500 $5,730,666,000 $48,030,000 $2,876,369,100 $1,200,062,100 $9,954,606,000 $6,660,678,600 $664,415,100 $938,859,000 $284,158,800 $1,979,498,400 $42,219,900 $680,037,600 $391,987,800 $436,077,900 $249,222,900 $6,970,324,200 $7,747,675,800 $2,792,050,500 $2,271,670,800 $63,701,306,400 $3,350,841,300 $22,419,000 $689,170,800 $3,488,432,400 $1,356,806,100 $90,191,400 $13,404,464,400 $451,306,000 $8,996,156,500 $30,389,000 $24,581,857,000 $300,194,000 $2,607,948,500 $4,582,783,000 $164,205,000 $422,793,000 $1,424,795,500 $2,871,113,000 $554,161,000 $1,333,577,500 $9,551,110,000 $80,050,000 $4,793,948,500 $2,000,103,500 $16,591,010,000 $11,101,131,000 $1,107,358,500 $1,564,765,000 $473,598,000 $3,299,164,000 $70,366,500 $1,133,396,000 $653,313,000 $726,796,500 $415,371,500 $11,617,207,000 $12,912,793,000 $4,653,417,500 $3,786,118,000 $106,168,844,000 $5,584,735,500 $37,365,000 $1,148,618,000 $5,814,054,000 $2,261,343,500 $150,319,000 $22,340,774,000 $556,676,699,000 $55,851,669,900 $167,015,009,700 $278,358,349,500 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 13 -17 Page 253 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 13.8 ISSUES Severe local storms are probably the most common widespread hazard. They affect large numbers of people in the planning area when they occur. Severe storms can quickly overwhelm city and county resources. Citizens should be prepared for these types of storms: family plans should be developed, disaster kits should be put in homes, workplaces, schools and cars, and every family member should be taught how to shut off household utilities. Initiating early dismissal from schools and business is an effective mitigation measure and should be encouraged. Severe weather cannot be prevented, but measures can be taken to mitigate the effects. Critical infrastructure and utilities can be hardened to prevent damage during an event. The secondary effect of flooding can be addressed through decreasing runoff and water velocity. Important issues associated with severe weather in the King County planning area include the following: • Redundancy of power supply throughout the planning area must be evaluated to better understand what areas may be vulnerable. • The capacity for backup power generation is limited. • The County has numerous isolated population centers. • Public education on dealing with the impacts of severe weather needs to be provided so that citizens can be better informed and prepared for severe weather events. • Debris management (downed trees, etc.) must be addressed, because debris can impact the severity of severe weather events, requires coordination efforts, and may require additional funding. • The effects of climate change may result in an increase in frequency of extreme heat events. 13 -18 ACT.A Page 254 of 869 CHAPTER 14. SEVERE WINTER WEATHER 14.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND Severe winter weather is any dangerous cold- weather phenomena with the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, or loss of human life. It includes snowstorms, ice storms, blizzards, and extreme cold. Typically, significant winter storms occur during the transition between cold and warm periods. 14.1.1 Blizzards and Snowstorms The National Weather Service defines a winter storm as having significant snowfall, ice and /or freezing rain; the quantity of precipitation varies by elevation. Heavy snowfall is 4 inches or more in a 12 -hour period, or 6 inches or more in a 24 -hour period in non - mountainous areas; and 12 inches or more in a 12 -hour period or 18 inches or more in a 24 -hour period in mountainous areas. There are three key ingredients to a severe winter storm: • Cold Air — Below- freezing temperatures in the clouds and near the ground are necessary to make snow and /or ice. • Moisture — Moisture is required in order to form clouds and precipitation. Air blowing across a body of water, such as a large lake or the ocean, is an excellent source of moisture. • Lift—Lift is required in order to raise the moist air to form the clouds and cause precipitation. An example of lift is warm air colliding with cold air and being forced to rise over the cold dome. The boundary between the warm and cold air masses is called a front. Another example of lift is air flowing up a mountain side. DEFINITIONS Freezing Rain —The result of rain occurring when the temperature is below the freezing point. The rain freezes on impact, resulting in a layer of ice up to an inch thick. In severe events, an evergreen tree 60 feet high and 30 feet wide can be burdened with up to 6 tons of ice, creating a threat to utility lines and transportation routes. Severe Local Storm — Small -scale atmospheric systems, including ice storms and snowstorms. These storms may cause a great deal of destruction, but their impact is generally confined to a small area. Typical impacts are on ransportation infrastructure and utilities. Winter Storm —A storm having significant snowfall, ice, and /or freezing rain; the quantity of precipitation varies; by elevation. Areas most vulnerable to winter storms are those affected by convergence of dry, cold air from the interior of the North American continent and warm, moist air off the Pacific Ocean. When strong storms crossing the Pacific arrive at the coast, if the air is cold enough, snow falls. As the moisture rises into the mountains, heavy snow closes the mountain passes and can cause avalanches. Cold air from the north has to filter through mountain canyons into the basins and valleys to the south. If the cold air is deep enough, it can spill over the mountain ridge. As the air funnels through canyons and over ridges, wind speeds can reach 100 mph. High winds with snow results in a blizzard. Heavy snow can immobilize a region and paralyze a city, stranding commuters, stopping the flow of supplies, and disrupting emergency and medical services. Accumulations of snow can collapse buildings and knock down trees and power lines. In rural areas, homes and farms may be isolated for days, and unprotected livestock may be lost. In the mountains, heavy snow can lead to avalanches. The cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and loss of business can have large economic impacts on cities and towns. 14 -1 ACT.A Page 255 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 14.1.2 Ice Storms The National Weather Service defines an ice storm as a storm that results in the accumulation of at least 0.25 inches of ice on exposed surfaces. Ice storms occur when rain falls from a warm, moist, layer of atmosphere into a below freezing, drier layer near the ground. The rain freezes on contact with the cold ground and exposed surfaces, causing damage to trees, utility wires, and structures (see Figure 14 -1). ���uuulll Rain Frozen precipitation Melts and reaches the gra Freezing Rain Frozen precipit.rii,,r !twits in Warm :•tr F'.ii . :itif t:WARS. Sleet Snow Fr14. :' ,Iipre'.ipti rt1elt5 in shallow velum air. Then through :r,t,t .tEr refreezes into sleet before ur rr it }t reaching the surface. Iltrr, Figure 14 -1. The Formation of Different Kinds of Precipitation Ice accretion generally ranges from a trace to 1 inch. Accumulations between 1/4 -inch and 1/2 -inch can cause small branch and faulty limb breakage. Accumulations of 1/2 -inch to 1 inch can cause significant breakage. Strong winds increase the potential for damage from ice accumulation. 14.1.3 Extreme Cold and Wind Chill Weather that constitutes extreme cold varies across different parts of the U.S. In regions relatively unaccustomed to winter weather, near freezing temperatures are considered extreme cold (CDC, 2014a). Extreme cold can often accompany severe winter storms. Wind can exacerbate the effects of cold temperatures by carrying heat away from the body more quickly, thus making it feel colder than is indicated by the temperature. This phenomenon is known as wind chill. Wind chill is the temperature that your body feels when the air temperature is combined with wind speed (CDC, 2014a). Figure 14 -2 shows the value of wind chill based on ambient temperature and wind speed. ACT.A 14 -2 Page 256 of 869 SEVERE WINTER WEATHER Calm 5 10 15 20 25 E 30 3 45 40 35 30 25 20 Temperature (°F) 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 11111111111111111111111'1'1'1'1'14'1" P1111I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111, 11111111111111 go loolool 1111111 11111'''''' -57 .......... 1111 111111111 7 �u 1111 ::.. 1 42 4 oIIIIIIIIII' ,41 -60 4 - -62 SO 7 -64 0 1 12 - 1� 12 - -10 2 1-- 11 4 1 7 141 Frostbite Times ",,,; -44 ,;- 1 —58 —65 45 ;;,, — 2 —60 9 % — 4 —61 —68 40 %- 48 — —62 —69 1111 0 minutes c 10 minutes minutes 64 —71 —77 —68 —74 —811 —64 -71 -78 —84 —67 -73 -80 —87. —69 —76 —82 —89 —71 -78 -84 _91 —72 —79 —86 —93 —74 —81 — 88 —95 —75 —82 —89 _97. —76 —84 —91 —98 Wind Chill (OF) = 35.74 0.6215T- 35.75(V7Y.16) + 0A275T(V°11) h ere, T" ro Air Temperature 019 V.. Windl Speed (mph Effective 1 1 t Figure 14 -2. Wind Chill Chart 14.2 HAZARD PROFILE 14.2.1 Past Events Table 14 -1 lists King County winter weather events since 1960 recorded in the SHELDUS database. 14.2.2 Location Severe winter weather events have the potential to happen anywhere in the planning area. In general, snowfall increases at higher elevations and farther from Puget Sound. In most of the planning area, snow typically melts within a day or two and rarely exceeds 15 inches (Washington Regional Climate Center, 2014). Figure 6 -3 shows the distribution of average minimum temperatures over the planning area. 14.2.3 Frequency There is no record indicating the frequency of extreme cold events in King County; however, records from the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport indicate that on average there are 1.6 days per year when the maximum temperature is less than 32 °F and 24.9 days per year when the minimum temperature is below 32 °F (Washington Regional Climate Center, 2014). According to SHELDUS, 44 winter weather events have affected the planning area since 1960. According to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the recurrence interval for winter storms in King County is at least every other year (70 percent). 14 -3 ACT.A Page 257 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 14 -1. PAST SEVERE WINTER WEATHER EVENTS IMPACTING PLANNING AREA Property & Crop Date Hazard Type /Remarks Injuriesa Fatalitiesa Damage 11/20/1960 Winter Weather /Snow 0.06 0 $2,941 12/16/1964 Severe Storm, Thunderstorm, Winter Weather /Cold wave, 0 0.03 $128,205 heavy snowfall, heavy rain 1/26/1965 Flooding, Landslide, Winter Weather/Flooding, mudslide, 0 0 $12,821 snow slide 10/1/1967 Severe Storm, Thunderstorm, Wind, Winter Weather/Wind, 0 0 $278 rain, snow 12/30/1968 Winter Weather /Snow 0 0 $1,282 1/14/1971 Wind, Winter Weather/Wind and Snow 0 0.03 $1,282 1/22/1971 Severe Storm, Thunderstorm, Wind, Winter Weather/Wind, 0.33 4 $2,778 Rain and Snow 1/24/1972 Winter Weather/Near Blizzard 0 0 $14,103 1/24/1972 Winter Weather/Freeze 0 0 $12,949 12/4/1972 Winter Weather /Cold, Freeze, Snow 0 0 $12,821 12/26/1974 Wind, Winter Weather /Snow & Wind 0 0 $16,683 1/7/1975 Wind, Winter Weather/Wind and Snow 0.05 0 $1,282 11/30/1975 Avalanche, Winter Weather /Snowstorm, Avalanche 0 0 $2,632 12/2/1985 Winter Weather /Ice Storm 0 1 $128 2/1/1989 Winter Weather /Snowstorm/High Wind 0 4.03 $128,205 12/18/1990 Wind, Winter Weather /Snowstorm, High Winds 0 0 $416,667 12/19/1990 Winter Weather/Hard Freeze 0 0 $1,282 12/29/1990 Winter Weather /Hard Freeze 0 0 $1,282 12/8/1992 Winter Weather/Ice 0 4 $714 12/10/1992 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 0.17 0 $4,167 1/19/1993 Winter Weather /Freezing Rain 0.63 0.67 $12,500 12/24/1993 Winter Weather /Ice 1.7 0 $5,000 2/23/1994 Winter Weather/Heavy Snow 0 0 $417 1/18/1996 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 2 0.5 $0 11/19/1996 Winter Weather/Heavy Snow 22 0 $0 12/28/1996 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 0 1 $10,416,667 2/15/2001 Winter Weather/ 0 0 $500 11/19/2003 Winter Weather/ 0 0 $75,000 1/6/2004 Winter Weather/ 0 0 $90,909 12/1/2005 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 0 0 $1,667 11/26/2006 Winter Weather/Heavy Snow 0 0 $1,083,333 1/10/2007 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 0 0 $6,111 2/28/2007 Winter Weather/Winter Weather 0 0 $25,000 2/28/2007 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 0 0 $1,333 6/10/2008 Winter Weather /Winter Weather 0.5 0.25 $0 12/17/2008 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 0 0 $57,692 12/18/2008 Winter Weather/Heavy Snow 0 0 $200,000 12/20/2008 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 0 0 $150,000 ACT.A 14 -4 Page 258 of 869 SEVERE WINTER WEATHER TABLE 14 -1. PAST SEVERE WINTER WEATHER EVENTS IMPACTING PLANNING AREA Property & Crop Date Hazard Type /Remarks Injuriesa Fatalitiesa Damage 12/20/2008 Winter Weather/Heavy Snow 0 0 $113,636 12/21/2008 Winter Weather /Heavy Snow 0.09 0 $550,136 12/24/2008 Winter Weather/Heavy Snow 0 0 $45,000 12/25/2008 Winter Weather/Winter Weather 0 0 $87,500 1/19/2012 Winter Weather /Ice Storm 0 0 $2,000,000 1/19/2012 Winter Weather /Ice Storm 0.33 0.33 $266,667 12/15/2012 Winter Weather/Heavy Snow 0 0 $0 a. Fractional values of injuries and fatalities indicate that data were available for a multi - county area; per - county counts were estimated by dividing the total by the number of counties in the defined area Source: http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvriapps/sheldusweb/sheldusresults.aspx 14.2.4 Severity The most common problems associated with severe winter storms are immobility and loss of utilities. Fatalities are uncommon, but can occur. Roads may become impassable due to downed trees, ice or snow. Power lines may be downed due to ice accumulation, and services such as water or phone may not be able to operate without power. Physical damage to homes and facilities can be caused by wind or accumulation of snow or ice. Even a small accumulation of snow can cause havoc on transportation systems due to a lack of snow clearing equipment and experienced drivers and the hilly terrain. Ice storms accompanied by high winds can have especially destructive impacts, especially on trees, power lines, and utility services. While sleet and hail can create hazards for motorists when it accumulates, freezing rain can cause the most dangerous conditions within a community. Ice buildup can bring down trees, communication towers and wires, creating hazards for property owners, motorists and pedestrians. Rain can fall on frozen streets, cars, and other sub - freezing surfaces, creating dangerous conditions. Over the past 30 years western Washington has had an annual average of 11.4 inches of snowfall per year. Typically, the snow season is November through March. Snowfall records in the region are as follows: • The one day record is 21 inches in January 1950 • The one month record is 57 inches during January 1950 • The winter long record is 67 inches during the winter of 1968 -1969. 14.2.5 Warning Time Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe winter storm. This can give several days of warning time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of the storm. Some storms may have only a few hours of warning time. The Seattle Office of the National Weather Service provides public warnings as appropriate to alert government agencies and the public of possible or impending storm, snow and ice events. The watches and warnings are broadcast over NOAA weather radio and are forwarded to the local media for retransmission using the Emergency Alert System. 14 -5 ACT.A Page 259 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 14.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS The most significant secondary hazards associated with severe local storms are floods, falling and downed trees, landslides and downed power lines. Rapidly melting snow combined with heavy rain can overwhelm natural and man -made drainage systems, causing overflow and property destruction. Landslides occur when the soil on slopes becomes oversaturated and fails. Pipes located in poorly insulated homes or in homes that have lost power may freeze or break. If a severe ice storm occurs within King County, prolonged power outages over widespread areas are possible. 14.4 EXPOSURE 14.4.1 Population A lack of data related to severe winter weather damage prevented a detailed analysis for exposure and vulnerability. However, it can be assumed that the entire planning area is exposed to some extent to severe winter weather events. Certain areas are more exposed due to geographic location and local weather patterns. Populations that do not have adequate shelter are more exposed to the impacts of severe winter weather. 14.4.2 Property According to the King County Assessor, there are 545,846 buildings within the census tracts that define the planning area. Most of these buildings are residential. All of these buildings are considered to be exposed to the severe winter weather hazard, but structures in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations (located on hilltops or exposed open areas) may risk the most damage. The frequency and degree of damage will depend on specific locations. 14.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure All critical facilities are likely exposed to severe winter weather. Facilities on higher ground may be exposed to damage from falling trees. The most common problems associated with severe winter weather are loss of utilities. Downed power lines can cause blackouts, leaving large areas isolated. Phone, water and sewer systems may not function. Roads may become impassable due to ice or snow. 14.4.4 Environment The environment is highly exposed to severe winter weather events. Natural habitats such as streams and trees are exposed to the elements and risk damage from snow and ice. Flooding events caused by snowmelt can produce river channel migration or damage riparian habitat. Storm surges can erode beachfront bluffs and redistribute sediment loads. 14.5 VULNERABILITY 14.5.1 Population Many of the deaths that result from severe winter weather are indirectly related to the actual weather event, including deaths resulting from traffic accidents on icy roads and heart attacks while shoveling snow. Icy road conditions that lead to major traffic accidents can make it is difficult for emergency personnel to travel. This may pose a secondary threat to life if police, fire, and medical personnel cannot respond to calls. While all residents in the County are vulnerable to severe winter weather, elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with life - threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that 14 -6 ACT.A Page 260 of 869 SEVERE WINTER WEATHER are isolated from major roads or without adequate shelter may be especially vulnerable. Power outages can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a significant concern. These populations face isolation and exposure during severe winter weather events and could suffer more secondary effects of the hazard. Power outages can also cause life- threatening situations if residents use alternative means to heat their homes without proper ventilation. 14.5.2 Property All property is vulnerable during severe winter weather events, but properties in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. Those that are located under or near overhead lines or near large trees may be vulnerable to falling ice or may be damaged in the event of a collapse. Loss estimations for the severe winter weather hazard are not based on damage functions, because no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, estimates were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of potential economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 14 -2 lists the estimates. 14.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Incapacity and loss of roads are the primary transportation failures resulting from severe winter weather, mostly associated with secondary hazards. Snowstorms in higher elevations can significantly impact the transportation system and the availability of public safety services. Of particular concern are roads providing access to isolated areas and to the elderly. Prolonged obstruction of major routes due to snow can disrupt the shipment of goods and other commerce. Large, prolonged winter storms can have negative economic impacts for the entire region. Economists estimate that the closing of Snoqualmie Pass has an economic cost to the state between $500,000 and $750,000 per hour (Washington State Emergency Management Division, 2010). Downed trees and ice can create serious impacts on power and above - ground communication lines. Freezing of power and communication lines can cause them to break, disrupting electricity and communication. Loss of electricity and phone connection would leave certain populations isolated because residents would be unable to call for assistance. Water systems may also be impacted during severe winter weather events. The most frequent water system problem related to cold weather is a break in cast iron mainlines. Breaks frequently occur during severe freeze events, as well as during extreme cooling periods in October, November and December. Another common problem during severe freeze events is the failure of commercial and residential water lines. Inadequately insulated potable water and fire sprinkler pipes can rupture and cause extensive damage to property. 14.5.4 Environment The vulnerability of the environment to severe winter weather is the same as the exposure. 14.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT All future development will be affected by severe winter weather. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The planning partners have adopted the International Building Code, which can deal with the impacts of severe winter weather. Land use policies identified in general plans for the planning area address many of the secondary impacts of the severe winter weather hazard. With these tools, the planning partnership is well equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe winter weather. 14 -7 ACT.A Page 261 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 14 -2. LOSS POTENTIAL FOR SEVERE WINTER WEATHER Total Assessed Value Estimated Loss Potential from Severe Winter Weather 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage Algona Auburn Beaux Arts Bellevue Black Diamond Bothell Burien Carnation Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Duvall Enumclaw Federal Way Hunts Point Issaquah Kenmore Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Maple Valley Medina Mercer Island Milton Newcastle Normandy Park North Bend Pacific Redmond Renton Sammamish SeaTac Seattle Shoreline Skykomish Snoqualmie Tukwila Woodinville Yarrow Point Unincorporated Total $902,612,000 $17,992,313,000 $60,778,000 $49,163,714,000 $600,388,000 $5,215,897,000 $9,165,566,000 $328,410,000 $845,586,000 $2,849,591,000 $5,742,226,000 $1,108,322,000 $2,667,155,000 $19,102,220,000 $160,100,000 $9,587,897,000 $4,000,207,000 $33,182,020,000 $22,202,262,000 $2,214,717,000 $3,129,530,000 $947,196,000 $6,598,328,000 $140,733,000 $2,266,792,000 $1,306,626,000 $1,453,593,000 $830,743,000 $23,234,414,000 $25,825,586,000 $9,306,835,000 $7,572,236,000 $212,337,688,000 $11,169,471,000 $74,730,000 $2,297,236,000 $11,628,108,000 $4,522,687,000 $300,638,000 $44,641,548,000 $90,261,200 $1,799,231,300 $6,077,800 $4,916,371,400 $60,038,800 $521,589,700 $916,556,600 $32,841,000 $84,558,600 $284,959,100 $574,222,600 $110,832,200 $266,715,500 $1,910,222,000 $16,010,000 $958,789,700 $400,020,700 $3,318,202,000 $2,220,226,200 $221,471,700 $312,953,000 $94,719,600 $659,832,800 $14,073,300 $226,679,200 $130,662,600 $145,359,300 $83,074,300 $2,323,441,400 $2,582,558,600 $930,683,500 $757,223,600 $21,233,768,800 $1,116,947,100 $7,473,000 $229,723,600 $1,162,810,800 $452,268,700 $30,063,800 $4,648,154,800 $270,783,600 $5,397,693,900 $18,233,400 $14,749,114,200 $180,116,400 $1,564,769,100 $2,749,669,800 $98,523,000 $253,675,800 $854,877,300 $1,722,667,800 $332,496,600 $800,146,500 $5,730,666,000 $48,030,000 $2,876,369,100 $1,200,062,100 $9,954,606,000 $6,660,678,600 $664,415,100 $938,859,000 $284,158,800 $1,979,498,400 $42,219,900 $680,037,600 $391,987,800 $436,077,900 $249,222,900 $6,970,324,200 $7,747,675,800 $2,792,050,500 $2,271,670,800 $63,701,306,400 $3,350,841,300 $22,419,000 $689,170,800 $3,488,432,400 $1,356,806,100 $90,191,400 $13,404,464,400 $451,306,000 $8,996,156,500 $30,389,000 $24,581,857,000 $300,194,000 $2,607,948,500 $4,582,783,000 $164,205,000 $422,793,000 $1,424,795,500 $2,871,113,000 $554,161,000 $1,333,577,500 $9,551,110,000 $80,050,000 $4,793,948,500 $2,000,103,500 $16,591,010,000 $11,101,131,000 $1,107,358,500 $1,564,765,000 $473,598,000 $3,299,164,000 $70,366,500 $1,133,396,000 $653,313,000 $726,796,500 $415,371,500 $11,617,207,000 $12,912,793,000 $4,653,417,500 $3,786,118,000 $106,168,844,000 $5,584,735,500 $37,365,000 $1,148,618,000 $5,814,054,000 $2,261,343,500 $150,319,000 $22,340,774,000 $556,676,699,000 $55,851,669,900 $167,015,009,700 $278,358,349,500 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 14 -8 Page 262 of 869 SEVERE WINTER WEATHER 14.7 SCENARIO Winter storms in the planning area are likely to occur between November and April. These storms would be caused by a sufficient amount of cold polar air flowing down from the north caused by a dip in the jet stream, combined with a significant source of moisture from the Pacific Ocean. Such events would have both short-term and long -term effects. Initially, schools and roads would be closed due to power outages caused by high winds and downed tree obstructions. In more rural areas, some subdivisions could experience limited ingress and egress. Economic losses as a result of closed businesses and disrupted transportation systems would be significant. 14.8 ISSUES Important issues associated with a severe winter weather in the planning area include the following: • Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards or none at all. These structures could be highly vulnerable to severe winter weather effects such as snow loads. • Redundancy of power supply throughout the planning area must be evaluated to better understand what areas may be vulnerable. • Urban forest management programs should be evaluated to help reduce impacts from forest - related damages. • Climate change may increase the frequency and magnitude of winter flooding events, thus exacerbating severe winter weather events. 14 -9 ACT.A Page 263 of 869 CHAPTER 15. TSUNAMI 15.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND A tsunami consists of a series of high- energy waves that radiate outward like pond ripples from an area where a generating event occurs. The waves arrive at shorelines over an extended period. Tsunamis are typically classified as local or distant. Locally generated tsunamis have minimal warning times, leaving few options except to run to high ground. They may be accompanied by damage resulting from the triggering earthquake due to ground shaking, surface faulting, liquefaction or landslides. Distant tsunamis may travel for hours before striking a coastline, giving a community a chance to implement evacuation plans. In the open ocean, a tsunami may be only a few inches or feet high, but it can travel with speeds approaching 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami enters the shoaling waters near a coastline, its speed diminishes, its wavelength decreases, and its height increases greatly. The first wave usually is not the largest. Several larger and more destructive waves often follow the first one. As tsunamis reach the shoreline, they may take the form of a fast - rising tide, a cresting wave, or a bore (a large, turbulent wall-like wave). The bore phenomenon resembles a step -like change in the water level that advances rapidly (from 10 to 60 miles per hour). DEFINITIONS Seiche —A standing wave an enclosed or partly enclosed body of water, normally caused by earthquake activity; can affect harbors, bays, lakes, rivers and canals. Tsunami —A series of traveling ocean waves of extremely long wavelength usually caused by displacement of the ocean floor and typically generated by seismic or volcanic activity or by underwater landslides. The configuration of the coastline, the shape of the ocean floor, and the characteristics of advancing waves play important roles in the destructiveness of the waves. Offshore canyons can focus tsunami wave energy and islands can filter the energy. The orientation of the coastline determines whether the waves strike head -on or are refracted from other parts of the coastline. A wave may be small at one point on a coast and much larger at other points. Bays, sounds, inlets, rivers, streams, offshore canyons, islands, and flood control channels may cause various effects that alter the level of damage. It has been estimated, for example, that a tsunami wave entering a flood control channel could reach a mile or more inland, especially if it enters at high tide. The first visible indication of an approaching tsunami may be recession of water (draw down) caused by the trough preceding the advancing, large inbound wave crest. Rapid draw down can create strong currents in harbor inlets and channels that can severely damage coastal structures due to erosive scour around piers and pilings. As the water's surface drops, piers can be damaged by boats or ships straining at or breaking their mooring lines. The vessels can overturn or sink due to strong currents, collisions with other objects, or impact with the harbor bottom. Conversely, the first indication of a tsunami may be a rise in water level. The advancing tsunami may initially resemble a strong surge increasing the sea level like the rising tide, but the tsunami surge rises faster and does not stop at the shoreline. Even if the wave height appears to be small, 3 to 6 feet for example, the strength of the accompanying surge can be deadly. Waist -high surges can cause strong 15 -1 ACT.A Page 265 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements currents that float cars, small structures, and other debris. Boats and debris are often carried inland by the surge and left stranded when the water recedes. At some locations, the advancing turbulent wave front will be the most destructive part of the wave. In other situations, the greatest damage will be caused by the outflow of water back to the sea between crests, sweeping all before it and undermining roads, buildings, bulkheads, and other structures. This outflow action can carry enormous amounts of highly damaging debris with it, resulting in further destruction. Ships and boats, unless moved away from shore, may be dashed against breakwaters, wharves, and other craft, or be washed ashore and left grounded after the withdrawal of the seawater. 15.2 HAZARD PROFILE 15.2.1 Past Events Geological evidence of tsunamis in the Puget Sound has been found at Cultus Bay on Whidbey Island and at West Point in Seattle. Researchers believe these tsunami deposits are evidence of earthquake activity along the Seattle Fault or other shallow crustal Puget Sound faults. There is evidence that an earthquake around 900 A.D. on the Seattle Fault caused an uplift of up to 20 feet in some areas, triggering a tsunami in central Puget Sound (EMD, 2012). The tsunami deposited a sheet of sand across West Point in Seattle. Computer simulations suggest that wave height may have reached 20 feet at the Seattle waterfront. Sand sheets were also deposited as a result of this event on the southern portion of Whidbey Island and along some tributaries of the Snohomish River. There is also evidence of a past event on Possession Beach on Whidbey Island that caused sloughing and a tsunami. Verbal accounts among the Snohomish Tribe reported by Colin Tweddell in 1953 describe a great landslide- induced wave caused by the collapse of Camano Head at the south end of Camano Island around the 1820s and 1830s. The slide itself is said to have buried a small village, and the resulting tsunami drowned people who were clamming on Hat (Gedney) Island, 2 miles to the south. Bathymetry between Camano Head and Hat Island could have contributed to the size and destructive power of the wave (Koshimura et al., 2001). Area lakes have experienced seiches in historical times. In 1891, an earthquake near Port Angeles caused an 8 -foot seiche in Lake Washington. Additionally, seiches were generated in area lakes after the 1949 Magnitude -7.1 Olympia earthquake and the 1965 Magnitude -6.5 earthquake. The 1964 Magnitude -9.2 Alaska earthquake created seiches on 14 inland bodies of water in Washington, including Lake Union where several pleasure craft, houseboats and floats sustained minor damage. The Magnitude -7.9 Denali earthquake in Alaska in 2002 resulted in water waves that, again, damaged 20 houseboats and water and sewer lines in Seattle's Lake Union. Sloshing action was reported in other lakes and swimming pools around the area. 15.2.2 Location Most tsunamis originate in the Pacific Ocean, where tsunami waves triggered by seismic activity can travel at up to 500 miles per hour, striking distant coastal areas in a matter of hours (see Figure 15 -1). Most recorded tsunamis affecting the Pacific Northwest originated in the Gulf of Alaska. There is also geological evidence of significant impacts from tsunamis originating along the Cascadia subduction zone, which extends from Cape Mendocino, California to the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia. Tsunamis affecting Washington may be induced by geologic events of local origin, or earthquakes at a considerable distance, such as in Alaska or South America. 15 -2 ACT.A Page 266 of 869 TSUNAMI Tsunami Travel Time in Hours from 1964 Earthquake in Alaska Tsunami from 1196 1 Boundalriesf ;,, r %%° Fault (Linesi° • • /%/ a iii / / /i0i 9..,9 / Travel Time in Hours Earthquake in Chiles„ ; • l Figure 15 -1. Potential Tsunami Travel Times in the Pacific Ocean Tsunamis generated in the Pacific, including from a Cascadia subduction zone event, would have a difficult time reaching the shores of Puget Sound in King County. The wave would need to pass through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and south into the sound. The complex coastline of Puget Sound would act as a giant baffle and dissipate the wave (Seattle Office of Emergency Management, 2010). For example, The tsunami generated by the Magnitude -9.0 earthquake in Japan in March 2011 did reach Puget Sound, but the maximum wave height recorded was only 0.4 meters. Of greater concern are local tsunamis that may be generated as a result of events in the Puget Sound lowlands. The Washington Department of Natural Resources, working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, is in the process of modeling tsunami impacts in Puget Sound using computer models of earthquake - generated tsunamis from nearby seismic sources. At the time of the writing of this plan, the only model that has been completed shows the likely tsunami inundation in the Elliott Bay area in Seattle after a Magnitude -7.3 Seattle Fault event (see Figure 15 -2). This event is considered to be the most dangerous event for King County, based on geological evidence of the tsunami in 900 A.D. This is the only known event resulting from a Seattle Fault earthquake, so the probability of future events is difficult to predict. The Seattle Fault is not the only crustal fault in the area that is thought to be capable of producing tsunamis. Other such faults are present in South Whidbey Island /Mukilteo, Kingston- Edmonds and Tacoma. Future projects of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program may include mapping additional King County communities that may be at risk from tsunamis, including Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park and Vashon Island. 15 -3 ACT.A Page 267 of 869 R;uno3 uelay3 Seattle Fault Scenario R;uno3 selpm , uno3 despN Pierce County 0 00 - O Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey O p N a 0 N N C 0` (6 O o o U m E E U U O N U 8 E O o m2 N w a �s - o off, N 'Y Q X N N N o a� m 2 °- 8' �a o o o N � o o= 1 92 2 o n _ O'6 E � +• 3 O U 2 a u U N O O 6 Y � 3 Y N N C S (6 N t Ul C O U U O T N _ 4 N NFU 6I a s 2 yY o 0 .— E O 'U o T Q Q � Ul C To as E o T O ° T Q • N U 0 O L• I s y o o 4 Q g E E U Ty N p O sO o m 2 2 E E c E n m o E N U t a � O U w o2N T ESQ O O N = n E N t U_ F '�Y Faye -2-65 vHS99 TSUNAMI 15.2.3 Frequency The frequency of tsunamis is related to the frequency of the events that cause them, so it is similar to the frequency of seismic or volcanic activities or landslides. Generally four or five tsunamis occur every year in the Pacific Basin, and those that are most damaging are generated in the Pacific waters off South America rather than in the northern Pacific. There is only one known occurrence of a tsunami occurring as a result of a Seattle Fault event, although geological evidence suggests that more than one earthquake that could have generated a tsunami has occurred on the fault. Because of this, it is difficult to predict the relative frequency by which such events may occur. Estimates suggest, however, that an event large enough to generate a tsunami may occur once every 1,100 years (King County, 2009). Researchers involved in the Seattle tsunami mapping project believe that a tsunami will accompany a large rupture on the Seattle Fault (Titov et al., 2003). 15.2.4 Severity Tsunamis are a threat to life and property to anyone living near the ocean. From 1950 to 2007, 478 tsunamis were recorded globally. Fifty -one of these events caused fatalities, to a total of over 308,000 coastal residents. The overwhelming majority of these events occurred in the Pacific basin. Recent tsunamis have struck Nicaragua, Indonesia, and Japan, killing several thousand people. Property damage due to these waves was nearly $1 billion. The March 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami claimed thousands of lives and caused over $200 billion in damage. Historically, tsunamis originating in the northern Pacific and along the west coast of South America have caused more damage on the west coast of the United States than tsunamis originating in Japan and the Southwest Pacific. The Cascadia subduction zone will produce the state's largest tsunami, although it is not likely to significantly impact King County. The Cascadia subduction zone is similar to the Alaska - Aleutian trench that generated the Magnitude -9.2 1964 Alaska earthquake and the Sunda trench in Indonesia that produced the Magnitude -9.3 December 2004 Sumatra earthquake. Native American accounts of past Cascadia earthquakes suggest tsunami wave heights on the order of 60 feet, comparable to water levels in Aceh Province Indonesia during the December 2004 tsunami there. Water heights in Japan produced by the 1700 Cascadia earthquake were over 15 feet, comparable to tsunami heights observed on the African coast after the Sumatra earthquake. The Cascadia subduction zone last ruptured on January 26, 1700, creating a tsunami that left markers in the geologic record from Humboldt County, California, to Vancouver Island in Canada and is noted in written records in Japan. At least seven ruptures of the Cascadia subduction zone have been observed in the geologic record. 15.2.5 Warning Time Typical signs of a tsunami hazard are earthquakes and /or sudden and unexpected rise or fall in coastal water. The large waves are often preceded by coastal flooding and followed by a quick recession of the water. Tsunamis are difficult to detect in the open ocean; with waves less than 3 feet high. In general, scientists believe it requires an earthquake of at least a magnitude 7 to produce a tsunami. The Pacific tsunami warning system evolved from a program initiated in 1946. It is a cooperative effort involving 26 countries along with numerous seismic stations, water level stations and information distribution centers. The National Weather Service operates two regional information distribution centers. One is located in Ewa Beach, Hawaii, and the other is in Palmer, Alaska. The Ewa Beach center also serves as an administrative hub for the Pacific warning system. The warning system only begins to function when a Pacific basin earthquake of magnitude 6.5 or greater triggers an earthquake alarm. When this occurs, the following sequence of actions occurs: 15 -5 ACT.A Page 269 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Data is interpolated to determine epicenter and magnitude of the event. • If the event is magnitude 7.5 or greater and located at sea, a TSUNAMI WATCH is issued. • Participating tide stations in the earthquake area are requested to monitor their gages. If unusual tide levels are noted, the tsunami watch is upgraded to a TSUNAMI WARNING. • Tsunami travel times are calculated, and the warning is transmitted to the disseminating agencies and thus relayed to the public. • The Ewa Beach center will cancel the watch or warning if reports from the stations indicate that no tsunami was generated or that the tsunami was inconsequential. This system is not considered to be effective for communities located close to the tsunami because the first wave would arrive before the data were processed and analyzed. In this case, strong ground shaking would provide the first warning of a potential tsunami. Ground shaking is likely to be the only warning available to residents in the planning area. Seiches are usually earthquake - induced but typically do not occur close to the epicenter of an earthquake, but hundreds of miles away. This is due to the fact that earthquake shock waves close to the epicenter consist of high- frequency vibrations, while those at much greater distances are of lower frequency, which can enhance the rhythmic movement in a body of water. The biggest seiches develop when the period of the ground shaking matches the frequency of oscillation of the water body. 15.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Aside from the tremendous hydraulic force of the tsunami waves themselves, floating debris carried by a tsunami can endanger human lives and batter inland structures. Ships moored at piers and in harbors often are swamped and sunk or are left battered and stranded high on the shore. Breakwaters and piers collapse, sometimes because of scouring actions that sweep away their foundation material and sometimes because of the sheer impact of the waves. Railroad yards and oil tanks situated near the waterfront are particularly vulnerable. Oil fires frequently result and are spread by the waves. Port facilities, naval facilities, fishing fleets and public utilities are often the backbone of the economy of the affected areas, and these are the resources that generally receive the most severe damage. Until debris can be cleared, wharves and piers rebuilt, utilities restored, and fishing fleets reconstituted, communities may find themselves without fuel, food and employment. Wherever water transport is a vital means of supply, disruption of coastal systems caused by tsunamis can have far - reaching economic effects. 15.4 EXPOSURE The exposure and vulnerability assessments presented in this plan are limited by the available models of tsunami inundation for King County; therefore these assessments are focused solely on the shores of Elliott Bay in Seattle. 15.4.1 Population The population living in tsunami hazard zones was estimated based on the census blocks that intersect with the estimated tsunami hazard zones. The populations that would be most exposed to this type of hazard are those along beaches, low -lying coastal areas, tidal flats and river deltas that empty into ocean- going waters. Hazus -MH estimated the number of buildings in each block that are in the tsunami hazard zone, and then estimated the total population by multiplying the average King County household size of 2.39 persons per household by the number of structures. Using this approach, it is estimated that exposed population is 4,015 people (less than 1 percent of the county total). 15 -6 ACT.A Page 270 of 869 TSUNAMI 15.4.2 Property The value of buildings in the tsunami hazard zone within the planning area was generated using Hazus- MH census block information and is summarized in Table 15 -1. The number of buildings in each census block was multiplied by the percentage of that block that lies within the tsunami hazard zone. This methodology estimates that that there are 1,964 structures exposed to the tsunami hazard within the planning area, with an assessed structure and content value of $9,704,665,516. Table 15 -2 shows the general land use of parcels exposed to Tsunami in King County. TABLE 15 -1. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN TSUNAMI INUNDATION ZONE (SEATTLE ONLY) Buildings Exposed 1,964 Value Exposed Structure $4,916,842,434 Contents $4,787,823,082 Total $9,704,665,516 % of Total Assessed Value (Seattle) 4.57% TABLE 15 -2. PRESENT LAND USE IN TSUNAMI INUNDATIONS AREA Present Use Classification Area (acres) % of total (Seattle only) Agriculture 0 0.0% Church, Welfare or Religious Service 0 0.0% Commercial 447 12.5% Education 0 0.0% Governmental Services 59 1.7% Industrial/Manufacturing 404 11.3% Medical /Dental Services 32 0.9% Mixed Use Development (Residential & Commercial) 4 0.1% Mortuary /Cemetery /Crematory 0 0.0% Nursing Home /Retirement Facility 0 0.0% Park /Open Space /Golf Course 339 9.5% Residential 199 5.6% Terminal or Marina 1,148 32.1% Utility /Easement/Right of Way 152 4.2% Water /Tideland /Wetland 39 1.1% Uncategorized (includes vacant and resource lands) 750 21.0% Total 3,573 100% Source: Summarized from King County parcel data. Acreage covers only mapped parcel extents and thus excludes many rights of way and major water features. ACT.A 15 -7 Page 271 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 15.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Roads or railroads that are blocked or damaged can prevent access throughout the county and can isolate residents and emergency service providers needing to get to vulnerable populations or to make repairs. Bridges washed out or blocked by tsunami inundation or debris from flood flows also can cause isolation. Water and sewer systems can be flooded or backed up, causing further health problems. Underground utilities can also be damaged during flood events. Table 15 -3 provides an estimate of the number and types of critical facilities exposed to the tsunami hazard. TABLE 15 -3. CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN TSUNAMI INUNDATION ZONE (SEATTLE) Number of Critical Facilities in Inundation Zone Medical and Health Services 0 Government Function 0 Protective Function 2 Schools 1 Hazmat 26 Other Critical Function 2 Bridges 9 Transportation 51 Water Supply 0 Wastewater 7 Power 1 Communications 2 Total 101 Roads Roads are an important component in the management of tsunami - related emergencies in that they act is the primary resource for evacuation to higher ground before and during the course of a tsunami event. Roads often act as flood control facilities in low depth, low velocity flood events by acting as levees or berms and diverting or containing flood flows. A GIS analysis indicated that State Route 99 and the West Seattle bridge, as well as numerous arterial roads and streets, may be impacted by tsunami events. This list of roads should not be misinterpreted as possible evacuation routes for tsunami events. Evacuation routes are identified in emergency response plans. Bridges Bridges exposed to tsunami events can be extremely vulnerable due to forces transmitted by the wave and by the impact of debris carried by the wave action. A GIS analysis identified nine bridges that would be exposed to the tsunami scenario event. Water /Sewer /Utilities Water and sewer systems can be affected by the flooding associated with tsunami events. Floodwaters can back up drainage systems, causing localized flooding. Culverts can be blocked by debris from flood events, also causing localized urban flooding. Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies, causing ACT.A 15 -8 Page 272 of 869 TSUNAMI contamination. Sewer systems can be backed up. The force of tsunami waves can knock down power lines and radio /cellular communication towers. Power generation facilities can be severely impacted by both the impact of the wave action and the inundation of floodwaters. 15.4.4 Environment All waterways would be exposed to the effects of a tsunami; inundation of water and introduction of foreign debris could be hazardous to the environment. All wildlife inhabiting the area also is exposed. 15.5 VULNERABILITY 15.5.1 Population The populations most vulnerable to the tsunami hazard are the elderly, disabled and very young who reside near beaches, low -lying coastal areas, tidal flats and river deltas that empty into ocean -going waters. In the event of a local tsunami generated in or near the planning area, there would be little warning time, so more of the population would be vulnerable. The degree of vulnerability of the population exposed to the tsunami hazard event is affected by the presence and effectiveness of warning systems and whether the public is informed about the system and will evacuate in a timely manner. For this assessment, the population vulnerable to possible tsunami inundation is considered to be the same as the exposed population. 15.5.2 Property All structures along beaches, low -lying coastal areas, tidal flats and river deltas would be vulnerable to a tsunami, especially in an event with little or no warning time. The impact of the waves and the scouring associated with debris that may be carried in the water could be damaging to structures in the tsunami's path. Those that would be most vulnerable are those located in the front line of tsunami impact and those that are structurally unsound. Hazus -MH generated loss estimates for the estimated tsunami hazard areas, as reflected in Table 15 -4. It is estimated that there would be up to $2.081 billion of loss from a scenario tsunami hazard event. TABLE 15-4. LOSS ESTIMATES TSUNAMI INUNDATION ZONE (SEATTLE ONLY) Structures Impacteda 905 Estimated Loss from Tsunami Structure $885,031,638 Contents $1,196,955,771 Total $2,081,987,409 % of Total Assessed Value (Seattle) 0.98% a. Impacted structures are those structures expected to receive measurable damage from the scenario tsunami event because they have lowest floor elevations below the projected tsunami inundation height. Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 15 -9 Page 273 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 15.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Using damage function curves to estimate the percent of damage to critical buildings and their contents, Hazus -MH correlates these estimates to estimated functional down -time. Functional down -time is the time it will take to restore a facility to 100 percent of its functionality. Hazus estimated that on the average, critical facilities would receive 16.7 percent damage to structures and 68 percent damage to contents during the scenario tsunami event. The functional down -time to restore these facilities to 100 percent of their functionality would be approximately 647 days. 15.5.4 Environment The vulnerability of aquatic habit and associated ecosystems would be highest in low -lying areas close to the coastline. Areas near gas stations, industrial areas and Tier II facilities would be vulnerable due to potential contamination from hazardous materials. Tsunami waves can carry destructive debris and pollutants that can have devastating impacts on all facets of the environment. Millions of dollars spent on habitat restoration and conservation in the planning area could be wiped out by one significant tsunami. There are currently no tools available to measure these impacts. However, it is conceivable that the potential financial impact of a tsunami event on the environment could equal or exceed the impact on property. Community planners and emergency managers should take this into account when preparing for the tsunami hazard. 15.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT The Washington State Growth Management Act states that "seismic hazard areas must include areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or subsidence, soil liquefaction, surface faulting, or tsunamis (WAC 365- 190 - 120)." This interpretation of the Growth Management Act and its effects on future development trends in King County is yet to be determined. The City of Seattle did not designate such areas as geologically hazardous until 2007 after the City's Environmentally Critical Areas ordinance, which did not designate tsunami inundation zones among other geological hazards as critical areas, was appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing Board (Central Puget Sound Growth Management Board, 2006). Because all of King County falls within the Board's jurisdiction, the decision is binding on the entire County. The amended ordinance uses the best available science to acknowledge the suspected risk of tsunami inundation along the marine shoreline and the unknown risk of tsunami inundation along the shores of Lake Washington. Additionally, Lake Union, Lake Washington and Elliot Bay are classified as having known risk of seiche events. 15.7 SCENARIO The worst -case scenario for the planning area is a local tsunami event triggered by a seismic event within Puget Sound (a Seattle Fault or South Whidbey Island Fault scenario). A seiche would be most likely from a local earthquake in the Puget Sound area. This would probably be very damaging, giving little or no warning time. This could result in great loss of life and property and cause severe environmental impacts. 15.8 ISSUES The planning team has identified the following issues related to the tsunami hazard for the planning area: • Hazard Identification: To truly measure and evaluate the probable impacts of tsunamis on planning, new hazard mapping based on probabilistic scenarios likely to occur for King County needs to be created. The science and technology in this field are emerging. For 15 -10 ACT.A Page 274 of 869 TSUNAMI tsunami hazard mitigation programs to be effective, probabilistic tsunami mapping will need to be a key component. • Present building codes and guidelines do not adequately address the impacts of tsunamis on structures, and current tsunami hazard mapping is not appropriate for code enforcement. • As tsunami warning technologies evolve, the tsunami warning capability within the planning area will need to be enhanced to provide the highest degree of warning to planning partners with tsunami risk exposure. • With the possibility of climate change, the issue of sea level rise may become an important consideration as probable tsunami inundation areas are identified through future studies. • Special attention will need to be focused on the vulnerable communities in the tsunami zone and on hazard mitigation through public education and outreach. 15 -11 ACT.A Page 275 of 869 CHAPTER 16. VOLCANO 16.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND A volcano is a vent in the earth's crust through which magma, rock fragments, gases, and ash are ejected from the earth's interior. Over time, accumulation of these erupted products on the earth's surface creates a volcanic mountain. There are a wide variety of hazards related to volcanoes and volcanic eruptions. The hazards are distinguished by the different ways in which volcanic materials and other debris flow from the volcano. Molten rock that erupts from the volcano (lava) forms a hill or mountain around the vent. The lava may flow out as a viscous liquid, or it may explode from the vent as solid or liquid particles. Washington has five major volcanoes in the Cascade Range —Mount Baker, Glacier Peak, Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams. Mount Hood, located in northern Oregon, can also affect the state. Volcanoes can lie dormant for centuries between eruptions, and the risk they pose is not always apparent. When Cascade volcanoes erupt, high -speed avalanches of hot ash and rock called pyroclastic flows, lava flows, and landslides can devastate areas 10 or more miles away, while huge mudflows of volcanic ash and debris called lahars can inundate valleys more than 50 miles downstream. Falling ash from explosive eruptions, called tephra, can disrupt human activities hundreds of miles downwind, and drifting clouds of fine ash can cause severe damage to the engines of jet aircraft hundreds or thousands of miles away. DEFINITIONS Lahar —A rapidly flowing mixture of water and rock debris that originates from a volcano. While lahars are most commonly associated with eruptions, heavy rains, and debris accumulation, earthquakes may also trigger them. Lava Flow —The least hazardous threat posed by volcanoes. Cascades volcanoes are normally associated with slow moving andesite or dacite lava. Stratovolcano— Typically steep - sided, symmetrical cones of large dimension built of alternating layers of lava flows, volcanic ash, cinders, blocks, and bombs, rising as much as 8,000 feet above their bases. The volcanoes in the Cascade Range are all stratovolcanoes. Tephra —Ash and fragmented rock material ejected by a volcanic explosion Volcano —A vent in the planetary crust from which magma (molten or hot rock) and gas from the earth's core erupts. 16.1.1 Types of Eruptions The following types of eruptions occur at volcanoes around the world: • Hawaiian eruptions, the least violent type of eruption, are characterized by extensive fluid lava flows from central vents or fissures, occasionally accompanied by lava fountains. • Strombolian eruptions are characterized by moderately fluid lava flows, usually accompanied by a violent lava fountain that produces an abundance of volcanic bombs and cinders. • Vulcanian eruptions are characterized by viscous magmas that form short, thick flows around vents; very viscous or solid fragments of lava are violently ejected from these vents. • Pelean eruptions are similar to Vulcanian eruptions but have even more viscous lava; domes form over the vents, and ash flows commonly accompany the dome formations. 16 -1 ACT.A Page 277 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Plinian eruptions, such as that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980, are the most violent eruptions. They include the violent ejection of large volumes of volcanic ash, followed by collapse of the central part of the volcano. A volcano may exhibit different styles of eruption at different times, and eruptions may change from one type to another as they progress. 16.1.2 Hazards Associated with the Eruption of Volcano Tephra or Ash Fall Tephra is fragmented rock material ejected by a volcanic explosion. It normally accompanies the eruptions of volcanoes in the Cascades. These volcanoes tend to erupt lavas so thick and charged with gases that they explode into ash rather than flow. A 1 -inch deep layer of ash weighs an average of 10 pounds per square foot, causing danger of structural collapse. Ash is harsh, acidic, gritty, and smelly. Ash may also carry a high static charge for up to two days after being ejected from a volcano. Although the gases are usually too diluted to constitute danger to a person in normal health, the combination of acidic gas and ash may cause lung problems. Extremely heavy ash can clog breathing passages and cause death. When an ash cloud combines with rain, sulfur dioxide in the cloud combines with water to form diluted sulfuric acid that may cause minor, but painful burns to the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. Hydrochloric acid rains have also been reported. Acid rains may affect water supplies, strip and burn foliage, strip paint, corrode machinery, and dissolve fabric. Heavy tephra blots out light. Sudden heavy demand for electric light and air conditioning may cause a drain on power supplies, leading to a partial or full power failure. Ash clogs machinery of all kinds and poses a serious threat to aviation because particles can damage aircraft systems and jet engines. It drifts into roadways, railways, and runways where it is slippery and dangerous. Its weight may cause structural collapse. Because winds and air currents easily carry it, it remains a hazard to machinery and transportation (particularly aviation) for months after the eruption. Lava Flows Lava flows are coherent masses of hot, partially molten rock that flow downslope; generally following valleys. Lava flows from Cascade volcanoes tend to be short and slow - moving. They may extrude from the main volcanic cone or from nearby cinder cones formed at or near the base of the mountain. The heat of the lava burns vegetation, potentially causing forest or grass fires. Flows may bury roads or other escape routes. Lava flows that move over snow and ice can produce debris flows. Because lava flows are slow moving and take predictable paths, they generally pose little threat to human life, however, they will destroy structures and property in their paths. Additionally, their secondary effects, such as debris flows and wildfires, can threaten life and property. Volcanic Earthquakes Volcanic earthquakes, often centered within or beneath a volcano, are usually one of three kinds: pre - eruption earthquakes caused by explosions of steam or underground magma movements, eruption earthquakes caused by explosions and collapse of walls inside the volcano, and post - eruption earthquakes caused by the retreat of magma and interior structural collapse. Although volcanic earthquakes are strong near the volcano, they are generally confined there. There are some exceptions, as with the St. Helens Fault Zone, where a tectonic fault is closely associated with the volcano. Tremors may cause large rock falls, snow avalanches, landslides, and building collapse. Since all Northwest volcanoes are in a regular seismic zone, tremors are monitored by the USGS and the University of Washington Seismology Lab. 16 -2 ACT.A Page 278 of 869 VOLCANO Pyroclastic Flows and Surges Pyroclastic flows and surges can occur during explosive eruptions. Pyroclastic flows are avalanches of hot ash, rock fragments and gas that move at high speeds down the sides of a volcano during explosive eruptions or when the edge of a thick, viscous, lava flow or dome breaks apart or collapses. Such flows can be as hot as 800 °C and are capable of burning and destroying everything in their paths. Pyroclastic surges are more energetic and thus less restricted by topography; they can move over ridge tops. Pyroclastic flows and surges are extremely dangerous. Injury or death can result from a number of factors, including burial, impact, burning and asphyxiation. Although pyroclastic flows move down valleys like lava and debris flows, the immediate hazards associated with them are very different. People can usually outrun the advancing front of a lava flow or climb quickly up the valley sides to a height above a debris flow. The high mobility of pyroclastic flows and surges threaten anyone nearby; even ridge tops and valley slopes may be unsafe. Lateral Blast Lateral blasts are explosive events in which energy is directed horizontally instead of vertically from a volcano. They are gas- charged, hot mixtures of rock, gas and ash that are expelled at speeds up to 650 mph. Lateral blasts vary in size, but large ones are fairly rare, with only a few historical examples worldwide. The most recent was the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens when almost everything within the blast zone perished. 16.1.3 Hazards That Can Occur With or Without an Eruption In addition to the hazards associated with volcanic eruptions (defined as magmatic activity), volcanoes can produce non - magmatic hazards. The USGS differentiates between these two types of volcanic activity because the movement of magma can usually be detected through volcano monitoring, so there is generally some warning prior to a magmatic event. There is generally no movement of magma for non - magmatic events, such as the generation of debris flows, so these events may not be detected before they happen. Lahar Lahars are mixtures of water, rock, sand, and mud that rush down valleys leading away from a volcano. They can be hot or cold and form when loose masses of unconsolidated material are saturated, become unstable, and move downslope. The source of water varies but includes rainfall, melting snow or ice, and glacial outburst floods. This danger continues for months, even years following an eruption. Lahars can travel over 50 miles downstream, commonly reaching speeds between 20 and 40 miles per hour. Sometimes they contain so much rock debris (60 to 90 percent by weight) that they look like fast - moving rivers of wet concrete. Close to the volcano they have the strength to rip huge boulders, trees, and houses from the ground and carry them down - valley. Further downstream they simply entomb everything in mud. The highest speed measured on the slopes of Mt. St. Helens during the 1980 eruption was 88 mph; the lowest, in the lower valleys, was about 2.5 mph. Historically, lahars have been one of the most deadly volcanic hazards. Volcanic Landslides and Debris Avalanches Volcanic landslides and debris avalanches of glacial ice or rock debris may be set in motion by explosions, earthquakes, or heat - induced melting of ice and snow. They can occur with or without an accompanying magmatic event. Landslides are defined as the downward and outward movement of slope forming materials, natural rock, snow, glacial ice, soils or any combination of these materials. Debris avalanches are a type of landslide that move at high speeds. Many debris avalanches will, if they contain 16 -3 ACT.A Page 279 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements sufficient water and fine sediment, transform downstream into debris flows. Therefore the down -valley hazards associated with debris avalanches are the same as those associated with debris flows; the main hazard to life and property being burial and impact. Explosion of Steam and Other Gases Explosion of steam and other gases may occur any time hot material comes into contact with water, glacial ice or snow. No eruptive activity is necessary for this to occur. These explosions often contain or are accompanied by one or more of the following: pulverized lava and rock particles in suspension, fragments of older rocks from pea -sized pebbles to hundred -ton boulders, newly erupted hot lava blocks, and a shock wave that may be minimal or may extend for several miles. Toxic Gases Pockets or clouds of toxic gases may develop on or near both active and inactive volcanoes. Their chemical poisons can cause internal and external burns, or asphyxiation through oxygen starvation. Carbon dioxide, which causes asphyxiation, is heavier than air and therefore collects in low -lying areas. It is difficult to detect because it is both odorless and colorless. These gases, mixed with ash, make up the eruptive cloud of a volcano. 16.2 HAZARD PROFILE 16.2.1 Past Events Volcanic eruptions may only occur every few generations. Table 16 -1 and Figure 16 -1 summarize past eruptions in the Cascades and in the Puget Sound region. The last major volcanic eruption in the Northwest was the explosion of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980. The eruption reduced the elevation of the mountain from 9,677 feet to 8,364 feet, buried the North Fork of the Toutle River under 23 square miles of volcanic material, and caused 57 human fatalities. Due to its distance, the lava and lahar flow from this eruption did not affect the King County area. The county was exposed to minor tephra fall, which was more of a curiosity than a hazard. Schools and businesses were closed for day or so, but no major disruptions or harm was done. ACT.A 16 -4 Page 280 of 869 TABLE 16 -1. PAST ERUPTIONS OF WASHINGTON VOLCANOES Volcano Number of Eruptions Type of Eruptions Mount Adams Mount Baker 3 in the last 10,000 years, most recent between 1,000 and 2,000 years ago 5 eruptions in past 10,000 years; mudflows have been more common (8 in same time period) Andesite lava Pyroclastic flows, mudflows, ash fall in 1843. Glacier Peak 8 eruptions in last 13,000 years Pyroclastic flows and lahars Mount Rainier 14 eruptions in last 9,000 years; also 4 large mudflows Pyroclastic flows and lahars Mount St. Helens 19 eruptions in last 13,000 years Pyroclastic flows, mudflows, lava, and ash fall ACT.A 16 -4 Page 280 of 869 VOLCANO Iffp IMIMM 411.11101 W111101111111110,101111 WfirC 61,41 6.1, Figure 16 -1. Cascade Range Eruptions in the Past 4,000 Years 16.2.2 Location The Cascade Range extends more than 1,000 miles from southern British Columbia into northern California and includes 13 potentially active volcanic peaks in the U.S. Figure 16 -1 shows the location of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State. The closest volcanoes to King County are Mt. Rainer and Glacier Peak. Other nearby volcanoes include Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Baker. The most hazardous volcanoes are those directly to the west and southwest (along the direction of prevailing winds). Lahar zones on Mt. Rainer impacting the southern portion of King County have been mapped by USGS. Three lahar scenarios have been mapped, as shown on Figure 16 -2: • Case 1, Large Lahars (Recurrence intervals 500 – 1,000 years) —Areas that could be affected by cohesive lahars that originate as enormous avalanches on weak, chemically altered rock from the volcano. Case 1 lahars can occur with or without eruptive activity. The time interval between such events on Mt. Rainier is about 500 to 1,000 years. • Case 2, Moderate Lahars (recurrence intervals 100 – 500 years) —Areas that could be affected by relatively large, non - cohesive lahars, which are commonly caused by the melting of snow and glacier ice by hot rock fragments during and eruption. They can also have a non - eruptive origin. The time interval between such lahars on Mt. Rainer is near the lower end of the 100- to 500 -year range. • Post -Lahar Sedimentation —Areas subject to post -lahar erosion and sedimentation and the ongoing potential for flooding. 16 -5 ACT.A Page 281 of 869 N N L co cu � L U_ (Puyallup Valley) Faye- t8l- vH S99 VOLCANO 16.2.3 Frequency The Cascades have experienced an average of one or two eruptions per century during the last 4,000 years. Mount St. Helens is the most active volcano in the Cascades, with four major explosive eruptions in the last 515 years. Still, the probability of an eruption in any given year is extremely low. There is a 1 in 500 probability that portions of two counties in the state will receive 4 inches or more of volcanic ash from any Cascades volcano in any given year, and a 1 in 1,000 probability that parts or all of three or more counties will receive that quantity of ash. There is a 1 in 100 annual probability that small lahars or debris flows will impact river valleys below Mount Baker and Mount Rainier, and less than a 1 in 1,000 annual probability that the largest destructive lahars would flow down Glacier Peak, Mount Adams, Mount Baker or Mount Rainier. Figure 16 -3 shows the annual probability of a tephra accumulation of 4 inches. The probability for King County is 0.02 percent or less in any given year.. I'Iw! Iq:mmsllrlll ,. II Baker WASHINGTON LaCier 1113e Ed( loot ... plefiffmiia"III°"!tiilll::mlll''m "Three Sis,teri. rIII:: *'Imlllrlll;mlq::rrir r 'alter A°m Ilan u:r eui Il�,al lu °'m.:m ill;lu �:au.l,m iii 111 iii, Imm �f '11111::lll cerrtiiihrreiters Ig::mlll'" Ilflll"pllg::mrIIG of temllC'allllmllr°:au. Irm. III::; rlll::; r ulna mmlll;Eu:tilp::mul'III ii III "III Ie IIP;n::NrriiitIIIIq: „, III4I(rIII'trIII'm!4'IeR t 111'"m.:iui i 11 ...,m:r' Iq.;rm::lll.ltre 14fIr. :mllllq:rm::lu"mIII::mIIC::r'; : Tess than 0.01 % O 100 200 kilometers O 50 100 miles Figure 16 -3. Annual Probability of Tephra Fall in the Northwest 16.2.4 Severity Lahar The major hazard to human life from debris flows is from burial or impact by boulders and other debris. People and animals also can be severely burned by debris flows carrying hot debris. Buildings and other property in the path of a debris flow can be buried, smashed, or carried away. Because of their relatively high density and viscosity, debris flows can move and even carry away vehicles and other objects as large as bridges and locomotives. Lahars can also erode the sides of river channels, causing bank failures. Buildings, roads, water pipes, or bridge abutments built along those banks may then be incorporated into the debris flow. A large - volume lahar may overtop or destroy a dam. The mudflows that accompanied the Mt. St. Helens eruptions damaged or destroyed more than 200 buildings, ruined 44 bridges, buried ACT.A 16 -7 Page 283 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 17 miles of railway and more than 125 miles of roadway, badly damaged three logging camps, disabled several community water supply and sewage disposal systems and partly filled channels and reservoirs. Because debris flows are confined to areas downslope and down - valley from their points of origin, people can avoid them by seeking high ground. People seeking to escape flows should climb valley sides rather than try to outrun debris flows in valley bottoms. Debris -flow hazard decreases gradually down -valley from volcanoes but more abruptly with increasing altitude above valley floors. During eruptive activity or precursors to eruptions, local government officials evacuate areas likely to be affected. Tephra or Ash Fall A 1 -inch deep layer of ash weighs an average of 10 pounds per square foot, causing danger of structural collapse. Ash is harsh, acidic and gritty, and it has a sulfuric odor. Ash may also carry a high static charge for up to two days after being ejected from a volcano. As ash combines with rain, sulfur dioxide in the ash combines with water to form diluted sulfuric acid that may cause minor, but painful burns to the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. 16.2.5 Warning Time Monitoring Volcanic Activity at Mount Rainier and Mount St. Helens The USGS and the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network at the University of Washington conduct seismic monitoring of all Cascade volcanoes in Washington and Oregon. The USGS began a collaboration with scientists from the Geophysics Program at the University of Washington to monitor seismic activity at both Mount St. Helens and Mount Rainier after the May 1980 eruption at Mount St. Helens. When unusual activity is observed, scientists immediately notify government officials and the public. The U.S. Forest Service serves as the primary dissemination agency for emergency information. As the activity changes, USGS scientists provide updated advisories and meet with local, state and federal officials to discuss the hazards and appropriate levels of emergency response. Experience since 1980 at Mount St. Helens and elsewhere indicates that monitoring is sufficient for scientists to detect the ascent of fresh magma that must take place before another large eruption. This information will enhance warnings and facilitate updated assessments of the hazard. In addition, the USGS and the National Weather Service monitor lahar and flood hazards at Mount St. Helens. The latter agency has responsibility for providing warnings of floods, including lahars. These monitoring activities not only help nearby communities, but also can provide significant benefit throughout the Pacific Northwest, including King County. Volcanic Event Notification An emergency coordination center was established at the U.S. Forest Service office in Vancouver, Washington after the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. A communications network and telephone call- down procedure were developed to facilitate rapid dissemination of information about the activity of the volcano. Information was also disseminated through public meetings, press conferences, and briefings with governmental agencies and private businesses. Emergency coordination and communication is necessary to reduce risk from potential volcanic eruptions in the Cascade region. Warning Systems Eruption The best warning of a volcanic eruption is one that specifies when and where an eruption is likely and what type and size eruption should be expected. Such accurate predictions are sometimes possible but still 16 -8 ACT.A Page 284 of 869 VOLCANO rare in volcanology. The most accurate warnings are those in which scientists indicate an eruption is probably only hours to days away based on significant changes in a volcano's earthquake activity, ground deformation, and gas emissions. Experience from around the world has shown that most eruptions are preceded by such changes over a period of days to weeks. A volcano may begin to show signs of activity several months to a few years before an eruption. However, a warning that specifies months or years in advance when it might erupt are extremely rare. The USGS Cascade Volcano Observatory uses a series of alert levels that correspond generally to increasing levels of volcanic activity. As a volcano becomes increasingly active or as incoming data suggest that a given level of activity is likely to lead to a significant eruption, the Cascade Volcano Observatory declares a correspondingly higher alert level. This alert level ranking offers a framework that the public and civil authorities can use to gauge and coordinate a response to a developing volcano emergency. Lahar The USGS, Pierce County Department of Emergency Management and the Washington State Emergency Management Division have established a lahar warning system for the western flank of Mt. Rainier because of the high risk posed to communities below the volcano. Arrays of monitors record ground vibrations of a lahar, computerized evaluation of the data assesses the presence of a flowing lahar. When a lahar is detected, the system issues an automatic alert to emergency - management agencies. Emergency managers can then begin response measures. City, county, and state agencies design and maintain their own notification procedures, evacuation routes, and public - education programs (Driedger and Scott, 2008). This warning systems reduces but does not eliminate risk to people in lahar inundation areas. Individuals in the inundation area need to take immediate action to evacuate in the event of a large lahar event. The USGS estimates that a Case 1 lahar would reach Auburn within 96 minutes after a warning alarm was activated (EMD, 2012). 16.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Secondary hazards associated with volcanic eruptions are mud flows and landslides as well as traffic disruptions. The mudflow and landslide hazards are not as typical for most parts of the county, although communities in the south end of the county are located in historical lahar inundation areas. Traffic disruption caused by accumulation of ash fall could affect the entire planning area. It should also be noted that past volcanic activity in the Cascade ranges has been preceded by an earthquake. 16.4 EXPOSURE All of the King County planning area would be exposed to tephra from volcanic eruptions in the Cascade Range to some degree. The location of the event as well as the prevailing wind direction would influence the extent of this impact. Only the southern portion of the county along the White River is considered to be exposed to lahar flows from Mt. Rainier. 16.4.1 Population The entire population of King County is exposed to the effects of a tephra fall. Population centers in the lahar path along the White River could become isolated after a volcanic eruption, although there would likely be adequate warning time for evacuation. Population could not be examined by lahar zone because census block groups do not coincide with the lahar risk areas. However, population was estimated using the structure count of buildings within the lahar zones and applying the census value for King County of 2.39 persons per household. Using this approach, it is estimated that the exposed population is 17,920 in the Case 1 lahar zone, 3,527 in the Case 2 lahar zone, and 49,486 in the post -lahar sedimentation zone. Cumulatively, this represents about 3.52 percent of the total population for the planning area. 16 -9 ACT.A Page 285 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 16.4.2 Property Lahar All of the lahar exposure is in the southern portion of the planning area along the White River. All property in the lahar inundation areas would be exposed to lahar flows. The number and value of planning area structures in the three lahar zones are summarized in Table 16 -2 through Table 16 -4. The breakdown of the present land use in the three lahar zones is shown in Table 16 -5 and Table 16 -6. Tephra All property in the planning area would be exposed to tephra accumulation in the event of a volcanic eruption. TABLE 16 -2. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN CASE 1 LAHAR INUNDATION ZONE Jurisdiction Buildings Value Exposed % of Total Exposed Structure Contents Total Assessed Value Algona 1,116 $474,135,845 $408,162,897 $882,298,743 97.75 Auburn 3,708 $1,936,256,506 $1,696,974,752 $3,633,231,258 19.66 Federal Way 74 $14,231,981 $10,029,017 $24,260,998 0.13 Milton 256 $36,487,773 $18,229,710 $54,717,483 9.72 Pacific 2,073 $540,777,225 $324,967,156 $865,744,381 95.54 Unincorporated 271 $55,528,363 $40,760,327 896,288,690 0.22 Total 7,498 83,057,417,693 82,499,123,859 85,556,541,553 0.99 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. TABLE 16 -3. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN CASE 2 LAHAR INUNDATION ZONE Jurisdiction Buildings Value Exposed % of Total Exposed Structure Contents Total Assessed Value Algona 261 $38,851,867 $23,146,394 $61,998,261 6.87 Pacific 1,127 $287,102,157 $181,253,917 $468,356,074 51.68 Unincorporated 8 $1,884,205 $1,462,398 $3,346,603 0.01 Total 1,396 8327,838,229 8205,862,709 8533,700,938 0.10 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 16 -10 Page 286 of 869 VOLCANO TABLE 16-4. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN POST -LAHAR SEDIMENTATION ZONE Jurisdiction Buildings Value Exposed Exposed Structure Contents Total % of Total Assessed Value Algona Auburn Kent Renton Seattle Tukwila Unincorporated Total 1 8,283 6,466 681 3,421 1,467 387 20,706 Note: Values in this table are accurate a discussion of data limitations. $8,895 $4,898,419,869 $9,394,517,677 $2,3 82,266,163 $3,618,450,762 $3,035,596,239 $170,905,971 S23,500,165,576 $4,448 $4,244,306,287 $8,687,789,310 $2,577,625,412 $3,974,253,224 $3,197,653,732 $161,657,007 S22,843,289,420 $13,343 $9,142,726,156 $18,082,306,986 $4,959,891,575 $7,592,703,987 $6,233,249,971 S332,362,978 S46,343,254,996 0.00 50.81 54.49 19.21% 3.58% 53.61% 0.74 0.97 only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for TABLE 16 -5. PRESENT LAND USE IN CASE 1 LAHAR INUNDATION AREA Present Use Classification Case 1 Lahar Case 2 Lahar Area (acres) % of total Area (acres) % of total Agriculture 3 Church, Welfare or Religious Service 2 Commercial 251 Education 9 Governmental Services 3 Industrial/Manufacturing 79 Medical/Dental Services 3 Mixed Use Development 1 (Residential & Commercial) Mortuary /Cemetery /Crematory 0 Nursing Home /Retirement Facility 1 Park /Open Space /Golf Course 274 Residential 412 Terminal or Marina 0 Utility /Easement/Right of Way 38 Water /Tideland /Wetland 0 Uncategorized (includes vacant and 2,250 resource lands) Total 3,324 0.1% 0.1% 7.5% 0.3% 0.1% 2.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 12.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 67.7% 68 125 1,105 105 16 437 3 1 74 5 629 2,850 70 178 7 10,742 0.4% 0.8% 6.7% 0.6% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 3.8% 17.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.0% 65.5% 100% 16,411 100% Source: Summarized from King, Pierce and Snohomish County parcel data. Acreage covers only mapped parcel extents and thus excludes many rights of way and major water features. ACT.A 16 -11 Page 287 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 16 -6. PRESENT LAND USE IN POST LAHAR SEDIMENTATION AREAS Present Use Classification Area (acres) % of total Agriculture 109 0.5% Church, Welfare or Religious Service 48 0.2% Commercial 6,813 30.6% Education 126 0.6% Governmental Services 131 0.6% Industrial/Manufacturing 2,026 9.1% Medical /Dental Services 43 0.2% Mixed Use Development (Residential & 11 0.0% Commercial) Mortuary /Cemetery /Crematory 47 0.2% Nursing Home /Retirement Facility 21 0.1% Park /Open Space /Golf Course 913 4.1% Residential 3,422 15.4% Terminal or Marina 1,733 7.8% Utility /Easement/Right of Way 1,194 5.4% Water /Tideland /Wetland 98 0.4% Uncategorized (includes vacant and resource lands) 5,503 24.7% Total 22,238 100% Source: Summarized from King, Pierce and Snohomish County parcel data. Acreage covers only mapped parcel extents and thus excludes many rights of way and major water features. 16.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Lahar All critical facilities along the White River are exposed to the lahar hazard. The exposed critical facilities and infrastructure in the three lahar zones within the planning area are summarized in Table 16 -7 through Table 16 -12. Tephra All transportation routes are exposed to tephra accumulation, which could create hazardous driving conditions on roads and highways and hinder evacuations and response. 16.4.4 Environment The environment is highly exposed to the effects of a volcanic eruption. Even if ash fall from a volcanic eruption were to fall elsewhere, it could still be spread throughout the county by surrounding rivers and streams. A volcanic blast would expose the local environment to effects such as lower air quality and other elements that could harm local vegetation and water quality. 16 -12 ACT.A Page 288 of 869 VOLCANO TABLE 16 -7. CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE CASE 1 LAHAR INUNDATION ZONE Medical & Other Health Government Protective Hazardous Critical Services Function Function Schools Materials Function Total Algona 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Auburn 0 0 1 7 10 2 20 Milton 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Pacific 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 5 9 10 2 26 TABLE 16 -8. CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE CASE 2 LAHAR INUNDATION ZONE Medical & Other Health Government Protective Hazardous Critical Services Function Function Schools Materials Function Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pacific 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 TABLE 16 -9. CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE POST LAHAR SEDIMENTATION ZONE Medical & Other Health Government Protective Hazardous Critical Services Function Function Schools Materials Function Total Auburn 10 1 3 12 3 20 49 Kent 23 0 7 4 20 7 61 Renton 5 0 1 1 7 5 19 Seattle 4 0 5 0 40 1 50 Tukwila 5 0 4 0 7 4 20 Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 47 1 20 17 77 38 200 ACT.A 16 -13 Page 289 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 16 -10. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CASE 1 LAHAR INUNDATION ZONE Water Bridges Transportation Supply Wastewater Power Communications Dams Total Algona 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 Auburn 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 7 Milton 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Pacific 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 Unincorporated 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 11 0 0 5 1 0 3 20 TABLE 16 -11. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CASE 2 LAHAR INUNDATION ZONE Water Bridges Transportation Supply Wastewater Power Communications Dams Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Pacific 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 TABLE 16 -12. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE POST LAHAR SEDIMENTATION ZONE Water Bridges Transportation Supply Wastewater Power Communications Dams Total Auburn 17 3 1 16 0 1 0 38 Kent 27 5 0 0 2 0 0 34 Renton 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 Seattle 10 74 0 3 1 2 0 90 Tukwila 12 3 1 8 0 1 0 25 Unincorporated 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 Total 84 86 2 29 3 4 0 208 ACT.A 16 -14 Page 290 of 869 VOLCANO Lahars racing down river valleys and spreading across floodplains tens of miles downstream from a volcano often cause serious economic and environmental damage. A lahar's turbulent flow front and the boulders and logs carried by the lahar can easily crush, abrade, or shear off at ground level just about anything in the path of the lahar. Even if not crushed or carried away by the force of a lahar, buildings and valuable land may become partially or completely buried by one or more cement -like layers of rock debris. By destroying bridges and key roads, lahars can trap people in areas vulnerable to other hazardous volcanic activity, especially if the lahars leave deposits that are too deep, too soft, or too hot to cross. Lahars can destroy by direct impact, lead to increased deposition of sediment, block tributary streams and bury valleys and communities with debris. 16.5 VULNERABILITY 16.5.1 Population Lahar Since there is generally adequate warning time before a volcanic event, the population vulnerable to the lahar hazard consists of those who choose not to evacuate or are unable to evacuate. The latter includes the elderly and the very young. Tephra The entire population of the planning area is vulnerable to the damaging effects of volcanic ash fall in the event of a volcanic eruption. The elderly, very young and those who experience ear, nose and throat problems are especially vulnerable to the tephra hazard. 16.5.2 Property Lahar There are currently no generally accepted damage functions for volcanic hazards in risk assessment platforms such as Hazus -MH. Therefore the planning team was not able to generate damage estimates for this hazard. All properties listed in Table 16 -2 through Table 16 -4 are vulnerable to the lahar hazard in the planning area. These lahar inundation areas are the outflow areas of past volcanic eruptions and are potential outflow areas for future volcanic eruptions. The most vulnerable structures would be those that are located closest to the lahar outflow areas, and those that are not structurally sound. Tephra All of the property exposed to nature in the planning area is exposed to the effects of a tephra fall. Among these properties, the most vulnerable structures are those that are not as structurally sound and may collapse under the excessive weight of tephra and possible rainfall. Vulnerable property includes equipment and machinery left out in the open, such as combines, whose parts can become clogged by the fine dust. Infrastructure, such as drainage systems, is potentially vulnerable to the effects of a tephra fall, since the fine ash can clog pipes and culverts. This may be more of a problem if an eruption occurs during winter or early spring when precipitation is highest and floods are most likely. To estimate the loss potential for this hazard, a qualitative approach was used, based on recommendations from FEMA guidelines on state and local mitigation planning. Loss estimation tools such as Hazus -MH currently do not have the ability to analyze impacts from volcano hazards. For this study, it was decided to use 0.1 percent as the loss ratio for the volcano hazard. Assessed valuations for the entire planning area were the basis for these estimations. The results are summarized in Table 16 -13. 16 -15 ACT.A Page 291 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 16 -13. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR TEPHRA Jurisdiction Exposed Value Estimated Loss Potential @ 0.1% Damage Algona $902,612,000 Auburn $17,992,313,000 Beaux Arts $60,778,000 Bellevue $49,163,714,000 Black Diamond $600,388,000 Bothell $5,215,897,000 Burien $9,165,566,000 Carnation $328,410,000 Clyde Hill $845,586,000 Covington $2,849,591,000 Des Moines $5,742,226,000 Duvall $1,108,322,000 Enumclaw $2,667,155,000 Federal Way $19,102,220,000 Hunts Point $160,100,000 Issaquah $9,587,897,000 Kenmore $4,000,207,000 Kent $33,182,020,000 Kirkland $22,202,262,000 Lake Forest Park $2,214,717,000 Maple Valley $3,129,530,000 Medina $947,196,000 Mercer Island $6,598,328,000 Milton $140,733,000 Newcastle $2,266,792,000 Normandy Park $1,306,626,000 North Bend $1,453,593,000 Pacific $830,743,000 Redmond $23,234,414,000 Renton $25,825,586,000 Sammamish $9,306,835,000 SeaTac $7,572,236,000 Seattle $212,337,688,000 Shoreline $11,169,471,000 Skykomish $74,730,000 Snoqualmie $2,297,236,000 Tukwila $11,628,108,000 Woodinville $4,522,687,000 Yarrow Point $300,638,000 Unincorporated $44,681,548,000 Total $902,612 $17,992,313 $60,778 $49,163,714 $600,388 $5,215,897 $9,165,566 $328,410 $845,586 $2,849,591 $5,742,226 $1,108,322 $2,667,155 $19,102,220 $160,100 $9,587,897 $4,000,207 $33,182,020 $22,202,262 $2,214,717 $3,129,530 $947,196 $6,598,328 $ 140,733 $2,266,792 $1,306,626 $1,453,593 $830,743 $23,234,414 $25,825,586 $9,306,835 $7,572,236 $212,337,688 $11,169,471 $74,730 $2,297,236 $11,628,108 $4,522,687 $300,638 $556,716,699 $556,716,699,000.00 $1,068,751,850.00 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 16 -16 Page 292 of 869 VOLCANO 16.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Lahar Transportation routes that intersect with the lahar inundation zone are most vulnerable, especially depending on their structural stability. This would include roads, bridges and the BNSF Railway. The most vulnerable spots are those that directly intersect with a lahar outflow area and are not structurally sound. Utilities are vulnerable to damage from lahars due to the debris that may be carried. Most vulnerable are those that are located on or near parcels that intersect with the lahar outflow area or those that receive input from area streams and rivers that lahar flow through. Water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants are vulnerable to contamination from debris that may be carried by a lahar. Electrical transmission lines that provide a portion of the electrical power to the Seattle- Tacoma metropolitan area may be severed during an eruption. Tephra or Ash Fall Ash fall accumulation of less than one -half inch is capable of creating temporary disruptions of transportation operations and sewage disposal and water treatment systems. Highways and roads could be closed for hours, days, or weeks afterwards. The series of eruptions at Mount St. Helens in 1980 caused Interstate 90 from Seattle to Spokane to close for a week. The impact of the ash fall caused the Seattle and Portland International Airports to close for a few days. The gritty ash can cause substantial problems for internal- combustion engines and other mechanical and electrical equipment. The ash can contaminate oil systems, clog air filters, and scratch moving surfaces. Fine ash can also cause short circuits in electrical transformers, which in tum cause power blackouts. 16.5.4 Environment The environment is very vulnerable to the effects of a volcanic eruption. A lahar could be very damaging to area rivers and streams and could redirect water flow and cause changes in water courses. Ash fall would expose the local environment to lower air quality and other effects that could harm vegetation and water quality. The sulfuric acid contained in volcanic ash could be very damaging to area vegetation, waters, wildlife and air quality. Rivers and streams are also vulnerable to damage due to ash fall. 16.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT Lahar Development in lahar inundation areas is not currently held to more restrictive standards than typically adopted building codes and land use regulations. These areas have been densely settled. Population within King County, including areas susceptible to lahar inundation, continues to grow, so development of these areas is expected to continue. Tephra or Ash Fall All future development in the planning area will be susceptible to the potential impacts from volcanic eruptions causing ash fall within the region. While this potential impact on the built environment is not considered to be significant, the economic impact on industries that rely on machinery and equipment such as agriculture or civil engineering projects could be significant. Since the extent and location of this hazard is difficult to gauge because it is dependent upon many variables, the ability to institute land use recommendations based on potential impacts of this hazard is limited. While the impacts of tephra are sufficient to warrant risk assessment for emergency management purposes, they are not sufficient to dictate land use decisions. 16 -17 ACT.A Page 293 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 16.7 SCENARIO The worst case scenario for King County would be a massive eruption from Mt. Rainier. The lahar flow along the White River in conjunction with this eruption could have devastating impacts on facilities in the White River basin, similar to those seen along the Toutle River following the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980. King County resources would be taxed during such an event with widespread damage in the south portion of the county. Most loss of life is likely to be avoided as a result of adequate warnings. 16.8 ISSUES Volcanic activity at Mt. Rainier is believed to pose the greatest threat to King County and its residents. Because of the inactivity of Mt. Rainier, people have settled on its slopes and along the paths taken by lahar and mudflow drainage. If Mt. Rainier becomes active and erupts or has large lahars or mudflows, all human life and property located on its slopes and along its drainage systems (rivers) are potentially vulnerable. Explosive eruptions at Glacier Peak or Mt. St. Helens would produce ash that would pose health concerns for residents, damage property, and cause major problems for transportation, local industry, communication and utilities. Non - magmatic events at other active Cascade volcanoes would not directly impact King County. However, County residents could be vulnerable if visiting a volcano during volcanic activity. Volcanic eruptions can disrupt the normal flow of commerce and daily human activity without causing severe physical harm or damage. Ash that is a few inches thick can halt traffic, cause rapid wear of machinery, clog air filters, block drains, creeks, and water intakes, and impact agriculture. Removal and disposal of large volumes of deposited ash can also have significant impacts on government and business. The interconnectedness of the region's economy can be disturbed after a volcanic eruption. Roads, railroads, and bridges can be damaged from lahars and mudflows. The Mount St. Helens May 1980 eruption demonstrated the negative effect on the tourism industry. Conventions, meetings, and social gatherings were canceled or postponed in cities and resorts throughout Washington and Oregon in areas not initially affected by the eruption. However, the eruption did lead to the creation of a thriving tourist industry for decades following the event. Transportation of goods may also be halted. Subsequent airport closures can disrupt airline schedules for travelers. In addition, the movement of goods via major highways can also be halted due to debris and tephra in the air. The Mount St. Helens event in May 1980 cost trade and commerce an estimated $50 million in only two days, as ships were unable to navigate the Columbia River. Clouds of ash often cause electrical storms that start fires, and damp ash can short- circuit electrical systems and disrupt radio communication. Volcanic activity can also lead to the closure of nearby recreation areas as a safety precaution long before the activity ever culminates into an eruption. Researchers continue to develop methods to predict volcanic eruptions accurately. Indications that an eruption may be imminent include swarms of small earthquakes as the magma rises up through the volcano, increases in sulfur dioxide emissions, and physical swelling of mountain slopes. The USGS is currently experimenting with a variety of sensors on Mt. Rainier in order to attempt predictions. While these methods have not been perfected, scientists were able to predict the eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines and Mt. Unzen in Japan. Since volcanic episodes have been fairly predictable in the recent past, there is not as much concern about loss of life, but there is concern with loss of property, infrastructure and severe environmental impacts. 16 -18 ACT.A Page 294 of 869 CHAPTER 17. FIRE 17.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND King County experiences three types of fire threats: structure fires, wildfires and wildland urban interface (WUI) fires where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas. 17.1.1 Structure Fires Structure fires are not typically considered an emergency, except when the fire can spread to adjoining structures. Often, older structures do not conform to modern building and fire codes and do not contain fire detection devices. These structures are also prone to faulty electrical, heating and other utility systems due to age and lack of proper maintenance. Many of these older structures were constructed very close together, enabling fire to spread rapidly from one to another. Older apartment buildings and hotels also face increased risk of rapid fire spread due to inadequate firewall protection and the lack of fire detection and sprinkler systems. Some newer residential structures are not as vulnerable to fire as older structures. These structures include fire resistive features that conform to modern fire and building codes, as well as fire detection or extinguishing systems. The likelihood of a major fire spreading from these structures to adjoining structures or units before it can be brought under control is significantly reduced. The storage and use of hazardous materials by commercial and industrial occupancies not only increases the risk of fire but also poses a threat to firefighters and the community if they should become involved in a fire. Structure fires are a potential secondary hazard of earthquakes. One study estimated that 80 to 100 fires would occur from a large earthquake in the Seattle area. 17.1.2 Wildfires A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning or by human activity such as smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson. Controlled burns are not considered hazards unless they escape control. DEFINITIONS Conflagration —A fire that grows beyond its' original source area to engulf adjoining regions. Wind, extremely dry or hazardous weather conditions, excessive fuel buildup and explosions are usually the elements behind a wildfire conflagration. Firestorm —A fire that expands to cover a large area, often more than a square mile. A firestorm usually occurs when many individual fires grow together into one. The involved area becomes so hot that all combustible materials ignite, even if they are not exposed to direct flame. Temperatures may exceed 1000 °C. Superheated air and gases of combustion rise over the fire zone, drawing surface winds in from all sides, at velocities up to 50 miles per hour. Although firestorms seldom spread because of the inward direction of the winds, once started there is no known way of stopping them. Within the area of the fire, lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide are present; combined with the intense heat, this poses a serious life threat to responding fire forces. In very large events, the rising column of heated air and combustion gases carries enough soot and particulate matter into the upper atmosphere to cause cloud nucleation, creating a locally intense thunderstorm and the hazard of lightning strikes. Interface Area —An area susceptible to wildfires and where wildland vegetation and urban or suburban development occur together. An example would be smaller urban areas and dispersed rural housing in forested areas. Wildfire —Fires that result in uncontrolled destruction of forests, brush, field crops, grasslands, and real and personal property in non -urban areas. Because of their distance from firefighting resources, they can be difficult to contain and can cause a great deal of destruction. 17 -1 ACT.A Page 295 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Fire hazards present a considerable risk to vegetation and wildlife habitat. Short-term loss caused by a wildfire can include the destruction of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and watersheds. Long -term effects include smaller timber harvests, reduced access to affected recreational areas, and destruction of cultural and economic resources and community infrastructure. Vulnerability to flooding increases due to the destruction of watersheds. An average of 905 wildfires burn 6,488 acres annually in Washington State, with a resource loss of $2,103,884. The probability of a wildfire in any one locality on a particular day depends on fuel conditions, topography and weather conditions, as described in the following sections. Fuels Fuels are classified by weight or volume (fuel loading) and by type, including living and dead vegetation on the ground, brush and small trees on the surface, and tree canopies above the ground. Fuel loading, often expressed in tons per acre, can be used to describe the amount of vegetative material available. If fuel loading doubles, the energy released also can be expected to double. Each fuel type is given a burn index, which is an estimate of the amount of potential energy that may be released, the effort required to contain a fire in a given fuel, and the expected flame length. Different fuels have different burn qualities. Some fuels burn more easily or release more energy than others. Lighter fuels such as grasses, leaves and needles quickly expel moisture and burn rapidly, while heavier fuels such as tree branches, logs and trunks take longer to warm and ignite. Continuity of fuels is expressed in terms of horizontal and vertical dimensions. Horizontal continuity represents the distribution of fuels over the landscape. Vertical continuity links fuels at the ground surface with tree crowns. Trees killed or defoliated by forest insects and diseases are more susceptible to wildfire. As of 2012, just under 5 percent (more than 1 million acres) of Washington's 22.4 million acres of forestland showed some level of tree mortality, tree defoliation or foliar disease (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2013). Fuel moisture is expressed as a percentage of total saturation and varies with antecedent weather. Low fuel moistures indicate the probability of severe fires. Given the same weather conditions, moisture in fuels of different diameters changes at different rates. A 1,000 -hour fuel, which has a 3- to 8 -inch diameter, changes more slowly than a 1- or 10 -hour fuel. Topography Topography can have a powerful influence on wildfire behavior. The movement of air over the terrain tends to direct a fire's course. Gulches and canyons can funnel air and act as a chimney, intensifying fire behavior and inducing faster rates of spread. Saddles on ridge tops offer lower resistance to the passage of air and will draw fires. Solar heating of drier, south - facing slopes produces upslope thermal winds that can complicate behavior. Slope is an important factor. If the percentage of uphill slope doubles, the rate of spread of wildfire will likely double. On steep slopes, fuels on the uphill side of a fire are closer physically to the source of heat. Radiation preheats and dries the fuel, thus intensifying fire behavior. Fire travels downslope much more slowly than it does upslope, and ridge tops often mark the end of wildfire's rapid spread. Weather Of all the factors influencing wildfire behavior, weather is the most variable. Extreme weather leads to extreme fire events, and it is often a moderation of the weather that marks the end of a wildfire's growth 17 -2 ACT.A Page 296 of 869 FIRE and the beginning of successful containment. High temperatures and low humidity can produce vigorous fire activity. The cooling and higher humidity brought by sunset can dramatically quiet fire behavior. Fronts and thunderstorms can produce winds that are capable of radical and sudden changes in speed and direction, causing similar changes in fire activity. The rate of spread of a fire varies directly with wind velocity. Winds may play a dominant role in directing the course of a fire. Strong, dry winds produce extreme fire conditions. Such winds generally reach peak velocities during the night and early morning. The effect of wind on fire behavior is a primary safety concern for firefighters. In July 1994, a sudden change in wind speed and direction on Storm King Mountain in Colorado led to a blowup that claimed the lives of 14 firefighters. The most damaging firestorms are usually marked by high winds. 17.1.3 Wildland /Urban Interface Fires WUI fires occur where combustible vegetation meets combustible structures, combining the hazards associated with wildfires and structure fires. These types of fires have increased dramatically in the last two decades as more and more people move to rural areas. Between 1970 and 1980, the rural population of the United States increased 23.4 percent, more than twice the gain of 11.4 percent for the nation as a whole. The hazard is bi- directional, wildfires can burn homes, and home fires can burn into wildlands. WUI fires are increasing as more vacation homes are built and improved transportation systems allow more people to live outside city centers. The longer response times for these out -of -the -way locations gives the fire more time to get out of control, making these fires difficult to fight. Most firefighters are trained to fight either wildfires or structure fires. WUI fires require both skills, and it is very difficult to balance the two. When a WUI fire breaks out, the threat of extreme property and casualty losses often forces firefighters to focus their efforts on protecting homes and structures, sometimes at the expense of protecting wildland resources or working to slow the fire itself. 17.2 HAZARD PROFILE 17.2.1 Past Events Structure fires The largest conflagration in King County history is the 1889 Seattle fire, which is estimated to have consumed 60 acres of downtown. On August 6, 1992, a series of fires began in the north Seattle area. Ultimately, 76 fires occurred, resulting in losses of over $30 million. On February 6, 1993, Paul Keller was arrested and charged with arson. He ultimately pled guilty to setting 32 of the fires. Wildfires Fire is a normal part of most forest and range ecosystems in temperate regions of the world. Fires historically burn on a fairly regular cycle, recycling carbon and nutrients stored in the ecosystem and strongly affecting the species within the ecosystem. Annual acreage consumed by wildfires in the lower 48 states dropped from about 40 to 50 million acres per year in the 1930s to under 5 million acres by 1970. A Western Washington study estimated that modern wildfires consume only about a tenth of the biomass each year that prehistoric fires burned. According to the Washington State Emergency Management Division, the wildland fire season in Washington State typically begins in early July and lasts until late September. Climatic conditions such as drought, snowpack and localized weather can expand the length of the fire season. In July through early September, lightning strikes are the cause of most wildland fires in Washington State. Human - caused 17 -3 ACT.A Page 297 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements fires are more prevalent at the beginning and end of the fire season. Only 30 percent of fires in the state are in Western Washington (EMD, 2013). None of the significant wildland fires since 1900 noted by the Washington State Emergency Management Division have occurred in King County. The U.S. Department of the Interior maintains a database of federal agency records for 677,000 fires that occurred from 1980 through 2012 (USGS, 2013). There are 332 events listed that occurred in King County. Of these 332 events, 86 percent were attributed to human causes. Only six of the King County fires burned 10 acres or more; these are listed in Table 17 -1. TABLE 17 -1. WILDFIRES IN KING COUNTY GREATER THAN 10 ACRES, 1980 -2012 Forest Service Fire ID Fire Name Cause Start Date Area Burned (acres) 1483448 Crystal Mine Natural 8/4/2009 25 285295 Unnamed Human 5/24/1993 16 251146 Falls Creek Human 7/26/1988 2,600 246258 Unnamed Human 7/29/1988 70 246146 Unnamed Human 9/11/1986 40 246145 Unnamed Human 9/11/1986 40 Source: Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data, http: // wildfire. cr .usgs.gov /firehistory /data.html 17.2.2 Location The following sections describe two types of wildfire hazard mapping produced by the U.S. Forest Service and LANDFIRE (a program of the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior, under the direction of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council): fire regime mapping and fire behavior fuel model classifications. Fire Regime Mapping The LANDFIRE project produces maps of historical fire regimes and vegetation and maps of current vegetation and its departure from historical conditions. The maps categorize mean fire return intervals and fire severities into five fire regimes (Hann et al., 2004): • Fire Regime I -0 to 35 year frequency, low to mixed severity • Fire Regime II -0 to 35 year frequency, replacement severity • Fire Regime III -35 to 200 year frequency, low to mixed severity • Fire Regime IV -35 to 200 year frequency, replacement severity • Fire Regime V -200+ year frequency, any severity. These maps support fire and landscape management planning outlined in the goals of the National Fire Plan, Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Figure 17 -1 shows fire regimes in the planning area based on LANDFIRE models. 17 -4 ACT.A Page 298 of 869 W W -J E - / > a - o- a a a = = = = = o 0 L o 0 0 a) E .E E E E a) a) a) a) a) it it it it it , uno3 despN Base Map Data Sources: King County, U.S. Geological Survey O o N a N C C N O Y 8 2 o 2 o E 2, o O U U O 2 2 E O o U N m w gg- off, N 'Y Q N X N O °- �a o o N � o o H o n _ O a E � ▪ +• 4 O U a u U N O � o O -6 Y � 3 'Y N N O) C S (6 N t U) C O U U O T N N 2 y O NFU U 6I a s 2 yY o 2-0 0 .— E U T Q Q N N C N To as N E o T O ° T Q T N U 0 O N 0o� 0, o o 4 o.? n Q� E E U Ty N p O sO o m � � �2 E • o Ew � E n o E U a N w N w O 6 O N — T ESQ O O = n E N = w .69 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Fire Behavior Fuel Model Classifications Thirteen standard fire behavior fuel models (FBFM) serve as input to a mathematical model of surface fire behavior and spread. The fire behavior fuel model layer (FBFM13) represents the distribution of fuel loading among live and dead surface fuel components, size classes, and fuel types. The fuel models are described by the most common fire - carrying fuel type (grass, brush, timber litter, or slash), loading and surface area -to- volume ratio by size class and component, fuel bed depth, and moisture of extinction. The FBFM13 layer was produced by fire and fuels specialists based on vegetation type, cover, and height. The 13 classes, shown on Figure 17 -2, are defined as follows: • FBFM 1— Surface fires that burn fine herbaceous fuels, cured and curing fuels, little shrub or timber present, primarily grasslands and savanna • FBFM 2 —Burns fine, herbaceous fuels, stand is curing or dead, may produce fire brands on oak or pine stands • FBFM 3 —Most intense fire of grass group, spreads quickly with wind, one third of stand dead or cured, stands average 3 feet tall • FBFM 4 —Fast spreading fire, continuous overstory, flammable foliage and dead woody material, deep litter layer can inhibit suppression • FBFM 5 —Low intensity fires, young, green shrubs with little dead material, fuels consist of litter from understory • FBFM 6 —Broad range of shrubs, fire requires moderate winds to maintain flame at shrub height, or will drop to the ground with low winds • FBFM 7— Foliage highly flammable, allowing fire to reach shrub strata levels, shrubs generally 2 to 6 feet high • FBFM 8 —Slow, ground burning fires, closed canopy stands with short needle conifers or hardwoods, litter consisting mainly of needles and leaves, with little undergrowth, occasional flares with concentrated fuels • FBFM 9— Longer flames, quicker surface fires, closed canopy stands of long - needles or hardwoods, rolling leaves in fall can cause spotting, dead -down material can cause occasional crowning • FBFM 10— Surface and ground fire more intense, dead -down fuels more abundant, frequent crowning and spotting causing fire control to be more difficult • FBFM 11— Fairly active fire, fuels consist of slash and herbaceous materials, slash originates from light partial cuts or thinning projects, fire is limited by spacing of fuel load and shade from overstory • FBFM 12 —Rapid spreading and high intensity fires, dominated by slash resulting from heavy thinning projects and clear -cuts, slash is mostly 3 inches or less • FBFM 13 —Fire spreads quickly through smaller material and intensity builds slowly as large material ignites, continuous layer of slash larger than 3 inches in diameter predominates, resulting from clear -cuts and heavy partial cuts, active flames sustained for long periods of time, fire is susceptible to spotting and weather conditions. 17 -6 ACT.A Page 300 of 869 w 0 2008 LANDFIRE R;uno3 uelay3 W W J Anderson 13 Fuel Classes u_ co u_ 0 Vit cN C co u_ co 2 co u_ O N— Ln (O CO 0) N— N— W - W - W - W - W - W 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ R;uno3 , uno3 despN O Ul N N C 0= Base Map Data Sources: Faye - 30S -u--75-99 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements WUI Areas The Washington Department of Natural Resources and its federal and local partners have determined that six areas in King County are at a high risk to wildfire: Black Diamond /Green River, Carnation, Cumberland, Kanaskat/Selleck, Lake Retreat/Rock Creek, North Bend and Snoqualmie Pass. According to the Washington State Emergency Management Division, areas of significant fire hazards are mapped based on fire behavior potential, fire protection capability, and risk to social, cultural and community resources. Risk is determined based on area fire history, type and density of vegetative fuels, extreme weather conditions, topography, number and density of structures and their distance from fuels, location of municipal watershed, and likely loss of housing or business (EMD, 2013). Figure 17 -3 shows WUI communities at risk. 17.2.3 Frequency Natural fire rotation is defined as the number of years necessary for fires to burn over an area equal to that of the study area. Natural fire rotation is calculated from the historical record of fires by dividing the length of the record period in years by the percentage of total area burned during that period. It represents the average period between fires under a presumed historical fire regime. Since 1980, King County has seen an average of 10 wildfires per year. The vast majority of these fires burn less than 10 acres, with an overall average of 8.6 acres per incident. Fires occur annually, although fires that burn more than 10 acres have only occurred once every 5 years, on average. 17.2.4 Severity Structure Fires Injuries and casualties to the occupants of a structure are a primary concern in all structure fires. These events can also cause the release of hazardous materials and disconnect utility lines. Given the immediate response times to reported fires, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal. Wildfires Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, and natural resources. The effects of wildfires vary with intensity, area and time of year. The greatest short-term loss is the complete destruction of valuable resources, such as timber, wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and watersheds. In addition, wildfire can lead to ancillary impacts such as landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the impacts of silt in local watersheds. Severe fires producing high soil temperatures create a water - repellent layer below the soil surface. The soil above this layer becomes highly prone to erosion, often resulting in mudslides. Long -term effects are reduced amounts of timber for commercial purposes and the reduction of travel and recreational activities in the affected area. Health impacts, loss of life, and personal property losses occur as well. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for sensitive populations including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after- effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. There are no recorded incidents of loss of life from wildfires in the planning area. WUI Fires The effects of WUI fires are the combined effects of both structure fires and wildfires. 17 -8 ACT.A Page 302 of 869 i a s- L M v Communities at Risk • a� ce aEi W • (a W • N uuum' CU J Z ) R;uno3 selpm 8 C = Pierce County , uno3 despN Base Map Data Sources: Faye —SU -S vHS99 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 17.2.5 Warning Time Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. There is no way to predict when one might break out. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence is warranted around the Fourth of July when the use of fireworks is highest. Dry seasons and droughts are factors that greatly increase fire likelihood. Dry lightning may trigger wildfires. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can be paid during weather events that may include lightning. Reliable National Weather Service lightning warnings are available on average 24 to 48 hours prior to a significant electrical storm. If a fire does break out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours. A fire's peak burning period generally is between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. Once a fire has started, fire alerting is reasonably rapid in most cases. The rapid spread of cellular and two -way radio communications in recent years has further contributed to a significant improvement in warning time. 17.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and prolonged damage than the fire itself. Fires can cause direct economic losses in the reduction of harvestable timber and indirect economic losses in reduced tourism. Wildfires cause the contamination of reservoirs, destroy transmission lines and contribute to flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. Major landslides can occur several years after a wildfire. Most wildfires burn hot and for long durations that can bake soils, especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This increases the runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding. 17.4 EXPOSURE 17.4.1 Population Population for three fire behavior fuel model classes was estimated using the structure count of buildings in the those areas and applying the census value for King County of 2.39 persons per household. These estimates are shown in Table 17 -2. 17.4.2 Property Property damage from wildfires can be severe and can significantly alter entire communities. Table 17 -3 shows the number of structures in the planning area that are located in FBFM10 areas and their values. Parcels that intersect areas designated as FBFM10 were also analyzed to estimate the types of land uses that are exposed. Table 17 -4 shows the total area and percent of the total area of present land uses within the County that are exposed to this hazard. Based on these estimates, the majority of exposed parcels are uncategorized, which includes vacant and resource lands, making up 82.5 percent of the total percentage of exposed acres. 17.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to most critical infrastructure. Most roads and railroads would be without damage except in the worst scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk to wildfire because most are made of wood and susceptible to burning. In the event of a wildfire, pipelines could provide a source of fuel and lead to a catastrophic explosion. Currently there are two registered Tier II hazardous material containment sites in wildfire risk zones. During a fire event, hazardous materials storage containers could rupture due to heat and act as fuel for the fire, escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In addition they could leak into surrounding areas, saturating soils and seeping into surface waters, and have a disastrous effect on the environment. 17 -10 ACT.A Page 304 of 869 FIRE TABLE 17 -2. POPULATION WITHIN FIRE BEHAVIOR FUEL MODEL CLASSES FBFM 8 FBFM 9 FBFM 10 Population Population Population Buildings Number % of Total Buildings Number % of Total Buildings Number % of total Algona 56 133 4.34% 34 80 2.61% 1 2 0.07% Auburn 2118 5,062 7.87% 1,416 3,384 5.26% 831 1,987 3.09% Beaux Arts 77 183 63.17% 0 0 0.12% 35 84 28.90% Bellevue 12387 29,605 22.41% 1,797 4,296 3.25% 3,108 7,428 5.62% Black Diamond 483 1,154 27.67% 160 382 9.16% 174 417 10.00% Bothell 1402 3,352 19.22% 318 760 4.36% 805 1,923 11.03% Burien 3858 9,222 19.20% 776 1,856 3.86% 527 1,261 2.62% Carnation 73 174 9.75% 33 79 4.43% 20 47 2.63% Clyde Hill 470 1,123 37.69% 21 51 1.71% 71 169 5.68% Covington 1139 2,722 15.04% 600 1,435 7.93% 496 1,185 6.55% Des Moines 2005 4,792 16.12% 578 1,381 4.64% 233 557 1.87% Duvall 385 920 12.92% 306 732 10.28% 115 274 3.85% Enumclaw 55 130 1.18% 99 238 2.14% 12 29 0.26% Federal Way 7387 17,654 19.68% 1,623 3,879 4.32% 1,611 3,851 4.29% Hunts Point 58 138 34.97% 15 36 9.18% 65 155 39.26% Issaquah 1550 3,703 11.53% 611 1,459 4.54% 2,323 5,552 17.28% Kenmore 2418 5,779 27.30% 682 1,630 7.70% 855 2,043 9.65% Kent 4432 10,592 8.79% 2,268 5,420 4.50% 700 1,672 1.39% Kirkland 8495 20,304 24.84% 1,101 2,632 3.22% 2,102 5,025 6.15% Lake Forest Park 1981 4,734 37.33% 392 937 7.39% 606 1,449 11.43% Maple Valley 1193 2,852 11.93% 696 1,665 6.96% 971 2,321 9.71% Medina 515 1,231 41.03% 106 254 8.46% 90 215 7.16% Mercer Island 3219 7,693 33.86% 528 1,263 5.56% 759 1,813 7.98% Milton 132 315 37.53% 34 80 9.57% 29 69 8.24% Newcastle 956 2,284 21.46% 327 781 7.34% 555 1,327 12.47% Normandy Park 869 2,077 32.71% 222 531 8.36% 237 565 8.90% North Bend 334 798 13.25% 288 688 11.42% 174 415 6.89% Pacific 140 336 5.03% 83 197 2.96% 26 62 0.92% Redmond 4151 9,920 17.77% 840 2,007 3.59% 1,438 3,437 6.16% Renton 4495 10,743 11.24% 1,985 4,744 4.97% 1,187 2,838 2.97% Sammamish 3054 7,299 15.19% 1,912 4,570 9.51% 3,077 7,354 15.30% SeaTac 1618 3,866 14.16% 381 911 3.34% 68 163 0.60% Seattle 35929 85,871 13.70% 4,022 9,613 1.53% 1,866 4,460 0.71% Shoreline 6994 16,715 31.14% 373 891 1.66% 637 1,523 2.84% Skykomish 24 58 29.76% 22 52 26.74% 15 36 18.46% Snoqualmie 513 1,225 10.47% 341 815 6.96% 1,312 3,136 26.80% Tukwila 1032 2,466 12.87% 403 964 5.03% 78 186 0.97% Woodinville 1088 2,601 23.66% 229 548 4.99% 607 1,451 13.20% Yarrow Point 229 547 53.84% 22 49 4.87% 48 114 11.24% Unincorporated 23,916 57,158 22.58 10,956 26,184 10.35 20,104 48,050 18.98 Total 141,230 337,531 17.03 36,600 87,474 4.41 47,968 114,645 5.78 ACT.A 17 -11 Page 305 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 17 -3. EXPOSURE AND VALUE OF STRUCTURES IN FIRE BEHAVIOR FUEL MODEL 10 Buildings Value Exposed % of Total Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total Assessed Value Algona 1 $559,149 $501,937 $1,061,086 0.12% Auburn 831 $317,817,737 $217,531,531 $535,349,269 2.98% Beaux Arts 35 $11,018,669 $5,673,332 $16,692,000 27.46% Bellevue 3,108 $1,509,230,671 $945,579,131 $2,454,809,803 4.99% Black Diamond 174 $39,981,778 $23,062,251 $63,044,029 10.50% Bothell 805 $456,952,481 $285,205,179 $742,157,660 14.23% Burien 527 $197,142,244 $111,255,205 $308,397,449 3.36% Carnation 20 $4,659,491 $2,869,995 $7,529,486 2.29% Clyde Hill 71 $29,187,580 $15,094,349 $44,281,929 5.24% Covington 496 $115,673,609 $67,941,899 $183,615,508 6.44% Des Moines 233 $91,168,128 $59,649,185 $150,817,314 2.63% Duvall 115 $29,637,590 $16,365,487 $46,003,077 4.15% Enumclaw 12 $5,137,151 $4,268,753 $9,405,904 0.35% Federal Way 1,611 $819,238,817 $558,701,605 $1,377,940,422 7.21% Hunts Point 65 $38,564,281 $19,779,401 $58,343,682 36.44% Issaquah 2,323 $1,424,361,776 $884,923,306 $2,309,285,081 24.09% Kenmore 855 $308,282,199 $207,070,791 $515,352,990 12.88% Kent 700 $264,302,588 $153,916,322 $418,218,910 1.26% Kirkland 2,102 $780,770,408 $474,554,227 $1,255,324,636 5.65% Lake Forest Park 606 $144,517,863 $80,526,045 $225,043,908 10.16% Maple Valley 971 $278,084,814 $163,304,692 $441,389,506 14.10% Medina 90 $52,927,114 $27,958,454 $80,885,568 8.54% Mercer Island 759 $329,083,653 $181,161,779 $510,245,432 7.73% Milton 29 $14,143,707 $7,277,437 $21,421,144 15.22% Newcastle 555 $257,589,652 $145,776,716 $403,366,369 17.79% Normandy Park 237 $67,415,572 $37,281,237 $104,696,809 8.01% North Bend 174 $59,810,831 $35,104,207 $94,915,038 6.53% Pacific 26 $5,710,165 $2,926,205 $8,636,370 1.04% Redmond 1,438 $877,719,228 $583,286,938 $1,461,006,166 6.29% Renton 1,187 $499,543,690 $289,317,099 $788,860,788 3.05% Sammamish 3,077 $1,137,923,516 $625,304,737 $1,763,228,253 18.95% SeaTac 68 $48,495,237 $34,690,004 $83,185,241 1.10% Seattle 1,866 $613,534,285 $370,053,744 $983,588,029 0.46% Shoreline 637 $341,429,774 $240,860,617 $582,290,392 5.21% Skykomish 15 $2,267,006 $1,598,125 $3,865,130 5.17% Snoqualmie 1,312 $633,549,137 $414,235,373 $1,047,784,510 45.61% Tukwila 78 $49,790,892 $37,038,874 $86,829,767 0.75% Woodinville 607 $313,545,389 $222,768,946 $536,314,335 11.86% Yarrow Point 48 $19,212,381 $10,072,547 $29,284,928 9.74% Unincorporated 20,104 $5,592,636,023 $3,485,087,918 $9,437,723,941 21.12 Total 47,968 $17,782,616,276 $11,049,575,580 $29,192,191,859 5.24 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 17 -12 Page 306 of 869 FIRE TABLE 17-4. PRESENT LAND USE IN WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS Present Use Classification Area (acres) % of total Agriculture 879 0.1% Church, Welfare or Religious Service 1,095 0.1% Commercial 7,072 0.6% Education 4,048 0.4% Governmental Services 2,143 0.2% Industrial/Manufacturing 4,875 0.4% Medical /Dental Services 203 0.0% Mixed Use Development (Residential & Commercial) 41 0.0% Mortuary /Cemetery /Crematory 448 0.0% Nursing Home /Retirement Facility 211 0.0% Park /Open Space /Golf Course 24,883 2.2% Residential 139,593 12.5% Terminal or Marina 2,200 0.2% Utility /Easement/Right of Way 7949 0.7% Water /Tideland /Wetland 217 0.0% Uncategorized (includes vacant and resource lands) 920,792 82.5% Total 1,116,649 100% Source: Summarized from King, Pierce and Snohomish County parcel data. Acreage covers only mapped parcel extents and thus excludes many rights of way and major water features. Table 17 -5 and Table 17 -6 identify critical facilities and infrastructure exposed to the wildfire hazard in the county. Spatial files of critical facility and infrastructure location and Anderson Fuel Class FBFM10 areas were intersected to determine exposure; however, the resolution of the hazard layer is not fine enough in scale for accurate building by building assessments. The exposure of critical facilities and infrastructure in the planning area is likely overestimated by this analysis. ACT.A 17 -13 Page 307 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 17 -5. CRITICAL FACILITIES IN FBFM10 AREAS Medical Government Protective Other Critical and Health Functions Functions Schools Hazmat Functions Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bellevue 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Black Diamond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bothell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burien 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carnation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Covington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Des Moines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duvall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enumclaw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Way 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Kenmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kirkland 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Lake Forest Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maple Valley 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newcastle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Bend 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redmond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Renton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sammamish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SeaTac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seattle 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Shoreline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skykomish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snoqualmie 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 Tukwila 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodinville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 0 0 3 5 0 0 8 Total 3 2 6 8 2 3 24 ACT.A 17 -14 Page 308 of 869 FIRE TABLE 17 -6. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN FBFM10 AREAS Transporta Water Bridges tion Supply Wastewater Power Communications Dams Total Algona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5 Beaux Arts Village 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bellevue 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 Black Diamond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bothell 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 4 Burien 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Carnation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clyde Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Covington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Des Moines 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 Duvall 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Enumclaw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Hunts Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issaquah 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 8 Kenmore 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Kent 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Kirkland 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Lake Forest Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maple Valley 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 6 Medina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mercer Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Milton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newcastle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Normandy Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Bend 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Redmond 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 Renton 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sammamish 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 SeaTac 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Seattle 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Shoreline 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 Skykomish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snoqualmie 4 0 3 5 1 0 1 14 Tukwila 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Woodinville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yarrow Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 69 3 22 6 0 9 7 116 Total 106 3 47 20 2 11 15 204 ACT.A 17 -15 Page 309 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 17.4.4 Environment Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, dictating in part the types, structure, and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, wildfires can cause severe environmental impacts: • Damaged Fisheries — Critical fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation, and changes in water quality. • Soil Erosion —The protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is removed, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs, causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats. • Spread of Invasive Plant Species— Non - native woody plant species frequently invade burned areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes, and become difficult and costly to control. • Disease and Insect Infestations— Unless diseased or insect - infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees. • Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat—Catastrophic fires can have devastating consequences for endangered species. • Soil Sterilization— Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be lost. It can take decades or even centuries for ecosystems to recover from a fire. Some fires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil. Many ecosystems are adapted to historical patterns of fire occurrence. These patterns, called "fire regimes," include temporal attributes (e.g., frequency and seasonality), spatial attributes (e.g., size and spatial complexity), and magnitude attributes (e.g., intensity and severity), each of which have ranges of natural variability. Ecosystem stability is threatened when any of the attributes for a given fire regime diverge from its range of natural variability. 17.5 VULNERABILITY Structures, above - ground infrastructure, critical facilities and natural environments are all vulnerable to the wildfire hazard. There is currently no validated damage function available to support wildfire mitigation planning. Except as discussed in this section, vulnerable populations, property, infrastructure and environment are assumed to be the same as described in the section on exposure. 17.5.1 Population Approximately 3,500 to 4,000 people die every year from fire, and thousands of people are injured. In Washington State over the last 20 years 1,195 people lost their lives in fire. King County averages about 11 fire deaths per year. Cooking, smoking, heating, electrical, and arson are some of the major causes of fire in general, and careless smoking is the leading cause of fire deaths. About one -third of all fires occur in residential properties; one -third involves natural vegetation (brush or wildland); and the remaining third involves vehicles, outside equipment and storage, and other locations. Most fires are human- caused and are preventable; only a small percentage of fires are due to natural acts such as lightning. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for sensitive populations, including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Smoke generated by wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor, and minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and toxics 17 -16 ACT.A Page 310 of 869 FIRE (formaldehyde, benzene). Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the efficiency (or temperature) of combustion, and the weather. Public health impacts associated with wildfire include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility. Wildfire also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and after - effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. 17.5.2 Property Loss estimations for the wildfire hazard are not based on damage functions, because no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the assessed value of exposed structures. This allows emergency managers to select a range of economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 17 -7 lists the loss estimates for the general building stock for assets within jurisdictions that have an exposure to a FBFM10 hazard severity zone. 17.5.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities of wood frame construction are especially vulnerable during wildfire events. In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to most infrastructure. Most roads and railroads would be without damage except in the worst scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk from wildfire because most poles are made of wood and susceptible to burning. Fires can create conditions that block or prevent access and can isolate residents and emergency service providers. Wildfire typically does not have a major direct impact on bridges, but it can create conditions in which bridges are obstructed. Many bridges in areas of high to moderate fire risk are important because they provide the only ingress and egress to large areas and in some cases to isolated neighborhoods. 17.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT The highly urbanized portions of the planning area have little or no wildfire risk exposure. Urbanization tends to alter the natural fire regime, and can create the potential for the expansion of urbanized areas into wildland areas. The expansion of the wildland urban interface can be managed with strong land use and building codes. The planning area is well equipped with these tools and this planning process has asked each planning partner to assess its capabilities with regards to the tools. As the planning area experiences future growth, it is anticipated that the exposure to this hazard will remain as assessed or even decrease over time due to these capabilities. Wildfire risk exposure exists in more rural areas of the County and is likely to increase as development continues. Growth Management Act regulations, however, will slow the rate of growth in these areas as most development is targeted in already urbanized areas. 17.7 SCENARIO A major conflagration in the planning area might begin with a wet spring, adding to fuels already present on the forest floor. Flashy fuels would build throughout the spring. The summer could see the onset of insect infestation. A dry summer could follow the wet spring, exacerbated by dry hot winds. Carelessness with combustible materials or a tossed lit cigarette, or a sudden lighting storm could trigger a multitude of small isolated fires. 17 -17 ACT.A Page 311 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 17 -7. LOSS ESTIMATES FOR WILDFIRE Estimated Loss Potential from Wildfire Exposed Value 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage Algona $1,061,086 $106,109 $318,326 $530,543 Auburn $535,349,269 $53,534,927 $160,604,781 $267,674,634 Beaux Arts $16,692,000 $1,669,200 $5,007,600 $8,346,000 Bellevue $2,454,809,803 $245,480,980 $736,442,941 $1,227,404,901 Black Diamond $63,044,029 $6,304,403 $18,913,209 $31,522,014 Bothell $742,157,660 $74,215,766 $222,647,298 $371,078,830 Burien $308,397,449 $30,839,745 $92,519,235 $154,198,725 Carnation $7,529,486 $752,949 $2,258,846 $3,764,743 Clyde Hill $44,281,929 $4,428,193 $13,284,579 $22,140,964 Covington $183,615,508 $18,361,551 $55,084,652 $91,807,754 Des Moines $150,817,314 $15,081,731 $45,245,194 $75,408,657 Duvall $46,003,077 $4,600,308 $13,800,923 $23,001,539 Enumclaw $9,405,904 $940,590 $2,821,771 $4,702,952 Federal Way $1,377,940,422 $137,794,042 $413,382,127 $688,970,211 Hunts Point $58,343,682 $5,834,368 $17,503,105 $29,171,841 Issaquah $2,309,285,081 $230,928,508 $692,785,524 $1,154,642,541 Kenmore $515,352,990 $51,535,299 $154,605,897 $257,676,495 Kent $418,218,910 $41,821,891 $125,465,673 $209,109,455 Kirkland $1,255,324,636 $125,532,464 $376,597,391 $627,662,318 Lake Forest Park $225,043,908 $22,504,391 $67,513,172 $112,521,954 Maple Valley $441,389,506 $44,138,951 $132,416,852 $220,694,753 Medina $80,885,568 $8,088,557 $24,265,670 $40,442,784 Mercer Island $510,245,432 $51,024,543 $153,073,630 $255,122,716 Milton $21,421,144 $2,142,114 $6,426,343 $10,710,572 Newcastle $403,366,369 $40,336,637 $121,009,911 $201,683,184 Normandy Park $104,696,809 $10,469,681 $31,409,043 $52,348,405 North Bend $94,915,038 $9,491,504 $28,474,511 $47,457,519 Pacific $8,636,370 $863,637 $2,590,911 $4,318,185 Redmond $1,461,006,166 $146,100,617 $438,301,850 $730,503,083 Renton $788,860,788 $78,886,079 $236,658,236 $394,430,394 Sammamish $1,763,228,253 $176,322,825 $528,968,476 $881,614,126 SeaTac $83,185,241 $8,318,524 $24,955,572 $41,592,620 Seattle $983,588,029 $98,358,803 $295,076,409 $491,794,015 Shoreline $582,290,392 $58,229,039 $174,687,117 $291,145,196 Skykomish $3,865,130 $386,513 $1,159,539 $1,932,565 Snoqualmie $1,047,784,510 $104,778,451 $314,335,353 $523,892,255 Tukwila $86,829,767 $8,682,977 $26,048,930 $43,414,883 Woodinville $536,314,335 $53,631,434 $160,894,301 $268,157,168 Yarrow Point $29,284,928 $2,928,493 $8,785,478 $14,642,464 Unincorporated $9,437,723,941 $943,772,394 $2,831,317,182 $4,718,861,971 Total $29,192,191,859.00 $2,919,219,188.00 $8,757,657,558.00 $14,596,095,929.00 Note: Values in this table are accurate only for purposes of comparison among results presented in this plan. See Section 5.3.5 for a discussion of data limitations. ACT.A 17 -18 Page 312 of 869 FIRE The embers from these smaller fires could be carried miles by hot, dry winds. The deposition zone for these embers would be deep in the forests and WUI zones. Fires that start in flat areas move slower, but wind still pushes them. It is not unusual for a wildfire pushed by wind to burn the ground fuel and later climb into the crown and reverse its track. This is one of many ways that fires can escape containment, typically during periods when response capabilities are overwhelmed. These new small fires would most likely merge. Suppression resources would be redirected from protecting the natural resources to saving more remote subdivisions. The worst -case scenario would include an active fire season throughout the American west, spreading resources thin. Firefighting teams would be exhausted or unavailable. Many federal assets would be responding to other fires that started earlier in the season. While local fire districts would be extremely useful in the WUI areas, they have limited wildfire capabilities or experience, and they would have a difficult time responding to the ignition zones. Even though the existence and spread of the fire is known, it may not be possible to respond to it adequately, so an initially manageable fire can become out of control before resources are dispatched. To further complicate the problem, heavy rains could follow, causing flooding and landslides and releasing tons of sediment into rivers, permanently changing floodplains and damaging sensitive habitat and riparian areas. Such a fire followed by rain could release millions of cubic yards of sediment into streams for years, creating new floodplains and changing existing ones. With the forests removed from the watershed, stream flows could easily double. Floods that could be expected every 50 years may occur every couple of years. With the streambeds unable to carry the increased discharge because of increased sediment, the floodplains and floodplain elevations would increase. 17.8 ISSUES Factors related to the fighting of fires include access, firebreaks, proximity of water sources, distance from a fire station, and available firefighting personnel and equipment. Reviewing past WUI fires shows that many structures are destroyed or damaged for one or more of the following reasons: • Combustible roofing material • Wood construction • Structures with no defensible space • Fire department with poor access to structures • Subdivisions located in heavy natural fuel types • Structures located on steep slopes covered with flammable vegetation • Limited water supply • Winds over 30 miles per hour. Road access is a major issue for all emergency service providers. As development encroaches into rural areas, the number of houses without adequate tum- around space is increasing. Developers are not required to provide adequate space for emergency vehicles in single- family residential homes, causing emergency workers to have difficulty doing their jobs because they cannot access houses. As fire trucks are large, firefighters are challenged by narrow roads and limited access. When there is doubt concerning the stability of a residential bridge, or adequate tum around space, firefighters can work to remove the occupants but cannot save the structure. 17 -19 ACT.A Page 313 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Fires may become conflagration fires caused by reduced setbacks between structures. Narrow setbacks also prevent fire crews from safely laddering the sides of buildings. Firefighters in remote and rural areas are faced with limited water supply and lack of hydrant taps. Rural areas are adapting to these conditions by developing a secondary water source. Areas that once were considered rural during county control became urban with incorporation and annexation, coupled with development. The following steps should be accomplished to preclude major loss of life and reduce the actual number of wildfires and WUI fires: • Citizens should know the proper way to handle fire. Public education programs on fire safety, fire alarms and fire response are important. People should also be encouraged to purchase fire insurance and understand building codes. • Since people start the vast majority of wildfires, wildfire prevention education and enforcement programs can significantly reduce the total number of wild land fires. • Arson investigation has been a significant factor in the reduction of urban fires. Investigators and fire crews work together to convict and or deter more arsonists than ever before. • An effective early fire detection program and an emergency communications system are essential. The importance of immediately reporting any wildfire must be impressed upon local residents and persons using forest areas. • An effective warning system is essential to notify local inhabitants and persons in the area of the fire. An evacuation plan detailing primary and alternate escape routes is also essential. • Fire -safe development planning should be done with local government planners to reduce the risk to local residents and businesses. • Road development criteria should ensure adequate escape routes for new sections of development in forest areas. • Road closures should be increased during peak fire periods to reduce the access to fire -prone areas. 17 -20 ACT.A Page 314 of 869 CHAPTER 18. HAZARDS OF INTEREST The hazards of concern that are assessed in Chapter 9 through Chapter 17 and rated and ranked in Chapter 19 are those that present significant risks in King County. Additional hazards of interest were identified by the Steering Committee as having some potential to impact the planning area, but at a much lower risk level than the hazards of concern. This chapter presents a short profile of each hazard of interest, including a qualitative discussion of its potential to impact King County. No formal risk assessment of these hazards was performed, as they are more thoroughly addressed in other emergency management planning efforts. However, County, city and special purpose district staff and residents should be aware of these hazards and should take steps to reduce the risks they present whenever it is practical to do so. 18.1 HEALTH HAZARDS Health hazards that affect the residents of King County may arise in a variety of situations, such as during a communicable disease outbreak, after a natural disaster, or as the result of a bioterrorism incident. All populations in King County are susceptible to bioterrorism or pandemic events. Populations who are young or elderly or have compromised immune systems are likely to be more vulnerable. 18.1.1 Epidemic or Pandemic The U.S. Center for Disease Control defines an outbreak as the occurrence of more cases of disease than normally expected within a specific place or group of people over a given period of time. State and local regulations require immediate reporting of any known or suspected outbreaks by health care providers, health care facilities, laboratories, veterinarians, schools, child day care facilities, and food service establishments. An epidemic is a localized outbreak that spreads rapidly and affects a large number of people or animals in a community. A pandemic is an epidemic that occurs worldwide or over a very large area and affects a large number of people or animals. The Washington Emergency Management Division has identified the following as human diseases that could contribute to a serious epidemic in the area: • Methicillin- resistant staphylococcus aureus • West Nile virus • Influenza • H1N1 influenza • Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) • Measles • Hepatitis • Tuberculosis • E. coli • Lye disease 18 -1 ACT.A Page 315 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • Hantavirus • HIV /AIDS • Leptospirosis. According to Washington State's Hazard Mitigation Plan, factors in Washington that heighten the probability of occurrences of such events include large numbers of travelers arriving via the region's air and sea ports, the transportation of infected animals into the area, contaminated garbage or other waste washing ashore, or disease transmission through individuals transporting or coming into contact with hospitalized or nursing- home -bound patients (EMD, 2013). 18.1.2 Bioterrorism The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines bioterrorism as the deliberate use of viruses, bacteria or other agents to cause illness or death in people, animals or plants (CDC, 2007). Biological agents pose a serious threat due to their accessibility and the rapid manner in which they can be spread within a population. The most commonly discussed agents include anthrax (sometimes found in sheep and cattle), tularemia (rabbit fever), cholera, the plague (sometimes found in prairie dog colonies), and botulism (found in improperly canned food). A biological incident is likely to be first detected in a hospital emergency room, medical examiner's office, or within the public health community long after the terrorist act. The consequences of such an act will require communities to provide massive reactive and precautionary treatments to exposed populations and to stage mass fatality management and environmental health clean -up operations, procedures and plans. Categories of Biological Agents The CDC outlines three categories by which biological agents can be defined (CDC, 2007): • Category A —These high- priority agents include organisms or toxins that pose the highest risk to the public and national security because: They can be easily spread or transmitted from person to person They result in high death rates and have the potential for major public health impact They might cause public panic and social disruption They require special action for public health preparedness. • Category B —These agents are the second highest priority because: They are moderately easy to spread They result in moderate illness rates and low death rates They require specific enhancements of CDC's laboratory capacity and enhanced disease monitoring. • Category C —These third highest priority agents include emerging pathogens that could be engineered for mass spread in the future because: They are easily available They are easily produced and spread They have potential for high morbidity and mortality rates and major health impact. 18-2 ACT.A Page 316 of 869 HAZARDS OF INTEREST Event Profile FEMA characterizes an event profile for a terrorist attack involving a biological agent as follows: • Application Mode — Liquid or solid contaminants can be dispersed using sources such as munitions, covert deposits or moving sprayers. Biological agents may also be introduced into food and water supplies, or through direct application to skin. • Duration /Threat Impact — Biological agents may pose viable threats for hours to years, depending on the agent and the conditions in which it exists. • Severity— Depending on the agent used and the effectiveness with which it is deployed, contamination can be spread via wind and water. Infection can spread via human or animal vectors. • Mitigating and Exacerbating Conditions —The altitude of release can affect dispersion; sunlight is destructive to many bacteria and viruses; light to moderate wind will disperse agents but higher winds can break up aerosol clouds; the micro - meteorological effects of buildings and terrain can influence aerosolization and travel of agents Seattle and King County Public Health has developed a bioterrorism response plan in partnership with the Washington State Department of Health and the CDC. In the event of an attack in King County, the public would be informed through the news media, the Public Health website and the King County website regarding the best steps to take to protect one's health. 18.2 CYBERSECURITY A cyber- attack is an attack intended to create physical effects or to manipulate, disrupt or delete data. It might range from a denial -of- service operation that temporarily prevents access to a website, to an attack on a power turbine that causes physical damage and an outage lasting for days. Cyber espionage refers to intrusions into networks to access sensitive diplomatic, military or economic information (Clapper, 2013). Cyber - attacks on infrastructure can originate from adversaries such as hostile governments, criminal organizations, or lone individuals. It is important to differentiate a cyber- attack from cyber - terrorism. While there have been cyber- attacks against governments, they have not been for the purpose of gaining warfare information or access. FEMA characterizes an event profile for a cyber -attack or cyber- espionage as follows: • Application Mode — Unlawful attacks and threats of attack against computers, networks and information stored therein • Duration /Threat Impact — Minutes to days • Severity — Generally no direct effects on built environment; secondary impact from system attacked (e.g., computerized control system regulating water release) • Mitigating and Exacerbating Conditions — Inadequate security can facilitate access to critical computer systems, allowing them to be used to conduct attacks, or gather information to support other terrorist- related activities. Cyber criminals threaten U.S. economic interests. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, has issued warnings to banks and business of their potential risk. Since September 2012, attacks have been increasingly aimed at businesses with fewer than 250 employees (Associated Press, 2013). Financial institutions are reluctant to provide details and information about cyber- attacks for fear of becoming a greater target. Software manufactures estimate that cyber- attacks against U.S. businesses have increased 42 percent over the course of the last year. 18 -3 ACT.A Page 317 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Cyber criminals sell tools via a growing black market that enable access to critical infrastructure systems. Some commercial companies sell computer intrusion kits on the open market that can give governments and cyber criminals the ability to steal, manipulate or delete information on targeted systems. Other companies sell professional - quality technologies to support cyber operations —often branding these tools as lawful- intercept or defensive security research products. Many individuals, groups and foreign governments already use some of these tools to target national and local systems. A March 2013 report by the National Intelligence Agency to the Senate Intelligence Committee indicated only a remote chance over the next two years of a major cyber- attack against U.S. critical infrastructure such as a regional power grid. Less sophisticated attacks, such as denial -of- service attacks against bank websites, could be more likely (Strobel and Wilson, 2013). 18.3 TERRORISM Acts of terrorism are intentional, criminal, malicious acts. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) categorizes terrorism in the U.S. primarily as one of two types: • Domestic terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are directed at elements of our government or population without foreign direction. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City is an example of domestic terrorism. The FBI is the primary response agency for domestic terrorism. The FBI coordinates domestic preparedness programs and activities of the United States to limit acts posed by terrorists, including the use of weapons of mass destruction. • International terrorism involves groups or individuals whose terrorist activities are foreign based and /or directed by countries or groups outside the United States, or whose activities transcend national boundaries. Examples include the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the U.S. Capitol, and Mobil Oil's corporate headquarters and the attacks of September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Many people equate terrorism with the use of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive weapons. However, terrorism also includes arson, incendiary and explosive devices, school shootings, sabotage, hazardous materials releases, agro - terrorism and cyber- terrorism. Terrorism can be distinguished from other types of hazards by three important considerations: • In the case of chemical, biological, and radioactive agents, their presence may not be immediately obvious, making it difficult to determine when and where they were released, who was exposed, and what danger is present for first responders. • There is limited scientific understanding of how these agents affect the population at large. • Terrorism evokes very strong emotional reactions, ranging from anxiety, to fear to anger, to despair to depression. Terrorists often choose targets that offer limited danger to themselves and areas with relatively easy public access. They look for visible targets where they can avoid detection before and after an attack, such as international airports, large cities, major special events, and high - profile landmarks. Two terrorist techniques of growing concern in the public safety arena are the targeting of first responders employing secondary explosive devices and hoaxes involving weapons of mass destruction. 18 -4 ACT.A Page 318 of 869 HAZARDS OF INTEREST 18.3.1 Past Events There have been several instances of terrorism in western Washington (King County Office of Emergency Management, 2009): • In June 2011, the FBI raided a warehouse in Seattle that housed two suspects who had arranged to purchase weapons from an anonymous informant in contact with the Seattle Police Department. The two were seeking to purchase automatic machine guns and grenades in preparation for an attack on a military recruiting station in Seattle (FBI, 2011). The men were charged with conspiracy to murder officers and employees of the U.S. government, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, and possession of firearms in furtherance of crimes of violence. One was also charged with two counts of illegal possession of firearms. • In July 2006, a gunman fired on women at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. • From January 2000 to December 2002 there were numerous reported instances of a biological white powder. Individuals in Seattle, Federal Way, Tukwila, Port of Seattle and other cities were affected. There were no reports of injuries or death, but the incidents did cause financial implications through the payment of overtime and service disruptions. • In May 2001 an incendiary device was deployed at the University of Washington's Urban Horticultural Center by the domestic terrorist group Earth Liberation Front. The firebomb caused over $5 million in damage. • In December 1999, a man was arrested by U.S. Customs officials while entering the United States in Port Angeles, Washington, aboard a ferry from Victoria, British Columbia. He was subsequently charged with smuggling explosive material into the United States. The CIA noted that the timing devices and nitroglycerine in his possession were the "signature devices" of groups affiliated with Al- Qaeda. • The FBI and Bellingham Police interdicted a group of terrorists affiliated with the Washington State Militia on July 27, 1996. The group planned to bomb various infrastructure targets including a radio tower, bridge, and a train tunnel while the train was inside. • In 1995 a chemical explosive device was detonated at the Burien District Court. • The American Front Skinheads detonated pipe bombs in Tacoma on July 20 and 22, 1993. 18.3.2 Incendiary Devices Incendiary devices are mechanical, electrical, or chemical devices used to intentionally initiate combustion and start fires. Their purpose is to destroy and ignite their target or other nearby materials or structures or to provide a diversion preceding an even larger terrorist or criminal act. These devices are detonated singularly or in series. Bombs are terrorist's weapon of choice. Explosive incidents account for 70 percent of all terrorist attacks worldwide. According to the FBI, 172 improvised explosive devices were reported in the United States between October 2012 and April 2013. From the standpoint of structural design, the vehicle bomb is the most important consideration and has been a favorite tactic of terrorists. Ingredients for homemade bombs are easily obtained on the open market, as are the techniques for making bombs. The severity of impact is based on the amount and type of explosive materials used. The size of vehicle affects how close it can get to a target and how large an explosive device it can deliver, as shown on Figure 18 -1 18 -5 ACT.A Page 319 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements 10,000 1,000 �0 .. 11rrrr 111..1.11 NEMMinniarniii ■11 11111111111.11I•s11 / ■11M11 ® ®1111■1111 ■■mall 11 • ■u■ ®111 ■■ ■111 1111111 �� 111 ®�� ■1111 �� ■111 111111 111111111111111PESII:111111111111111111 or�rrrrrr�r�rrr�rrrrrrrr�r�rr 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ��I�I.111111111 �w��11rw rrrrrrrrrrrrr1rrr1rwN11r11r1rw 1111111 rr1rrllrrr w ill1111 ^µ 41111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111,1Pr"-diiiIIIITA.1111111111111111111111,90.171,1111111111111111111111111111 ��IIIIIMIIII •NIP! ii I U 111 11 11111111111111111 111111111ESPEIIIIIIIIIPIrniii11111111111111111111111111111111 1'��•�1111 ■1111111111■ ■111 ��■IImIMil•111Miir1r II������� Xw 11 r R 11�wriii� i� l 1�h�� � iiiiii 11 iitl mini� �11�� i l 11111111111111111111111 11 ®�� ■ ® ■11 111111111111111111.1101i1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 Nitiflit NMI. MMUS MN ■is•a•••ri.u•■ G1053 With Frogmern1 Retention 00) Gloss - Minor Cuts Glass _, Severe Wounds Woopo i field (Ib -TF1 FuUrnv - Severe Wounds 4fiteNt4* NI AMMO MUM •1•••1••1•4'• Threshold Ilnyuiries • Open or E uiIdirtljt Potentially lethal iinpuri s Threshold, Concrete Columns Fail Wally F'irogrent lnpuries or Injuries to Personnel nrn Open Figure 18 -1. Damage Potential from Explosives Based on Delivery Vehicle FEMA characterizes an event profile for a terrorist attack involving an incendiary attack as follows: • Application Mode — Initiation of fire or explosion on or near target via direct contact or remotely via projectile. • Duration /Threat Impact — Generally minutes to hours. • Severity— Extent of damage is determined by type and quantity of device, accelerant, and materials present at or near target. Effects generally static other than cascading consequences, incremental structural failure, etc. • Mitigating and Exacerbating Conditions — Mitigation factors include built -in fire detection and protection systems and fire- resistive construction techniques, or security measures which reduce exposure. Inadequate security can allow easy access to target, easy concealment of an incendiary device, and undetected initiation of a fire. Non - compliance with fire and building codes, as well as failure to maintain existing fire protection systems, can substantially increase the effectiveness of a fire weapon. ACT.A 18 -6 Page 320 of 869 HAZARDS OF INTEREST 18.3.3 Potential Targets Terrorist targets are often located near high traffic/high - visibility routes with convenient transportation access. They may become more appealing when high profile personalities and dignitaries visit them. Examples of targets include: • Government office buildings, courthouses, schools, hospitals, and shopping centers • Symbolic targets whose operations, practices or associations represent values in conflict with the terrorists ideology • Dams, water supplies, electrical and gas distribution systems, pipelines, chemical facilities • Military installations and suppliers • Railheads, interstate highways, tunnels, airports, ferries, bridges, seaports, overpasses • Recreational facilities such as sports stadiums, theaters, parks, casinos, concert halls, public venues • Financial institutions and banks • Sites of historical and symbolic significance • Scientific research facilities, academic institutions, museums • Telecommunications, newspapers, radio and television stations • Chemical, industrial, and petroleum plants • Business offices, convention centers • Law, fire, emergency medical services, and responder facilities and operations centers • Special events, parades, religious services, festivals, celebrations • Planned Parenthood facilities and abortion clinics. King County contains a large number of all of these potential targets. 18.3.4 Potential Economic Impacts Economic impacts from terrorist events could be significant: • The cost of a terrorist act would be felt in terms of loss of life and property, disruption of business activity and long -term emotional impacts. Recovery would take significant resources and expense at the local level. • Utility losses could cause a reduction in employment, wholesale and retail sales, utility repairs, and increased medical risks. Local governments may lose sales tax, and the finances of private utility companies and the businesses that rely on them would be disrupted. • The economic impact of computer security breaches associated with data and telecommunications losses can be staggering. • The economic impacts should a transportation facility be rendered impassable would be significant. The loss of a roadway or railway would have serious effects on the economy and local jurisdictions' ability to provide services. Loss of travel routes would result in loss of commerce, and could impact the ability to provide emergency services to citizens by delaying response times or limiting routes for equipment such as fire apparatus, police vehicles, and ambulances. The ability to receive fuel deliveries would also be impacted. 18 -7 ACT.A Page 321 of 869 CHAPTER 19. PLANNING AREA RISK RANKING A risk ranking was performed for the hazards of concern described in this plan. This risk ranking assesses the probability of each hazard's occurrence as well as its likely impact on the people, property, and economy of the planning area. The risk ranking was conducted via facilitated brainstorming sessions with the Steering Committee. Estimates of risk were generated with data from Hazus -MH using methodologies promoted by FEMA. The results are used in establishing mitigation priorities. 19.1.1 Probability of Occurrence The probability of occurrence of a hazard is indicated by a probability factor based on likelihood of annual occurrence: • High — Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium — Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =2) • Low — Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor =1) • No exposure —There is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) The assessment of hazard frequency is generally based on past hazard events in the area. Table 19 -1 summarizes the probability assessment for each hazard of concern for this plan. TABLE 19 -1. PROBABILITY OF HAZARDS Hazard Event Probability (high, medium, low) Probability Factor Avalanche High 3 Dam Failure Low 1 Earthquake High 3 Flood High 3 Landslide High 3 Severe Weather High 3 Severe Winter Weather High 3 Tsunami Low 1 Volcano Low 1 Wildfire Medium 2 19.1.2 Impact Hazard impacts were assessed in three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property and impacts on the local economy. Numerical impact factors were assigned as follows: ACT.A 19 -1 Page 323 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • People — Values were assigned based on the percentage of the totalpopulation exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. It should be noted that planners can use an element of subjectivity when assigning values for impacts on people. Impact factors were assigned as follows: High -30 percent or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) Medium -15 percent to 29 percent of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) Low -14 percent or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) No impact —None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Property — Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event: High -25 percent or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) Medium -10 percent to 24 percent of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) Low -9 percent or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) No impact —None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) • Economy — Values were assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total assessed value of the property exposed to the hazard. For some hazards, such as wildfire, landslide and severe weather, vulnerability was considered to be the same as exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards. Loss estimates separate from the exposure estimates were generated for the earthquake and flood hazards using Hazus -MH. High— Estimated loss from the hazard is 15 percent or more of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 3) Medium — Estimated loss from the hazard is 5 percent to 14 percent of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 2) Low — Estimated loss from the hazard is 4 percent or less of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 1) No impact —No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) The impacts of each hazard category were assigned a weighting factor to reflect the significance of the impact. These weighting factors are consistent with those typically used for measuring the benefits of hazard mitigation actions: impact on people was given a weighting factor of 3; impact on property was given a weighting factor of 2; and impact on the economy was given a weighting factor of 1. Table 19 -2, Table 19 -3 and Table 19 -4 summarize the impacts for each hazard. 19 -2 ACT.A Page 324 of 869 PLANNING AREA RISK RANKING TABLE 19 -2. IMPACT ON PEOPLE FROM HAZARDS Hazard Event Impact (high, medium, low) Impact Factor Multiplied by Weighting Factor (3) Avalanche Dam Failure Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Severe Winter Weather Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Low Low High Low Low High High Low Low Low 1 (1x3) = 3 1 (1x3) = 3 3 (3x3) = 9 1 (1x3) = 3 1 (1x3) = 3 3 (3x3) = 9 3 (3x3) = 9 (1x3) = 3 (1x3) = 3 (1x3) = 3 1 1 1 TABLE 19 -3. IMPACT ON PROPERTY FROM HAZARDS Hazard Event Impact (high, medium, low) Impact Factor Multiplied by Weighting Factor (2) Avalanche None 0 (0x2) = 0 Dam Failure Medium 2 (2x2) = 4 Earthquake High 3 (3x2) = 6 Flood Low 1 (1x2) = 1 Landslide Low 1 (1x2) = 2 Severe Weather High 3 (3x2) = 6 Severe Winter Weather High 3 (3x2) = 6 Tsunami Low 1 (1x2) = 2 Volcano Low 1 (1x2) = 2 Wildfire Low 1 (1x2) = 2 ACT.A 19 -3 Page 325 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 19-4. IMPACT ON ECONOMY FROM HAZARDS Hazard Event Impact (high, medium, low) Impact Factor Multiplied by Weighting Factor (1) Avalanche None 0 (Oxl) = 0 Dam Failure Medium 2 (2x1) = 2 Earthquake Medium 2 (2x1) = 2 Flood Low 1 (1x1) = 1 Landslide Low 1 (1x1) = 1 Severe Weather Low 1 (1x1) = 1 Severe Winter Weather Low 1 (1x1) = 1 Tsunami Low 1 (1x1)= 1 Volcano Medium 2 (2x1) = 2 Wildfire Low 1 (1x1) = 1 19.1.3 Risk Rating and Ranking The risk rating for each hazard was determined by multiplying the probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and operations, as summarized in Table 19 -5. Based on these ratings, a priority of high, medium or low was assigned to each hazard. The hazards ranked as being of highest concern are earthquake, severe weather and severe winter weather. Hazards ranked as being of medium concern are landslide, flood and wildfire. The hazards ranked as being of lowest concern are avalanche, dam failure, tsunami and volcano. Table 19 -6 shows the hazard risk ranking. TABLE 19 -5. HAZARD RISK RATING Hazard Event Probability Factor Sum of Weighted Impact Factors Total (Probability x Impact) Avalanche 3 (3 +0 +0) = 3 (3x3) = 9 Dam Failure 1 (3 +4 +2) = 9 (1x9) = 9 Earthquake 3 (9 +6 +2) = 17 (3x17) = 51 Flood 3 (3 +2 +1) = 6 (3x6) = 18 Landslide 3 (3 +2 +1) = 6 (3x6) = 18 Severe Weather 3 (9 +6 +1) = 16 (3x16) =48 Severe Winter Weather 3 (9 +6 +1) = 16 (3x16) =48 Tsunami 1 (3 +2 +1) = 6 (1x6) = 6 Volcano 1 (3 +2 +1) = 7 (1x7) = 7 Wildfire 2 (3 +2 +1) = 6 (2x6) = 12 ACT.A 19 -4 Page 326 of 869 PLANNING AREA RISK RANKING TABLE 19 -6. HAZARD RISK RANKING Hazard Ranking Hazard Event Category 1 Earthquake High 2 Severe Weather High 3 Severe Winter Weather High 4 Flood Medium 5 Landslide Medium 6 Wildfire Medium 7 Dam Failure Low 8 Avalanche Low 9 Volcano Low 10 Tsunami Low 19 -5 ACT.A Page 327 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements PART 3 MITIGATION STRATEGY ACT .A Page 329 of 86 CHAPTER 20. MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives were developed that present a broad range of alternatives to be considered for use in the planning area, in compliance with 44 CFR (Section 201.6(c)(3)(ii)). One catalog was developed for each hazard of concern evaluated in this plan. The catalogs for each hazard are listed in Table 20 -1 through Table 20 -8. The catalogs present alternatives that are categorized in two ways: • By what the alternative would do: Manipulate a hazard Reduce exposure to a hazard Reduce vulnerability to a hazard Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for a hazard • By who would have responsibility for implementation: Individuals Businesses Government. Hazard mitigation initiatives recommended in this plan were selected from among the alternatives presented in the catalogs. The catalogs provide a baseline of mitigation alternatives that are backed by a planning process, are consistent with the planning partners' goals and objectives, and are within the capabilities of the partners to implement. Some of these actions may not be feasible based on the selection criteria identified for this plan. The purpose of the catalog was to equip the planning partners with a list of what could be considered to reduce risk of the flood hazard within the planning area. All actions identified in Volume 2 of this plan were selected based on the selection criteria described in Chapter 1 of Volume 2. Initiatives in the catalog that are not included for the partnership's action plan were not selected for one or more of the following reasons: • The action is not feasible. • The action is already being implemented. • There is an apparently more cost - effective alternative. • The action does not have public or political support. No actions were reviewed for the avalanche hazard other than public education actions, since there is very little development exposed to this hazard within the planning area. 20-1 ACT.A Page 331 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 20 -1. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES —DAM FAILURE Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard • None 1. Remove dams 2. Remove levees 3. Harden dams 1. Remove dams 2. Remove levees 3. Harden dams Reduce Exposure • Relocate out of dam failure inundation areas. • Replace earthen dams with hardened structures 1. Replace earthen dams with hardened structures 2. Relocate critical facilities out of dam failure inundation areas. 3. Consider open space land use in designated dam failure inundation areas. Reduce Vulnerability • Elevate home to appropriate levels. • Flood -proof facilities within dam failure inundation areas 1. Adopt higher regulatory floodplain standards in mapped dam failure inundation areas. 2. Retrofit critical facilities within dam failure inundation areas. Increase Preparation or Response Capability 1. Learn about risk 1. Educate 1. Map dam failure inundation areas. reduction for the employees on 2. Enhance emergency operations plan to include a dam failure dam failure hazard. the probable component. 2. Learn the impacts of a 3. Institute monthly communications checks with dam evacuation routes dam failure. operators. for a dam failure 2. Develop a 4. Inform the public on risk reduction techniques event. continuity of 5. Adopt real- estate disclosure requirements for the re -sale of 3. Educate yourself operations plan. property located within dam failure inundation areas. on early warning 6. Consider the probable impacts of climate in assessing the systems and the risk associated with the dam failure hazard. dissemination of 7. Establish early warning capability downstream of listed warnings. high hazard dams. 8. Consider the residual risk associated with protection provided by dams in future land use decisions. ACT.A 20 -2 Page 332 of 869 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES TABLE 20 -2. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES — EARTHQUAKE Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard None None None Reduce Exposure • Locate outside of hazard area (off soft soils) • Locate or relocate mission - critical functions outside hazard area where possible • Locate critical facilities or functions outside hazard area where possible Reduce Vulnerability 1. Retrofit structure (anchor house structure to foundation) 2. Secure household items that can cause injury or damage (such as water heaters, bookcases, and other appliances) 3. Build to higher design 1. 2. Build redundancy for critical functions and facilities Retrofit critical buildings and areas housing mission - critical functions 1. Harden infrastructure 2. Provide redundancy for critical functions 3. Adopt higher regulatory standards Increase Preparation or Res 1. Practice "drop, cover, 1 and hold" 2. Develop household mitigation plan, such as creating a retrofit savings account, communication capability with outside, 72 -hour self - sufficiency 2. during an event 3. Keep cash reserves for 3. reconstruction 4. Become informed on the hazard and risk reduction alternatives available. 5. Develop a post- disaster 4. action plan for your household ponse Capability . Adopt higher standard for new construction; consider "performance -based design" when building new structures Keep cash reserves for reconstruction Inform your employees on the possible impacts of earthquake and how to deal with them at your work facility. Develop a continuity of operations plan 1. Provide better hazard maps 2. Provide technical information and guidance 3. Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas (e.g., tax incentives, information) 4. Include retrofitting and replacement of critical system elements in capital improvement plan 5. Develop strategy to take advantage of post - disaster opportunities 6. Warehouse critical infrastructure components such as pipe, power line, and road repair materials 7. Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan 8. Initiate triggers guiding improvements (such as <50% substantial damage or improvements) 9. Further enhance seismic risk assessment to target high hazard buildings for mitigation opportunities. 10. Develop a post - disaster action plan that includes grant funding and debris removal components. ACT.A 20 -3 Page 333 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements ACT.A 20 -4 Page 334 of 869 TABLE 20 -3. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES -FLOOD Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard 1. Clear stormwater drains and culverts 2. Institute low- impact development techniques on property 1. Clear stormwater drains and culverts 2. Institute low- impact development techniques on property 1. Maintain drainage system 2. Institute low- impact development techniques on property 3. Dredging, levee construction, and providing regional retention areas 4. Structural flood control, levees, channelization, or revetments. 5. Stormwater management regulations and master planning 6. Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in developing watersheds to control increases in runoff Reduce Exposure 1. Locate outside of hazard area 2. Elevate utilities above base flood elevation 3. Institute low impact development techniques on property 1. Locate business critical facilities or functions outside hazard area 2. Institute low impact development techniques on property 1. Locate or relocate critical facilities outside of hazard area 2. Acquire or relocate identified repetitive loss properties 3. Promote open space uses in identified high hazard areas via techniques such as: planned unit developments, easements, setbacks, greenways, sensitive area tracks. 4. Adopt land development criteria such as planned unit developments, density transfers, clustering 5. Institute low impact development techniques on property 6. Acquire vacant land or promote open space uses in developing watersheds to control increases in runoff Reduce Vulnerability 1. Retrofit structures (elevate structures above base flood elevation) 2. Elevate items within house above base flood elevation 3. Build new homes above base flood elevation 4. Flood -proof existing structures 1. Build redundancy for critical functions or retrofit critical buildings 2. Provide flood- proofing measures when new critical infrastructure must be located in floodplains 1. Harden infrastructure, bridge replacement program 2. Provide redundancy for critical functions and infrastructure 3 Adopt appropriate regulatory standards, such as: increased freeboard standards, cumulative substantial improvement or damage, lower substantial damage threshold; compensatory storage, non - conversion deed restrictions. 4. Stormwater management regulations and master planning. 5. Adopt "no- adverse impact" floodplain management policies that strive to not increase the flood risk on downstream communities. ACT.A 20 -4 Page 334 of 869 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES TABLE 20 -3. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES —FLOOD Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Increase Preparation 1. Buy flood insurance 2. Develop household mitigation plan, such as retrofit savings, communication capability with outside, 72 -hour self - sufficiency during and after an event or Response Capability 1. Keep cash 1. reserves for 2. reconstruction 3. 2. Support and implement hazard 4. disclosure for the sale /re -sale of 5. property in identified risk 6. zones. 7. 3. Solicit cost- 8. sharing through 9. partnerships with other stakeholders 10. on projects with 11. multiple benefits. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Produce better hazard maps Provide technical information and guidance Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas (stronger controls, tax incentives, and information) Incorporate retrofitting or replacement of critical system elements in capital improvement plan Develop strategy to take advantage of post- disaster opportunities Warehouse critical infrastructure components Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan Consider participation in the Community Rating System Maintain existing data and gather new data needed to define risks and vulnerability Train emergency responders Create a building and elevation inventory of structures in the floodplain Develop and implement a public information strategy Charge a hazard mitigation fee Integrate floodplain management policies into other planning mechanisms within the planning area. Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the flood hazard Consider the residual risk associated with structural flood control in future land use decisions Enforce National Flood Insurance Program Adopt a Stormwater Management Master Plan ACT.A 20 -5 Page 335 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 20-4. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES — LANDSLIDE Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard 1. Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) 2. Reduce weight on top of slope 3. Minimize vegetation removal and the addition of impervious surfaces. 1. Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) 2. Reduce weight on top of slope 1. Stabilize slope (dewater, armor toe) 2. Reduce weight on top of slope Reduce Exposure • Locate structures • outside of hazard area (off unstable land and away from slide -run out area) Locate structures outside of hazard area (off unstable land and away from slide -run out area) 1. Acquire properties in high -risk landslide areas. 2. Adopt land use policies that prohibit the placement of habitable structures in high -risk landslide areas. Reduce Vulnerability • Retrofit home. • Retrofit at -risk facilities. 1. Adopt higher regulatory standards for new development within unstable slope areas. 2. Armor /retrofit critical infrastructure against the impact of landslides. Increase Preparation or Response Capability 1. Institute warning 1. Institute warning system, and develop evacuation plan 2. Keep cash reserves 2. for reconstruction 3. Educate yourself on 3. risk reduction techniques for 4. landslide hazards. system, and develop evacuation plan Keep cash reserves for reconstruction Develop a continuity of operations plan Educate employees on the potential exposure to landslide hazards and emergency response protocol. 1. Produce better hazard maps 2. Provide technical information and guidance 3. Enact tools to help manage development in hazard areas: better land controls, tax incentives, information 4. Develop strategy to take advantage of post- disaster opportunities 5. Warehouse critical infrastructure components 6. Develop and adopt a continuity of operations plan 7. Educate the public on the landslide hazard and appropriate risk reduction alternatives. ACT.A 20 -6 Page 336 of 869 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES TABLE 20 -5. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES — SEVERE WEATHER AND SEVERE WINTER WEATHER Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard None None None Reduce Exposure None None None Reduce Vulnerability 1. Insulate house 2. Provide redundant heat and power 3. Insulate structure 4. Plant appropriate trees near home and power lines ( "Right tree, right place" National Arbor Day Foundation Program) 1. Relocate critical infrastructure (such as power lines) underground 2. Reinforce or relocate critical infrastructure such as power lines to meet performance expectations 3. Install tree wire 4. Ensure air- conditioned facilities for institutionalized vulnerable populations. 1. Harden infrastructure such as locating utilities underground 2. Trim trees back from power lines 3. Designate snow routes and strengthen critical road sections and bridges 4. Provide publicly available cooling centers. 5. Disseminate information on public health impacts of severe weather. Increase Preparation or Response Capability L Trim or remove trees L Trim or remove trees that could affect power that could affect power lines lines 2. Promote 72 -hour self- 2. Create redundancy sufficiency 3. Equip facilities with a 3. Obtain a NOAA NOAA weather radio weather radio. 4. Equip vital facilities 4. Obtain an emergency with emergency power generator. sources. 1. Support programs such as "Tree Watch" that proactively manage problem areas through use of selective removal of hazardous trees, tree replacement, etc. 2. Establish and enforce building codes that require all roofs to withstand snow loads 3. Increase communication alternatives 4. Modify land use and environmental regulations to support vegetation management activities that improve reliability in utility corridors. 5. Modify landscape and other ordinances to encourage appropriate planting near overhead power, cable, and phone lines 6. Provide NOAA weather radios to the public. 7. Develop an extreme heat program. ACT.A 20 -7 Page 337 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 20 -6. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES — TSUNAMI Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard • None • None • Build wave abatement structures (e.g. the "Jacks" looking structure designed by the Japanese) Reduce Exposure • Locate outside of hazard area • Locate structure or 1. Locate structure or functions outside of hazard area mission critical whenever possible. functions outside of 2. Harden infrastructure for tsunami impacts. hazard area whenever 3. Relocate identified critical facilities located in possible. tsunami high hazard areas. Reduce Vulnerability • Apply personal property mitigation techniques to your home such as anchoring your foundation and foundation openings to allow flow though. • Mitigate personal 1. Adopt higher regulatory standards that will provide property for the higher levels of protection to structures built in a impacts of tsunami tsunami inundation area. 2. Utilize tsunami mapping once available, to guide development away from high risk areas through land use planning. Increase Preparation or Response Capability 1. Develop and practice 1. Develop and practice 1. Create a probabilistic tsunami map for the planning a household a corporate area. evacuation plan. evacuation plan. 2. Provide incentives to guide development away from 2. Support/participate in 2. Support/participate in hazard areas. the Redwood Coast the Redwood Coast 3. Develop a tsunami warning and response system. Tsunami Working Tsunami Working 4. Provide residents with tsunami inundation maps Group. Group. 5. Join NOAA's Tsunami Ready program 3. Educate yourself on 3. Educate employees 6. Develop and communicate evacuation routes the risk exposure on the risk exposure 7. Enhance the public information program to include from the tsunami from the tsunami risk reduction options for the tsunami hazard hazard and ways to hazard and ways to minimize that risk. minimize that risk. ACT.A 20 -8 Page 338 of 869 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES TABLE 20 -7. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES — VOLCANO Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard None None Limited success has been experienced with lava flow diversion structures Reduce Exposure Relocate outside of hazard area such as lahar zones • Locate mission critical functions outside of hazard area, such as lahar zones whenever possible. Locate critical facilities and functions outside of hazard area such as lahar zones, whenever possible. Reduce Vulnerability None • Protect corporate critical facilities and infrastructure from potential impacts of severe ash fall (air filtration capability) • Protect critical facilities from potential problems associated with ash fall. • Build redundancy for critical facilities and functions. Increase Preparation or Response Capability • Develop and practice a 1. Develop and practice a household evacuation corporate evacuation plan. plan 2. Inform employees through corporate sponsored outreach 3. Develop a cooperative 1. Public outreach, awareness. 2. Tap into state volcano warning system to provide early warning to residents of potential ash fall problems ACT.A 20 -9 Page 339 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1- Planning- Area -Wide Elements TABLE 20 -8. CATALOG OF MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES - WILDFIRE Personal Scale Corporate Scale Government Scale Manipulate Hazard • Clear potential fuels on • Clear potential fuels on 1. Clear potential fuels on property such as dry property such as dry property such as dry underbrush and diseased trees overgrown underbrush underbrush and diseased trees 2. Implement best management practices on and diseased trees public lands. Reduce Exposure 1. Create and maintain 1. Create and maintain defensible 1. Create and maintain defensible space around defensible space around space around structures and structures and infrastructure structures infrastructure 2. Locate outside of hazard area 2. Locate outside of hazard 2. Locate outside of hazard area 3. Enhance building code to include use of fire area resistant materials in high hazard area. 3. Mow regularly Reduce Vulnerability 1. Create and maintain 1. Create and maintain defensible 1. Create and maintain defensible space around defensible space around space around structures and structures and infrastructure structures and provide infrastructure and provide 2. Use fire- retardant building materials water on site water on site 3. Use fire- resistant plantings in buffer areas of 2. Use fire- retardant 2. Use fire- retardant building high wildfire threat. building materials materials 4. Consider higher regulatory standards (such as 3. Create defensible spaces 3. Use fire- resistant plantings in Class A roofing) around home buffer areas of high wildfire 5. Establish biomass reclamation initiatives threat. Increase Preparation or Response Capability 1. Employ techniques from 1. Support Firewise community 1. More public outreach and education efforts, the National Fire initiatives. including an active Firewise program Protection Association's 2. Create /establish stored water 2. Possible weapons of mass destruction funds Firewise Communities supplies to be utilized for available to enhance fire capability in high - program to safeguard firefighting. risk areas home 3. Identify fire response and alternative 2. Identify alternative evacuation routes water supplies for fire 4. Seek alternative water supplies fighting 5. Become a Firewise community 3. Install /replace roofing 6. Use academia to study impacts /solutions to material with non- wildfire risk combustible roofing 7. Establish/maintain mutual aid agreements materials. between fire service agencies. 8. Create /implement fire plans 9. Consider the probable impacts of climate change on the risk associated with the wildfire hazard in future land use decisions ACT.A 20 -10 Page 340 of 869 CHAPTER 21. AREA -WIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION 21.1 SELECTED COUNTY -WIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS The planning partners and the Steering Committee determined that some initiatives from the mitigation catalogs could be implemented to provide hazard mitigation benefits countywide. Table 21 -1 lists the recommended countywide initiatives, the lead agency for each, and the proposed timeline. TABLE 21 -1. ACTION PLAN — COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS Hazards Addressed Lead Agency Possible Funding Sources or Resources Timeline Objectives CW -1 Continue to participate in and support the "Resilient King County- initiative. All hazards King County Office of Local, possible grant funding Ongoing 1, 3, 4, 7, Emergency Management (FEMA, DHS) 13, 14, 15 (OEM) CW -2 Continue to maintain a website that will house the regional hazard mitigation plain. its progress reports and all components of the plan's maintenance strategy to provide the planning partners and public ongoing access to the plan and its implementation. All Hazards King County OEM King County OEM operating budget Ongoing 4, 6, 7, 11, 15 CW -3 Continue to leverage /support/enhance ongoing, regional public education and awareness programs (such as "Take Winter by Storm and "Make it Through -) as a method to educate the public on risk_ risk reduction and community resilience. All Hazards King County and all planning Local Ongoing 4, 6, 7, 11, partners 13. 14. 15 CW -4 Continue to support the use. development and enhancement of a regional alert and notilication system. All Hazards King County OEM Local, possible grant funding Ongoing 3, 4, 7, 13 (FEMA, DHS, NWS, NOAA) CW -5 Strive to capture time - sensitive, perishable data —such as high water marks. extent and location of hazard. and loss information— following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment. All lla /ards All Planning partners Local. FF \l.-a (P.-\) Short -term 4. 7 CW -6 Encourage signatories for the regional coordination framework for disasters and planned events. All Hazards King County OEM Local Ongoing 3, 7, 13, 14 CWW -7 Continue ongoing communication and coordination ill the implementation or the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the 201 3 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. Flood King County OEM, King Local Ongoing 2, 4, 5, 7, County Department of Natural 10, 12 Resources & Parks, King County Flood Control District ACT.A 21 -1 Page 341 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements The timeline options shown in Table 21 -1 are defined as follows: • Short Term = to be completed in 1 to 5 years • Ongoing = currently being funded and implemented under existing programs. 21.2 BENEFIT /COST REVIEW The action plan must be prioritized according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed projects and their associated costs (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(3)(iii)). The benefits of proposed projects were weighed against estimated costs as part of the project prioritization process. The benefit/cost analysis was not of the detailed variety required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre - Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. A less formal approach was used because some projects may not be implemented for up to 10 years, and associated costs and benefits could change dramatically in that time. Therefore, a review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to the costs and benefits of these projects. Cost ratings were defined as follows: • High — Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). • Medium —The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. • Low —The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program. Benefit ratings were defined as follows: • High— Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. • Medium — Project will have a long -term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property. • Low — Long -term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost - beneficial and are prioritized accordingly. For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, the partners may seek financial assistance under the HMGP or PDM programs, both of which require detailed benefit/cost analyses. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application using the FEMA benefit -cost model. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require detailed analysis, the partners reserve the right to define "benefits" according to parameters that meet the goals and objectives of this plan. 21.3 COUNTY -WIDE ACTION PLAN PRIORITIZATION Table 21 -2 lists the priority of each countywide initiative, using the same parameters used by each of the planning partners in selecting their initiatives. A qualitative benefit -cost review was performed for each of these initiatives. 21-2 ACT.A Page 342 of 869 AREA -WIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 21 -2. PRIORITIZATION OF COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS # of Do Benefits Is project Can Project be funded Initiative Objectives equal or Grant under existing Priority (High, # Met Benefits Costs exceed Costs? eligible? programs/ budgets? Med., Low) CW -1 7 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High CW -2 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High CW -3 7 High Medium Yes Yes Yes High CW -4 4 High High Yes Yes Yes High CW -5 2 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High CW -6 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High CW -7 6 High High Yes Yes Yes High The priorities are defined as follows: • High Priority —A project that meets multiple objectives (i.e., multiple hazards), has benefits that exceed cost, has funding secured or is an ongoing project and meets eligibility requirements for the HMGP or PDM grant program. High priority projects can be completed in the short term (1 to 5 years). • Medium Priority —A project that meets goals and objectives, that has benefits that exceed costs, and for which funding has not been secured but that is grant eligible under HMGP, PDM or other grant programs. Project can be completed in the short term, once funding is secured. Medium priority projects will become high priority projects once funding is secured. • Low Priority —A project that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, that has benefits that do not exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, for which funding has not been secured, that is not eligible for HMGP or PDM grant funding, and for which the time line for completion is long term (1 to 10 years). Low priority projects may be eligible for other sources of grant funding from other programs. 21.4 PLAN ADOPTION A hazard mitigation plan must document that it has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting federal approval of the plan (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(5)). For multi- jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that is has been formally adopted. This plan will be submitted for a pre- adoption review prior to adoption to Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) and FEMA's Community Rating System contractor, the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Once pre - adoption approval has been provided, all planning partners will formally adopt the plan. All partners understand that DMA compliance and its benefits cannot be achieved until the plan is adopted. Copies of the resolutions adopting this plan for all planning partners can be found in Appendix F of this volume. 21.5 PLAN MAINTENANCE STRATEGY A hazard mitigation plan must present a plan maintenance process that includes the following (44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(4)): 21 -3 ACT.A Page 343 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan over a 5 -year cycle • A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate • A discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. This chapter details the formal process that will ensure that the King County Hazard Mitigation Plan remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partners maintain their eligibility for applicable funding sources. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the plan annually and producing an updated plan every five years. This chapter also describes how public participation will be integrated throughout the plan maintenance and implementation process. It also explains how the mitigation strategies outlined in this plan will be incorporated into existing planning mechanisms and programs, such as comprehensive land -use planning processes, capital improvement planning, and building code enforcement and implementation. The Plan's format allows sections to be reviewed and updated when new data become available, resulting in a plan that will remain current and relevant. 21.5.1 Plan Implementation The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its implementation and incorporation of its action items into partner jurisdictions' existing plans, policies and programs. Together, the action items in the plan provide a framework for activities that the Partnership can implement over the next 5 years. The planning team and the Steering Committee have established goals and objectives and have prioritized mitigation actions that will be implemented through existing plans, policies, and programs. King County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) will have lead responsibility for overseeing the plan implementation and maintenance strategy. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the mitigation action plans (see planning partner annexes in Volume 2 of this plan). The principle point of contact for this role is: Janice Rahman Emergency Management Program Manager Hazard Mitigation l Mass Care LEAN 1 Recovery 3511 NE 2nd St Renton, WA 98056 (206) 205-4061 Janice.Rahman(a,Kincountv.2ov 21.5.2 Steering Committee The Steering Committee is a total volunteer body that oversaw the development of the plan and made recommendations on key elements of the plan, including the maintenance strategy. It was the Steering Committee's position that an oversight committee with representation similar to the initial Steering Committee should have an active role in the plan maintenance strategy. Therefore, it is recommended that a steering committee remain a viable body involved in key elements of the plan maintenance strategy. The new steering committee should strive to include representation from the planning partners, as well as other stakeholders in the planning area. 21 -4 ACT.A Page 344 of 869 AREA -WIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION The steering committee will convene to perform annual reviews at a place and time to be determined. The make -up of this committee can be dynamic, which will allow differing views to have a say in the implementation of the plan. OEM will strive for true "stakeholder" representation on this committee. Individuals involved in this plan update process will be contacted and given the option to remain involved in the process. 21.5.3 Annual Progress Report The minimum task of the new steering committee will be the evaluation of the progress of the plan. This review will include the following: • Summary of any hazard events that occurred during the prior year and their impact on the planning area • Review of successful mitigation actions identified in the plan • Brief discussion about why targeted strategies were not completed • Re- evaluation of the action plans to determine if the timeline for identified projects needs to be amended (such as changing a long -term project to a short-term project because of funding availability) • Recommendations for new projects • Changes in or potential for new funding options (grant opportunities) • Impact of any other planning programs or initiatives within the partnership that involve hazard mitigation. • Identification of training needs within the partnership, such as benefit -cost analysis or E- grants • Grant coordination within the partnership • A mechanism for data requests from the partnership to OEM. OEM will assume the responsibility of initiating the annual progress reporting process. OEM will attempt to reach out to the partnership quarterly in order to expedite completion of the final progress report on an annual basis. A template to guide the planning partners in preparing a progress report has been created as part of this planning process (see Appendix G). The plan maintenance steering committee will provide feedback to the planning team on items included in the template. OEM will then prepare a formal annual report on the progress of the plan. This report should be used as follows: • The reporting period shall cover January to January of each reporting year. • OEM will strive to facilitate updates to the report quarterly. • The timeframe for Steering Committee review of the progress report will be August to October of each reporting cycle. • A final progress report will be produced no later than October 1 of each reporting year. • The report will be posted on the King County website page dedicated to the hazard mitigation plan. • The report will be provided to the local media through a press release. • The report will be provided to all planning partner governing bodies to inform them of the progress of actions implemented during the reporting period. 21 -5 ACT.A Page 345 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements • For planning partners that participate in the Community Rating System, the report can be provided as part of the CRS annual re- certification package. The CRS requires an annual recertification to be submitted by October 1 of every calendar year for which the community has not received a formal audit. Uses of the progress report will be at the discretion of each planning partner. Annual progress reporting is not a requirement specified under 44 CFR. However, it may enhance the planning partnership's opportunities for funding. While failure to implement this component of the plan maintenance strategy will not jeopardize a planning partner's compliance under the DMA, it may jeopardize its opportunity to partner and leverage funding opportunities with the other partners. Each planning partner was informed of these protocols at the beginning of this planning process (in the "Planning Partner Expectations" package provided at the start of the process), and each partner acknowledged these expectations when with submittal of a letter of intent to participate in this process. 21.5.4 Plan Update Local hazard mitigation plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for approval in order to remain eligible for benefits under the DMA (44 CFR Section 201.6.d.3). The planning partnership intends to update the plan on a five -year cycle from the date of initial plan adoption. This cycle may be accelerated to less than five years based on the following triggers: • A federal disaster declaration that impacts the King County planning area • A hazard event that causes loss of life • A comprehensive update of the King County Comprehensive Plan or participating city's comprehensive plan. It will not be the intent of the update process to start from scratch and develop a complete new hazard mitigation plan for the King County planning area. Based on needs identified by the planning team, this update will, at a minimum, include the elements below: • The update process will be convened through the new steering committee. • The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and, if necessary, updated using best available information and technologies. • The action plans will be reviewed and revised to account for any initiatives completed, dropped, or changed and to account for changes in the risk assessment or new partnership policies identified under other planning mechanisms, as appropriate (such as the general plan). • The draft update will be sent to appropriate agencies and organizations for comment. • The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the update prior to adoption. • Planning partnership governing bodies will adopt their portions of the updated plan. 21.5.5 Continuing Public Involvement The public will continue to be apprised of hazard mitigation plan actions through the regional hazard mitigation plan website, and copies of the annual progress reports will be distributed to the media. Copies of the plan will be available within the King County Library System. A new public involvement strategy will be initiated based on guidance from the Steering Committee each time the plan is updated. This strategy will be based on the needs and capabilities of the partners at the time of the update. At a minimum, this strategy will include the use of local media outlets within the planning area. 21 -6 ACT.A Page 346 of 869 AREA -WIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION 21.5.6 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms The information on hazard, risk, vulnerability and mitigation contained in this plan update is based on the best science and technology currently available. This information can be invaluable in making decisions required through other planning efforts, such as critical areas planning, growth management planning, and capital facilities planning. All partners will use information from this updated plan as the best available science and data on natural hazards impacting King County. The planning partnership chose not to extend the scope of this plan update into land- use -based recommendations because other programs in the planning area already have a primary focus on land use. Information in the updated plan can be used as a tool in other programs, such as the following: • Critical areas regulation • Growth management • Capital improvements • Shorelines master planning • Water Resource Inventory Area planning • Basin planning • Emergency management planning • Strategic planning. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can enhance this plan, that information will be incorporated via the update process. 21.5.7 Grant Coordination Protocol It is anticipated that upon completion of this plan, there will be interest among the Planning Partners in pursuing grant funding under FEMA hazard mitigation grant programs. Given the competitive nature of these grant programs, coordination among partners will ensure the highest degree of success in seeking grant funding. Access to such grants is often limited due to the amount of funds available or the grant administration protocol of the State of Washington. It is not in the best interest of the partnership to dilute the funding pool with a high volume of applications from within the partnership that have not been fully vetted in a coordinated manner by designated representatives from the partnership. To avoid such potential setbacks and identify needs for resources, the grant coordination protocol described below is proposed for this plan. Grant Coordination Lead Grant Coordination for the King County Hazard Mitigation Planning partnership will be led by the King County OEM. The Hazard Mitigation Program Manager will be the lead point of contact at the OEM. Tracking Grant Funding Opportunities King County OEM will monitor FEMA and EMD websites to track FEMA hazard mitigation grant funding opportunities. OEM will notify EMD personnel that OEM will act as the lead point of contact on behalf of the King County Partnership to ensure that OEM personnel are added to all mailing lists for notification of grant funding opportunities. Once OEM has become aware of a grant funding opportunity, OEM staff will send an e -mail notification to the designated point of contact for all King County Planning Partners, notifying them of the funding opportunity and the grant application protocol to be followed. Numerous scenarios could arise under different FEMA grant funding programs. OEM will apply due diligence in tracking these opportunities and identifying the best ways to notify planning partners. 21 -7 ACT.A Page 347 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements Notice of Intent to Participate It is standard practice for EMD to require a notice of intent to participate as part of its administration of FEMA hazard mitigation grant programs. The notice of intent is a standard format submittal to the state that includes basic information on the proposed project. This information is used by the state to screen projects for eligibility and completeness. These notices of intent usually have a deadline, and must be submitted and approved by EMD in order for a potential applicant to apply. Approval of a notice of intent by EMD does not ensure grant funding. Approval simply means that the proposed project has been reviewed and approved to proceed to the next phase of the grant application process. There is usually a 60- to 90 -day notice of intent period administered by EMD. As part of this grant coordination protocol, OEM will ask that all Planning Partners considering participation in a grant funding opportunity provide a copy of the completed notice of intent to the OEM point of contact after submittal to EMD. The purpose for this is twofold: • This will support future progress reporting on the plan by enabling OEM staff to be aware of planning partners that are actively pursuing grants and those that are not. • This will allow OEM to identify the need for support resources and partnering opportunities to ensure the success of each grant application. The deadline for submittal of notices of intent to OEM will be specified in the transmittal to all Planning Partners notifying them of the funding opportunity. It should be noted that this step in the protocol is a courtesy and is not mandatory. The intent is not to establish a hierarchy in the grant approval process but to identify needs for technical support and leveraging of resource opportunities within the partnership. Planning partners on the north and south borders of the planning area that cross into neighboring counties are advised to fully coordinate with those counties for projects within that County. Since this plan will provide the grant eligibility for the grant funding, adherence to this grant coordination protocol is requested, even for projects that fall outside of King County. Application Support For planning partners in need of technical support in the grant application process, a formal request for assistance shall be transmitted to OEM along with the notice of intent discussed above. OEM is not committing to providing technical support for all future grant applications but is committing to tracking the needs for technical assistance and identifying possible resources to meet those needs. For example, if five planning partners say they need technical assistance on benefit -cost analysis for a specific grant opportunity, OEM could submit a request to the state on behalf of the partners for training on benefit -cost analysis. Or OEM may identify people within the planning partnership who have expertise in a discipline associated with these needs. It is anticipated that as more planning partners are successful in the grant arena, the more resources will become available under this step in the grant coordination protocol. Grant Application Coordination Submitting a notice of intent will not commit a community to applying for the grant. Moreover, a notice of intent may not be approved by the state. In the interest of coordinating applications to aid in the success of this plan, OEM asks that each planning partner that submits a grant application notify OEM via e -mail that the planning partner has "received approval of its notice of intent and has submitted an application on (date)." This will allow OEM to track grant activity for progress reporting and to identify future needs for resources. Should any planning partner want a courtesy review of its grant application prior to submittal to EMD, OEM staff will provide this service upon request as long as sufficient notice is given to provide time for the review. 21-8 ACT.A Page 348 of 869 REFERENCES Associated Press. 2013. As Cyber Attacks Detonate, Banks Gird for Battle. Available at: http: / /www.krem.com /news /national/215674771.html. Accessed August 22, 2013. Booth, D.B., R.A. Haugerud and K.G. Troost. 2003. Geology, Watersheds and Puget Lowland Rivers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. "Emergency Preparedness and Response: Bioterrorism Overview." The website of the CDC, last updated February 12, 2007, http: / /emergency.cdc .gov /bioterrorism /overview.asp. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2009. Climate and Health: Heat Waves. The website of the CDC, last updated December 14, 2009, http : / /www.cdc.gov /climateandhealth /effects /heat.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2013. Emergency Preparedness and Response: Lightning: Victim Data. The website of the CDC, last reviewed December 23, 2013, http: / /www.bt.cdc.gov/ disasters /lightning /victimdata.asp. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2014a. Extreme Cold: A Prevention Guide to Promote Your Personal Health and Safety. Accessed March 2014 at http: / /www.bt.cdc.gov/ disasters / winter /pdf /extreme - cold - guide.pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2014b. Climate Change: Extreme Heat. The website of the CDC, last updated July 1, 2014, http: / /ephtracking. cdc. gov /showClimateChangeExtremeHeat .action Central Puget Sound Growth Management Board. 2006. 06324 Seattle Audubon Society, Yes for Seattle, Heron Habitat Helpers and Eugene D. Hoglund v. City of Seattle. #06 -3 -0024 Final Decision and Order. December 11, 2006. Available online at http: / /www. gmhb.wa .gov /searchdocuments /cpsgmhb/ 2006 /cpsgmhb %2006 -3- 0024 %2012 -11- 2006%20seattleaudubonfdo.pdf. Clapper, James. 2013. Director of National Intelligence. Worldwide Threat Assessment. March 12, 2013 Statement for the Record. Accessed August 23, 2013 at: http : / /www.intelligence.senate.gov /130312 /clapper.pdf. Climate Impacts Group. 2009. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment; Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate; Executive Summary. A Report by the Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. June 2009. CNN/Money. (2013). Fortune 500 Companies by State. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from CNN Money: http: / /money.cnn.com /magazines /fortune /fortune500 /2012 /states/WA.html Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC). "Statistics and Reporting." website last accessed February 2014. http: / /avalanche.state.co.us/ accidents /statistics - and - reporting/ Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1993. Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, Vol. I. OTA —O -567. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. R-1 ACT.A Page 349 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1978. CEQ – Regulations for Implementing NEPA: Part 1508 – Terminology and Index. Accessed June 2014, http: / /ceq.hss. doe.gov /nepa /regs /ceq /1508.htm. Crowley, Walt and the HistoryLink Staff. 2001. "Seattle and King County Timeline." (Seattle: History Ink, 2001). Davis, R.E., P.C. Knappenberger, P.J. Michaels, and W.M. Novicoff. 2003a. Changing heat related mortality in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 111(14):1712 -1718. Driedger, C. & Scott, W. E. (2008). Mount Rainier— Living Safely with a Volcano in Your Backyard. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet , 2008 -3062, 4. Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County. 2013. Economic Basics. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County: http://edc- seaking.org /data- center/ economic -data /economic - basics / #employers Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2001. Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Determining your Risks. FEMA (386 -2). August 2001 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2002. Getting Started; Building support for Mitigation Planning; FEMA (386 -1). September 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2003. Developing the Mitigation Plan; Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies. FEMA (386 -3). April 2003 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Using Hazus -MH for Risk Assessment, How to Guide, FEMA (433). August 2004 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2005. A How -To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings. FEMA 452: January 2005. Available online at http: / /www.fema.gov/ media - library- data / 20130726- 1524- 20490- 7395/fema452_01_05.pdf. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2007. FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program, Community Rating System; CRS Coordinator's Manual FIA- 15/2007 OMB No. 1660 -0022 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. National Flood Insurance Program. "Flood Insurance Study for King County" Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2010. http: / /www.fema.gov . Website accessed 2009,2010, 2011 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Disaster Declaration Summary Retrieved December 10, 2012, from FEMA Open Government Dataset: http: / /www.fema.gov /library /viewRecord.do ?id =6292 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2013. What is Mitigation? Last updated September 2013, http: / /www.fema.gov /what - mitigation. Governor's Ad hoc Executive Water Emergency Committee. 1977. History of Droughts in Washington State. Olympia, Washington: State of Washington Office of the Governor. R-2 ACT.A Page 350 of 869 ...REFERENCES HistoryLink.org. 2014. Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, various files accessed online in 2014 at http: / /www.historylink.org/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report . Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Pachauri, R.K. and A. Reisinger (eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 2008. "Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies and Risk Management Practices: Critical Elements for Adaptation to Climate Change" 11/11/2008. Iverson, R.M., Logan, M., and Denlinger, R.P. 2004. Granular avalanches across irregular three - dimensional terrain: 2. experimental tests. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 109, F01015, doi: 10.1029/2003JF000084. 16 p. Kalkstein, L.S. and J.S. Greene. 1997. An evaluation of climate /mortality relationships in large U.S. cities and the possible impacts of a climate change. Environmental Health Perspectives 105(1):84 -93. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 2007. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. Available online at http: / /www.kingcounty.gov/ environment /waterandland /flooding /documents /flo o d- hazard- management- plan.aspx. King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (King County DPER). 2014. Critical Areas Ordinance User's Manual. "Landslide Hazard Areas." Accessed online in 2014 at http: / /your.kingcounty.gov /ddes /cao/Manual/EntireManual.pdf King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review(King County DPER). 2013. King County Comprehensive Plan 2012 (2013 Update). Available on -line at http: / /www.kingcounty.gov /property /permits/ codes / growth /CompPlan /2012Adopted.aspx. King County Flood Control District. 2008. "FAQs." Available online at http://www.kingcountyfloodcontrol.org/pdfs/kcfloodfaqs.pdf. King County Flood Control District. 2011. "King County Flood Control District Accomplishments." Available online at http : / /www.kingcountyfloodcontrol. org / pdfs/ FCD %20FINAL %20accomplishments.pdf. King County Office of Emergency Management. 2013. "Prepare: Dam failures." The website of King County Office of Emergency Management. Last updated September 30, 2013, http: / /www.kingcounty. gov /safety/prepare /residents- business /Hazards_Disasters /DamFailure s. aspx. King County Office of Management and Budget. 2007. 2007 King County Buildable lands Report: Recent Growth and Land Capacity in King County and its Cities. http: / /your.kinwcounty. gov /budget/buildland/bld1nd07.htm King County Office of Management and Budget. 2008. The 2008 Annual Growth Report King County, Washington. http: / /your.kingcounty. gov /budget /AGR /agr08 /2008AGR.pdf. King County. 2009. King County Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis. R-3 ACT.A Page 351 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... http: / /www.kingcounty.gov/ /App Media/safety /prepare /documents /RHMP2009 /2009 RHMP SecSHIV A 001.pdf King County. 2011. King County, WA: City Population by Name. available on -line at http: / /your.kingcounty.gov /districting /Population Cities Table v20110511.pdf King County. 2012. Strategic Climate Action Plan. Available online at http: / /your.kingcounty .gov /dnrp /climate/ documents / 2012_ King_ County _Strategic_Climate_Action_Plan. pdf King County. 2013. "Flooding Services: Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Insurance Study." The website of King County. Last updated May 2013, http: / /www.kingcounty.gov/ environment /waterandland /flooding /maps /flood - insurance - rate - maps.aspx King County. 2013a. "Climate Change: King County Environmental Impacts of Climate Change." The website of King County, last updated August 8, 2013 http://www.kinacounty.gov/ environment /climate /climate - change- resources /impacts- of- climate- change /environmental- impacts.aspx. King County. 2013b. "Department of Permitting and Environmental Review: Climate change and development regulations." Last updated January 30, 2013, http: / /www.kingcounty.gov /property /permits/ info /SiteSpecific /ClimateChange.aspx. King County. 2013c. 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update and Progress Report. An Amendment to the 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan for the Community Rating System. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Management Division. November 2013. Available on line at http://www.kingcounty.gov/ environment /waterandland /flooding/ documents /flood - hazard- management- plan- update.aspx King County. 2014. "Climate Change: King County – Cities Climate Collaboration and Pledge." Last updated February 25, 2014, http:// kingcounty.gov /environment/climate /other - governments /climate- pledge.aspx. Kohler T. and Maselli D. (eds). 2009. Mountains and Climate Change - From Understanding to Action. Published by Geographica Bernensia with the support of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation , and an international team of contributors. Bern. Available on -line at http:// www. fao. org/ docrep /017/i2869e/i2869e00.pdf. Koshimura, Shun -ichi, Andrew Moore, and Harold Mofjeld. 2001. Simulation of paleotsunamis in Puget Sound. Washington, International Tsunami Symposium. Seattle, Washington. August 7 -10, 2001. Lazar, Brian and Mark Williams. 2008. "Climate Change in western ski areas: Potential changes in the timing of wet avalanches and snow quality for the Aspen ski area in the years 2030 and 2100." Cold Regions Science and Technology (51) 219 -228. Accessed on -line through sciencedirect.com, http: / /www.geog.ucsb.edu/ joel/g280_s09 /student contrib/bair /downscaling_wet avalanches.pdf. Long, Priscilla. 2006. King County – Thumbnail History: HistoryLink.org Essay 7905. Essay dated September 4, 2006. Available on -line at http: / /www.historylink.org/ index .cfm ?DisplayPage= output.cfm &file id =7905. R-4 ACT.A Page 352 of 869 ...REFERENCES Martin, E., Giraud, G., Lejeune, Y. and Boudart, G. 2001. Impact of climate change on avalanche hazard. Annals of Glaciology, 32, 163 -167. As cited in Eckert, Nicolas. 2009. Assessing the impact of climate change on snow and avalanche activity in France over the last 60 winters using hierarchical Bayesion spatio - temporal change point models." 18th World IMACS / MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia 13 -17 July 2009, http: / /mssanz.org.au /modsim09. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. 2006. website accessed August 2006, http: / /www.muckleshoot.nsn.us /. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 2006. "King County," website accessed June 3, 2006, available on -line at http: / /www.mrsc.org/ Subjects /Econ /profiles /ed- king.aspx. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2004. http: / /earthobservatory .nasa.gov/Newsroom /view.php ?id =25145 NASA Earth Observatory News Web Site Item, dated August 2, 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win /wwcgi.dll ?wwEvent -- Storms. NOAA, National Climatic Data Center website, accessed 2010 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2011. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web Site. 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record. Accessed 3/16/2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. NOAA Severe Weather website. Accessed 2014 at http: / /www.noaawatch.gov /themes /severe.php National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014b. NOAA National Climatic Data Center website. Accessed 2014 at http: / /www.ncdc.noaa.gov /climate - information /extreme - events /us- tornado- climatology. National Research Council (NRC). 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. National Research Council (NRC). 2011a. America's Climate Choices: Final Report. National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA National Research Council (NRC). 2011b. Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia . Exit EPA Disclaimer National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. National Weather Service. 2014a. Lightning Safety website. Last accessed March 2014 at http : / /www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov /science /science thunderstorm development.htm. National Weather Service. 2014b. Heat: A Major Killer. Last updated June 20, 2014, http: / /www.nws.noaa.gov /os /heat /index.shtml. Northwest Avalanche Center. 2014. "Northwest Avalanche Accident Summaries." Last accessed February 2014, http: / /www.nwac.us /accidents /accident - reports /. Oregon Department of Forestry. 1999. Storm Impacts and Landslides of 1996 Final Report. Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies. 2006. Geologic Map of King County, Washington. D. B. Booth and A. P. Wisher, compliers. Scale: 1:10,000. R-5 ACT.A Page 353 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... Rickenmann D 2000. Debris flows and torrent floods: methods for hazard assessment. In: Proceedings of the international conference on avalanches, landslides, rock falls, debris flows (CALAR), Vienna Savage SB and Hutter K. 1991. The dynamics of avalanches and granular material from initiation to runout. Part I: analysis. Acta Mechanica 86:201 -223 Seattle Office of Emergency Management. 2010. Seattle Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment. http: / /www.seattle.gov/ emergency /publications /documents /SHIVA.pdf Seattle Office of Emergency Management. 2014. `Landslide." The website of the City of Seattle, last accessed March 2014, http: / /www.seattle.gov/ emergency /hazards /landslides.htm. Shannon & Wilson. 2000. Seattle Landslide Study; Volume 1 Geotechnical Report. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Seattle, Wa. January 2000. Available online at http: / /www.seattle.gov /dpd /cs /groups /pan /Olpan /documents /web informational /dpdp025740.pdf Snyder, Dale E, Phillip S. Gale and Russel F. Pringle. 1973. "Soil Survey Report of King County Area." United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. Available on -line at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Stein, Alan J. and the HistoryLink Staff. 2004. "Bellevue Timeline" (Seattle: History Ink, 2004). Strobel, Warren and Christopher Wilson (Ed.). 2013. "Spy Agencies Say Cyber Attacks Top Current Threat Against U.S." website posted on March 12, 2013, http: / /www.khq.com /story /21586758/spy- agencies- say - cyber- attacks - top- current - threats - against -us. Teich, Michaela, Natalie Zurbriggen, Perry Bartelt, Adrienne Gret - Regamey, Christoph Marty, Melanie Ulrich and Peter Bebi. 2012. "Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Snow Avalanches Starting in Forested Terrain." From the proceedings of the 2012 International Snow Science Workshop, Anchorage Alaska. Available on -line at http: / /www.slf.ch/ueber /mitarbeiter /homepages /marty/ publications/ Teich2012 _ForestAvalanches_CC.pdf Titov, V.V., F.I. Gonzalez, H.O. Mofjeld, and A.J. Venturato. 2003. NOAA TIME Seattle Tsunami Mapping Project: Procedures, data sources, and products. NOAA Tech. Memo. OAR PMEL -124, NTIS: PB2004- 101635, 21 pp. http: / /www.pmel.noaa.gov /pubs /PDF /tito2572 /tito2572.pdf. Townsend, Katherine L and John T. Figge. 2002. "Northwest Origins: An Introduction to the Geological History of Washington State. the website of the Burke Museum, last accessed March 2014, http: / /www.burkemuseum.org /static /geo history wa/index.htm. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Dam safety construction complete at Howard Hanson Dam, Release no. 09 -001. Posted on September 4, 2012. http: / /www.nws.usace. army .mil /Media/NewsReleases /tabid /2408 /Article /3823 /dam - safety - construction- complete-at- howard - hanson - dam.aspx U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Data from 2000 U.S. Census. U.S. Census Bureau. http: / /factfinder. census .gov /servlet /ACSSAFFFacts? event = Search &geo id= 01000US& geoContext =01 000US %7C04000US06 %7C16000US0662938& street =& county= Ada +County& cityTown= Ada +Cou my& state= 04000US16& zip =& lang =en& sse =on& ActiveGeoDiv= geoSelect& useEV= &pctxt =fp R-6 ACT.A Page 354 of 869 ...REFERENCES U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. American FactFinder. Retrieved March 22, 2013, from U.S. Department of Commerce United States Census Bureau: http: / /factfinder2.census.gov /faces /nav /j sf/ pages /searchresults.xhtml ?refresh =t U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Census of Agriculture, County Data, Washington. Available on -line athttp: / /www.nass.usda.gov/ census/ census02 /volumel /wa /st53_2_001_001.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Excessive Heat Events Guidebook. EPA 430 -B -06- 005. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/about/pdf/EHEguidefinal.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Climate Change Indicators in the United States . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA Response to Public Comments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 3/16/2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Climate Change Facts: Answers to Common Questions. U.S. EPA Website. Accessed April 14, 2013 at: http: // epa .gov /climatechange /facts.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013b. Climate Change Indicators in the United States: U.S. and Global Temperatures. www.epa.gov /climatechange /indicators. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013c. Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Heavy Precipitation. www.epa.gov /climatechange /indicators. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013d. Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Snowfall. http : / /www.epa.gov /climatechange/ science / indicators /snow - ice /snowfall.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013e. Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Sea Level Rise. http: // www. epa .gov /climatechange /pdfs /print sea - level- 2013.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013f. Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. http: / /www.epa. gov /climatechange /pdfs /print sea - level- 2013.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013g. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. Accessed in June 2014, http: // www. epa. gov /climatechange /glossary.html #M. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1989. The Severity of an Earthquake. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1989 - 288 -913. Accessed online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severity text.html U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. "Landslide Hazards in the Seattle, Washington Area." Fact Sheet 2007 -3005. Available online at http: / /pubs.usgs.gov /fs/ 2007 /3005 /pdf/FS07- 3005_508.pdf. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. An Atlas of ShakeMaps for Selected Global Earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2008 -1236. Prepared by Allen, T.I., Wald, D.J., Hotovec, A.J., Lin, K., Earle, P.S. and Marano, K.D. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. PAGER —Rapid Assessment of an Earthquake's Impact. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010 -3036. September 2010. R-7 ACT.A Page 355 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. `Earthquake Hazards Program: Pacific Northwest." Last modified July 18, 2012. Available on -line at http: // earthquake .usgs.gov /regional/pacnw /. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States . Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson (eds.). United States Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. University of Washington. 2013. UW Today. "Study: Quake- triggered landslides a significant hazard in Seattle." Available online at http://www.washington.edu/ news / 2013 /10/22 /study- quake - triggered- landslides-a- significant - hazard -in- seattle /. Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. 2007. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington State Growth Management Act. Available online at http: / /www.commerce.wa.gov /Documents /GMS- Critical - Areas- Assist- Handbook.pdf. Washington Department of Ecology. 2011. 2010 Report to the Legislature: Status of High and Significant Hazard Dams in Washington with Safety Deficiencies. Publication number 11 -11 -005, https:// fortress. wa. gov /ecy/ publications /publications /1111005.pdf Washington Department of Ecology. 2014. Puget Sound Landslides Website, Accessed in 2014 at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/landslides/about/about.html Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Forest Health Highlights in Washington -2012. Available online at http: / /www.fs.usda. gov / Internet /FSE _DOCUMENTS /stelprdb5426970.pdf. Washington Department of Transportation. 2014. "How landslides affect you property." Brochure accessed on -line in April 2014 at http: / /www.wsdot.wa. gov/ NR /rdonlyres /B2134D85- D96D -4FCA- AF39- E60EFE4FF220 /0 /Landslide Brochure.pdf Washington Department of Transportation. 2014a. "Rail – Corridor Reliability Supplemental Work." The website of the Washington State Department of Transportation, http: / /www.wsdot.wa.gov /projects /rail/slidemanagement/. Washington Department of Transportation. 2014b. "Passenger Train Operations." The website of the Washington State Department of Transportation, http: // www. wsdot . wa.gov /Rail/Operations.htm. Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD). 2010. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. Washing Emergency Management Division. October 2010. Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD). 2012. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. Washing Emergency Management Division. September 2012. Washington Emergency Management Division. (2013). Dam Failures and Incidents. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from Washington State Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment: http:/ /www. emd.wa.gov/ hazards/ haz_dam_failure_incidents_table . shtml Washington Employment Security Department. 2013. Historical Estimates of Local Unemployment Statistics. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from Washington Employment Security Department: https:// fortress .wa.gov /esd /employmentdata/ reports - publications /regional- reports /local- unemployment- statistics R-8 ACT.A Page 356 of 869 ...REFERENCES Washington Office of Financial Management. 2012. Historical Estimates of April 1 Population and Housing for the State, Counties and Cities. Retrieved March 21, 2013, from Office of Financial Management: http: / /www.ofm.wa.gov /pop /aprill/hseries /default.asp Washington Office of Financial Management. 2013. "Growth Management Act County Projections." Growth Management Act Population Change Excel document available on -line at http: / /www.ofm.wa.gov /POP /gma /default.asp. Western Regional Climate Center. 2014. "Climate of Washington." Last accessed March 2014, http: / /www.wrcc.dri.edu /narratives /washington /. Zuckerman, Jessica, Steve Bucci, Ph.D. and James Carafano, Ph.D. 2013. The Heritage Foundation. 60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism. July 2013. Accessed August 17, 2013. http://www .heritage .org/research/reports/20 1 3/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-9 11 -continued- lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism R-9 ACT.A Page 357 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ACT.A Page 359 of 869 APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ACRONYMS ASHRAE— American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air - Conditioning Engineers CFR —Code of Federal Regulations cfs —cubic feet per second CIP— Capital Improvement Plan CRS — Community Rating System DHS— Department of Homeland Security DMA — Disaster Mitigation Act EMD— Washington Emergency Management Division EPA —U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA — Endangered Species Act FBFM —Fire behavior fuel model FCAAP —Flood Control Assistance Account Program FEMA — Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC — Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRM —Flood Insurance Rate Map GIS— Geographic Information System Hazus -MH— Hazards, United States -Multi Hazard HMGP — Hazard Mitigation Grant Program IBC — International Building Code IRC— International Residential Code LiDAR —Light Detection and Ranging MM— Modified Mercalli Scale NEHRP— National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NFIP— National Flood Insurance Program NOAA — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS— National Weather Service PDM— Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program PGA —Peak Ground Acceleration RCW— Revised Code of Washington A-1 ACT.A Page 361 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... SFHA — Special Flood Hazard Area SHELDUS — Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the US USGS —U.S. Geological Survey WUI— Wildland Urban Interface DEFINITIONS 100 -Year Flood: The term "100 -year flood" can be misleading. The 100 -year flood does not necessarily occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the flood that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Thus, the 100 -year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines it as the 1 percent annual chance flood, which is now the standard definition used by most federal and state agencies and by the National Flood Insurance Program. Acre -Foot: An acre -foot is the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. This measure is used to describe the quantity of storage in a water reservoir. An acre -foot is a unit of volume. One acre foot equals 7,758 barrels; 325,829 gallons; or 43,560 cubic feet. An average household of four will use approximately 1 acre -foot of water per year. Asset: An asset is any man -made or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to, people; buildings; infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, sewers, and water systems; lifelines, such as electricity and communication resources; and environmental, cultural, or recreational features such as parks, wetlands, and landmarks. Base Flood: The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also known as the "100- year" or "1% chance" flood. The base flood is a statistical concept used to ensure that all properties subject to the National Flood Insurance Program are protected to the same degree against flooding. Basin: A basin is the area within which all surface water — whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs, or other sources —flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by natural topography, such as hills, mountains, and ridges. Basins are also referred to as "watersheds" and "drainage basins." Benefit: A benefit is a net project outcome and is usually defined in monetary terms. Benefits may include direct and indirect effects. For the purposes of benefit -cost analysis of proposed mitigation measures, benefits are limited to specific, measurable, risk reduction factors, including reduction in expected property losses (buildings, contents, and functions) and protection of human life. Benefit/Cost Analysis: A benefit/cost analysis is a systematic, quantitative method of comparing projected benefits to projected costs of a project or policy. It is used as a measure of cost effectiveness. Building: A building is defined as a structure that is walled and roofed, principally aboveground, and permanently fixed to a site. The term includes manufactured homes on permanent foundations on which the wheels and axles carry no weight. Capability Assessment: A capability assessment provides a description and analysis of a community's current capacity to address threats associated with hazards. The assessment includes two components: an inventory of an agency's mission, programs, and policies, and an analysis of its capacity to carry them A-2 ACT.A Page 362 of 869 ...APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS out. A capability assessment is an integral part of the planning process in which a community's actions to reduce losses are identified, reviewed, and analyzed, and the framework for implementation is identified. The following capabilities were reviewed under this assessment: • Legal and regulatory capability • Administrative and technical capability • Fiscal capability Community Rating System (CRS): The CRS is a voluntary program under the NFIP that rewards participating communities (provides incentives) for exceeding the minimum requirements of the NFIP and completing activities that reduce flood hazard risk by providing flood insurance premium discounts. Critical Area: An area defined by state or local regulations as deserving special protection because of unique natural features or its value as habitat for a wide range of species of flora and fauna. A sensitive /critical area is usually subject to more restrictive development regulations. Critical Facility: Facilities and infrastructure that are critical to the health and welfare of the population. These become especially important after any hazard event occurs. For the purposes of this plan, critical facilities include: • Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and /or water reactive materials; • Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a hazard event. • Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers that are needed for disaster response before, during, and after hazard events, and • Public and private utilities, facilities and infrastructure that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to areas damaged by hazard events. • Government facilities. Cubic Feet per Second (cfs): Discharge or river flow is commonly measured in cfs. One cubic foot is about 7.5 gallons of liquid. Dam: Any artificial barrier or controlling mechanism that can or does impound 10 acre -feet or more of water. Dam Failure: Dam failure refers to a partial or complete breach in a dam (or levee) that impacts its integrity. Dam failures occur for a number of reasons, such as flash flooding, inadequate spillway size, mechanical failure of valves or other equipment, freezing and thawing cycles, earthquakes, and intentional destruction. Debris Avalanche: Volcanoes are prone to debris and mountain rock avalanches that can approach speeds of 100 mph. Debris Flow: Dense mixtures of water - saturated debris that move down - valley; looking and behaving much like flowing concrete. They form when loose masses of unconsolidated material are saturated, become unstable, and move down slope. The source of water varies but includes rainfall, melting snow or ice, and glacial outburst floods. A-3 ACT.A Page 363 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... Debris Slide: Debris slides consist of unconsolidated rock or soil that has moved rapidly down slope. They occur on slopes greater than 65 percent. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA); The DMA is Public Law 106 -390 and is the latest federal legislation enacted to encourage and promote proactive, pre- disaster planning as a condition of receiving financial assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The DMA emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. Under the DMA, a pre- disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post- disaster hazard mitigation grant program (HMGP) were established. Drainage Basin: A basin is the area within which all surface water- whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs or other sources- flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by natural topography, such as hills, mountains and ridges. Drainage basins are also referred to as watersheds or basins. Drought: Drought is a period of time without substantial rainfall or snowfall from one year to the next. Drought can also be defined as the cumulative impacts of several dry years or a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, which in turn results in water shortages for some activity, group, or environmental function. A hydrological drought is caused by deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. A socioeconomic drought impacts the health, well - being, and quality of life or starts to have an adverse impact on a region. Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate and occurs almost everywhere. Earthquake: An earthquake is defined as a sudden slip on a fault, volcanic or magmatic activity, and sudden stress changes in the earth that result in ground shaking and radiated seismic energy. Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over 5 minutes, and have been known to occur as a series of tremors over a period of several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Casualties may result from falling objects and debris as shocks shake, damage, or demolish buildings and other structures. Exposure: Exposure is defined as the number and dollar value of assets considered to be at risk during the occurrence of a specific hazard. Extent: The extent is the size of an area affected by a hazard. Extreme Heat Event/Heat Wave: Summertime weather that is substantially hotter and /or more humid than average for a location at that time of year. Typically a heat wave lasts two or more days. Fire Behavior: Fire behavior refers to the physical characteristics of a fire and is a function of the interaction between the fuel characteristics (such as type of vegetation and structures that could burn), topography, and weather. Variables that affect fire behavior include the rate of spread, intensity, fuel consumption, and fire type (such as underbrush versus crown fire). Fire Frequency: Fire frequency is the broad measure of the rate of fire occurrence in a particular area. An estimate of the areas most likely to burn is based on past fire history or fire rotation in the area, fuel conditions, weather, ignition sources (such as human or lightning), fire suppression response, and other factors. Flash Flood: A flash flood occurs with little or no warning when water levels rise at an extremely fast rate A-4 ACT.A Page 364 of 869 ...APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): FIRMs are the official maps on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has delineated the Special Flood Hazard Area. Flood Insurance Study: A report published by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration for a community in conjunction with the community's Flood Insurance rate Map. The study contains such background data as the base flood discharges and water surface elevations that were used to prepare the FIRM. In most cases, a community FIRM with detailed mapping will have a corresponding flood insurance study. Floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by flood waters from any source. A flood insurance rate map identifies most, but not necessarily all, of a community's floodplain as the Special Flood Hazard Area. Floodway: Floodways are areas within a floodplain that are reserved for the purpose of conveying flood discharge without increasing the base flood elevation more than 1 foot. Generally speaking, no development is allowed in floodways, as any structures located there would block the flow of floodwaters. Floodway Fringe: Floodway fringe areas are located in the floodplain but outside of the floodway. Some development is generally allowed in these areas, with a variety of restrictions. On maps that have identified and delineated a floodway, this would be the area beyond the floodway boundary that can be subject to different regulations. Fog: Fog refers to a cloud (or condensed water droplets) near the ground. Fog forms when air close to the ground can no longer hold all the moisture it contains. Fog occurs either when air is cooled to its dew point or the amount of moisture in the air increases. Heavy fog is particularly hazardous because it can restrict surface visibility. Severe fog incidents can close roads, cause vehicle accidents, cause airport delays, and impair the effectiveness of emergency response. Financial losses associated with transportation delays caused by fog have not been calculated in the United States but are known to be substantial. Freeboard: Freeboard is the margin of safety added to the base flood elevation. Frequency: For the purposes of this plan, frequency refers to how often a hazard of specific magnitude, duration, and /or extent is expected to occur on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100 -year frequency is expected to occur about once every 100 years on average and has a 1 percent chance of occurring any given year. Frequency reliability varies depending on the type of hazard considered. Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity: Tornado wind speeds are sometimes estimated on the basis of wind speed and damage sustained using the Fujita Scale. The scale rates the intensity or severity of tornado events using numeric values from FO to F5 based on tornado wind speed and damage. An FO tornado (wind speed less than 73 miles per hour (mph)) indicates minimal damage (such as broken tree limbs), and an F5 tornado (wind speeds of 261 to 318 mph) indicates severe damage. Goal: A goal is a general guideline that explains what is to be achieved. Goals are usually broad - based, long -term, policy -type statements and represent global visions. Goals help define the benefits that a plan is trying to achieve. The success of a hazard mitigation plan is measured by the degree to which its goals have been met (that is, by the actual benefits in terms of actual hazard mitigation). Geographic Information System (GIS): GIS is a computer software application that relates data regarding physical and other features on the earth to a database for mapping and analysis. A-5 ACT.A Page 365 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... Hazard: A hazard is a source of potential danger or adverse condition that could harm people and /or cause property damage. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Authorized under Section 202 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the HMGP is administered by FEMA and provides grants to states, tribes, and local governments to implement hazard mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to disasters and to enable mitigation activities to be implemented as a community recovers from a disaster Hazards U.S. Multi- Hazard (Hazus -MH) Loss Estimation Program: Hazus -MH is a GIS -based program used to support the development of risk assessments as required under the DMA. The Hazus- MH software program assesses risk in a quantitative manner to estimate damages and losses associated with natural hazards. Hazus -MH is FEMA's nationally applicable, standardized methodology and software program and contains modules for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and wind hazards. Hazus -MH has also been used to assess vulnerability (exposure) for other hazards. Hydraulics: Hydraulics is the branch of science or engineering that addresses fluids (especially water) in motion in rivers or canals, works and machinery for conducting or raising water, the use of water as a prime mover, and other fluid - related areas. Hydrology: Hydrology is the analysis of waters of the earth. For example, a flood discharge estimate is developed by conducting a hydrologic study. Intensity: For the purposes of this plan, intensity refers to the measure of the effects of a hazard. Inventory: The assets identified in a study region comprise an inventory. Inventories include assets that could be lost when a disaster occurs and community resources are at risk. Assets include people, buildings, transportation, and other valued community resources. Landslide: Landslides can be described as the sliding movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Fundamentally, slope failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope exceeds the pressure, such as weight or saturation, acting upon them. LiDAR: A remote sensing technology that measures distance by illuminating a target with a laser and analyzing the reflected light. Lightning: Lightning is an electrical discharge resulting from the buildup of positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a "bolt," usually within or between clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning instantaneously reaches temperatures approaching 50,000 °F. The rapid heating and cooling of air near lightning causes thunder. Lightning is a major threat during thunderstorms. In the United States, 75 to 100 Americans are struck and killed by lightning each year (see http: / /www.fema.gov/ hazard /thunderstorms /thunder.shtm). Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the complete failure of soils, occurring when soils lose shear strength and flow horizontally. It is most likely to occur in fine grain sands and silts, which behave like viscous fluids when liquefaction occurs. This situation is extremely hazardous to development on the soils that liquefy, and generally results in extreme property damage and threats to life and safety. Local Government: Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate A-6 ACT.A Page 366 of 869 ...APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity. Magnitude: Magnitude is the measure of the strength of an earthquake, and is typically measured by the Richter scale. As an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the magnitude scale corresponds to the release of about 31 times more energy than the amount associated with the preceding whole number value. Mass movement: A collective term for landslides, mudflows, debris flows, sinkholes and lahars. Mitigation: A preventive action that can be taken in advance of an event that will reduce or eliminate the risk to life or property. Mitigation Actions: Mitigation actions are specific actions to achieve goals and objectives that minimize the effects from a disaster and reduce the loss of life and property. Objective: For the purposes of this plan, an objective is defined as a short-term aim that, when combined with other objectives, forms a strategy or course of action to meet a goal. Unlike goals, objectives are specific and measurable. Peak Ground Acceleration: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the highest amplitude of ground shaking that accompanies an earthquake, based on a percentage of the force of gravity. Preparedness: Preparedness refers to actions that strengthen the capability of government, citizens, and communities to respond to disasters. Presidential Disaster Declaration: These declarations are typically made for events that cause more damage than state and local governments and resources can handle without federal government assistance. Generally, no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for such declarations. A Presidential Disaster Declaration puts into motion long -term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by state programs, designed to help disaster victims, businesses, and public entities. Probability of Occurrence: The probability of occurrence is a statistical measure or estimate of the likelihood that a hazard will occur. This probability is generally based on past hazard events in the area and a forecast of events that could occur in the future. A probability factor based on yearly values of occurrence is used to estimate probability of occurrence. Repetitive Loss Property: Any NFIP- insured property that, since 1978 and regardless of any changes of ownership during that period, has experienced: • Four or more paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00; or • Two paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00 within any 10 -year period since 1978 or • Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property. Return Period (or Mean Return Period): This term refers to the average period of time in years between occurrences of a particular hazard (equal to the inverse of the annual frequency of occurrence). Riverine: Of or produced by a river. Riverine floodplains have readily identifiable channels. Floodway maps can only be prepared for riverine floodplains. A-7 ACT.A Page 367 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... Risk: Risk is the estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community. Risk measures the likelihood of a hazard occurring and resulting in an adverse condition that causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate, or low likelihood of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to occurrence of a specific type of hazard. Risk also can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard. Risk Assessment: Risk assessment is the process of measuring potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure to hazards and focuses on (1) hazard identification; (2) impacts of hazards on physical, social, and economic assets; (3) vulnerability identification; and (4) estimates of the cost of damage or costs that could be avoided through mitigation. Risk Ranking: This ranking serves two purposes, first to describe the probability that a hazard will occur, and second to describe the impact a hazard will have on people, property, and the economy. Risk estimates for the City are based on the methodology that the City used to prepare the risk assessment for this plan. The following equation shows the risk ranking calculation: Risk Ranking = Probability + Impact (people + property + economy) Robert T. Stafford Act: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 100 -107, was signed into law on November 23, 1988. This law amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Public Law 93 -288. The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA and its programs. Sinkhole: A collapse depression in the ground with no visible outlet. Its drainage is subterranean. It is commonly vertical -sided or funnel- shaped. Special Flood Hazard Area: The base floodplain delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. The SFHA is mapped as a Zone A in riverine situations and zone V in coastal situations. The SFHA may or may not encompass all of a community's flood problems Stakeholder: Business leaders, civic groups, academia, non -profit organizations, major employers, managers of critical facilities, farmers, developers, special purpose districts, and others whose actions could impact hazard mitigation. Stream Bank Erosion: Stream bank erosion is common along rivers, streams and drains where banks have been eroded, sloughed or undercut. However, it is important to remember that a stream is a dynamic and constantly changing system. It is natural for a stream to want to meander, so not all eroding banks are "bad" and in need of repair. Generally, stream bank erosion becomes a problem where development has limited the meandering nature of streams, where streams have been channelized, or where stream bank structures (like bridges, culverts, etc.) are located in places where they can actually cause damage to downstream areas. Stabilizing these areas can help protect watercourses from continued sedimentation, damage to adjacent land uses, control unwanted meander, and improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife. Steep Slope: Different communities and agencies define it differently, depending on what it is being applied to, but generally a steep slope is a slope in which the percent slope equals or exceeds 25 %. For this study, steep slope is defined as slopes greater than 33 %. A-8 ACT.A Page 368 of 869 ...APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS Sustainable Hazard Mitigation: This concept includes the sound management of natural resources, local economic and social resiliency, and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest possible social and economic context. Thunderstorm: A thunderstorm is a storm with lightning and thunder produced by cumulonimbus clouds. Thunderstorms usually produce gusty winds, heavy rains, and sometimes hail. Thunderstorms are usually short in duration (seldom more than 2 hours). Heavy rains associated with thunderstorms can lead to flash flooding during the wet or dry seasons. Tornado: A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between and in contact with a cloud and the surface of the earth. Tornadoes are often (but not always) visible as funnel clouds. On a local scale, tornadoes are the most intense of all atmospheric circulations, and winds can reach destructive speeds of more than 300 mph. A tornado's vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths can be up to 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Vulnerability: Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible an asset is to damage. Vulnerability depends on an asset's construction, contents, and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another. For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power. Flooding of an electric substation would affect not only the substation itself but businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more widespread and damaging than direct effects. Watershed: A watershed is an area that drains downgradient from areas of higher land to areas of lower land to the lowest point, a common drainage basin. Wildfire: These terms refer to any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. The potential for wildfire is influenced by three factors: the presence of fuel, topography, and air mass. Fuel can include living and dead vegetation on the ground, along the surface as brush and small trees, and in the air such as tree canopies. Topography includes both slope and elevation. Air mass includes temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount, duration, and the stability of the atmosphere at the time of the fire. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning and, most frequently, by human activity including smoking, campfires, equipment use, and arson. Windstorm: Windstorms are generally short- duration events involving straight -line winds or gusts exceeding 50 mph. These gusts can produce winds of sufficient strength to cause property damage. Windstorms are especially dangerous in areas with significant tree stands, exposed property, poorly constructed buildings, mobile homes (manufactured housing units), major infrastructure, and aboveground utility lines. A windstorm can topple trees and power lines; cause damage to residential, commercial, critical facilities; and leave tons of debris in its wake. Zoning Ordinance: The zoning ordinance designates allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction. Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning map. A-9 ACT.A Page 369 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS ACT.A Page 371 of 869 APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS REPORTING PERIOD November 2009 through September 2013 BACKGROUND King County has developed and maintained a regional hazard mitigation plan since 2004, most recently updated in 2009. The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk associated with natural hazards in the county. The plan was adopted by the King County Council in November 2009 and approved by FEMA Region X on December 2, 2009. Several King County cities and special - purpose districts in the county created annexes to link their jurisdictions to the 2009 King County plan. The plan and annexes are available to the public online at the following website: http: / /www.kingcounty. gov/ safety / prepare/ EmergencyManagementProfessionals /Plans /Regio nalHazardMitigationPlan /2009HazardMikationPlan.aspx A new update of the regional hazard mitigation plan is underway, with participation by most of the jurisdictions that participated in the 2009 plan, as well as additional municipalities and special districts in the county. The new update will be adopted before the end of 2014. The following jurisdictions participating in the current update either were participants in King County's 2009 regional plan or have their own current adopted hazard mitigation plans: • City of Auburn • City of Bothell • City of Federal Way • City of Issaquah • City of Kent (including annex for Kent Fire Department/King County Fire District 37) • City of Mercer Island • City of Pacific • City of Redmond • City of Renton • City of Shoreline (including annex for Shoreline Fire Department /King County Fire District 4) • City of Snoqualmie • City of Tukwila • City of Woodinville (an annex to the North King and South Snohomish Counties Regional Mitigation Plan for Natural Hazards) • Covington Water District • Highline Water District B-1 ACT.A Page 373 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... • King County Water District 19 • King County Water District 111 • Soos Creek Water District • Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District • Southwest Suburban Sewer District • South King Fire and Rescue. Purpose This progress report provides an update on implementation of the action plans for all jurisdictions participating in the 2014 regional plan update. It was prepared by the 2014 update planning team and reviewed by the 2014 update steering committee. The objective is to ensure that there is a continuous planning process that keeps the regional hazard mitigation plan responsive to stakeholder needs and capabilities. The contents of this progress report are as follows: • Summary overview of action plan progress • Recent natural hazard events • Changes in risk exposure within the planning area • Mitigation success stories • Itemized review of the action plan • Changes in capability in the planning area that could impact plan implementation • Recommendations for changes /enhancement. The Steering Committee The update steering committee holds an evolving role in plan implementation, based on the hazard mitigation needs of the region. At a minimum, the steering committee provides technical review and oversight on development of implementation progress reports. Table 1 lists current steering committee membership. SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF ACTION PLAN PROGRESS The 2009 King County regional hazard mitigation plan, associated jurisdictional annexes, and other previous hazard mitigation plans by participants in the 2014 update all include action plans that identify specific mitigation actions. Table 2 summarizes the number of initiatives in each action plan and current progress as of the time of this progress report. 8-2 ACT.A Page 374 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS ACT.A 8 -3 Page 375 of 869 TABLE 1 2013 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Name Title Jurisdiction or Agency Janice Rahman Barnaby Dow Bob Freitag Denis Uhler Emergency Management Program Manager Emergency Management Program Manager Director of the Institute for Hazard Mitigation Planning and Research Director of Supply Chain Management Emergency Manager Zone 3 Coordinator King County Office of Emergency Management King County Office of Emergency Management University of Washington Overlake Hospital Dominic Maranzo Ed Reed City of Kent King County Gail Harris Emergency Manager Event Manager Emergency Preparedness Manager City of Shoreline James Kraman James Tritten Kimberly Behymer Century Link Field Valley Medical Center Program Coordinator Police Lieutenant Fire Chief City of Kent Lee Gaskill Mark Chubb City of Algona King County Fire District No. 20 Mike Ryan Zone 1 Coordinator Fire Lieutenant Project/Program Manager King County King County Fire District No. 2 — Burien Fire King County Water and Land Resources Division Milton Guerreiro Monica Walker Rick Wallace President Vashon Be Prepared Robert Taylor Sarah Miller Scott Entry Water Resources Manager Emergency Preparedness Manager Covington Water District City of Auburn Risk Management Manager Lake Washington School District ACT.A 8 -3 Page 375 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 2. SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF ACTION PLAN PROGRESS Plan Adoption Date Total Number of Mitigation Number of Percent Initiatives Initiatives of Total Mitigation Initiatives Started or Completed Mitigation Initiatives Not Started Number of Percent Initiatives of Total 2009 King County Regional Plan City of Auburn Annex City of Bothell Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Federal Way Annex City of Issaquah Annex City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Mercer Island Hazard Mitigation Plan Update City of Pacific Annex City of Redmond Hazards Mitigation Plan City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Shoreline Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update City of Snoqualmie Hazard Mitigation Plan Update City of Tukwila Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Woodinville Annex to North King and South Snohomish Counties Regional Mitigation Plan for Natural Hazards Covington Water District Annex Highline Water District Annex King County Water District 19 Annex King County Water District 111 Hazard Mitigation Plan Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District Annex Soos Creek Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan Southwest Suburban Sewer District Annex November 2009 February 2013 June 2010 February 2010 January 2010 September 2004 December 2010 July 2009 December 2009 April 2012 November 2009 March 2010 April 2010 September 2010 June 2009 October 2010 June 2009 December 2009 June 2009 February 2010 September 2009 36 12 25 29 NA 19 81% NA 76% 7 NA 6 19% NA 24% 6 5 83% 1 17% 5 4 80% 1 20% 11 6 55% 5 45% 11 10 91% 1 9% 9 NA NA NA NA 6 6 100% 0 0% 50 40 80% 10 20% 8 8 100% 0 0% 41 NA NA NA NA 4 4 100% 0 0% 13 9 69% 4 31% 7 6 86% 1 14% 3 3 100% 0 0% 3 3 100% 0 0% 10 1 11% 9 89% 1 1 100% 0 0% 7 4 57% 3 43% 5 NA NA NA NA ACT.A 8 -4 Page 376 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 2. SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF ACTION PLAN PROGRESS Plan Adoption Date Total Number of Mitigation Initiatives Mitigation Initiatives Started or Completed Mitigation Initiatives Not Started Number of Percent Initiatives of Total Number of Percent Initiatives of Total King County Fire District 4 (Shoreline Fire Department) Annex to City of Shoreline Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update King County Fire District 37 (Kent Fire Department) Annex to City of Kent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan South King Fire & Rescue Annex July 2009 September 2004 June 2009 5 2 3 5 100% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% NA NA NA NA RECENT NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS IN THE PLANNING AREA The following hazard events occurred within the planning area during the performance period: Declared Emergencies: • January 11, 2011 (DR -1963) — Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides and mudslides According to NOAA'S National Climatic Data Center, "A cold easterly wind through the Columbia River Gorge was keeping cold air trapped in the Gorge as a strong Pacific frontal system moved inland. This system spread precipitation over the Gorge starting as snow and changing over to freezing rain as the air mass warmed." The preliminary damage assessment for the seven counties affected by the storm was estimated at $8.7 million in damages. • January 14, 2012 (DR- 4056)— Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides and mudslides According to the National Climatic Data Center, "arctic air moved into the region followed by a series of moderate to strong upper level storm systems riding on a moist subtropical jet stream. The result was widespread heavy snow and local high winds." The preliminary damage assessment for the 11 counties affected by the storm was estimated at $32 million in damages. Additionally, the following notable events were recorded in the County between 2010 and 2013 accounting for 6 reported fatalities and an estimated $5.4 million in damages: Avalanche – 2012 Tunnel Creek -3 fatalities – 2013 Snoqualmie Pass -2 fatalities in one day from two separate events Severe Weather June 2010 Funnel cloud in Rainier Valley —very minor property damage December 2010 Heavy Rain — estimated $3 million in damages 8-5 ACT.A Page 377 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... December 2010 Thunderstorm and Wind — estimated $25,000 in damages January 2011 Heavy Rain -1 fatality and estimated $20,000 in damages July 2012 Lightning -1 injury and estimated $100,000 in damages January 2013 Debris Flow — estimated $5,000 in damages May 2013 Thunderstorm and Wind — estimated $25,000 in damages July 2013 Lightning— estimated $5,000 in damages July 2013 Lightning— estimated $10,000 in damages September 2013 Heavy Rain — estimated $10,000 in damages Severe Winter Weather January 2011 Winter Weather and Ice Storm— estimated $2 million in damages January 2012 Winter Weather and Ice Storm— estimated $267,000 in damages December 2012 Winter Weather and Heavy Snow— no reported damage CHANGES IN RISK EXPOSURE IN THE PLANNING AREA The population in the planning area has increased 3.8 percent since 2009 to an estimated 1,981,900 people as of April of 2013. Property exposure has also increased during the same time period. The planning area is estimated to have over 565,000 buildings representing over $556 billion in exposed structure and contents. The 2009 Hazard Mitigation Plan addressed the probable impacts of the following natural hazard events in the planning area: Avalanche Dams /Dam Safety • Drought • Earthquake • Fire • Flooding • Severe Weather • Landslide • Tsunami & Seiches. No natural hazard event occurred in the planning area during the performance period that would alter or change the probability of occurrence or ranking of risk for the natural hazards addressed by the Hazard Mitigation plan; however, the completion of upgrades to the Howard Hanson Dam in the Green River Valley has likely decreased the probability of an event in this area. REVIEW OF THE ACTION PLAN This section reviews the action plans and lists the status of each initiative from the hazard mitigation plans, grouped by jurisdiction. The action plan initiative summary in Table 3 provides the following information: • Brief summary of initiative; note that initiatives from the 2009 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update are coded based on responsible County agency, as follows: – KCSO = King County Sheriff's Office 8-6 ACT.A Page 378 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS SWD = Solid Waste Division PH = Public Health ITS = Information and Technology Services MKCT = Metro King County Transit FMD = Facilities Management Division FMO = Fire Marshall's Office DNRP = Department of Natural Resources and Parks • Indication of whether any action has been taken • Current timeline • Indication of whether the project priority has changed • Status (complete, ongoing or no progress) • Comments, including the following information: Was any element of the initiative carried out during the reporting period? If no action was completed, why? Is the timeline for implementation for the initiative still appropriate? If the initiative was completed, does it need to be changed or removed from the action plan? 8-7 ACT.A Page 379 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Chanted? Comment (Describe .rotress or chanted .don 1 o ��� WW • luoo�uu�i�u���,��, ���� WWW WWm�W ��W W Wl � � � WWw � W � WWw ���i �W� W II L; ) Status KC��SIIO -1— Enhance homeland security, mitigation, and response capabilities by acquiring dedicated staff for deficits, the No Progress its homeland and response staffing in fact, the at all levels. personnel on through the that training, planning, response, and intelligence sharing and analysis No Long Term No Due to King County General Fund budget Sheriff's Office has not been able to enhance security mission to include both mitigation capabilities by acquiring additional staffing. Current levels do not allow for this work to proceed and, Sheriff's Office is experiencing staffing shortages We attempt to support the mission with limited an ad hoc basis. Unless FTE funding is supported greater King County budget process it is not anticipated this action will occur in the near to medium term. SWD -1 —Grid 2 & 3 repairs. Structural seismic retrofit of the Enumclaw transfer station. This initiative sets steel plating to the roof repairs increasing the resistance of the structure to strong earthquakes. Yes Short Term No Completed in April 2009 Complete SWD-2—Perimeter Wall. Phase 2 of the structural seismic retrofit to the Enumclaw transfer station. This initiative sets steel plating to the perimeter wall increasing the resistance of the structure to strong earthquakes. Yes Short Term No Completed in April 2009 Complete SWD -3 —Panel to Panel joint connections. Phase 3 of the structural seismic retrofit to the Enumclaw transfer station. This initiative sets connecting the panels with joint connectors increasing the resistance of the structure to strong earthquakes Yes Short Term No Completed in April 2009 Complete SWD- 4—Roof parapet bracing. Phase 4 of the structural seismic retrofit to the Enumclaw transfer station. This initiative sets connecting the roof parapet with steel bracing increasing the resistance of the structure to strong earthquakes Yes Short Term No Completed in April 2009 Complete SWD -5 —Sheer wall connections. Phase 5 of the structural seismic retrofit to the Enumclaw transfer station. This initiative sets sheer wall bracing for increasing the resistance of the structure to strong earthquakes Yes Short Term No Completed in April 2009 Complete PH -1— Support the general public's health and safety by educating Public Health staff in emergency and disaster response Yes Long Term No Continually provide orientations and trainings to PH staff Ongoing serving on emergency response teams. PH- 2— Enhance communication of Public Health sites internally (both within and between PH sites) as well as with Complete other regional agencies through amateur and short-range radio programs Yes Short Term No Completed outfitting PH sites with radio capability. ACT.A 8 -8 Page 380 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status PH- 3— Develop an infectious disease outbreak response team program Yes Long Term No Recruiting and training Epis to serve on an outbreak response Ongoing team. PH- 4— Educate the public in disaster response activities Yes Long Term No Provided training and education to community based Ongoing organizations and healthcare facilities on continuity planning. PH- 5— Support and enhance first responder disaster reporting and regional emergency electronic data collection No Long Term No RIMS or common operating procedure for KC to support No Progress regional, multidisciplinary reporting. PH- 6a— Mitigate structural damage at Public Health sites. This initiative also involves training to determine structural damage during and after hazard events No Long Term No Determined to be role of KC FMD, not Public Health No Progress PH- 6b— Mitigate non - structural damage at Public Health sites. This initiative also involves training to determine non- structural damage during and after hazard events No Long Term No Determined to be role of KC FMD, not Public Health No Progress PH- 7— Enhance syndromic surveillance program to support public health during emergencies and disasters Yes Short Term No Incorporated all school districts into surveillance system. Complete PH -8— Enhance environmental health response programs for terrorist acts involving chemical and radioactive events, threats to food and water supply and airborne illnesses Yes Long Term No Developed environmental health response team. Ongoing ITS -1— Provide alternative sites and communication paths for County's information and communication infrastructure. This initiative also seeks to retrofit existing facilities to improve disaster resistance. Yes Long Term No KCIT has upgraded the external connections into the King Ongoing County Wide Area Network (KCWAN) establishing 2 redundant connections at each of the entry points, King County Data Center and at the Seattle location. The redundant connections are provided by two separate Internet Service Providers (ISP) on diverse paths. The King County Firewalls have been upgraded; KCIT has installed 4 redundant firewalls in 2 separate locations. Upgraded all network routers and switches within the KCWAN infrastructure establishing an equipment replacement fund, and schedule to ensure all KCWAN infrastructure remains current and supported by the vendor. KCIT is in the process of replacing the current telecommunications systems and utilizing Voice Over IP technology. KCIT has an established Alternate Data Center designated specifically for Disaster Recovery of essential systems and applications. KCIT is also in the process of establishing additional alternatives for Disaster Recovery by utilizing Virtual and Cloud technology. ACT.A 8 -9 Page 381 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status MKCT -1— Construct downtown Seattle transit tunnel positive ventilation system to allow for decontamination and recovery following chemical, gas, or fire event. Yes Short Term No Complete MKCT- 2— Install security cameras on public buses to deter crime associated with civil unrest and terrorist acts Yes Long Term No All new coaches procured will be camera equipped. Ongoing FMD -1— Structural seismic retrofit of county buildings to improve resistance to earthquakes Yes Short Term No All county buildings that FMD is responsible for have been Complete seismically upgraded. FMD-2—Administration Building 401 -403 Security Additions. Install motion detector, duress buttons, camera and monitoring system Yes Short Term No Added camera and duress Complete FMD -3— Administration Building 5th floor - Elections Security Upgrade. Install card access control, duress buttons, camera and video monitoring system Yes Short Term No Added camera, readers and duress Complete FMD -4— Administration Building 6th floor - Finance Security Upgrade. Install card access control, duress buttons, camera and video monitoring system Yes Short Term No Added readers and duress Complete FMD -5— Elections 1st Ave MBOS Security Upgrade. Install card access control, duress buttons, camera and video monitoring system No Short Tenn Yes Leased space- No longer occupied by Elections. No Progress FMO -1— Continue inspection of existing and new construction Yes Long Term Yes New construction permits – no change Annual inspection Ongoing permits – priority reduced and some work contracted to local fire districts. FMO -2— Provide plan reviews for noted construction Yes Long Tenn No Ongoing FMO -3— Support education, training and information programs No Long Term No Ongoing outreach not currently in our business plan. Some No Progress information maintained on Department's website. FMO- 4—Work with schools and fire service public educators to deliver public safety messages Yes Long Term No Conduct annual fire safety inspection and collect fire drill Ongoing reports. ACT.A B -10 Page 382 of 869 ...APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status DNRP -1— Snoqualmie 205 (Fund 318F). Cooperative project between King County, City of Snoqualmie and Corps of Engineers to improve flood hazard conditions above Snoqualmie Falls through major channel excavation improvements. Yes Short Term No Cooperative project between City of Snoqualmie, King Complete County, and Army Corps of Engineers completed. Monitoring for sediment retention at site. DNRP -2 —North Bend 205 (Fund 318F and 318U). This project is a cooperative flood damage reduction project between the Corps of Engineers (Corps), King County and the City of North Bend. The project will evaluate cost effective flood reduction options along the South and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers in and around the City. No Long Term Yes Feasibility study conducted by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers No Progress determines project to be unfeasible. Addressing highest priority needs through implementation of South Fork Levee Improvement Project and the Upper Snoqualmie valley Residential Mitigation Project. DNRP -3— Rivers Major Maintenance (Fund 318F and 318U). Major rivers maintenance project includes funds to repair damaged structural elements of King County's extensive inventory of flood protection facilities. Yes Long Term No Ongoing action, implemented annual by King County Water Ongoing and Land Resources Division and the Flood Control District. DNRP -4— Floodway Corridor Restoration (FUND 318F and 318U). Floodway corridor restoration projects include the removal, slope -back or setback of County -owned flood protection facilities and other structural features to allow for improved riparian habitat, greater channel diversity and migration, reclaimed flood storage and enhanced open space or recreational /- interpretive uses. Yes Long Term No Ongoing action, implemented annual by King County Water Ongoing and Land Resources Division and the Flood Control District. DNRP -5 —Flood Hazard Mitigation (FUND 318F and 318U). Flood hazard mitigation projects include the acquisition of repetitively damaged homes, purchase of underdeveloped land to prevent future development in flood prone areas, and where cost - effective and feasible, the elevation of residential homes that sustain recurring deep, low- velocity flooding. Yes Long Term No Ongoing action implemented annual by the King County Ongoing Water and Land Resources Division and the Flood Control District. DNRP- f—Critical Facility Retrofit. Currently, the fuel supply tanks for King County flood facilities cannot withstand a moderate to major quake. This project would retrofit the Black River Pump Station. Yes Short Term Yes Construction in progress, June 2013- February 2014. Project is Ongoing updating fuel pumps to double wall contaminant, the statutory containment, and is designed to meet seismic requirements. DNRP -7— Critical Facility Relocation. Relocate the Flood Warning Center from its current location that is subject to severe seismic exposure, to a location that is not subject to any natural hazard risk exposure. Yes Short Term Yes Moved to King Street Center in 2006 Complete ACT.A B -11 Page 383 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status DNRP -8— Critical Facility Upgrade. Update the flood warning telemetry and gauging, computers, software applications, emergency power and other response facilities. Yes Ongoing Yes Telemetry and gaging in primarily done by USGS through an Ongoing agreement with King County. Other systems have been improved overtime. DNRP -9 —Flood Hazard Reduction Programs. This initiative includes elements such as hazard identification, warning, information dissemination and public outreach are vital to the mitigation of the natural hazards impacting King County. Yes Long Term No Ongoing action, implemented annually by the King County Ongoing Water and Land Resources Division and the Flood Control District. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111 111111, !L,11111111111 il, pNNNNN 0W W� WWWmw a „„ looMIIMIIIIIII Retrofit M &O facility to reduce susceptibility to earthquake damage. No progress reported. Installation of seismic protection valves on City reservoirs to provide for automatic shutoff in event of an earthquake. No progress reported. Upgrade computer server racks throughout City to reduce susceptibility to earthquake damage. No progress reported. Purchase and implement software and hardware to comply with the State certification requirements for early destruction of source documents after digitization in compliance with the State of Washington Records Retention laws. This will safeguard records in case of disaster. No progress reported. Expand and reconfigure stormwater detention ponds on West Hill along S. 296th St. to reduce wintertime flooding along the valley floor below. No progress reported. Prepare and adopt a new optional Comprehensive Plan element for Natural Hazard Reduction. No progress reported. Measures to prevent acts of terrorism from occurring at key City facilities (Justice Center, Emergency Operations Center, City Hall, etc.) No progress reported. Develop and adopt changes to City Code to limit tree removal within certain sloped or landslide hazard susceptible areas. No progress reported. Create part or full -time FTE position to conduct disaster related public education throughout the City. No progress reported. ACT.A B -12 Page 384 of 869 ...APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Ability to produce own stats and data capability. No progress reported. Create, fund, and administer a grant or low interest loan program that allows homeowners to retrofit single - family homes to protect against earthquakes. No progress reported. Conduct community education campaign to addresses pandemic flu issues (See Public Education also). No progress reported. Nwww����Iulllllllllllllppuum �1�� uullllllllllll s !,111111111111111.1 �W WW. �IIIVIII . W Wl WW W W ��� "WW WWW 1 WV ®W LL 1 n I W��u mW I� To provide seismic valves, security barriers and improve notification and response to Mornmgside Reservoir and Booster Station. Yes Long Term Yes Developing a plan to install additional motion sensor alarms Ongoing and Mach security cameras at other critical facilities /sites. To rehabilitate City bridges for preservation and maintaining the existing integrity for safe use. Rehabs may include seismic and safety improvements. Yes Long Term No Received grant funds to perform seismic retrofits on 195th St. Ongoing bridge. Anticipated for 2015 construction. 240th Bridge replaced. Seeking funding for Sammamish River Bridge. Minor maintenance & regular inspections ongoing. Installations of backup power supply and alarm system at Maywood water pump station. Yes Long Term Yes In the process of upgrading the SCADA communications for Ongoing this site (phase 2 of SCADA upgrades) Will increase lane capacity at the NE 195th St/N Creek Pkwy intersection and will increase the number of westbound lanes from two to three through lanes along the section of NE 195th St between N Creek Pkwy and the I- 405 northbound onramp Yes No Complete This project realigns SR 522 one block to the south to create a new streamlined "T" intersection at SR 527. SR 527 and 98th Avenue NE are extended south from Main Street to the new SR 522 realignment. The roadway provides two lanes in each direction with left turn lanes as necessary, sidewalks, intersection improvements, traffic signals, utilities, lighting, and landscaping. Yes Short Term No Traffic shifted to new roadway August 12, 2013. Project Ongoing scheduled to be complete by mid -2014. Replace the existing bridge on 240th St SE in the North Creek Valley area. Yes No Project completed in February 2012. Complete Construct booster pump station modification equipped with increase capacity and backup pumping facilities. No Long Term No Ongoing ACT.A B -13 Page 385 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Reconstruct and widen SR 522 Wayne Curve; increase intersection capacity by adding left tum lanes; enhance transit operations by adding Business Access and Transit lanes; transit priority improvements; raised median; widen 96th approaches to extend northbound left turn lane; street lighting and reconstruction of traffic signals. Yes No Project completed in June 2012. Complete To construct the missing link of the north -south arterial corridor of the 35th/39th corridor between 240th Street SE and 228th St SE. No Long Term No No Progress Raze and rebuild entire firehouse and add training tower and ground props. Yes Short Term Yes Station was remodeled in 2009. No further action is to be Complete taken on this. Consolidate four critical facilities into one facility that enhances the ability to better service the general public and businesses within the community. Yes Long Term No Location was determined and properties were purchased. Ongoing Demolition of unneeded structures was completed September 2013. City Council is anticipated to make decision regarding construction schedule in first quarter 2014. Provide disaster preparedness and awareness education to the general public and businesses within the community Yes Long Term No This is an on -going project to continue to bring disaster Ongoing preparedness and awareness to the public. To provide funding for immediate action to address landslides, erosion, deterioration, vandalism and spot hazardous locations. No Long Term No Ongoing Provide funding for safety improvements to the infrastructure other than street overlays and replacement. Such projects include guardrails, signing, crosswalks, minor curb replacement, and handicapped (ADA) ramps Yes Long Term No Grants received in June 2012 for safety improvements - Ongoing 228th /Bothell- Everett Highway Intersection, 228th Corridor and citywide improvements. Projects are either under construction or in design phase and anticipated to be complete by 2015. This project will provide capacity and safety improvements and include roadway widening to a five -lane roadway with intermittent median landscaping, bicycle lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Yes Short Term No Grant funds were secured and construction is underway. Ongoing Project anticipated to be complete in summer 2014. Intersection improvements at SR 524 and widening the roadway in the southbound direction from two to three lanes from SR 524 to about 500 feet north of 220th St SE. No Long Term No No Progress Intended to address the safety and access concerns on SR 524 between SR 527 and 39th Ave SE. Access improvements will be limited to roadway widening to provide for left tum pockets and improve sight distances. No Long Term No No Progress ACT.A B -14 Page 386 of 869 ...APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status The Multiway Boulevard will consist of four travel lanes, a left tum lane, two side landscape medians, two side lanes with parking and a wide sidewalk. Yes Long Term No The City began Phase 1 (west side access lanes, etc.) of Ongoing construction in June 2013. Funding is still needed for remaining phases. Rehabilitate the existing bridge to eliminate its structural deficiency rating and to complete a seismic level 1 retrofit. The bridge is currently in need of miscellaneous structural repair, including resurfacing the bridge decking with concrete cement, upgrading the reinforced concrete girders, and installing vehicle railings. Yes No Complete Widening of the existing two -lane facility to a five -lane facility with bicycle lanes, sidewalks; reconstruct the existing 2 lane bridge over North Creek to a 5 lane bridge and reconstruct traffic signals. Yes No Complete Identify and address piping system networks and key infrastructure improvements regarding water and sewer service, distribution and conveyance. This project is to identify and address security and seismic improvements throughout the jurisdiction. Yes No Complete Water system piping improvements at source connection at south end of the City which is designed to include provide automatic connection with alternate water supply. Yes No Complete Construct a two- person remote aid station in the downtown area for the placement of Medics. No Yes This is no longer priority and will be removed from the No Progress initiatives. Redevelopment of well field for primary self - sustaining source water, and provide seismic upgrades to tank located at well -field site. No Yes Removed from Hazard Mitigation Plan No Progress Facility improvements for Public Works field operations department; improvements to include security measures for key equipment, supplies and personnel. Yes Short Term No Built a new Public Works Operations Center in 2010 No Progress www W ' u4 0 � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlliiiiiiiiiillIl p 1 w � � � lll w m '111 111 1 ,ill :fioug1111111111111100 Public education related to wide- spread utility outages Yes Short Term No Ongoing Public awareness campaign to encourage earthquake hazard mitigation actions Yes Short Term No Worked with local Home Depot, Lowes, and Costco to hold Complete presentations on home mitigation projects. Create SARA EPCRA Tier II HAZMAT Facilities map for use in Emergency Operations Center No Long Term No No Progress ACT.A B -15 Page 387 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Determine and complete retrofit plan to eliminate the potential of localized flooding related to 44th Avenue SW pond Yes Short Term No Project Completed Complete Site - hardening of all City facilities Yes Long Term No Continue to assess, identify, and correct areas of facilities Ongoing needing safety upgrades or hardening. Install GPS system to aid in resource allocation & tracking during an emergency event Yes Short Term No Identify City vehicles equipped with GPS and monitoring Complete system to ation documentation. impro ve r eal time infor mn „„ loon011 I 1 W ww WW 010111A1 1WWW l 2 o W 1 @goom Water system seismic retrofits Yes Short Tenn No Highwood reservoirs received retrofitting in 2011 and the Ongoing Cemetery reservoirs were retrofitted in 2012. Mt. Hood Pump Station seismic rebuild No Short Term Yes Water system priorities changed. Project remains in the No Progress Capital Facilities Plan with design scheduled for 2014 and construction in 2015. Flood warning gauge on Issaquah Creek north of Fifteen -Mile Creek Yes Short Term No Project completed by Public Works in October 2011. Complete Flood hazard repetitive loss mitigation Yes Short Term No Six single family homes elevated in 2011. Complete Promote CERT and Map Your Neighborhood programs Yes Long Term No City sponsors at least two CERT classes annually and offers Complete MYN facilitator training to CERT graduates and conducts ongoing MYN meetings. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111100000 00 1111 oon000000 bb allamooloosoo 1 moos 1000000111111111111110 6 1 WWI W ?1011111i0 ° . `~ � � u�WW a. � WWW W �� � "gym WWm Wimmm �� • . n 1 : W uN WWm Prioritize seismic retrofit for critical facilities to meet the most current standards for new buildings to the maximum extent possible No Long Tenn No No Progress Mitigate the non - structural impacts of an earthquake on City owned critical facilities. Yes Short Term No seismic mitigation to critical computer server room equipment Ongoing seismic mitigation of several city workspaces Use the Hazus computer modeling program to estimate loss No Long Term Yes Staffing changes have pushed this priority to a long term goal No Progress ACT.A B -16 Page 388 of 869 ...APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Improve alert and notification methods to the citizens of Kent by implementing a reverse 911 system. Yes Short Term Yes City of Kent and Kent Fire Department RFA now utilize Code Ongoing Red emergency notification system Enhance public notification system. Implement a public awareness campaign focused NOAA weather radios. Improve the existing Traffic Information System by increasing coverage area and adding alert beacons Yes Short Term No Kent Emergency Management continues to provide a public Ongoing education program that includes Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training Identify slope areas that threaten critical facilities due to lack of vegetation and erosion control. Prioritize and implement slope stabilization measures. No Long Term No No Progress Increase public education efforts toward preventing stovetop cooking fires the cause of most residential fires. Yes Short Term No (In partnership with Kent Fire Department) Kent Fire RFA Ongoing continues to provide public education programs that educate the public about kitchen fires. Pre - identify lahar evacuation routes Yes Short Term Yes Evacuation routes have been identified with an all hazard Ongoing approach including flooding and lahar. Identify reoccurring utility outage areas and work with utility providers to remove hazards along those areas. Yes Short Term No Continue to improve areas by removing threats to utilities Ongoing Make available back -up power sources to vulnerable populations. No Long Term No Grant funds would need to be obtained to complete this No Progress project. A grant source has not been identified. Construct a facility that would house a permanent Emergency Coordination Center. No Long Term No Funds have not been identified to complete this task. No Progress 11°11111 1111°°°°°°""" oms0o00000000000000000 ��Ipp ®Vii�����tn�0l1�l®Illll�uuuui 10001 II 1100000 I Incorporate Hazard Mitigation policies into City Comprehensive Plan Yes No Complete Develop /Maintain Watercourse CIP list Yes Long Term No Ongoing Rehabilitate damaged storm culverts Yes Long Term No Ongoing Large Ravine/Watercourse Projects Yes No Complete ACT.A B -17 Page 389 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Small Ravine/Watercourse Projects Yes Long Term No Ongoing Replace aging water mains Yes Long Term No Ongoing Sewer generator replacement program Yes Short Term No Ongoing Sewer rehab /replace Yes Long Term No Ongoing Emergency program Yes Long Term No Ongoing IT systems continuity Yes Long Term No Ongoing Firewise Yes Long Term No No Progress 01111111111111111111100po 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 „III 1111111 . 111111111 1,00101111111111111110 h I, S, 1 mu ° m WNmtnim 1 iiw wpm Encourage and facilitate the development or updating of general plans and zoning codes to limit development in hazard areas No progress reported. Enforce the building codes, the general plan and zoning ordinances of the City of Pacific, which will prevent or minimize damage to residential and commercial structures due to flooding events No progress reported. Evaluate protocols, purchase emergency containment supplies, invest in notification systems, and supply neighborhood groups with emergency training and equipment No progress reported. Inspect and retrofit the critical facilities of the City against failure from earthquake, snow and wind. Enforce the provisions of the latest edition of the Pacific building code for Pacific critical facilities, alterations and additions No progress reported. Improve capacity of arterial routes. This includes West valley highway, Butte Avenue, Valentine Avenue South, and Stewart Road No progress reported. Improve safety along arterial route of West Valley Highway No progress reported. Install berm using earthen materials along the eastern side of the Pacific City Park No progress reported. ACT.A B -18 Page 390 of 869 ...APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Work with external partners to identify dead or diseased trees for annual trimming or removal No progress reported. Contract to construct seismic upgrades to Pacific city hall, community center and police station No progress reported. Pop 111111111111111111, wwwww 111 uuuuuuumii����^ ^° mini umu ^, mmm „1.11 w It mm um 11 uuu Wmmm i� � mu ���m �� ®� � u� ®� ��u im �� mm Wi ®im WmWi �m m:� �mlm �i� � m��ll muw 1 To mitigate impacts involved with isolation following a severe hazard event, Redmond will develop outreach activities to enable Redmond residents, businesses and visitors to survive in -place for more than three days. Yes Long Term No Participated in a wide variety of preparedness fairs and gave Ongoing dozens of preparedness talks to the public, businesses and visitors throughout the whole community. Developed the Redmond Ready basic preparedness education class for City of Redmond employees and Redmond residents. Began delivering Redmond Ready classes in July 2012. Trained approximately 200 City of Redmond employees to make them Redmond Ready. Conducted several Redmond Ready Days to train the public in basic preparedness, First Aid, and CPR. Worked with Microsoft to develop the www.redmondready.org web portal, which promotes the program and which lives in the cloud and can be updated quickly by OEM staff during a disaster. Promoted the regional Make it Through preparedness campaign. Conducted Map Your Neighborhood classes. Conducted an average of three CERT classes every year. Partnered with the Redmond Citizens Corps Council and Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES) regarding community outreach. Worked with many partner agencies to develop a high - quality, low -cost emergency preparedness calendar for 2013 and 2014 that is a great year -round resource. To ensure provision of vital services following a hazard event, Redmond will develop alternative service centers in less hazardous areas. Yes Long Term No Fire Station 17 was built and went into service in March 2012. Ongoing The station is located on Education Hill, away from the liquefaction zone in downtown Redmond. Future development will concentrate in both the Downtown and Overlake Urban centers. Overlake is away from the liquefaction zone. ACT.A B -19 Page 391 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status To mitigate damage to vulnerable structures and infrastructure, Redmond will promote retrofitting with safe -to -fail mechanisms Yes Long Term No Emergency power generation was substantially upgraded at Ongoing the Public Works Maintenance and Operations Center and at the Redmond Municipal Campus. Redundant network infrastructure has been added. Water tanks on Education Hill were seismically retrofitted. Public Works is in the process of their Buildings Facilities Condition Assessment, the outcome of which will give the city a better handle on the condition of our assets and what may need to be implemented. The Public Works construction group is looking at bridge seismic retrofits (such as 148th). Our bridges are rated for safety based on King County's bridge inventory system. To mitigate against the loss of major transportation facilities in and around the City, Redmond will invest resources in building more resilient transportation networks. Yes Long Term No 1) Redmond is completing a grid network in both the Ongoing Downtown and Overlake Urban Centers where most of the growth will be occurring in the future, 2) All of our bridges are inspected regularly and the existing bridges meet reasonable earthquake standards with the exception of the 148th Bridge north of Redmond Way which has funding for a seismic retrofit. All the new bridges and bridge replacements are designed to current earthquake standards, 3) City is developing a complete multi -modal transportation system to provide travel choices including bringing light rail to Overlake in 2023 and eventually to downtown, 4) Redmond has a state of the art Traffic Operations Center that has cameras at key intersections to monitor and change parking signals remotely to respond to changing traffic conditions, and 5) Redmond's R -TRIP program offers infrastructure for ride matching, transit route information, and periodic communication and incentives to encourage individuals to explore ways of getting between home and work that don't rely on driving alone and support finding a potential carpool partner or bus route that could be used in the event of an emergency. This program has nearly 29,000 registered users among employees and residents in Redmond. Further, by contract with King County Metro, we provide these services in our community. ACT.A B -20 Page 392 of 869 ...APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status To mitigate against the functional loss of business communities, Redmond will develop and deliver business outreach programs. Yes Long Term No Police Department conducted Critical Incident Protocol (CIP) Ongoing outreach regarding crime prevention and man-made hazards. Emergency Management conducted many preparedness sessions at businesses, helping businesses prepare their employees. As part of the City's Economic Development initiatives, the City has developed close communications and relationships with businesses through its One Redmond partnership (which took the place of the former Greater Redmond Chamber of Commerce) and neighborhood level business outreach which could be deployed to assist outreach and communication about emergency planning and operations. Past outreach has included: winter time promotions via the www.GOrtrip.com to encourage winter emergency planning and partnering with the Greater Redmond Transportation Management Association in 2012 to bring in Ed Gabriel, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, US Heath and Services to raise awareness by businesses of all sizes about the need for emergency preparedness. To mitigate impacts from expected increases in incidences of shallow flooding, Redmond will build a flood tolerant community able to accommodate increases in low impact flooding Yes Long Term No Redmond does not allow development in the floodway and Ongoing has adopted regulations for developments outside of the floodway but within the floodplain. One of those regulations requires compensating floodplain storage for these developments so we don't reduce our floodplain capacity. Redmond completed a large trunk line (storm drainage line) in the BNSF railroad right of way that will carry the 50 year storm for much of downtown. Additionally, Redmond is constructing an enormous stormwater vault in Overlake behind Sears. The vault will reduce flow rates from about 345 ac. The vault is about 1.5 ac in area and 20 feet deep. Two additional vaults are proposed in Overlake in the future including one to be constructed with the light rail station. Both the trunkline in downtown and the Overlake vaults should greatly reduce the risk of flooding in Redmond's urban centers. uuuuuum11111111� 000uuuuulllllllll p I WR � �W�UIIIIIIIIINNNNiiiiii NN _ pppPUUUUUUHNNn ^ °° � ® al � L WW L 1,, Establish a formal role for the Renton All Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (Emergency Management Group) to develop a sustainable process to encourage, implement, monitor, and evaluate citywide mitigation actions. Yes Short Term No EM is now represented in citywide planning efforts Complete ACT.A B -21 Page 393 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Identify and pursue funding opportunities to implement mitigation actions. Yes Short Term No Preparing to apply for 2014 bridge retrofit funding. Funding Ongoing already secured for downtown library retrofit project. Develop public and private sector partnerships to foster hazard mitigation activities. Yes Short Term No Have increased awareness through public education activities, Ongoing COAD outreach, CERT, and Citizen's Academy Develop detailed inventories of at -risk buildings and infrastructure and prioritize mitigation actions Yes Short Term No Inventory of buildings and roads/bridges complete for Ongoing seismic. Need to add in other hazards and then prioritize. IT has inventory of all technology equipment and services, prioritized on basis of business need and greatest benefit. Recommend moving this project to Long Term. Develop education programs aimed at mitigating the risk posed by hazards Yes Long Term No Implemented education activities related to cyber - crime, Complete vandalism. Have incorporated mitigation component directly into other public education programs including staff education for cybersecurity. Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning and regulatory documents and programs. Yes Long Term No Case -by -case basis during project review; and integrated as Ongoing appropriate during updates of the Critical Areas Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Elements. Integrate hazard, vulnerability and risk Mitigation Plan findings into enhanced Emergency Operations planning. Yes Long Term No Implemented seismic fastening project at EOC and all fire Complete stations Complete an inventory of structures, critical facilities and important transportation or utility system components within mapped floodplains, including elevation data and structure /facility information. Yes Short Term No Updated GIS layers to incorporate FEMA floodplain map Ongoing information to allow it to be overlaid onto utility, transportation, building, aerial and topography layers to identify critical facilities in the floodplain. Identify and implement cost - effective mitigation measures for high -risk structures, with the highest priority for critical facilities, transportation and utility components. Yes Long Term Yes Duplicates other more specific projects in plans that are Ongoing included under this umbrella. Recommend removal of project and focus on more specifics. Identify and implement measures and policies to increase Renton's Community Rating System score to reduce flood insurance rates. Yes Long Term No Updated City Surface Water Design Standards GIS floodplain Ongoing layers to increase potential for a better CRS rating. ACT.A 8 -22 Page 394 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Continue to be a member of the National Flood Insurance Program to enable property owners in Renton to purchase flood insurance from FEMA and allow the City to receive flood disaster funding to repair damages due to flooding following a federally declared disaster. Yes Long Term No Continuing to implement NFIP requirements and programs Ongoing necessary to maintain eligibility. Successfully completed a Community Assistance Visit from FEMA in 2010 and 2012 that verified City is complying with NFIP requirements and is an eligible member of the NFIP. Continue to require new construction of structures in the floodplain to be constructed in accordance with FEMA standards and the National Flood Insurance Program requirements, including requiring compensatory floodplain storage for filling of the floodplain. Yes Long Term No Evaluate permits on a case -by -case basis, and report annually Ongoing to FEMA. Work that has begun on revisions to the Critical Areas Regulations (to be completed in 2015) may result in some changes in code. Implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures identified in the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program as required by FEMA. Yes Long Term No Renton currently complies with the RPA by subscribing to Ongoing Option 3, the permit -by- permit approach. A Critical Areas study or Biological Assessment is required. An update of the Critical Areas Ordinance (by 2015) will meet or exceed the RPA performance standards (Option 2). Continue to enforce, maintain and update the Renton Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Program requirements. Yes Long Term No Renton is in the process of updating the Critical Areas Ongoing Regulations. An update of the Shoreline Master Program was completed and adopted on November 3, 2011. Continue to perform maintenance dredging, maintenance of floodwalls and levees associated with the Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. Yes Long Term No Continued to implement sediment levels to determine need for Ongoing next maintenance dredge. In 2013 initiated planning, design, and permitting work for the next maintenance dredge. Currently working with consultants and agencies to review the proposed dredging of the Cedar River, and to process necessary land use and environmental (SEPA) permits. ACT.A 8 -23 Page 395 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Continue to implement the Surface Water Utility programs related to flood hazard management, which include the Capital Improvement Program, engineering program, maintenance and operations program, public education and customer service programs. Yes Long Term No Water Utility to review projects for compliance with storm Ongoing water regulations. Public Works is also taking over maintenance of stormwater ponds and vaults in residential projects (formerly the responsibility of the HomeOwners Associations). Continuing to fund and implement all Surface Water Utility programs. 2013 Surface Water Utility CIP budget is $10 million. Adopt storm water design standards equivalent to the Ecology 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington to better control the quantity and quality of storm water runoff from new construction and redevelopment projects and meet the requirement of the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Yes Long Term No Have adopted local updates to the King County Surface Water Complete Design Manual. Also completed update of City Surface Water Design Standards to meet Ecology NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements on February 10, 2010. Next update must be completed by or before December 31, 2016. Integrate flood hazard reduction with other objectives related to water quality protection, habitat protection and habitat restoration efforts including complying with the Clean Water Act Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the Endangered Species Act and the regional salmon recovery efforts. Yes Long Term Yes Vague language, already covered in other areas, including Ongoing compliance with ecological mandates. Recommend removal of this project. Continue to be consistent with the King County Flood Hazard Reduction Plan. Yes Long Term No Continuing to work with the King County Flood Control Ongoing District to implement regional flood hazard reduction projects, programs and policies. Continue to participate in the King County Flood Warning System and the King County Flood Control Zone District Yes Long Term No Continue to utilize the King County Flood Warning System Ongoing for response to flooding due to storms. Attend annual pre - flood season Flood Warning coordination meetings. Continue to be a member of the FEMA Community Rating System that enables property owners to obtain flood insurance at a reduced rate Yes Long Term No Continuing membership in the FEMA CRS program. Current Ongoing rating is 6. CRS Re- verification review schedule for November 7, 2013. ACT.A 8 -24 Page 396 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Re- evaluate future land use and zoning designations in FEMA mapped 100 -year floodplain areas No Long Term No The Comprehensive Plan Update and Critical Areas No Progress Ordinance update may involve the re- evaluation of land uses and zoning designations in the FEMA mapped 100 -year floodplain areas. Complete an inventory of structures, critical facilities and important transportation or utility system components in locations with a history of severe or repetitive flooding. Yes Short Term No Updated GIS layers to incorporate FEMA floodplain map Ongoing information to allow it to be overlaid onto Utility, Transportation, building, aerial and topography layers to identify critical facilities in the floodplain. Evaluate and improve notification, evacuation and response planning for areas within the potential inundation area for failure of the Hanson Dam. Yes Short Term No Completed in 2011 after 2 years of operational planning Complete across multiple departments and jurisdictions. For locations with repetitive flooding and significant damages or road closures, determine and implement mitigation measures such as upsizing culverts or storm water drainage capacity. Yes Long Term No Existing flooding problems and projects to solve them are Ongoing identified in the Surface Water Utility CIP and that is updated as part of the City budget process. Maintain copies of high - resolution maps of dam failure inundation areas and update emergency response plan, including public notification and evacuation routes. Yes Short Term No Complete pending the map revisions of evacuation routes that Ongoing were modified slightly in 2012. Research seismic vulnerability assessments for Howard Hanson Dam and Chester Morse Dam and lobby dam owners to make seismic improvements as necessary. No Short Term Yes Outside of staff's ability to influence the projects. No Progress Recommend removal. Enhance tree- trimming efforts especially for transmission lines and trunk distribution lines. No Short Term Yes Tree trimming activity around power lines is done by certified No Progress persons. Staff work with PSE on their plans for large -scale projects, including tree removal per their recommendation, not tree trimming as specified in this project. Recommend removal of the project from the plan. Encourage property owners to trim trees near service drops to individual customers. No Short Term Yes Outside of the city's area of responsibility, belonging to Puget No Progress Sound Energy instead. Recommend removal of project. ACT.A 8 -25 Page 397 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Ensure that all critical City facilities in Renton have sufficient backup power and emergency operations plans to deal with power outages Yes Long Term Yes Added generator transfer switch to Renton Community Complete Center. Recommend removal of project, however, for two reasons: 1) generators are not a true mitigation project, and 2) remaining locations are not feasible for generator placement Consider upgrading lines and poles to improve wind /ice loading, undergrounding critical lines, and adding interconnect switches to allow alternative feed paths and disconnect switches to minimize outage areas. No Long Term Yes Outside of the city's area of responsibility, belonging to Puget No Progress Sound Energy. Recommend removal of project from the plan. Encourage new developments to include underground power lines. Yes Long Term No Implemented on a project -by- project basis. Required by Ongoing RMC, however, waiver of this requirement is still possible on a case -by -case basis. Evaluate the seismic vulnerability of critical city -owned buildings, utilities and infrastructure and establish priorities to retrofit or replace vulnerable facilities to ensure adequate seismic performance of critical facilities. Yes Short Term No Engineering studies were conducted on the 200 Mill building Ongoing in 2012. Other buildings have been evaluated. Bridges are evaluated every two years. Recommend moving this to a long- term project as it is taking more time and budget than initially anticipated. Conduct a sidewalk survey of residential, commercial and industrial buildings in Renton using FEMA's Rapid Visual Screening to identify especially vulnerable buildings, raise awareness and encourage mitigation actions. No Short Term Yes No available staff to carry out this work. Recommend No Progress removing it as a short term project and turning it into a long term project should staffing levels increase, or delete it altogether. Disseminate FEMA pamphlets to educate homeowners about structural and non - structural retrofitting of vulnerable homes and encourage retrofit. Yes Short Term No Pamphlets are available either on -line or in the Customer Ongoing Service Area at City Hall, or upon request from Emergency Management. Obtain funding and retrofit important public facilities with significant seismic vulnerabilities. Yes Long Term No Fire Station 11 seismic retrofit completed in December 2009. Ongoing Contracted with District 40 and provided seismic retrofit to Fire Station 17 in early 2013. Seismic retrofit of downtown Renton library scheduled for 2014. Complete the inventory of locations where buildings or infrastructure are subject to landslides. Yes Short Term No GIS data updates clearly show landslide areas overlaid with Complete critical infrastructure and buildings. ACT.A 8 -26 Page 398 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Consider landslide mitigation actions for slides seriously threatening buildings or infrastructure. No Long Term Yes No currently identified building or infrastructure threats. No Progress Recommend removal of this project. Limit future development in high landslide potential areas. Yes Long Term No Existing code prohibits or limits development in high Ongoing landslide areas, and requires geotechnical studies and specific construction techniques in order to develop structures. The CAO update will also revisit these regulations. Update public emergency notification procedures for ash fall events. Yes Short Term Yes Public emergency notification procedures have been updated Complete to include placement in 2011 of weather proof bulletin boards at each Renton School District school and the Golf Course should conventional communications fail. Update emergency response planning for ash fall events. No Long Term No Response oriented, not a true mitigation project. Recommend No Progress removing this project. Evaluate capability of water treatment plant to deal with high turbidity from ash falls and upgrade treatment facilities and emergency response plans to deal with ash falls. No Short Term Yes Outside of the city's area of responsibility, belonging to No Progress METRO instead. Furthermore, city water supply comes from groundwater well system, which is not effected by volcanic ash fallout. Treatment processes are covered. Recommend removal of this project as not applicable. Require geological or geotechnical engineering studies before permitting new construction in identified coal mine hazard areas. Yes Long Term No Studies are required at the time of land use permits and/or Complete environmental review. Ensure that first responders have readily available site - specific knowledge of hazardous chemical inventories in Renton. Yes Short Term Yes Completed annually. Recommend removal of project for two Complete reasons: 1) Response oriented, so not a true mitigation project, and 2) completed annually already as part of professional standards and mandates. Enhance emergency planning, emergency response training and equipment to address hazardous materials incidents. Yes Short Term Yes Completed annually. Recommend removal of project for two Complete reasons: 1) Response oriented, so not a true mitigation project, and 2) completed annually already as part of professional standards and mandates. ACT.A 8 -27 Page 399 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Enhance emergency planning, emergency response training and equipment to address potential incidents of terrorism. Yes Long Term Yes Completed annually. Recommend removal of project for two Complete reasons: 1) Response oriented, so not a true mitigation project, and 2) completed annually already as part of professional standards and mandates. Upgrade physical security detection and response capability for critical facilities, including water system. Yes Long Term Yes Updated security and remote telemetry systems are in place Complete for water system. Intrusion detection already present at other critical city facilities, updated in 2012. Additional physical security detection is not deemed necessary based on current risk assessment. Recommend removal of this project. Evaluate and implement hardening measures for highly vulnerable critical facilities. Yes Long Term Yes Upon reevaluation of risk, there are no physical facilities Complete owned by Renton that have not already been hardened against potential terrorism to the degree that is feasible. IT system policies already improve security against cyber - attack through password hardening, SPAM filtering, virus protection and limiting internal network to the internet, and are ongoing by city policy. Recommend removal of this project. Identify and establish secure surveillance cameras and monitoring at all critical infrastructure. Yes Long Term Yes Cameras installed at police entrance to City Hall, Liberty Complete Park, the bus mall, and other locations. Based on current risk assessment, further installations are not necessary to augment existing intrusion detection systems, and not feasible since no staff are available to monitor. Recommend removal of project. Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives detection and security devices /elements integrated at critical city infrastructure. No Long Term Yes Not feasible or appropriate based on current risk assessment No Progress by police. Recommend removal of project. 011111111011111 Pon 1,0001111111111110 Ir 011 0111100000d WW W �1 WW W� W WuNW i 0 �i W Vw® �1 R � WW V WW iW A ®Li, W, ' -WSW � W ',Iv ,1 w L 1„ Target higher risk neighborhoods for specific risk reduction measures Yes Long Term No Targeted 7 Neighborhood Associations is complete and will Complete continue as an on -going focus due to their vulnerabilities. Continue and expand the delivery of risk reduction outreach programs by City & Fire staff, to general populations of households and businesses Yes Long Term No City and Fire trained a cadre of staff in ATC 20, 21, and 54. Complete These staff members are now used to assist in Public Education of households and businesses. ACT.A 8 -28 Page 400 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Increase GIS capability through partnering with fire department Yes Short Term No GIS capability built and now is an on -going maintenance to Complete the data base that was developed. The City and Fire Department will participate in the planning /assessment activities of utility service providers Yes Long Term No During this 5 year period all of our Franchise agreements with Complete Utility providers were negotiated and now have stronger language about how identified risks are being addressed. Establish safe places of refuge within walking distance of residents Yes Long Term No All schools, community centers and many of the Faith Based Complete organizations have been inventoried and have been mapped as possible places of refuge during a disaster. Develop and deliver business outreach program Yes Long Term No We have delivered many Business outreach programs to our Complete business community, to include a 4 hour workshop on Business Continuity Planning. We will continue to do so as part of as our Pub Ed outreach program. Retrofit or replace vulnerable city owned facilities and infrastructure Yes Long Term No We did complete the replacement of the identified bridge to Ongoing an isolate community. We did sign a mutual aid agreement with the Fire District to use Fire Facilities if we were to lose to use of the non - retrofitted Police Station. We did close the two Police Store Front facilities that were located in leased non - retrofitted buildings. We did explore the grant funding for replacement of the current police facility - that is in a non- retrofitted structure. We were not eligible for grant funds. The City is in the process of trying to decide how best to fund a new facility for the police department or move them into the City Hall, which was built in 2010. While City Hall was not built to a critical facility standard, there may be away to retrofit some of it to allow for the police to move into a newer facility that is better prepared to withstand a catastrophic earthquake than its current one. It is very expensive to build a police facility and currently the city financial outlook doesn't appear to have the capability of building a new facility in the foreseeable future. Reduce flood damage within Ronald Bog community Yes Short Term No Flood mitigation project completed - reduced flooding in the Complete impact area. ACT.A 8 -29 Page 401 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Chan_ed? Comment (Describe fro tress or chan_ed priori ) Status 111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111 11111 11111111111111111111111111111111111 gooloomp 0011111111111111 mi �w�ww WI wmm Wmm �m� doom It IJ m011 i w 41 ,L1 Ali � m�� muw ww WW ®iw S -1 Develop a post - disaster action plan for all hazard of concern that address: debris management, historical data gathering, substantial damage assessment, and grants management. This plan would be an appendix to the City's Emergency management plan. No progress reported. S-2—Adopt the updated City of Snoqualmie Hazard Mitigation Plan as an element of the City Comprehensive plan to assure linkage between the 2 documents No progress reported. S- 3— Continue to acquire FEMA elevation certificates for all structures within the mapped floodplain for which the city does not currently have one. No progress reported. S- 4— Continue to pursue feasible, cost effective, home elevation projects, targeting identified repetitive loss or frequently flooded properties within the Snoqualmie floodplain. No progress reported. S -5— Consider the adoption of a "split -flow" floodway as an alternative to the regulatory floodway in effect for the City. No progress reported. S -6 —Re -map the City of Snoqualmie floodplain utilizing best available data and generating a mapped based product that will actively support hazard mitigation and land use decision making within the City No progress reported. S- 7— Consider amending the City's flood damage prevention ordinance to add language that will track substantial improvements and damages cumulatively, to leverage Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) opportunities for flood insurance policy holders. No progress reported. S -8— Considered adopting a higher regulatory freeboard standard above the current 1 -foot standard. No progress reported. S- 9— Maintain Snoqualmie's compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program No progress reported. S -10— Continue to maintain or enhance the City's classification under the Community Rating System No progress reported. S-11—Adopt the City of Snoqualmie Stormwater Management plan. No progress reported. S -12 —Continue to pursue feasible, cost - effective property acquisition opportunities along the Snoqualmie River front No progress reported. ACT.A B -30 Page 402 of 869 ...APPENDIX B. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status S -13— Consider regulatory prohibition on the use of wood (cedar) shingle roof covering or siding in urban- wildland interface areas, or areas deemed susceptible to wildfire exposure No progress reported. S- 14—Consider an increase in the building setback/spacing requirement for new construction in areas deemed susceptible to wildfire exposure No progress reported. S -15 —Join Firewise program by adopting Firewise programs and policies in the management of the urban/wildland interface areas within Snoqualmie No progress reported. S -16— Consider planting standards in Wildland buffer areas to use only loose branching habits, non - resinous woody material, high moisture content leaves and limited seasonal dead debris and other varieties that possess fire resistive traits. No progress reported. S-17—Develop a public outreach program teaming with home improvement vendors educating the public on ways to protect their property form the potential impacts of all hazards of concern. No progress reported. S -18— Consider building code amendments that would harden new and existing structures from the potential impacts of earthquakes No progress reported. S -19— Conduct seismic vulnerability study of critical facilities identified by City emergency managers. No progress reported. S -20— Promote the structural and non - structural seismic retrofit of structures built before 1974 by a targeted outreach to the property owners of these structures. No progress reported. S -21— Continue and /or enhance where feasible, the city's ongoing drainage system maintenance program to reduce or minimize the impacts from stormwater flooding within the City. No progress reported. S -22 —The City of Snoqualmie's North Well Field well # 6, 7 and 8 currently lack permanent back -up generation. A permanent standby generator needs to be installed to provide continuous service at this critical water service delivery facility No progress reported. S -23 —The Fisher Creek Booster Station currently lacks back up generation. A permanent standby generator needs to be installed to provide continuous service at this critical water service delivery facility. This site has space inside the building designed for a Generator. No progress reported. ACT.A B -31 Page 403 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status S-24—To alleviate stormwater flooding problems along Railroad Avenue SE between SE Fir Street and SE King Street: Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along Railroad Avenue SE from SE King Street to SE Fir Street. Connect to existing outfall to Snoqualmie River. Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline between Railroad Avenue SE and the Snoqualmie River. No progress reported. S -25— Address stormwater flooding problems due to undersized storm drain system in vicinity of Doone Avenue SE and SE Newton Street. • Replace existing storm drain pipeline on Doone Avenue SE with new 12- and 24 -inch diameter pipeline. Connect to existing ditch at south end of Doone Avenue SE. • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Newton from Olmstead Place SE to Doone Avenue SE. • Connect to new storm drain at Doone Avenue SE. • Improve existing ditch for conveyance and water quality treatment No progress reported. S- 26— Address stormwater flooding problems due to lack of storm drain system on Railroad Avenue SE between SE Delta Street and SE 90th. Install new 18 -inch diameter storm drain pipeline along Railroad Avenue SE from SE Delta Street to SE 90th Street. Connect to existing storm drain system at SE 90th Street. No progress reported. S-27—Address stormwater flooding problems due to lack of storm drain system on SE Northern Street and Railroad Place SE. Ponding on 38200 block of SE Northern Street and east side of Railroad Avenue SE for extended periods during heavy rain events. Obstruction in the existing storm drain system on west side of Railroad Place SE is blocked due to a pipe failure or and obstruction in the pipeline. No progress reported. S- 28— Address stormwater flooding problems due to lack of storm drain system on 384th Avenue SE between SE River Street and SE Newton Street and an undersized storm drain system between SE Newton Street and outfall to wetland. No progress reported. S- 29— Address stormwater flooding problems due to lack of storm drain system on SE Alder Street, SE Hemlock Street, SE Spruce Street and SE Walnut Street. • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Alder Street. Connect to existing storm drain at Meadowbrook Way SE. • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Hemlock Street. Connect to existing storm drain at Meadowbrook Way SE. • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Spruce Street. Connect to existing storm drain at Meadowbrook Way SE. • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Walnut Street. Connect to existing storm drain at Meadowbrook Way SE. No progress reported. S- 30— Address stormwater flood problems due to lack of drainage conveyance system on SE Maple Street and Maple Avenue SE. • Install new 18 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Maple Street from Maple Avenue SE to Johnson Slough. Install new water quality treatment facility. • Install new 18 -inch diameter pipeline along Maple Avenue SE from 7900 block to SE Maple Street. Connect to new pipeline at SE Maple Street. ACT.A 8 -32 Page 404 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status No progress reported. S-31—Address stormwater flood problems due to lack of drainage conveyance system on SE Beta Street, SE Delta Street, SE Epsilon Street, and Falls Avenue SE. • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Beta Street from Euclid Avenue SE to Schusman Avenue SE. Connect to existing storm drain at Schusman Avenue SE. • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Delta Street from Falls Avenue SE to Schusman Avenue SE. Connect to existing storm drain at SE Schuman Avenue Street • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along SE Epsilon Place. Connect to existing storm drain at Schusman Avenue SE. • Install new 12 -inch diameter pipeline along Falls Avenue SE. connect to new pipeline at SE Epsilon Place. No progress reported. S-32—Address stormwater flood problems due to lack of drainage conveyance system in vicinity of SE Cedar Street, SE Fir Street, Pine Avenue SE and SE 80th Street • Install new 18- diameter pipeline at Pickering Court SE. Outfall to wetland area. • Install new 12- diameter pipeline at SE Fir Street at SE Cedar Street. Connect to new storm drain at Pickering Court SE. • Install new 12- diameter pipeline at Pine Avenue SE. Connect to new storm drain at Pickering Court SE. • Install new 12- diameter pipeline at SE 80th Street. Connect to new storm drain at Pickering Court SE. No progress reported. S- 33— Promote realignment and increase inspections along State Route 202 within the City north of Snoqualmie Falls to reduce risk from landslides that in the past have resulted in significant economic losses to tourism. Work with Washington Department of Transportation to identify areas along State Route 202. Seek ways to improve slope stability and /or seek funding to plan for and repair future slope failures to reduce the potential for repetitive losses. And to provide for additional Citizen access No progress reported. S-34—Develop a public outreach strategy that maximizes the City's capabilities through its ongoing programs that provide multiple messages that support all phases of emergency management No progress reported. S -35— Conduct a vulnerability assessment of water and wastewater utilities for exposure to all identified hazards of concern. No progress reported. S- 36— Review utility designs and standards for safety and competence under natural and human caused disasters. No progress reported. S-37—Participate in the Basin Technical Committee process of the King County Flood Control District to leverage resources for flood hazard mitigation. No progress reported. S- 38—Continue to participate /support the King County Public Outreach Strategy developed to coordinate countywide outreach programs credited under the Community Rating System. No progress reported. ACT.A 8 -33 Page 405 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status S -39— Implement Sandy Cove high bank feasibility study to identify bank stabilization alternatives for of the king Street lot, immediately adjacent to Sandy cove Park No progress reported. S -40— Seek funding for the placement of a new stream flow gauge at the City of Snoqualmie above the falls that will accurately depict in channel flows at the City during high water events. No progress reported. S -41— Replace two small bridges that have rotting wood pilings and abutments. These facilities were damaged by the Nisqually earthquake that required repair by King County bridge crews. Recent bridge inspection records indicate repair would be as costly as complete reconstruction. No progress reported. �� WWW r , mu Illm11 �m �i 4� �m� 1mW� ANN �aa 0 1 1'1 �_.m�m ��mW m���im��'11111,J11 Construct a new City Emergency Operations Center facility to support emergency response and recovery coordination Yes Long Term Yes Part of 2014 City Facilities Plan Ongoing Construct new City maintenance and operations center to support critical City functions including fleet services, facilities maintenance, water, sewer, surface water, streets and traffic control operations Yes Long Term Yes Part of 2014 City Facilities Plan Ongoing Replace the existing Boeing Access Road bridge with a 340' long concrete or steel bridge structure. Bridge will be 110' wide curb to curb with sidewalks on both sides Yes Short Term Yes Design to be completed in 2014 and 2015 construction Ongoing Construct a concrete containment wall (4' high by 275' long) along the west side of Interurban Avenue South Yes hortI Design completed in 2013 and 2014 construction Ongoing YWs 11111111111101101111111111111111111111111111101,1111 p�ryHi � � 0� --- 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 III 000001 I 11 0 111 * *I �Term *�® W 0 W � m1 �"i � m � � I � � mW m m m � , ' ,. �W ® W d mwmm ell 1 . WW W : 4 W .II WV - 01- MH -SSIWNT�W — Evaluate O ld Woodinv ille School House for reconstruction and /or replacement. Foll ow up with appropriate replacement or repair /retrofit activities. Yes Short Term No Actively studying costs of rehabilitation for possible voter- Ongoing approved bond measure in April 2014. WV- 02- MH -ST— Install emergency generator at Carol Edwards Center, Building D. (The Carol Edwards Center is designated and used as an emergency shelter as needed and appropriate.) No Long Term Yes In light of the closure of Woodinville's Parks and Recreation No Progress Department and recent ADA rulings related to emergency shelters, the City does not view this shelter as a primary shelter and has removed this project from its 6 -Year Capital Improvement Plan. WV- 03- MH -ST— SR 202 Retaining Wall Repair. Yes Short Term No Project completed in 2010. Complete ACT.A 8 -34 Page 406 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status WV- 04- MH -ST— 171st Street Slide Repair Yes Short Term No Project completed in 2010. Complete WV- 05- MH -ST— Enforce code requiring electrical utilities to use underground construction methods where possible to reduce power outages and minimize potential for injuries from downed lines. Yes Long Term No City Council passed Ordinance No. 517 in 2010 requiring new Complete development and redevelopment to underground utilities. WV- 06- MH -LT— Sammamish Bridge Replacement. As a primary arterial, this is a key route for emergency vehicles and public safety. Yes Short Term Yes Project currently at 60% design; working on property Ongoing acquisition matters related to the project; construction tentatively scheduled for summer 2014. WV- 07 -E -ST— Conduct non - structural retrofit activities. No Long Term No No Progress WV- 08 -F -ST— 171st Storm Drain Installation. Reduce urban flooding by installing 3,000 linear feet of piped drainage system. No Long Term Yes New development along 171st Ave NE will begin construction Ongoing in 2014 and will include adjustments to Woodin Creek and adjacent roadway, which will help to eliminate urban flooding. WV- 09- F- ST —BNRP Outfall Yes Short Term No Project completed in 2010. Complete WV- 10 -F -ST— Surface Water Master Plan Yes Short Term No Plan adopted in 2010. Complete WV- 11 -F -LT— Little Bear Creek 134th Culvert. Replace existing culverts. No Long Term No Have discussed the project with various stakeholders, No Progress including Adopt -A- Stream Foundation, FEMA, and affected property owners. Have not been able to resolve technical and property acquisition challenges at this time. WV- 12 -F -LT— Woodin Creek Surface Water Improvement. Sediment from bank erosion and creek bed scour has accumulated in various areas in the Woodin Creek channel along NE 171st Street, resulting in decreased flow capacity in Woodin Creek and has caused road and private property flooding. This project will also lessen impacts on fish. No Long Term Yes New development along NE 171st Ave will begin construction Ongoing in 2014 and will include adjustments to Woodin Creek and adjacent roadway, which will help to eliminate urban flooding. WV- 13 -F -LT— 195th Culvert Enhancement. No Long Term No No Progress ACT.A 8 -35 Page 407 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Taken? uI II II II II II I NI N Nlllllllllllllllllo uuuum0" " Priority Timeline Chanted? Comment (Describe .rotress or chanted .riori ) Status 11W;M mu 11 ViV ww mflMlm m� u� ivi ; wNm Install seismic retrofits to Tank 4 Yes Short Term No Seismic evaluation has been completed. Retrofit in 2014. Ongoing Conduct seismic evaluation study and install seismic retrofit to Tank 2B Yes Short Term No Tank has been seismically retrofitted. Complete Conduct seismic evaluation study and install seismic retrofit to Tank 2A Yes Short Term No Tank was demolished instead of retrofitted. Complete Conduct seismic evaluation study and install seismic retrofit to Tank 3 Yes Short Term No Seismic evaluation is completed. Retrofit in 2014. Ongoing Conduct seismic evaluation study and install seismic retrofit to Tank 1B Yes Short Term No Seismic evaluation and retrofit will be completed in 2015. Ongoing Conduct seismic evaluation study and install seismic retrofit to Tank lA Yes Short Term No Seismic evaluation and retrofit will be completed in 2015. Ongoing Relocation and anchoring of approximately 2000 feet of 8 inch water main at the Soos Creek crossing Yes Long Term No No progress to date. No progress uuuuuum uu 111111111111111111111111111111 z pppuu no �iW WWWi,d W011nllluA llltW 131'[OW Install seismic activated control valves at the Crestview and Mansion Hill Reservoir sites. Yes Short Term No Seismic control valves have been installed. Complete Replace the current disinfection process and equipment from gaseous chlorine to onsite sodium hypochlorite generation at the Tyee, Angle Lake and Des Moines Treatment Plants. Yes Short Term No Design completed. Project construction scheduled for 2014. Ongoing Install backup power generator and appurtenances at the Des Moines Treatment Plant. No Short Term No Project budgeted for 2016. Ongoing uuuum 1.1uuuullllllllllll WflliW ul�_ �iuiw�wi muw u�u�i W u"mi ,Wf' Will WU�W�IuI "�WWBWi .1111 III Wm mn W���iiW.w�W� if0000 H0000011 al I Develop training for community emergency responders such as fire and rescue improving understanding of proper fire hydrant operation and protecting the system from transients. Yes Short Term No Forwarded M &H Fire Hydrant Co. publication A -4.11. Ongoing Install emergency generators in additional designated District -owned critical facilities Yes Long Term No Added generators to 5 -year capital plan. Ongoing Develop additional source(s) of water to provide backup supplies Yes Long Term No To date added one source, adding seconds in 2013. Ongoing ACT.A 8 -36 Page 408 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Taken? Timeline 1,000 uuuulllllllll Priority up um 0 C' m h an s m a _i� e, dmm ? i1 Con-anent (De scVN m r Ul�mi b e W ro �� � WPI ry�p II i W s o r ch' uuuuuu a ini _m e d •�' r�m io r i W��m Wm WW vlWm mm „ W, p OiVV�u�r lm Status Site Evaluation Tank/Reservoir Site Yes Short Term No The District completed a seismic analysis of the 2 million Ongoing gallon reservoir. There are other facilities on this site that still need to be evaluated including two buildings, two reservoirs and one wall. Seismic Evaluation: District Office No Short Tenn No No Progress Water Main Replacement: Facility #48 No Long Tenn No No Progress Water Main Replacement: Facility #28 No Long Tenn No No Progress Water Main Replacement: Facility #51 No Long Tenn No No Progress Water Main Replacement: Facility #26 No Long Tenn No No Progress Water Main Replacement: Facility #45 No Long Tenn No No Progress Water Main Replacement: Facility #32 No Long Tenn No No Progress Water Main Replacement: Facility #46 No Long Tenn No No Progress Water Main Replacement: Facility #38 No Long Tenn No No Progress 0 � �uuuuuulllllll1111 1111111 1111111111111111111111111111 Iluun ?oil" uu umw��v"l, mwm m�u� ul�� ummm ul�� iuiui m� maul 10,u 11,u ,almmm mmm 110 qua uaap ��a w iw ;,Riuii'Imi mi W mm UiOi mwim �� Wolin m�W ul�Ulm "mWWmi Redundant repeater installation Yes Short Tenn No Completed Complete uuuuullllllllll 1111 IIIIII ul, lmAm, mm im "01III �m �Iu�Apu hnNll�i m m��u,mm mm Wmm �, ®,m um ill „I m„ �m Portable Generator Receptacle Retrofit Pump Station #2 No Short Tenn Yes Complete Portable Generator Receptacle Retrofit Pump Station #1 No Short Tenn No No Progress ACT.A 8 -37 Page 409 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status Permanent Generator Pump Station #2 No Long Tenn No No Progress Permanent Generator Pump Station #1 No Long Tenn No No Progress Lift Station Retrofit: Lift Station #14 Yes Long Tenn No Complete Lift Station Retrofit: Lift Station #12 Yes Long Tenn No Complete North Force Main: Lift Station #5B No Long Tenn No Ongoing 00000000000000000 1111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 un p ��� IIIIIVI w' "�i �� mmm Nm mWI�oWW"i�mmW' "i mm m ®� mmm mA�m ®iu�im �m� 0m i l W"' 001 IIIIIi Wmlr,in�W Im ml Salmon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant landslide mitigation project No progress reported. Seismic feasibility study of wastewater treatment plant and collection system No progress reported. Implement projects recommended by feasibility study No progress reported. Continuity of operations plan No progress reported. Emergency fuel storage tanks No progress reported. liuu° " Ilhn�00�lllllllllll� �� 1 „., mm 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111101111111111111111f1111110000000o1111111111 ilj 1I .111111111111111111111 mW" °i "' Rmi • INN' Ii;INMMuu °uN um mmm Target higher risk neighborhoods for specific risk reduction measures Yes Long Term No Targeted 7 Neighborhood Associations is complete and will Complete continue as an on -going focus due to their vulnerabilities. Continue and expand the delivery of risk reduction outreach programs by City & Fire staff, to general populations of households and businesses. Yes Long Term No City and Fire trained a cadre of staff in ATC 20, 21, and 54. Complete These staff members are now used to assist in Public Education of households and businesses. Increase GIS capability through partnering with Fire Department Yes Short Term No GIS capability built and now is an on -going maintenance to Complete the data base that was developed. ACT.A 8 -38 Page 410 of 869 ...APPENDIX 8. 5 -YEAR PROGRESS REPORT ON PREVIOUS PLANS TABLE 3. CURRENT PROGRESS ON ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES Action Priority Taken? Timeline Changed? Comment (Describe progress or changed priority) Status The City and Fire Department will participate in the planning /assessment activities of utility service providers Yes Long Term No During this 5 year period all of our Franchise agreements with Complete Utility providers were negotiated and now have stronger language about how identified risks are being addressed. Establish safe places of refuge within walking distance of residents Yes Long Term No All schools, community centers and many of the Faith Based Complete organizations have been inventoried and have been mapped as possible places of refuge during a disaster. II h4 MI hhhll 111111 M M M NmmMtltlY VI ., uu „le Jkl r .11 01110000 111hIIIII11II1111hUI II' 0 0000�uu00010111111 Mitigate the non - structural impacts of an earthquake on District owned critical facilities. Yes Short Term No seismic mitigation to critical computer server room equipment Ongoing seismic mitigation of several city workspaces Improve alert and notification methods to the citizens of Fire District #37 by implementing a reverse 911 system. Yes Short Term Yes City of Kent and Kent Fire Department RFA now utilize Code Ongoing Red emergency notification system 000100,,,,,,,, 00000110000011111111111111 W0 u 1 W W �ri�uW n�u�N�NI,1 � M'v I 16IIWnnWI �VuWuq 111,'1 r IW g �WW WWI £ 11 W Educate the public on the risks they face from all hazards and educate them on what they can do to mitigate the impacts on their homes and families No progress reported. Mitigate the non - structural impacts of an earthquake on our fire stations No progress reported. Mitigate the structural issues found in a recent seismic survey of our fire stations No progress reported. PLANNING AREA CHANGES THAT MAY IMPACT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION No changes to the planning area have been identified that will impact the implementation of this plan. In fact, since the coverage of this plan has significantly been increased during this update process, the opportunity for partnering and leveraging resources has been significantly enhanced. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES OR ENHANCEMENTS The content and format of this plan has been significantly revised during the course of this plan update process. A crosswalk of changes to the plan are chronicled in volume 1, chapter 2 of this plan update. ACT.A 8 -39 Page 411 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... Public review notice: The contents of this report are considered to be public knowledge and have been prepared for total public disclosure. Copies of the report have been provided to local media outlets. The report is also posted on the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan website. Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to: Janice Rahman, Emergency Management Program Manager 3511 NE 2nd St Renton, WA 98056 (206) 205 -4061 Janice.Rahman@Kingcounty.goc B-40 ACT.A Page 412 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update APPENDIX C. PLANNING PARTNER BULLETINS ACT.A Page 413 of 869 0 King County King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Informational Bulletin October 11, 2013 Upcoming Deliverable Due Dates: • Progress Report — October 11, 2013 • Capabilities Assess- ment— November 1, 2013 • Critical Facilities Update— November 1, 2013 Past Deliverable Due Dates: • Jurisdictional Pro- file— October 4, 2013 Questions? Please Contact: Rob Flaner, CFM 208.939.4391 rob.flaner@tetratech.com Are your hours counting toward grant matching? If you have not already completed, signed, and returned a grant- matching form with your hourly, unburdened rate, please do so today! Ir. ACT.A King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners Important Note for All Planning Partners: Please track the number of hours that you or your staff members spend working on this project. These hours can be applied toward the in -kind contribution needed for our grant requirements. Partners will be asked to report these hours at the November Jurisdictional Annex Workshops. November Jurisdictional Annex Workshops Volume II of the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan will contain the jurisdic- tional annexes of each member of the planning partnership. In an effort to keep Partners ac- tively engaged in the planning process, we have chosen to complete these annexes in three phases. Phase I consisted of the Juris- dictional Profile and, when applicable, a Progress Report on past actions. This phase was distributed in earlySep- tember. Phase II consists of a Capabilities Assess- ment, and was de- ployed in early October. Phase III will be distrib- uted in November, cor- responding with the Jurisdictional Annex Workshop. In this phase we will tackle Hazard Risk Ranking and the Action Plan Matrix. All Planning Partners are required to send a representative to one of these three -hour workshop sessions. There, Partners will receive technical assistance in com- pleting their profiles. In early November Planning Partners will be sent a tool kit to help prepare for these ses- sions. After reviewing this in- formation, Partners will need to reach out to other departments within their jurisdictions. Such departments may include: Plan- ning, Public Works/ Engineering, or Emergency Services. These departments are responsible for the imple- mentation of many of the capa- bilities listed in the capabilities assessment and may be instru- mental in helping jurisdictions to identify potential actions. As you complete your assessment this month, if you find that your jurisdiction does not have one of the capabilities identified, then ask yourself or the respon- sible department "why?" Re- member, increasing capability is a way to reduce risk and is, therefore, a viable mitigation action. Jurisdictional Annex Workshop Schedule Tuesday, November 12: ti Wednesday, November 13: ti Register Here: Municipalities http.// Ikingcouintyrlhimp- imuinici !pality.eveintlbrite.coim Districts— Ihttp.// Ikingcouintyrlhimp- district.eveintlbrite.coim Successful Public Outreach Events in September Thank you to all Planning Part- ners who were able to attend one of our four public outreach events in September. And a special thank you to those Part- ners who hosted these events: City of Auburn, City of Shore- line, City of Kent, and Ever - greenHealth in the City of Kirk- land. We hope that you enjoyed the opportunity to engage with residents on issues related to this planning effort and we hope that you learned some- thing as well! If you would like to review the presentation that was given by Project Manager, Rob Flaner, at these events, it is available online at the King County Re- gional Hazard Mitigation Plan- ning website. The Hazus Workstations were a big success. Residents were able to review property specific information at the events. Additionally, 20 resi- dents signed up to have hazard information emailed to them. Page 415 of 869 King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners October Steering Committee Meeting Agenda The next Steering Committee meeting will be held Tuesday, October 15th from 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm at the King County Office of Emergency Manage- ment in Renton. By the end of this meeting the Steering Committee will have taken the following actions: • Reviewed and approved previous month's minutes, • Reported non - meeting hours, • Reviewed the status of the Risk Assessment, • Reviewed the status of Jurisdictional Annex de- ployment, • Reviewed Phase 1, Public Outreach results, • Confirmed revised Plan Maintenance Strategy, and • Identified Strengths, Weak- nesses, Obstacles and Opportunities within King County. These meetings are open to the public and all Planning Partners are encouraged to attend. a i1111111111 Informational Bulletin King County Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Main Phone: 206- 296 -3830 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 523 -5044 Fax: 206-205-4056 Email: ecc.kc@kingcounty.gov King County ACT.A EvergreenHealth Representative, Barb Jensen, RN CHEP, reviews hazard maps with an area resident at the workshop held at an Evergreen - Health facility in Kirk- land. In the aasz.. a r anyone, In y� ndn King Can Page 2 inavhaid nxp.wrXancwd any of the and el anal atlahat �wP�wX As of October 10, 2013 we have 183 responses to our online Public Awareness Survey. Keep up the good work! ■ Rob Flaner explains the planning process and risk assess- ment at the public workshop held in Kent in late September. King County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, King County Office of Emer- gency Management (KCOEM) is in the process of updating the Regional Haz- ard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) in partnership with cities and special purpose districts throughout the County. Federal rules require this plan be updated every five years. Representatives from 56 different cities, schools, fire districts, hospitals and utility districts are collaborating with KCOEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the hazard assessment and plan development. Deci- sions regarding plan elements, such as specific hazards to include, are made by a steering committee whose members include representatives from government, private business, non - profits, the public, and academia. http:// kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation Contact us: KCPubCommentCKingCounty.gov Page 416 of 869 Ir • 0 King County Informational Bulletin November 22, 2013 January 17, 2014 Please submit: Completed Annex Template Completed Risk Ranking Work- sheet h�1ii i0lla Please Contact: 1110 1110 1110 Rob Flaner, CFM 208.939.4391 rob.flaner@tetratech.com h Please Submit Deliver- ables to: Kristen Gelino 425.482.7801 kristen.gelino@tetratech.com WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ommitt ti Tuesday February 18, 2014 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners Important Note for All Planning Partners: Please track the number of hours that you or your staff members spend working on this project. These hours can be applied toward the in -kind contribution needed for our grant requirements. Partners will be asked to report these hours after turning in their completed annex. Jurisdictional Annex Workshop Recap Thank you to all of you who were able to attend the Juris- dictional Annex Workshops earlier this month! We hope that the information provided will help you start, continue or complete your jurisdiction's template. You may want to review the information provided in the presentations given by Rob Flaner at each of the sessions. The power point slides are available on the CD provided for you at the workshop. Addi- tionally, detailed instructions for each section of the tem- plate are also available in the "Template Instructions" folder. If at any point you need help or have questions about complet- ing your annex, please reach out to Rob Flaner or Kristen Gelino — we are here to help you! Some key take -aways from the workshops are listed below: • If you are unable to find requested information or are unsure about some- thing you are submitting, please just let us know! You can add a comment in the template or let us know via email. • The quantitative results you obtain in the risk rank- ing exercise may need to be adjusted based on local knowledge and experi- ence. Please feel free to adjust the rankings, but please let us know what you did and why. • Need some ideas? There are examples of complet- ed annexes for many dif- ferent kinds and sizes of jurisdictions on your CD. Want to look at a local example? Look in the fold- er of another jurisdiction participating in this plan for some great examples. • The Action Items you iden- tify are the real heart of this plan. Please ask for help from different depart- ments in your jurisdiction to identify actions that will mitigate risk to people, property and the economy! We made great progress on your annexes before the workshop even began! li" Ib ! fr, lil'!:y l_6!n1,klr g Cap,4EiO tty 4564 Don't Forget about the King County Flood Control District's Opportunity Fund A big THANKS! to Monica Walk- er from King County DNR and a member of the RHMP Steering Committee for providing infor- mation to interested jurisdic- tions about the King County Flood Control District Oppor- tunity Fund. Each city or town in the County is allocated mon- ies that can be used for flood control, stormwater control and cooperative management pro- jects. According to the Fund's website, the 2014 fund is esti- mated to be more than $5.2 million! The 2014 application deadline is fast approaching — January 31, 2014, so be sure to visit their website to learn more today— http.2Z www.kingcounty.gov/ environment/waterandland/ ;llooding/flood- control -zone- district o+r rortuni • fund.asrx ACT.A Page 417 of 869 King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners Page 2 Have Questions about the Template? Answers to Questions Asked at the Workshops Are Listed Below Clty/Town/ `- urii1yGovernments incorporated, please list them. Does the Growth Management Act Require Municipalities to have a Capital Improvement Program? Capital Facilities Plans are a required element of the Wash- ington State Growth Manage- ment Act; however, counties and municipalities may have differing definitions of "capital." What does Prohibitions' really mean In the Capabllity Assess- ment? 'Prohibitions' refer to state or federal regulations or laws that would bar local implementation of identified initiatives. Exam- ples are: floodway regulations, Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act regulations, etc . Should natural hazard event histories list events that oo- curved before Incorporation? If you know about events that occurred in your jurisdiction before your jurisdiction was ;;,Informational Bulletin King County Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Main Phone: 206 - 296 -3830 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 523 -5044 Fax 206 - 205 -4056 Email: ecc.kc@kingcounty.gov King County ACT.A Sipeck II Purpose IDiistriicts What is AV (assessed value) In the risk ranking worksheet re- ferring to? Table 3 on the risk ranking worksheet exercise refers to percentage of AV. You should use the value you identified for the total value of all critical infrastructure, equipment and facilities in your profile as a stand in for AV. How do we determine if a natu- ral hazard event Impacted our district? Although you do not need to list every event that occurred within your district, you should list any hazard events that affected your ability to provide service to your district. For example, a school closure due to a severe weather event. All Planning Partners What does Impacts to people In the risk ranking exercise mean? Impact to people is referring to the potential for a person to experience injury or death from a hazard event. This is meas- ured by the population that is exposed to a hazard. What if 1 disagree with the re- sults of the risk ranking exer- cise? The risk ranking exercise should not override your subjec- tive assessment of relative risk based on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of the template. Do l need to have an action item for eaoh hazard of oonoem? No —but you should strive to identify at least one action for each hazard that impacts your jurisdiction. You must have at least one action item that addresses the highest ranked hazard for your jurisdiction. When reporting on the status of a previously Identified action Item, do 1 need to provide a date completed for an on-going or annual action? No- but please do provide a brief description of the on -going program or activity. When Is the completed template due? The completed template and risk ranking exercise are due in digital form on Friday, January 17, 2014. Please do not wait until mid - January to begin working on your template! You will need time to coordinate with other staff and identify feasible actions for your jurisdiction. Please email your completed deliverables to kristen.gelino @tetratech.com. Still have questions? Let us know! King County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, King County Office of Emer- gency Management (KCOEM) is in the process of updating the Regional Haz- ard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) in partnership with cities and special purpose districts throughout the County. Federal rules require this plan be updated every five years. Representatives from 56 different cities, schools, fire districts, hospitals and utility districts are collaborating with KCOEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the hazard assessment and plan development. Deci- sions regarding plan elements, such as specific hazards to include, are made by a steering committee whose members include representatives from government, private business, non - profits, the public, and academia. http:// kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation Contact us: KCPubComment@KingCounty.gov Page 418 of 869 King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners Looking Ahead —What still needs to happen before the 2014 Plan is complete? As you are wrapping up your jurisdicti be wondering what will hap- pen next in the RHMP plan- ning process. After we have received completed tem- plates from each Planning Partner, Tetra Tech will com- plete a technical review of the annexes (Volume II of the Plan) and the County -wide profile and assessment (Volume 1 of the Plan). If questions arise that we are unable to find answers to, we will contact the listed primary contact for clarification. Oth- erwise, you will have an op- portunity to review Volume 1 and 11 of the plan during the Internal Review phase in mid - March. After comments have been received and revisions have been made to the internal review draft, there will be a Public Review Period lasting a minimum of two weeks. This review period will likely cul- Informational Bulletin King County Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Main Phone: 206- 296 -3830 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 523 -5044 Fax 206 - 205 -4056 Email: ecc.kc@kingcounty.gov King County TETRA TECH ACT.A minate with a presentation to the King County Council. As Tetra Tech completes revi- sions and responds to the comments received during the Public Review, we will hold an opti ning Partners. This workshop will be an opportunity for Plan- ning Partners to learn more about various funding streams and to ask questions about how to ensure the 2014 RHMP re- the Final Draft will be submitted to Wash- adopti After this approval is received, we will begin the adoption process and submit the document to FE- MA Region X for Plan Review. Each participating jurisdiction must have its governing body formally adopt the plan before final approval can be granted. More information will be provided about the adoption process in February of 2014. Page 2 Please keep in mind that this timeline may be subject to change as delays may occur dur- ing the review process. We will keep you updated on our antici- pated timeline as this process progresses. Anticipated Timeline for 2014 Plan Completion and Adoption* Mid-March April Mid-April Late-April May- August Internal Review Draft Distributed Public Review Period "What's Next" Optional Workshop Plan Submittal to the State Plan Review Adoption Process *Please note that this timeline is subject to change as delays may occur during the review process. * *We are anticipating a grant opportunity to open in June. If so, this process will be expedited. King County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, King County Office of Emer- gency Management (KCOEM) is in the process of updating the Regional Haz- ard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) in partnership with cities and special purpose districts throughout the County. Federal rules require this plan be updated every five years. Representatives from 56 different cities, schools, fire districts, hospitals and utility districts are collaborating with KCOEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the hazard assessment and plan development. Deci- sions regarding plan elements, such as specific hazards to include, are made by a steering committee whose members include representatives from government, private business, non - profits, the public, and academia. http:// kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation Contact us: KCPubComment @KinCountv.gov Page 420 of 869 0 King County King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Informational Bulletin March 3, 2014 b Internal Review Public Comment Period Adoption Process it Rob Flaner, CFM 208.939.4391 rob.flaner@tetratech.com Kristen Gelino 425.482.7801 kristen.gelino@tetratech.com MRVIRMINMEMINMEMINMEMINMEMIEMINMEMIM Committ ti Tuesday April 15, 2014 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 1110.111.11.111.11.111.11. 1.11.111.11.111.11.111.11.111.11.111.11.111.11.111.11. ACT.A King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners What's Next — Plan Review and Approval Process Exciting news —We are now moving into the end of phase four (Plan Development) of our five part planning process! Over the next few months we will complete an internal review and a public review of the draft plan. Please see the box below for more information about the anticipated timeline. As indicated below, the draft plan will be reviewed by the Steering Committee in two phases. Volume I includes County -wide information about the planning process, the risk assessment, and the County- wide mitigation initiatives. Vol- ume 11 includes the jurisdiction- al annexes that Planning Part- ners completed in January. The public comment peri- od for both volumes will run from late April to late May. We would like to hold three presentations at public meetings during this time period. We antici- pate distributing these meetings across the Coun- ty. Currently, we are work- ing on establishing dates, times and locations. We will provide more information as soon as we are able. Jumil In early June the final draft will be submitted to Washington State for approval. After this approval is received, we will begin the adoption process and submit the document to FEMA Region X for Plan Review and "pre- adoption" ap- proval. What about SEPA Compliance? The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements for this planning process are based on jurisdictional discretion. Jurisdictions should consult members of their staff that work on SEPA issues to determine if any action is necessary. ntik .illpated lintel inn • March 31st April 1510 April 21't Each participating jurisdiction must have its governing body formally adopt the plan via resolution before final approval can be granted. To assist jurisdictions u p miroggrom fUu PR I � l�iU�li�dlDl II II I✓� III I I 1II I�I�I�II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �Illllulo1111l with this process, Tetra Tech will provide a briefing packet, which can be given to your jurisdiction's governing body. This packet will include : a sam- ple resolution, the executive summary and an explanatory cover letter. It is important for Planning Partners to understand that the planning process for any indi- vidual jurisdiction is not com- plete until this approval has been received; however, the five -year life of the plan begins as soon as the first jurisdiction completes the adoption pro- cess. Please keep in mind that these timeframes may be subject to change and delays may occur. ion and Adopt! t Volume 1 Internal Review Draft Distributed to Steering Committee Volume 1 Comments Due Volume 11 Review Draft Distributed Volume 11 Comments Due April 28th — May 30th Public Review Period (We wil June - December Plan Revi *Please note that this timeline is subject Adoption Process o change be scheduling 3 public meetings) delays may occur during the review process. Page 421 of 869 King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners Risk Assessment Planning Partners —Thank you for all of your hard work! As of early March we have received 52 completed an- nexes. We anticipate that we will receive two more before the process is complete. Two jurisdictions dropped out of the process before the No- vember workshops; however, one of these jurisdictions has already been in contact about initiating linkage procedures with the plan. As we wrap up phase four and move into phase five, Planning Partners should be proud of all of the hard work that has gone into developing a plan to reduce risk to people and property in King County! Thank you Plan Completed Jurisdictional Annexes k� Page 2 n ng Partners! Number of Actions Identified uio11111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 We are still anticipating two additional) annexes from Panning Partners who required a little additional assistance. We anticipate that our final partnership will include 54 King County jurisdictions. Draft County -Wide Initiatives 1. Commit to capturing time - sensitive data after a disaster (i.e. high water marks). 2. Maintain the RH P website where the plan will be housed. 3. Continue to provide regional public education trainings and materials (Make it Though, Take Winter by Storm). 4. Support the Resilient King County initiative.. 5. Strive for a regional alert & notification system. 6. Encourage signatories for the Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events. Draft County -wide initiatives were discussed and identified at the February Steering Committee (SC) Meeting. The SC was able to identify a robust - range of actions that support the vision, goals and objectives of the 2014 RHMP . Final wording will be confirmed with the SC via email. ACT.A Page 422 of 869 King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners What happened to my jurisdiction's annex? Jurisdictional annexes are internal review process. If questions arise that we are unable to resolve, we will contact you. Volume II of the A Plan (the jurisdictional annex- es) will be distributed for review in mid - April. Any revi- sions or corrections can be made to your annex at that time. As the annexes move A through this process, we will be adding some initiatives to the municipality action plan matrices to ensure that each Planning Partner has a robust set of actions that address s r Page 3 the hazards of concern in the planning area. Please see the box below for these initiatives. If a jurisdiction objects to an action, this can be resolved during the review process. es Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard -prone areas to protect structures from future damage, with properties with exposure to repetitive losses as a priority. 2. Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances or programs to dictate land uses within the jurisdiction. 3. Strive to capture perishable data (ie high water marks, preliminary damage estimates, and damage photos) after significant hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment of this plan. 4. Continue to support the County -wide initiatives identified in this plan. 5. Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan. 6. Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This will be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, will meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP, which include the following: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance, • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates, and • Providing public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts 7. Consider the development of a post- disaster action plan, including a debris management plan. This is to be incorporated into existing emergency management plans. 8. Work with the building official to identify ways to improve the BCEGS classification for the City. 9 Consider participation in incentive -based programs such as the CRS, Firewise and Stormready Informational Bulletin King County Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Main Phone: 206 - 296 -3830 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 523 -5044 Far. 206-205-4056 Email: ecc.kc@kingcounty.gov King County TETRA TECH ACT.A King County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, King County Office of Emergency Manage- ment (KCOEM) is in the process of updating the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) in partnership with cities and special purpose districts throughout the Coun- ty. Federal rules require this plan be updated every five years. Representatives from 56 different cities, schools, fire districts, hospitals and utility districts are collaborating with KCOEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the hazard assessment and plan development. Decisions regarding plan elements, such as specific hazards to include, are made by a steering committee whose members include representatives from government, private business, non- profits, the public, and academia. http:// kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation Contact us: KCPubComment @KinCountv.gov Page 423 of 869 0 King County King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Informational Bulletin May 16, 2014 Internal Review of Volume 1 and Vol- ume 11 Public Comment Period Adoption Process Rob Flaner, CFM 208.939.4391 rob.flaner@tetratech.com Il` Kristen Gelino 425.482.7801 kristen.gelino@tetratech.com MRVIRMINMEMINMEMINMEMINMEMIEMINMEMIM Committ ti No SC meetings sched- uled at this time. 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 ACT.A King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners Revisions are Underway to the Landslide Risk Assessment Revisions are currently un- derway to the landslide risk assessment portion of Vol- ume I of the plan. Data has been made available that allows for an additional methodology to be utilized for the risk analysis. A high resolution digital elevation model that has been derived from LIDAR data will be inter- sected with a soils layer to identify areas that may be at risk from landslide hazards. This analysis is not intended to be a precise geotechnical assessment, nor is it intended to endorse any regulatory action on these areas. It is merely a method by which we can highlight areas of con- cern throughout the County that may not have been iden- tified in previous studies. At this point in time, the re- sults of this analysis are un- known, but we anticipate that the total area of land- slide risk in the County will increase. After the analysis is complete, we will review the exposure and loss estimates for landslide hazards for each planning partner. If results have changed to a degree that would impact a jurisdic- ti fore, action plan, we will con- tact that jurisdiction directly and will provide examples of landslide- specific actions that can be added to the jurisdic- ti lion plan. If you are not contacted directly, you will not need to make any changes. We anticipate con- tacting jurisdictions the week of June 9t". Please feel free to contact us with questions or concerns on this issue. More information on LIDAR: http: / /oceanservice.noaa.gov /facts /lidar.html Volume I Volume I of the King County RHMP is currently in the in- ternal review phase. A draft version has been distributed to the Steering Committee. Volume I contains the plan- ning process information, county -wide hazard profiles and risk assessments, as well as the county -wide mitiga- tion strategy. Steering Com- mittee members are asked to provide comments on the draft document to Kris- ten.gelina@tetratech.com by Friday, May 23, 2014. For minor comments, please provide identifying infor- mation, such as a section or page number. For major revi- sions, please track - changes on the word document ver- sion of the plan or contact Kristen for additional assis- tance. As a reminder, Steer- ing Committee members have been asked to keep the draft confidential during the internal review process. Volume II Volume II of the draft plan contains the jurisdictional annexes. The draft Volume will be distributed to the planning partnership on or before Friday, May 23, 2014. If you do not receive access to the document, please con- tact Kris - ten.gelino(tetratech.com. The document will contain all 54 annexes; however, plan- ning partners will ONLY need to review the chapter that contains their jurisdicti annex. Revisions have been (Conti • Distributed to Steering Committee April 8th • Comments due Friday, May 23rd • Distributed to Planning Partners May 23rd • Comments due Friday, June 6th Page 424 of 869 g! Pf l! ' ry� t Ili pryy 8111 il� ''p,/s1 yI II rd 11 111 1 1 1 1 1 111111111111111111 11 1111111 11 1 111 King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners (Conti made during the editing pro- cess and we need your ap- proval of these changes. If you would like to make changes, please turn on track changes in word and make your adjustments. If you need assistance with this, please feel free to con- tact Kristen. All revisions need to be completed by Friday, June 6, 2014. We would greatly appreciate if each planning partner could send in a reply even if no changes are needed. We would also greatly appreci- ate it if revisions can be completed as soon as possi- ble after receiving the docu- ment. Public Comment The public comment period for both volumes of the plan is currently scheduled to run from June 20th through July 4th. We would like to give three brief presentations at public meetings during this time period. We anticipate The application period for three FEMA mitigation grant programs is currently open and deadlines are quickly approaching. Letters of intent (LOI) for each grant oppor- tunity are required All three programs are competitive and applying jurisdictions must currently be covered by FEMA approved hazard miti- ACT.A distributing these meetings across the County. Currently, we are working on establishing dates, times and locations. We will provide more information as soon as we are able. Pre - Adoption Approval In mid -July the final draft will be submitted to Washington State for approval. After this approval is received, we will begin the adoption process and submit the document to FEMA Region X for ti approval. Adop- tion can be given to your jurisdic- tion's governing body. This packet will include: a sample resolution, the executive summary and an explanatory cover letter. It is important for Planning Partners to understand that the planning process for any individual jurisdiction is not complete until this approval has been received; however, the five -year life of the plan begins as soon as the first Page 2 jurisdiction completes the adop- tion process. We anticipate that adoption for jurisdictions will occur during the month of Sep- tember or October. Final Approval As jurisdictions adopt the plan, copies of the adoption resolu- tions will be sent to FEMA and final approval status will be grant- ed. Please keep in mind that these timeframes may be subject to change and delays may occur during the review pro- cess. Each partici- pating jurisdic- tion must have its governing body formally adopt the plan via resolution before final approval can be granted. To assist jurisdictions with this process, Tetra Tech will pro- vide a briefing packet, which ,,!f; �lllllllllllllllllll' te,jodh, 111.1 1111111 1111111111111 1 Plan Review +Juuy - August gation plans by the sub - application deadline (July 25, 2014) and at the time of the award. Because the King County RHMP is in the process of being updated and will be in review at the time of the stated deadline, planning partners who are not current- ly covered by approved plans may still apply, but final FEMA approval must be obtained diction Adoption temlber- October before a grant award can be received. The Pre - Disaster Mitigation grant program is designed for the implementation of sus- tained pre- disaster natural haz- ard mitigation programs to re- duce overall risk to the popula- tion and structures from future hazard events, while also reduc- ing reliance on Federal funding from future disasters. The cost - share for this grant is 75 percent federal funds and 25 percent lo- cal matching funds. FEMA will only consider proposals with a maximum two -year performance period. For fiscal year 2014 there are $23 million in funds available nationally and the Washington State EMD is encouraging local (Conti Page 425 of 869 King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners (Conti jurisdictions to submit pro- jects with less than $250,000 budgets. FEMA has identified the following funding priori- ties: development and up- dating of hazard mitigation plans and cost - effective pro- jects that do not duplicate other hazard mitigation grant programs (e.g. Flood Mitiga- tion Assistance plans and projects). The Flood Mitigation Assis- tance program funds projects that reduce or eliminate flood damage and associated insurance claims under the National Flood Insurance Pro- gram (NFIP). The cost -share arrangement for FMA ranges from 75 to 100 percent Fed- eral funds, dependent on the mitigation activity. For fiscal year 2014 the grant program was allocated $89 million nationwide. Proposals must have a maximum of a 3 -year performance period. FEMA has identified the following funding priorities: mitigation planning, projects that miti- gate severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties and projects that mitigate repetitive flood claim (RFC) properties. Wash- ington State EMD strongly encourages proposals include the mitigation of at least one RL and /or one SRL: tial properties that have had four or more paid losses of at least $5,000 each (Combining for at least $20,000) OR two or more paid losses totaling more - properties that have had at least two claims within ten years, with the average of both claims being greater than or equal to 25 percent May 31, 2014 The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is available as a re- sult of the April 2014 Mud- Page 3 flow and Flooding disaster in Snohomish County, also known as SR -530 Slide, and designated as DR -4168. This competitive pro- gram is open to all eligible juris- dictions statewide for projects addressing any and all natural hazards; however, priority will be given to applications from the disaster declared areas. The esti- mated dollar amount of the grant pool is $3 million statewide. The cost share arrangement is 75 per- cent Federal funds and 25 per- cent non - federal. Applicants must be prepared to pay the full por- tion of non - federal funds request- ed. Each eligible jurisdiction can submit one application for fund- ing. Grant Program LOI Due Contacts "I VVVA it 11 1 �1 11111 1 91 1 111� I1', 1 n1 lIf.' M 1 X11 1 \11QQ�Q�VQI 111 Informational Bulletin King County Office of Emergency Management Main Phone: 206 - 296 -3830 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 523 -5044 Far. 206-205-4056 Email: ecc.kc@kingcounty.gov King County ACT.A King County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, King County Office of Emergency Management (KCOEM) is in the process of updating the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) in partnership with cities and special purpose districts throughout the County. Federal rules require this plan be updated every five years. Representatives from 53 different cities, schools, fire districts, hospitals and utility districts are collaborating with KCOEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the haz- ard assessment and plan development. Decisions regarding plan elements, such as specif- ic hazards to include, are made by a steering committee whose members include repre- sentatives from government, private business, non - profits, the public, and academia. Contact us: KCPubCommentCKingCounty.gov http:// kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation Page 426 of 869 0 King County King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Informational Bulletin June 13, 2014 Public Comment Period Adoption Process mt Rob Flaner, CFM 208.939.4391 rob.flaner@tetratech.com Kristen Gelino 425.482.7801 kristen.gelino@tetratech.com Please note —both Rob and Kristen will be out of the office the week of June 16— please contact the County with ques- tions between June 16 and 22. Next Steering Committee Meeting No SC meetings sched- uled at this time. 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 ACT.A King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners is C Later this month we will be wrapping up the internal review process and moving on to the public com- ment period. A big thanks to all of you who provided com- ments on Volume I prompt response to Volume II! The public comment period will run from A press release announcing the com- ment period will be distribut- ed later this month. The re- lease will direct residents to liga- tion website where both Vol- umes of the Plan will be host- ed. Comments can be sent to an email address monitored by the County (see info above). Jurisdictions may want to provide a link to the g King County RHMP 2014 Update Public Comment Period Public Comment Period wilirun Friday, June 27 through Friday, July 11. Nlleetiing Date Time Location Monday,July 7th 6:00 pm SnoqualmieCity Hall 38625 SE River St Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Issaquah City Hall (Eagle Room) 130 E. Sunset Way Issaquah, WA 98027 Shoreline City Hall 18050 Meridian Ave. N. Shoreline, WA 98133 Wednesday, July 9th 7:00 pm Thursday, July 10th 7:00 pm website. Additionally, the press release will announce three presentations sched- uled at public meetings dur- ing the comment peri- 7th in Snoqualm- ie, Wednesday, July 9th in Is- saquah and Thursday, July 10th in Shore- line. Brief (15 minute) presen- tations will be given by Rob Flaner at each of these meetings Website: http:// www. kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation Comments: kcPubComment @kingcounty.gov and there will be a short ques- tion and answer session. Attendance is not required at these meetings, but planning partners are encouraged to attend. The partnership has already met public involvement requirements for this planning process. The meetings sched- uled in July are above and be- yond public involvement expec- tations. If anyone would like to host a meeting, there is one remaining slot open. If you have a previ- ously scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 8th and you would like Rob to present, please contact Nora Jagielo (Nora.Jagielo @kingcount y.gov) as soon as possi- ble. At the close of the public comment period, Tetra Tech will coordinate re- sponses to any com- ments received and will then submit the plan to the State for review. Landslide Analysis Update Revisions to the landslide risk analysis included an additional slope /soils analysis that was performed using a digital elevation model (DEM) constructed using LiDAR and a subsurface soil - geotechnical data set provided by King County DNRP. The additional analysis resulted in minimal changes to the risk assessment. Only small areas were added to the previously mapped hazard areas and, thus, only minimal increases in risk were seen. As a reminder, this analysis is not intended to be a precise geotechnical assessment, nor is it intended to endorse any regulatory action on these areas. It is merely an advisory assessment intended to highlight areas of concern throughout the County that may not have been identified in previous studies. Page 427 of 869 King County Office of Emergency Management with Regional Planning Partners With the advent of the public comment period, we are now moving into the final stages of this planning process. The following sections provide more information on next steps. Public Comment The public comment period for both volumes of the plan is currently scheduled to run from June 27th through July 11th. Please see the front page of this bulletin for more Information on this process. Pre - Adoption Approval In mid -to -late July the final draft will be submitted to Washington State for approv- al. After this approval is re- ceived, we will begin the adoption process and submit the document to FEMA Re- gion X for Plan Review and "pre - adopti Adoption Each participating jurisdiction Informational Bulletin King County Office of Emergency Management Main Phone: 206 - 296 -3830 Toll Free: 1- 800 - 523 -5044 Fax 206 - 205 -4056 Email: ecc.kc@kingcounty.gov TETRA TECH ACT.A must have its governing body formally adopt the plan via resolution before final ap- proval can be granted. To assist jurisdictions with this process, Tetra Tech will pro- vide a briefing packet, which can be given to your jurisdic- tion's governing body. This packet will include: a sample resolution, the executive summary and an explanatory cover letter. We will also in- be sure to review their indi- vidual adoption processes, as they differ among jurisdic- tions. It is also important for Plan- ning Partners to understand that the planning process for any individual jurisdiction is not complete until this ap- proval has been received; however, the five -year life of the plan begins as soon as Page 2 the first jurisdiction completes the adoption process. We antici- pate that adoption for jurisdic- tions will occur during the month of September or October. Final Approval As jurisdictions adopt the plan, copies of the adoption resolu- tions will be sent to FEMA and final approval status will be grant- ed. Please keep in mind that these timeframes may be subject to change and delays may occur during the review process. �t )l 1l11llf(If ICI J(J, JII II iil �' 0��, I ���� �1 u� Ili:1�` U�UU� I' i i i1 ,i1J111, JJJJ'ul iiiiiji 1 „U� ��11111J f'll L 111 /Illlllllll; „ J 0000 1 II1I IIIIIfIIIIIJ llffjlh l'p .I clude a copy of the presentation to be given during the public comment period, which can be adapted to each jurisdiction's individual needs. Each jurisdiction should r 1y, II � ulllllll I° uillllll 11111111' / i4'Oi�il''I i ill H1 'I f i l „ „„ � , ulllllll II ulllllll 1110 , g ' 111 11111 Plan Review •J!ully - August ursdictirn Adoption • Septelmlber- October King County is committed to creating and sustaining communities that are more resilient to disasters. To fulfill this pledge, King County Office of Emergency Management (KCOEM) is in the process of updating the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) in partnership with cities and special purpose districts throughout the County. Federal rules require this plan be updated every five years. Representatives from 53 different cities, schools, fire districts, hospitals and utility districts are collaborating with KCOEM and Tetra Tech Incorporated - the contractor leading the haz- ard assessment and plan development. Decisions regarding plan elements, such as specif- ic hazards to include, are made by a steering committee whose members include repre- sentatives from government, private business, non - profits, the public, and academia. Contact us: KCPubComment @KinCountv.gov http:// kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation Page 428 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update APPENDIX D. HAZARD MITIGATION QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY RESULTS ACT.A Page 429 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Survey I troduction A partnership of local governments and regional stakeholders in King County is working together to update the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of this plan is to help local governments reduce the exposure of County residents to risks from natural hazards, such as earthquakes and floods. By writing this plan, local governments are able to apply to Federal programs that may provide money that can be used to reduce risks before and after natural disasters. This plan was first created in 2004 and was updated in 2009. We need your help to plan for the possibility of future disasters. We would like to find projects that will help reduce or avoid impacts from natural hazard events. The following questions will help us measure how much local citizens already know about disaster - related issues and will help us identify areas where we need to improve. The information you provide will help us organize activities and prioritize projects to reduce the risk of injury or damage to property from future hazard events. The survey consists of about 30 questions, and there is an opportunity to provide additional comments at the end. It should take less than 10 minutes to complete the survey and it is anonymous. When you have finished the survey, please click "Done" on the final page. The King County Hazard Mitigation Planning Partnership thanks you for taking the time to participate in this important information - gathering process. *1. Do you live in King County? O Yes O No Other (please specify) * 2. In what ZIP code is your home mailing address? 3. In the past 20 years, have you or anyone in your household experienced any of the following hazards within King County? (Choose all that apply) ❑ Avalanche ❑ Dam /Levee Failure ❑ Drought ❑ Earthquake ❑ Flood ❑ River /Stream Bank Erosion ❑ Hazardous Materials Spill /Release ❑ Other (please specify) ❑ Household Fire ❑ Landslide ❑ Severe Weather (wind, lightning, winter storm, etc.) ❑ Tsunami ❑ Wildland Fires ❑ None ACT.A 11 "page 1 Page 431 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey -i,JwJ-- The following demographic information will help us evaluate the responses to this questionnaire. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL. The answers will only be used to prepare the plan and will not be provided to any other group or interest. 4. Please indicate your age range: O Under 18 O 18 to 30 O 31 to 40 O 41 to 50 5. Please indicate your gender: O Female O Male 6. Please indicate your highest level of education: O Grade school /No schooling O Some high school O High school graduate /GED O Other (please specify) O 51 to 60 O 61 or older O Some college /Trade school O College degree O Graduate degree 7. How long have you lived in King County? O Less than 1 year O 1 to 5 years O 6 to 10 years O 11 to 20 years O More than 20 years 8. What is your gross, annual household income? (Income before taxes or other deductions) O $20,000 or less O $75,000 to $99,999 O $20,001 to $49,999 O $100,000 or more O $50,000 to $74,999 O I am not sure ACT.A gage Page 432 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey tur *9. Following a disaster many services that we rely on, like grocery stores and banks, will be unavailable. How prepared is your household to deal with a natural hazard event? Preparation can include many things, such as storing a supply of perishable food, water and other necessities or learning how to shutoff utilities in your home. Somewhat Adequately prepared prepared 0 0 0 0 0 Not at all prepared Choose one: Well prepared Very well prepared I am not sure 10. Which of the following steps has your household taken to prepare for a hazard event? (Choose all that apply) ❑ Received first aid /CPR training ❑ Purchased and learned how to program a NOAA Weather Radio ❑ Made a fire escape plan ❑ Stored a battery - powered radio ❑ Designated a meeting place ❑ Stored a fire extinguisher ❑ Learned how to turn off utilities, such as natural gas ❑ Stored medical supplies (first aid kit, medications) ❑ Stored sand bags ❑ Purchased natural hazard insurance (Flood, Earthquake, Wildfire) ❑ Prepared a disaster supply kit piEstablished a "defensible space" (area free from vegetation and ❑ Installed smoke detectors on each level of the house combustible materials) around your home ❑ Stored food and water ❑ Stored flashlights and batteries nOther (please specify) piUsed fire resistive landscaping (the use of plants that do not catch fire easily) piAnchored service utilities to your home (water heater, furnace, wood stove, etc.) F-1 None ACT.A gage Page 433 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 11. Have any of the following sources provided you with useful information to help you prepare for a hazard event? (Choose all that apply) nEmergency preparedness information from a government source n Community Emergency Response Team Training (CERT) (for example, federal, state, or local emergency management) n A public awareness campaign (for example, "What to Do to Make nPersonal experience with one or more natural hazards /disasters it Through" or "Take Winter by Storm ") o o Locally provided news or other media information Schools and other academic institutions ❑ Attendance at meetings that have dealt with disaster preparedness nOther (please specify) III El Places of worship or faith -based institutions None *12. Which of the following do you think are the best ways to provide information about preparing for or responding to natural hazard events? ❑ Newspaper n Website ❑ Chamber of Commerce ❑ Informational Brochures ❑ Fire Department/Rescue ❑ Public Library ❑ City Newsletters ❑ Law Enforcement ❑ Red Cross Information ❑ Public Meetings n Places of Worship (faith -based n Community Safety Events institutions) ❑ Schools n Word of Mouth nCERT (Community Emergency ❑ TV Based Media Response Team Training) Classes n Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, Linkdin) ❑ Radio Based Media n Public Awareness Campaigns (for example, "What to Do to Make it Through" or n Automated Phone Messages from Local "Take Winter by Storm ") Authorities n Books nOther (please specify) ACT.A g 4 Page 434 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey * 13. How concerned are you about the following hazards in King County? (Choose one response for each hazard) Avalanche Climate Change Civil Disturbance Dam /Levee Failure Disease /Epidemic Drought Earthquake Flood River /Stream Bank Erosion Hazardous Materials Household Fire Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami Volcano (lahar /ashfall) Wild Land Fire Other Not Concerned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Please specify other natural hazard) Somewhat Concerned 0000000000000000 Concerned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Very Concerned Extremely Concerned 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 *14. To the best of your knowledge, is your home located within any of the following natural hazard areas (please choose all that apply): ❑ Floodplain or Flood Zone ❑ Landslide Hazard Area pi Volcano Hazard Zone ❑ Channel Migration Zone ❑ Tsunami Evacuation Zone ❑ Dam Failure Zone ❑ Earthquake Hazard Zone ❑ Wildfire Risk Area ❑ None of the above *15. Do you own or rent your home? O Own 0 Rent ACT.A Page Page 435 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 4. Horn o r Natural z rd Prepared s 16. Do you have homeowners insurance for your property? O Yes O No O I am not sure 17. Most homeowners insurance policies do not provide coverage for damage from natural hazards such as: floods, earthquakes, landslides orwildland fires. Have you purchased any specialty insurance policies that will provide coverage for losses from those hazards not usually covered by homeowners insurance policies? Please choose from the choices below. ❑ No, I have not purchased specialty insurance coverage ❑ Flood Insurance ❑ Earthquake Insurance ❑ Wildland Fire Insurance ❑ I am not sure ACT.A Page 436 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Izard 18. Do you have renters insurance for your home? O Yes O No O I am not sure 19. Most renters insurance policies do not provide coverage for damage from natural hazards such as: floods, earthquakes, landslides or wildland fires. Have you purchased any specialty insurance policies that will provide coverage for losses from hazards not usually covered by renters insurance policies? Please choose from the choices below. ❑ No, I have not purchased specialty insurance coverage ❑ Flood Insurance ❑ Earthquake Insurance ❑ Wildland Fire Insurance ❑ I am not sure ACT.A 11"page "7 Page 437 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey * 20. When you moved into your home, did you consider the impact a natural disaster could have on your home? O Yes O No OI am not sure *21. Did a real estate agent, seller or landlord tell you if your home was in or near a hazard risk zone before you moved into or purchased your home? (for example: dam failure zone, flood zone, tsunami evacuation zone, landslide hazard area, high fire risk area) O Yes O No OI am not sure * 22. If you were told this type of hazard risk information, would it influence your decision to buy or rent a home? O Yes O No O I am not sure 23. How much money would you be willing to spend to retrofit (add safety improvements to) your home to reduce possible risks from natural disasters? (for example: elevating a home above the flood level, performing seismic upgrades, or replacing a combustible roof with non - combustible roofing) O Less than $1000 O $10000 or above O $1 001 to $4999 O I would not be willing to spend any money O $5000 to $9999 O I am not sure 24. Some jurisdictions are able to participate in programs to encourage homeowners to retrofit their homes to protect against natural hazards. If your jurisdiction was qualified for such programs, which of the following programs to encourage home retrofits would you be most likely to participate in? (Choose all that apply) ❑ Insurance premium discounts ❑ Grant funding for retrofits ❑ Mortgage discounts ❑ "Rebate" program ❑ Low interest rate loans ❑ None ❑ Other (please specify) ACT.A 11 "page Page 438 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey * 25. When you moved into your home, did you consider the impact a natural disaster could have on your home? O Yes O No OI am not sure * 26. Did a real estate agent, seller, or landlord tell you if your home was in or near a hazard risk zone before you moved into your home? (for example: dam failure zone, flood zone, tsunami evacuation zone, landslide hazard area, high fire risk area) O Yes O No O I am not sure * 27. Would being told this type of hazard risk information influence your decision to buy or rent a home? O Yes O No O I am not sure ACT.A gage Page 439 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 28. What types of projects do you believe the County, State or Federal agencies should be doing in order to reduce damage and disruption from hazard events within King County? Please rank each option as a low, medium or high priority. Retrofit (add safety improvements) and strengthen essential facilities such as police and fire stations, schools and hospitals. Retrofit (add safety improvements to) infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, drainage facilities, levees, water supply systems, waste water systems and power supply facilities. Provide money for large projects, such as dams, levees, flood walls, drainage improvements and bank stabilization projects. Strengthen laws and regulations to include higher regulatory standards in hazard areas, such as floodplains. Purchase properties that are in danger to natural hazards and maintain them as open space or parks. Assist vulnerable property owners with finding funding for reducing the risk from hazards. Provide better public information about risk, and the exposure to hazards within the area. Begin projects that restore the natural environment's ability to absorb the impacts from natural hazards, such as rain gardens. Begin projects that lessen the potential impacts from climate change. Begin buyout programs where Low 0 Medium 0 High 0 O O O o o O o o O o o O o o O O O o O ACT.A Page 440 of 869 King County Regional Haz -Ird Mitigation-Public: Awareness Survey homes or properties located in designated "high hazard" or areas that are repeatedly damaged are purchased from their owners. 29. Do you support laws that control what land can be used for when it is located in known high hazard areas? (for example, limiting development in frequently flooded areas) Choose one: Very Opposed Somewhat Opposed Neutral O 0 0 Somewhat Supportive Very Supportive 30. Please indicate how you feel about the following statement: It is the responsibility of government (local, state and federal) to provide education and programs that help citizens take action to reduce exposure to the risks from natural hazards. Choose one: Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree O 0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 0 31. Please indicate how you feel about the following statement: Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree O 0 It is my responsibility to educate myself and to take actions that will reduce my exposure to the risks associated with natural hazards. Choose one: Strongly Disagree 0 Somewhat Disagree 0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 0 32. Please indicate how you feel about the following statement: Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree O 0 Information about the risks associated with natural hazards is readily available and easy to locate. Choose one: Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree O 0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 0 Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree O 0 ACT.A Page 441 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 33. In the hours immediately following a natural hazard event, such as an earthquake or flood, from whom would you expect to receive help? O Federal Government (FEMA/DHS) O State Government (WAEMD, WA National Guard) O Local Government (City /County) O The people in the area affected (myself, my neighbors) Other (please specify) ACT.A Page 442 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey For resource and information about hazard mitigation, please visit: www.kingcounty.gov /hazardmitigation Thank you for your time and feedback. 34. Please provide additional comments below. ACT.A Page 443 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Yes No Answer Choices Yes No Total Do you live in King County? Ciu��':'ruue ie 9' 1111'1 ,hilul;a':: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 96.52% 3.48% '194 7 201 ACT.A Page 445 of 869 1/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey In what ZIP code is your home mailing address? ACT.A Page 446 of 869 2/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 3 In the past 20 years, have you or anyone in your household experienced any of the following hazards within King County? (Choose all that apply) Avalanche Dam /Levee Failure Drought Earthquake Flood Riv a r /Strea m Bank Erosion Hazardous Materials... Household Fire Landslide Severe Weather (wind,... Tsunami Wildland Fires None Other (please specify) Answer Choices Avalanche Dam /Levee Failure Drought Earthquake Flood River /Stream Bank Erosion Hazardous Materials Spill /Release Household Fire Landslide Severe Weather(wind, lightning, winter storm, etc.) Tsunami Wildland Fires ACT.A Caiu��':'ruue iexr: 197 ,hidoe 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 3/38 Responses 2.08% 4 0.52% 'I 4.17% 8 '.. 49.48%.... 95 13.54% 26 '.. 5.73 % 11 . 4.17% 8 '.. 6.25 % '12 4.69% 9 61.46% 118 0.00% 0 '.. 2.60 % 5 447 of 869 None Other (please specify) Total Respondents: 192 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 23.96% 46 2.08% 4 ACT.A Page 448 of 869 4/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Under 18 18 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 or older Answer Choices Under 18 18 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 or older Total Please indicate your age range: Ausuue ie ^r'.9'�'i9tla ,hilul;a':: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 0.51% 5.61% 11 12.76% 25 19.90% 39 34.69% 68 26.53% 52 196 ACT.A Page 449 of 869 5/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Male Female Answer Choices Male Female Total 5 Please indicate your gender: Aum uuei 15 lul;a'::9 :, "'ti IA1 %ajji 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 38.78% '.. 61.22% 76 '120 196 ACT.A Page 450 of 869 6/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Grade school /No... '.. Some high school '.. High school graduate /GED Some college/Trad... College degree Graduate degree Other (please specify) Answer Choices Grade school /No schooling Some high school High school graduate /GED Some college /Trade school College degree Graduate degree Other (please specify) Total Please indicate your highest level of education: Ciu��':'ruuex exr.9'�'i9tla ,hilul;a'::■r9'�, "'ti iD 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 5.61% 1'I 20.41% 40 38.78% 76 33.16% 65 2.04% 4 196 ACT.A Page 451 of 869 7/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years Answer Choices Lessthan 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years Total How long have you lived in King County? Caius 34;1i ,hil p4. :. (.9:'1 1 /A. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 1.05% 7.37% 7.89% 67.89% 2 I4 'I5 30 'I 29 190 ACT.A Page 452 of 869 8/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey $20,000 or less $20,001 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more I am not sure Answer Choices $20,000 or less $20,001 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more I am not sure Total 8 What is your gross, annual household income? (Income before taxes or other deductions) Arsiiuue red: 188 S lulae'::ni'.9: 1; 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 1.06% 2 11.17% 21 14.36% 27 '.. 23.94% 45 40.96% 77 '.. 8.51% 16 188 ACT.A Page 453 of 869 9/38 Choose one: King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 9 Following a disaster many services that we rely on, like grocery stores and banks, will be unavailable. How prepared is your household to deal with a natural hazard event? Preparation can include many things, such as storing a supply of perishable food, water and other necessities or learning how to shutoff utilities in your home. Choose one: erg "i„i 2 S h 1 loped: 't9 0 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all prepared Somewhat prepared Adequately prepared Well prepared Very well prepared I am not sure Total Average Rating 6.04% 41.76% 23.08% 16.48% 12.09% 0.55 % ''..... I1 76 42 30 22 1 182 2.88 ACT.A Page 454 of 869 10/38 A A King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Which of the following steps has your household taken to prepare for a hazard event? (Choose all that apply) Received first aid /CPR... Made a fire escape plan Designated a meeting place Learned how to turn off... Stored sand bags Prepared a disaster sup... Installed smoke detect... Stored food and water Stored flashlights ... Purchased and learned how ... Stored a battery- powe... Stored a fire extinguisher Stored medical supplies (fi... Purchased natural haza... Established a "defensible... Used fire resistive... Anchored service... None Other (please specify) Answer Choices Received first aid /CPR training Made a fire escape plan Designated a meeting place Learned how to turn off utilities, such as natural gas Arhsw e red: 'i8't ,h11313':xni'.9: 11 111D0 _ III o0 0% 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 68.51% 124 46.96% 85 40.88% 74 '.. 71.82% '130 ACT.A Page 455- of 869 11138 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Stored sand bags Prepared a disaster supply It Installed smoke detectors on each level of the house Stored food and water Stored flashlights and batteries Purchased and teamed how to program a NOAA Weather Radio Stored a battery- powered radio Stored a fire extinguisher Stored medical supplies (first aid kit, medications) Purchased natural hazard insurance (Flood, Earthquake, Wildfire) Established a "defensible space" (area free from vegetation and combustible materials) around your home Used fire resistive landscaping (the use of plantsthat do not catch fire easily) Anchored service utilitiesto your home (water heater, furnace, wood stove, etc.) None Other (please specify) Total Respondents: 181 2.76 " /o 56.91% '103 92.82% '168 76.80% 139 82.87% 150 31.49% 57 62.98% 114 76.24% 138 73.48% 133 30.39% 55 16.02% 29 7.18% 13 53.04% 96 0.00% 0 '.. 14.92% 27 ACT.A Page 456 of 869 12/38 A King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Have any of the following sources provided you with useful information to help you prepare for a hazard event? (Choose all that apply) Emergency preparedness... Personal experience w... Locally provided new... Schools and other academ... Attendance at meetings tha... Community Emergency... A public awareness... Places of worship or... None Other (please specify) Arts wexred S hilulae'::r9 ",; 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Emergency preparedness information from a government source (for example, federal, state, or local emergency management) Personal experience with one or more natural hazards/disasters Locally provided news or other media information Schools and other academic institutions Attendance at meetings that have dealt with disaster preparedness Community Emergency Response Team Training (CERT) A public awareness campaign (for example, "What to Do to Make it Through" or "Take Winter by Storm ") Places of worship or faith-bad institutions None Other (please specify) Total Respondents: 178 Responses '.. 70.79% 42.13% 75 '.. 52.81% 16.29% '.. 44.38% 33.15% 59 45.51% 81 6.74% 12 '.. 5.06% 9 11.24% 20 ACT.A Page 457 of 869 13/38 A A King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 12 Which of the following do you think are the best ways to provide information about preparing for or responding to natural hazard events? Newspaper Informational Brochures City Newsletters Public Meetings Schools TV Based Media Radio Based Media Website Fire Department/R... Law Enforcement Places of Worship... CERT (Community... Public Awareness... Books Chamber of Commerce Public Library Red Cross Information Community Safety Events Word of Mouth Social Media (Twitter,... Automated Phone Messag... Other (please specify) MoD Meop, 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACT.A Page 458 of 869 14/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Answer Choices Newspaper Informational Brochures City Newsletters Public Meetings Schools TV Based Media Radio Based Media Website Fire Department /Rescue Law Enforcement Places of Worship (faith -based institutions) CERT (Community Emergency Response Team Training)Classes Public Awareness Campaigns (for example, "What to Do to Make it Through" or "Take Winter by Storm ") Books Chamber of Commerce Public Library Red Cross Information Community Safety Events Word of Mouth Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, Linkdin) Automated Phone Messagesfrom Local Authorities Other (please specify) Total Respondents: 182 Responses 35.16% 64 37.91% 69 '.. 42.31% 77 31.32% 57 39.56% 72 44.51% 81 32.42% 59 67.58% '123 28.57% 52 13.19% 24 19.23% 35 48.90% 89 62.64% 114 6.04% 4.40% 8 34.62% 63 32.42% 59 43.96% 80 23.63% 43 40.11% 73 21.98% 40 5.49% 10 ACT.A Page 459 of 869 15/38 A King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey How concerned are you about the following hazards in King County? (Choose one response for each hazard) Avalanche Climate Change Civil Disturbance Dam /Levee Failure Disease /Epidemi c Drought Earthquake Flood River/Stream Bank Erosion Hazardous Materials Household Fire Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami Volcano (lahar /ashfall) Wild Land Fire Other e red: 't 8 2 S 'i9 pOMMAJApt 0 2 3 4 5 Not Concerned Somew hat Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Extremely Concerned Total Average Rating Avalanche 82.35% 14.71% 2.35%......... 0.59% 0.00% '140 25 4 1 ,: 0 170 1.21 Climate Change 25.28% 34.27% 17.42% 19.10% 3.93% '.. 45 61 31 34 7 178 2.42 Civil Disturbance 30.46% 38.51% 21.26% 6.90% 2.87% 53 67 3.7 12 5 174 2.13 Dam /Levee Failure 59.77% 21.84% 13.79% 4.02% 0.57% '104 38 24 7 .1 174 1.64 Disease /Epidemic 17.82% 42.53% 27.01% 9.20% 3.45% 31 74 4.7 '16 6 174 2.38 ACT.A s ��, ,d 11 d,o, n Page 460 of 869 16/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 92 60 20 3 ',. 0 175 162 Earthquake 1.11% 11.67% 28.33% 40.56 %. ....18.33% ',. 2 21 51 73 33 180 3.63 Flood 27.27% 35.23% 24.43%......... 7.95 %. 5.11% '... 48 62 43 14 '., 9 176 2.28 River /Stream Bank Erosion '.. 38.15% 37.57% 16.18% '... 6.94% '... 1.16 % '... '.. 66 65 28 12 2 '173 1.95 Hazardous Materials 19.32% 42.05% 25.57% 11.93% 1.14% 34 74 45 21 2 '176 2.34 Household Fire 9.71% 39.43% 34.29%......... 14.86 %. 1.71% '17 69 60 26 '., 3 '175 2.59 Landslide 40.46% 33.53% 19.08%......... 5.78 %. 1.16% 70 58 33 10 2 'I 73 '1.94 Severe Weather 5.03% 32.40% 32.40% 25.14% 5.03% 58 58 45 9 179 2.93 Tsunami 52.57% 30.29% 12.57% 1.14% '.. 92 53 22 6 2 175 1.70 Volcano (lahar /ashfall) '., 36.57% 32.57% 20.57% 5.71% '., 4.57% '... 64 57 36 10 '., 8 175 2.09 Wild Land Fire '.. 42.61% '... 32.95% '... 15.91% '... 7.39% '... 1.14% '... '... '... 75 58 28 13 '., 2 176 '1.9'I Other 73.68% 2.63% 10.53% 5.26% 28 .1 4 3 2 38 1.68 ACT.A Page 461 of 869 17/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation-Public Awareness Survey 4 To the best of your knowledge, is your home located within any of the following natural hazard areas (please choose all that apply): Floodplain or Flood Zone Channel Migration Zone Earthquake Hazard Zone Landslide Hazard Area Tsunami Evacuation Zone Wildfire Risk Area Volcano Hazard Zone Dam Failure Zone None of the above Answer Choices Floodplain or Flood Zone Channel Migration Zone Earthquake Hazard Zone Landslide Hazard Area Tsunami Evacuation Zone Wildfire Risk Area Volcano Hazard Zone Dam Failure Zone None of the above Total Respondents: 182 Arhsw e red: 't 82 S 't 9 A 0/0 0/0 20/o 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 4.95% 1.10% 9 2 63.74% 116 3.85% 1.10% 5.49% 10.99% 1.65% 30.22% 7 2 10 20 3 55 ACT.A Page 462 of 869 18/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Own Rent Answer Choices Own Rent Total 5 Do you own or rent your home? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 87.91% '.. 12.09% 160 22 182 ACT.A Page 463 of 869 19/38 Answer Choices Yes No I am not sure Total King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Yes No „.16 Do you have homeowners insurance for your property? Cai u��':'��uue iexr9 159 S hilula':: I am not sure 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 100.00% 159 '.. 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 159 ACT.A Page 464 of 869 20/38 A King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey "' Most homeowners insurance policies do not provide coverage for damage from natural hazards such as: floods, earthquakes, landslides or wildland fires. Have you purchased any specialty insurance policies that will provide coverage for losses from those hazards not usually covered by homeowners insurance policies? Please choose from the choices below. No, I have not purchased... Flood Insurance Earthquake Insurance Cai u��r�iuu ex exr9 i "a9 ,hilula':: r9 ��,y ", ", DD� Wildland Fire Insurance '.. I am not sure • 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices No, I have not purchased specialty insurance coverage Flood Insurance Earthquake Insurance Wildland Fire Insurance I am not sure Total Respondents: 159 Responses '.. 55.97% 8.18% '.. 32.70% 0.00% '.. 7.55% ..... 89 13 52 0 12 ACT.A Page 465 of 869 21/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey Yes No I am not sure Answer Choices Yes No I am not sure Total 8 Do you have renters insurance for your home? 21 S hi loped :'it'�4;1� 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 76.19% '16 '.. 19.05% 4 4.76 % 21 ACT.A Page 466 of 869 22/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 19 Most renters insurance policies do not provide coverage for damage from natural hazards such as: floods, earthquakes, landslides or wildland fires. Have you purchased any specialty insurance policies that will provide coverage for losses from hazards not usually covered by renters insurance policies? Please choose from the choices below. No, I have not purchased... Flood Insurance Earthquake Insurance Wildland Fire Insurance '.. I am not sure 2 k.ilp.r.. :xc9:179 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices No, I have not purchased specialty insurance coverage Flood Insurance Earthquake Insurance Wildland Fire Insurance I am not sure Total Respondents: 22 Responses '.. 81.82% 0.00% '.. 4.55% 13.64% 18 0 0 ACT.A Page 467 of 869 23/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey .0 When you moved into your home, did you consider the impact a natural disaster could have on your home? Yes No I am not sure Answer Choices Yes No I am not sure Total d re d: 16.0 451410 odd: 4.1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 57.50% 92 '.. 40.00% 64 2.50% 4 160 ACT.A Page 468 of 869 24/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 21 Did a real estate agent, seller or landlord tell you if your home was in or near a hazard risk zone before you moved into or purchased your home? (for example: dam failure zone, flood zone, tsunami evacuation zone, landslide hazard area, high fire risk area) Yes No I am not sure Answer Choices Yes No I am not sure Total , IA1 9'180 k.loa'd: 4.1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 9.38% 79.38% 11.25% 15 127 18 160 ACT.A Page 469 of 869 25/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 22 If you were told this type of hazard risk information, would it influence your decision to buy or rent a home? Yes No I am not sure Answer Choices Yes No I am not sure Total Caisiiuue red: 160 S h 1 l ulae':: ni'.9'� 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses ... 71.88% 115 14.37% 23 13.75% 22 160 ACT.A Page 470 of 869 26/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 23 How much money would you be willing to spend to retrofit (add safety improvements to) your home to reduce possible risks from natural disasters? (for example: elevating a home above the flood level, performing seismic upgrades, or replacing a combustible roof with non- combustible roofing) Less than $1,000 $1,001 to $4,999 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 or above I would not be willing to... I am not sure Answer Choices Lessthan $1,000 $1,001 to $4,999 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 or above I would not be willing to spend any money I am not sure Total Asvuue iexr9 i59 45151s lak'::59' • 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 7.55% 12 23.27% 37 '.. 22.64 % 36 11.32 % 18 '.. 8.81%6 14 26.42% 42 159 ACT.A Page 471 of 869 27/38 11 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation-Public Awareness Survey 24 Some jurisdictions are able to participate in programs to encourage homeowners to retrofit their homes to protect against natural hazards. If your jurisdiction was qualified for such programs, which of the following programs to encourage home retrofits would you be most likely to participate in? (Choose all that apply) Insurance premium... Mortgage discounts Low interest rate loans Grant funding for retrofits "Rebate" program None A r 2vw 2 re 59 S sped 12 Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Insurance premium diounts 61.64% Mortgage diounts 31.45% Low interest rate loans 38.36% Grant funding for retrofits 71.70% 59.75% "Rebate" program None 6.92% Other (please specify) 4.40% Total Respondents: 159 98 50 61 114 95 'I 'I 7 ACT.A Page 472 of 869 28/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey .5 When you moved into your home, did you consider the impact a natural disaster could have on your home? Yes No I am not sure Answer Choices Yes No I am not sure Total 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 68.18% 15 '.. 31.82% 7 0.00% 0 22 ACT.A Page 473 of 869 29/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 6 Did a real estate agent, seller, or landlord tell you if your home was in or near a hazard risk zone before you moved into your home? (for example: dam failure zone, flood zone, tsunami evacuation zone, landslide hazard area, high fire risk area) Yes No I am not sure Answer Choices Yes No I am not sure Total IA1 ", 2 li.lour:99:179 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses 9.09% 86.36% 4.55% 2 19 22 ACT.A Page 474 of 869 30/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 21 Would Would being told this type of hazard risk information influence your decision to buy or rent a home? Yes No I am not sure Answer Choices Yes No I am not sure Total.............................. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Responses '.. 50.00.% 22.73% '.. 27.27% 1'1 5 6 22 ACT.A Page 475 of 869 31/38 A King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 28 What types of projects do you believe the County, State or Federal agencies should be doing in order to reduce damage and disruption from hazard events within King County? Please rank each option as a low, medium or high priority. Retrofit (add safety... Retrofit (add safety... Provide money for large... Strengthen laws and... Purchase properties t... Assist vulnerable... Provide better public... Begin projects that restore... Begin projects that lessen ... Begin buyout programs whe... Ai): ::::we red: '1 "78 3321 piaed ",; U 0 2 3 4 5 Retrofit (add safety improvements) and strengthen essential facilities such as police and fire stations, schools and hospitals Low Medium High Total Average Rating 7.91% '. 29.94% 62.15% '.. 14 53 1 1 0 1 7 7 2.54 Retrofit (add safety improvements to) infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, drainage facilities, levees, water supply systems, 3.37% 17.42% 79.21% '.. waste water systems and power supply facilities. 6 31 141 178 2.76 Provide money for large projects, such as dams, levees, flood walls, drainage improvements and bank stabilization projects. 16.00% 55.43% 28.57% 28 97 50 175 2.13 Strengthen laws and regulationsto include higher regulatory standards in hazard areas, such asfloodplains 27.27% 38.07% 34.66% 48 67 61 176 2.07 Purchase propertiesthat are in dangerto natural hazards and maintain them as open space or parks. '.. 40.91% '. 41.48% '.. 17.61% '.. 72 73 31 176 1.77 Assist vulnerable property ownerswith finding funding for reducing the riskfrom hazards 37.93% 44.83% 17.24% 66 78 30 174 1.79 Provide better public information about risk and the exposure to hazardswithin the area. 12.72% 40.46% 46.82% 22 70 81 173 2.34 Begin projectsthat restore the natural environment's ability to absorb the impactsfrom natural hazards, such as rain gardens. '.. 18.97% '. 40.23% '.. 40.80% '.. 33 70 71 174 2.22 Begin projectsthat lessen the potential impactsfrom climate change. '.. 34.29% '. 36.00% '.. 29.71% '.. 60 63 52 175 1.95 Begin buyout programswhere homes or properties located in designated "high hazard" or areasthat are repeatedly damaged '.... 44.83% '. 35.06% '.. 20.11% '.. '.. are purchased from their owners. 78 61 35 174 1.75 ACT.A Page 476 of 869 32/38 Choose one: King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 9 Do you support laws that control what land can be used for when it is located in known high hazard areas? (for example, limiting development in frequently flooded areas) Choose one: Cai u��':'��uu ex exr9� 'i "78 S hilula':: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Very Opposed Somewhat Opposed Neutral Somewhat Supportive Very Supportive Total Average Rating 5.62% 7.87% 11.24% 28.65% 46.63% 10 14 20 51 83 '178 4.03 ACT.A Page 477 of 869 33/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 30 Please indicate how you feel about the following statement: It is the responsibility of government (local, state and federal) to provide education and programs that help citizens take action to reduce exposure to the risks from natural hazards. Choose one: Arils ex red: 't '7'7 S hilulae':: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Total Average Rating Choose one: 5.65% 9.04% '.. 16.95% '.. 45.20% '. 23.16% '.. 10 16 30 80 41 177 3.71 ACT.A Page 478 of 869 34/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 31 Please indicate how you feel about the following statement: It is my responsibility to educate myself and to take actions that will reduce my exposure to the risks associated with natural hazards. Choose one: Au!':'�i;• i '78 1311313':xr9 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Total Average Rating Choose one: 1.69% 1.12%... 1.12% ...19.10% 76.97% 3 2 2 '.. 34 '137 178 4.69 ACT.A Page 479 of 869 35/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 3,2 Please indicate how you feel about the following statement: Information about the risks associated with natural hazards is readily available and easy to locate. Choose one: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Total Average Rating Choose one: 1.14% 15.43 % '. 20.00% 40.57% 22.86% 2 Z7 35 71 40 175 3.69 ACT.A Page 480 of 869 36/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 33 In the hours immediately following a natural hazard event, such as an earthquake or flood, from whom would you expect to receive help? Federal Government.. State Government.. Local Government.. The people in the area... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Federal Government (FEMA /DHS) State Government (WAEMD, WA National Guard) Local Government (City /County) The people in the area affected (myself, my neighbors) Total Responses 3.98% 7 6.25%.... 11 16.48% 29 73.30% '129 176 ACT.A Page 481 of 869 37/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation - Public Awareness Survey 1. Please provide additional comments below. fI32 ACT.A Page 482 of 869 38/38 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update APPENDIX E. CONCEPTS AND METHODS USED FOR HAZARD MAPPING ACT.A Page 483 of 869 APPENDIX E. CONCEPTS AND METHODS USED FOR HAZARD MAPPING EARTHQUAKE MAPPING Active Faults and Folds Fault and fold data are provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. These data contain arcs representing the location of faults and folds with known or suspected Quaternary ( <1,600,000 years) activity in the state of Washington. Data were gathered from numerous sources, including the Washington State portion of the U.S. Geological Survey's 2010 Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. This dataset contains multiple interpretations of the same faults or fault systems by different authors, which may be only partially co- located. Differing interpretations are the result of different methods used to detect the faults and the scale of the investigation. Liquefaction Susceptibility Liquefaction data are provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Data is based solely on surficial geology published at a scale of 1:100,000. A liquefaction susceptibility map provides an estimate of the likelihood that soil will liquefy as a result of earthquake shaking. This type of map depicts the relative susceptibility in a range that varies from very low to high. Areas underlain by bedrock or peat are mapped separately as these earth materials are not liquefiable, although peat deposits may be subject to permanent ground deformation caused by earthquake shaking. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which strong earthquake shaking causes a soil to rapidly lose its strength and behave like quicksand. Liquefaction typically occurs in artificial fills and in areas of loose sandy soils that are saturated with water, such as low -lying coastal areas, lakeshores, and river valleys. When soil strength is lost during liquefaction, the consequences can be catastrophic. Movement of liquefied soils can rupture pipelines, move bridge abutments and road and railway alignments, and pull apart the foundations and walls of buildings. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Classification Soil classification data are provided by Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geology and Earth Resources Division. The dataset identifies site classes for approximately 33,000 polygons derived from the geologic map of Washington. The methodology chosen for developing the site class map required the construction of a database of shear wave velocity measurements. This database was created by compiling shear wave velocity data from published and unpublished sources, and through the collection of a large number of shear wave velocity measurements from seismic refraction surveys conducted for this project. All of these sources of data were then analyzed using the chosen methodologies to produce the statewide site class maps. The polygons were classified with site classes based on criteria described in Palmer et al. 2004. Probabilistic Peak Ground Acceleration Maps Probabilistic Peak Ground Acceleration data are generated by Hazus -MH 2.1. In Hazus' probabilistic analysis procedure, the ground shaking demand is characterized by spectral contour maps developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as part of a 2008 update of the National Seismic Hazard B-1 ACT.A Page 485 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... Maps. USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps are revised about every six years to reflect newly published or thoroughly reviewed earthquake science and to keep pace with regular updates of the building code. Hazus includes maps for eight probabilistic hazard levels: ranging from ground shaking with a 39% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (100 -year return period) to the ground shaking with a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (2,500 -year return period). Earthquake mapping for this plan used the 100 -year and 500 -year probabilistic events. Shake Maps A shake map is designed as a rapid response tool to portray the extent and variation of ground shaking throughout the affected region immediately following significant earthquakes. Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on both estimated amplitudes where data are lacking, and site amplification corrections. Color -coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. For this plan, shake maps were prepared for three earthquake scenarios: • An earthquake on the Tacoma Fault with the following characteristics: – Magnitude: 7.1 – Epicenter: N47.41 W122.71 • An earthquake on the South Whidbey Island Fault with the following characteristics: Magnitude: 7.4 Epicenter: N48.05 W122.47 • An earthquake on the Seattle Fault with the following characteristics: – Magnitude: 7.2 – Epicenter: N47.52 W122.37 FLOOD MAPPING Flood hazard areas are mapped as depicted on draft FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Repetitive flood loss data was provided by FEMA as of January 31, 2014. Property addresses were geocoded and then mapped at a county -wide scale. Not all of the addresses listed in the repetitive loss report were able to be geo -coded and, thus, these properties are not represented symbolically on the repetitive flood loss map or included in the spatial assessment. LANDSLIDE MAPPING The landslide hazard maps show a combination of areas drawn from three sources: Washington Department of Natural Resources, King County and a slope /soils analysis. Landslide Areas Washington State landslide area data are provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. This dataset contains 1:24,000 -scale polygons defining the extend of mapped landslides in the state of Washington. This dataset is compiled chiefly from pre - existing landslide databases created in different divisions of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to meet a variety of purposes. E-2 2 ACT.A Page 486 of 869 APPENDIX E. CONCEPTS AND METHODS USED FOR HAZARD MAPPING King County landslide hazard area data are downloaded from the King County GIS Data Portal. Landslide areas are areas subject to severe landslide risk identified in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as: • A. Any area with a combination of: – 1. Slopes greater than 15% – 2. Impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel) – 3. Springs or groundwater seepage. • B. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch ( from 10,000 years ago to present), or that is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. • C. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion or undercutting by wave action. • D. Any area that shows evidence of, or is at risk from, snow avalanches. • E. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or deposition of stream - transported deposits. Potential Landslide Areas Landslide hazard areas mapped for this plan are taken from three sources: • Washington Department of Natural Resources Landslide Areas —Data defining the extent of mapped landslides in Washington provided by the Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Compiled chiefly from pre - existing databases created by different divisions of the Department of Natural Resources. • King County Slide Areas —Areas identified as follows in the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance: Any area with a combination of: ❑ Slopes greater than 15% ❑ Impermeable soils frequently interbedded with granular soils ❑ Springs or groundwater seepage. Any area that has shown movement in the past 10,000 years or that is underlain by mass wastage debris of that timeframe. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, streambank erosion or undercutting by wave action. Any area that shows evidence of, or is at risk from, snow avalanches. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or deposition of stream - transported deposits. • Slope /Soils Analysis —Areas defined as follows in data provided by King County DNRP: Areas with slope greater than 40 %, as determined from a digital elevation model generated from 2002 LiDAR data. Areas with the following soil types as identified in a 2006 surface geology dataset: E-3 3 ACT.A Page 487 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... ❑ Qf (alluvial fans, which are formed by the deposition of sediment from floods and debris flows at a point where a steep drainage course discharges onto an area of low gradient) ❑ Q1s (areas of discrete landslides) ❑ Qmw (colluvium and cumulative debris from small indistinct landslides accumulated on and at the base of unstable slopes). TSUNAMI MAPPING Tsunami inundation area data are provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Tsunami inundation is based on a computer model of waves generated by the Seattle Fault (Titov et al., 1997). The model used is the finite difference model of Titov and Synolakis (1998), also known as the Method of Splitting Tsunami (MOST) model (Titov and Gonzalez, 1997). It uses a grid of topographic and bathymetric elevations and calculates a wave elevation and velocity at each grid point at specified time intervals to simulate the generation, propagation and inundation of tsunamis in the Elliot Bay area. In this MOST model study, the tsunami is generated by a Seattle Fault deformation model that simulates the A.D. 900 -930 event as a credible worst -case scenario of magnitude 7.3. Tsunami hazard map of the Elliott Bay area, Seattle, Washington: Modeled tsunami inundation from a Seattle Fault earthquake, by Walsh et al. 2003. WEATHER MAPPING Wind Power Class at 50 -Meter Height Annual average wind resource potential data are provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Wind power class is an indicator of likely resource strength, with a higher wind power class representing higher wind resource levels. The classification information is for utility -scale applications at a 50 meter height. Annual Average Precipitation (inches) 1981 -2010 Precipitation data are provided by Natural Resources Conservations Service National Water and Climatic Center's PRISM project. PRISM is a hybrid statistical - geographic approach to mapping climate. This approach uses point measurements of climate data and a digital elevation model to generate estimates of annual, monthly and event -based climatic elements. These estimates are derived for a horizontal grid from which contour lines are generated. Annual Average Maximum Temperature (F) 1981 -2010 Temperature data are provided by National Water and Climatic Center's PRISM project. PRISM is a hybrid statistical- geographic approach to mapping climate. This approach uses point measurements of climate data and a digital elevation model to generate estimates of annual, monthly and event -based climatic elements. These estimates are derived for a horizontal grid from which contour lines are generated. Annual Average Minimum Temperature (F) 1981 -2010 Temperature data are provided by National Water and Climatic Center's PRISM project. PRISM is a hybrid statistical- geographic approach to mapping climate. This approach uses point measurements of climate data and a digital elevation model to generate estimates of annual, monthly and event -based climatic elements. These estimates are derived for a horizontal grid from which contour lines are generated. E-4 4 ACT.A Page 488 of 869 APPENDIX E. CONCEPTS AND METHODS USED FOR HAZARD MAPPING VOLCANO MAPPING Lahar hazards data are provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. These data were produced as part of a project to estimate the potential economic losses from future eruptions of Mount Rainier. The Puyallup Valley was chosen as the focus for the project because it is the valley most susceptible to lahars caused by flank collapse and has the most population and property at risk (Cakir and Walsh, 2012). The following conditions were analyzed: • Case 1 —Large Lahars (Recurrence Interval 500 -1000 Years) Shows areas that could be affected by cohesive lahars that originate as enormous avalanches of weak, chemically altered rock from the volcano. Case 1 lahars can occur with or without eruptive activity. The time interval between Case 1 lahars on Mount Rainier is about 500 to 1,000 years. • Case 2— Moderate Lahars (Recurrence Interval 100 -500 Years) Shows areas that could be affected by relatively large non - cohesive lahars, which are commonly caused by the melting of snow and glacier ice by hot rock fragments during an eruption, but they can also have a non - eruptive origin. The time interval between Case 2 lahars from Mount Rainier is near the lower end of the 100- to 500 -year range, making these flows analogous to the so- called 100 - year flood commonly considered in engineering practice. • Post - Lahar Sedimentation —Shows areas subject to post -lahar erosion and sedimentation and the ongoing potential for flooding. FIRE MAPPING LANDFIRE Fire Regime Groups The Historical Fire Regime Groups data layer from LANDFIRE categorizes simulated mean fire return intervals and fire severities into five fire regimes defined in the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook (Hann et al. 2004). The classes are defined as follows: • Fire Regime I: 0 to 35 year frequency, low to mixed severity • Fire Regime II: 0 to 35 year frequency, replacement severity • Fire Regime III: 35 to 200 year frequency, low to mixed severity • Fire Regime IV: 35 to 200 year frequency, replacement severity • Fire Regime V: 200+ year frequency, any severity The definitions of severity used in these categories refer to the amount of impact on the upper canopy layer of the affected area: • Low severity 6 to 25 percent of the upper canopy layer is killed by the fire • Mixed severity -26 to 75 percent of the upper canopy layer is killed by the fire • Replacement severity —more than 75 percent of the upper canopy layer is killed by the fire 2008 LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model Fuel class data are provided by the USGS Wildland Fire Science, Earth Resources Observation and Science Center. The LANDFIRE fuel data describe the composition and characteristics of both surface fuel and canopy fuel. Thirteen typical surface fuel arrangements or "collections of fuel properties" (Anderson, 1982) were described to serve as input for Rothermel's mathematical surface fire behavior and spread model (Rothermel, 1972). These fire behavior fuel models represent distinct distributions of fuel loadings found among surface fuel components (live and dead), size classes and fuel types. The fuel E-5 5 ACT.A Page 489 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... models are described by the most common fire carrying fuel type (grass, brush, timber litter or slash), loading and surface area -to- volume ratio by size class and component, fuel bed depth and moisture of extinction. • FBFM1: Surface fires that burn fine herbaceous fuels, cured and curing fuels, little shrub or timber present, primarily grasslands and savanna. • FBFM2: Burns fine, herbaceous fuels, stand is curing or dead, may produce fire brands on oak or pine stands. • FBFM3: Most intense fire of grass group, spreads quickly with wind, one third of stand dead or cured, stands average 3 feet tall. • FBFM5: Low intensity fires, young, green shrubs with little dead material, fuels consist of litter from understory. • FBFM6: Broad range of shrubs, fire requires moderate winds to maintain flame at shrub height, or will drop to the ground with low winds. • FBFM8: Slow, ground burning fires, closed canopy stands with short needle conifers or hardwoods, litter consist mainly of needles and leaves, with little undergrowth, occasional flares with concentrated fuels. • FBFM9: Longer flames, quicker surface fires, closed canopy stands of long - needles or hardwoods, rolling leaves in fall can cause spotting, dead -down material can cause occasional crowning. • FBFM10: Surface and ground fire more intense, dead -down fuels more abundant, frequent crowning and spotting causing fire control to be more difficult. • FBFM11: Fairly active fire, fuels consist of slash and herbaceous materials, slash originates from light partial cuts or thinning projects, fire is limited by spacing of fuel load and shade from overstory. Wildland Urban Interface Communities at Risk Wildland Urban Interface Areas are shown as defined by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Published in 2004, this dataset is based on data from the current National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 299) risk assessment, and includes one or several communities with similar wildfire risks. REFERENCES Anderson, H. 1982. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report. INT -122. 22 pp. Cakir, Recep; Walsh, T. J. 2012. Loss estimation pilot project for lahar hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular 113, 17 p. Hann, W.; Shlisky, A.; Havlina, D.; Schon, K.; Barrett, S.; DeMeo, T.; Pohl, K.; Menakis, J.; Hamilton, D.; Jones, J.; Levesque, M.; Frame, C. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Last update January 2008: Version 1.3.0 [Homepage of the Interagency and The Nature Conservancy fire regime condition class website, USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management]. [Online]. Available: www.frcc.gov. E-6 s ACT.A Page 490 of 869 APPENDIX E. CONCEPTS AND METHODS USED FOR HAZARD MAPPING Palmer, S. P.; Magsino, S. L.; Bilderback, E. L.; Poelstra, J. L.; Folger, D. S.; and Niggemann, R. A. 2004. Liquefaction susceptibility and site class maps of Washington State, by county: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open -file Report 2004 -20, 78 sheets, with 45 p. text. Accessed at http: / /www.dnr.wa.gov /geology /pubs /ofr04 -20/ (1/09/08). Rothermel, R. C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Res. Pap. INT- 115. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 40 p. Titov, V.V., F.I. Gonzalez, H.O. Mofjeld, and A.J. Venturato (2003): NOAA TIME Seattle Tsunami Mapping Project: Procedures, data sources, and products. NOAA Tech. Memo. OAR PMEL -124, NTIS: PB2004- 101635, 21 pp. [PDF Version] Titov, V.V., and C.E. Synolakis. 1998. Numerical modeling of tidal wave run -up. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng., 124(4), 157 -171. Titov, V., and F.I. Gonzalez. 1997. Implementation and testing of the Method of Splitting Tsunami (MOST) model. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL PMEL -112, NTIS: PB98- 122773, NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA, 11 pp. [PDF Version] Walsh, T. J., V. V. Titov, A. J. Venturato, H. O. Mofjeld, and F. I. Gonzalez. 2003. 36 x 36 -in. color sheet, scale 1:50,000. E-7 7 ACT.A Page 491 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update APPENDIX F. PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS FROM PLANNING PARTNERS ACT.A Page 493 of 869 APPENDIX F. PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS FROM PLANNING PARTNERS To Be Provided With Final Release F-1 1 ACT.A Page 495 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update APPENDIX G. PROGRESS REPORT TEMPLATE ACT.A Page 497 of 869 APPENDIX G. PROGRESS REPORT TEMPLATE King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Annual Progress Report Reporting Period: (Insert reporting period) Background: King County and participating cities and special purpose districts in the county developed a hazard mitigation plan to reduce risk from all hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction. The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. To prepare the plan, the participating partners organized resources, assessed risks from natural hazards within the county, developed planning goals and objectives, reviewed mitigation alternatives, and developed an action plan to address probable impacts from natural hazards. By completing this process, these jurisdictions maintained compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act, achieving eligibility for mitigation grant funding opportunities afforded under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The plan can be viewed on -line at: INSERT LINK Summary Overview of the Plan's Progress: The performance period for the Hazard Mitigation Plan became effective on , 2014, with the final approval of the plan by FEMA. The initial performance period for this plan will be 5 years, with an anticipated update to the plan to occur before , 2016. As of this reporting period, the performance period for this plan is considered to be % complete. The Hazard Mitigation Plan has targeted hazard mitigation actions to be pursued during the 5 -year performance period. As of the reporting period, the following overall progress can be reported: • • • out of initiatives ( %) reported ongoing action toward completion. out of initiatives ( %) were reported as being complete. out of initiatives ( %) reported no action taken. Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide an annual update on the implementation of the action plan identified in the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. The objective is to ensure that there is a continuing and responsive planning process that will keep the Hazard Mitigation Plan dynamic and responsive to the needs and capabilities of the partner jurisdictions. This report discusses the following: • Natural hazard events that have occurred within the last year • Changes in risk exposure within the planning area (all of King County) • Mitigation success stories • Review of the action plan • Changes in capabilities that could impact plan implementation • Recommendations for changes /enhancement. G-1 ACT.A Page 499 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee: The Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, made up of planning partners and stakeholders within the planning area, reviewed and approved this progress report at its annual meeting held on , 201_. It was determined through the plan's development process that a steering committee would remain in service to oversee maintenance of the plan. At a minimum, the Steering Committee will provide technical review and oversight on the development of the annual progress report. It is anticipated that there will be turnover in the membership annually, which will be documented in the progress reports. For this reporting period, the Steering Committee membership is as indicated in Table 1. TABLE 1. STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Name Title Jurisdiction /Agency Natural Hazard Events within the Planning Area: During the reporting period, there were natural hazard events in the planning area that had a measurable impact on people or property. A summary of these events is as follows: • • Changes in Risk Exposure in the Planning Area: (Insert brief overview of any natural hazard event in the planning area that changed the probability of occurrence or ranking of risk for the hazards addressed in the hazard mitigation plan) Mitigation Success Stories: (Insert brief overview of mitigation accomplishments during the reporting period) G-2 ACT.A Page 500 of 869 ...APPENDIX G. EXAMPLE PROGRESS REPORT Review of the Action Plan: Table 2 reviews the action plan, reporting the status of each initiative. Reviewers of this report should refer to the Hazard Mitigation Plan for more detailed descriptions of each initiative and the prioritization process. Address the following in the "status" column of the following table: • Was any element of the initiative carried out during the reporting period? • If no action was completed, why? • Is the timeline for implementation for the initiative still appropriate? • If the initiative was completed, does it need to be changed or removed from the action plan? ACT.A G -3 Page 501 of 869 TABLE 2. ACTION PLAN MATRIX Action Taken? (Yes or No) : Time Line Priority Status ' Status (X, O,✓) Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] • • Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] ACT.A G -3 Page 501 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1— Planning- Area -Wide Elements... TABLE 2. ACTION PLAN MATRIX Action Taken? (Yes or No) Time Line Priority Status Status (X, 0/) Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] Initiative # — [description] toward completion this time Completion status legend: ■= Project Completed 0 = Action ongoing X = No progress at ACT.A G -4 Page 502 of 869 ...APPENDIX G. EXAMPLE PROGRESS REPORT Changes That May Impact Implementation of the Plan: (Insert brief overview of any significant changes in the planning area that would have a profound impact on the implementation of the plan. Sped any changes in technical, regulatory and financial capabilities identified during the plan's development) Recommendations for Changes or Enhancements: Based on the review of this report by the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, the following recommendations will be noted for future updates or revisions to the plan: Public review notice: The contents of this report are considered to be public knowledge and have been prepared for total public disclosure. Copies of the report have been provided to the governing boards of all planning partners and to local media outlets and the report is posted on the King County Hazard Mitigation Plan website. Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to: Insert Contact Info Here G-5 5 ACT.A Page 503 of 869 l aCci Illllluw����i King County Office of Emergency Management KING COUNTY REGIONAL HAZARD MIT ON PLAN UPDATE Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes Part 2a —King County, Algona, Auburn, Beaux Arts Village, Bothell, Burien, Carnation, Clyde Hill, Duvall Agency Review Submittal July 2014 TETRA TECH T.A King County REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE VOLUME 2: PLANNING PARTNER ANNEXES A' '1 CY JULY 2014 Prepared for: King County Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Prepared by: TETRA TECH complex world A CLEAR SOLUTIONS' 19803 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 48011 Tel 425.877.2800 Fax 425.877.2899 www.tetrate,ch.corn. Project #10382548 ACT.A Page 507 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: To reduce document and electronic file size, the Planning Partner annexes presented in Volume 2 of the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan have been separated into four parts. Each part includes the Volume 2 table of contents, introduction and appendices and a limited number of annexes. Municipal annexes are presented alphabetically in the first three parts, followed by special purpose district annexes in the fourth part. See the list below to identify which part contains each annex. Part 2a Introduction Chapter 1. Update Annex for King County Regional Service Providers and Unincorporated Areas Chapter 2. City of Algona Annex Chapter 3. City of Auburn Update Annex Chapter 4. Town of Beaux Arts Village Annex Chapter 5. City of Bothell Update Annex Chapter 6. City of Burien Annex Chapter 7. City of Carnation Annex Chapter 8. City of Clyde Hill Annex Chapter 9. City of Duvall Annex Appendix A. Planning Partner Expectations Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Appendix C. Annex Instructions and Templates Part 2b Introduction Chapter 10. City of Federal Way Update Annex Chapter 11. Town of Hunts Point Annex Chapter 12. City of Issaquah Update Annex Chapter 13. City of Kent Update Annex Chapter 14. City of Kirkland Annex Chapter 15. City of Maple Valley Annex Chapter 16. City of Medina Annex Chapter 17. City of Mercer Island Update Annex Chapter 18. City of North Bend Annex Appendix A. Planning Partner Expectations Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Appendix C. Annex Instructions and Templates Part 2c Introduction Chapter 19. City of Pacific Update Annex Chapter 20. City of Redmond Update Annex Chapter 21. City of Renton Update Annex Chapter 22. City of Seatac Annex Chapter 23. City of Shoreline Update Annex Chapter 24. Town of Skykomish Annex Chapter 25. City of Snoqualmie Update Annex Chapter 26. City of Tukwila Update Annex Chapter 27. City of Woodinville Update Annex Appendix A. Planning Partner Expectations Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Appendix C. Annex Instructions and Templates ACT.A / Page 509 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes Part 2d Introduction Chapter 28. Coal Creek Utility District Annex Chapter 29. Covington Water District Update Annex Chapter 30. Highline Water District Update Annex Chapter 31. Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority Update Annex Chapter 32. Kent School District #415 Annex Chapter 33. King County Fire District No. 2 Annex Chapter 34. King County Fire District No. 45 Annex Chapter 35. King County Public Hospital District No. 1 (Valley Medical Center) Annex Chapter 36. King County Public Hospital District No. 2 Annex Chapter 37. King County Water District No. 19 Update Annex Chapter 38. King County Water District No. 20 Annex Chapter 39. King County Water District No. 90 Annex Chapter 40. King County Water District No. 111 Update Annex Chapter 41. King County Water District No. 125 Annex Chapter 42. Midway Sewer District Annex Chapter 43. North City Water District Update Annex Chapter 44. Riverview School District Annex Chapter 45. Ronald Wastewater District Annex Chapter 46. Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer Update Annex Chapter 47. Shoreline Fire Department Update Annex Chapter 48. Skyway Water and Sewer District Annex Chapter 49. Soos Creek Water & Sewer District Update Annex Chapter 50. Southwest Suburban Sewer District Update Annex Chapter 51. Valley Regional Fire Authority Annex Chapter 52. Valley View Sewer District Annex Chapter 53. Vashon Island Fire & Rescue (King County Fire Protection District 13) Annex Chapter 54. Woodinville Water District Annex Appendix A. Planning Partner Expectations Appendix B. Procedures for Linking to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Appendix C. Annex Instructions and Templates ACT.A Page 510 of 869 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi- jurisdictional planning for hazard mitigation. All participating jurisdictions must meet the requirements of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR): "Multi- jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan." (Section 201.6.a(4)) For the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, a Planning Partnership was formed to leverage resources and to meet requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for as many eligible local governments in King County as possible. The DMA defines a local government as follows: "Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity." There are two types of Planning Partners that participated in this process, with distinct needs and capabilities: • Incorporated municipalities (cities and the County) • Special purpose districts. Each participating planning partner has prepared a jurisdiction- specific annex to this plan. These annexes, as well as information on the process by which they were created, are contained in this volume. This volume also includes brief profiles of the two Native American tribes that have land within King County. The tribes are independent, sovereign nations and were not official Planning Partners in this effort. However, they are important stakeholders in the region, and the King County Planning Partnership recognizes that tribal -level plans can support or enhance hazard mitigation in the planning area. THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP Initial Solicitation and Letters of Intent The planning team solicited the participation of the County and all County- recognized special purpose districts at the outset of this project. A kickoff meeting was held on January 24, 2013 at King County Office of Emergency Management in Renton to identify potential stakeholders and planning partners for this process. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the planning process to jurisdictions in the County that could have a stake in the outcome of the planning effort. All eligible local governments within the planning area were invited to attend. Various agency and citizen stakeholders were also invited to this meeting. The goals of the meeting were as follows: • Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act. • Provide an update on the planning grant. 1 ACT.A Page 511 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes • Outline the King County plan update work plan. • Describe the benefits of multi jurisdictional planning • Outline planning partner expectations. • Solicit planning partners. • Confirm a Steering Committee. All interested local governments were provided with a list of planning partner expectations developed by the planning team and were informed of the obligations required for participation. Local governments wishing to join the planning effort were asked to provide the planning team with a "notice of intent to participate" that agreed to the planning partner expectations (see Appendix A) and designated a point of contact for their jurisdiction. In all, formal commitment was received from 59 planning partners by the planning team, and the King County Planning Partnership was formed. Maps for each participating city are provided in the individual annex for that city in Parts 2a through 2c of this volume. Maps showing the location of participating special purpose districts by district type are provided at the beginning of Part 2d, which includes the special purpose district annexes. These maps will be updated periodically as changes to the partnership occur, either through linkage or by a partner dropping out due to a failure to participate. Planning Partner Expectations The planning team developed the following list of planning partner expectations, which were confirmed at the kickoff meeting held on January 24, 2013: • Each partner will provide a "Letter of Intent to Participate." • Each partner will support and participate in the selection and function of the Steering Committee overseeing the development of the update. Support includes allowing this body to make decisions regarding plan development and scope on behalf of the partnership. • Each partner will provide support for the public involvement strategy developed by the Steering Committee in the form of mailing lists, possible meeting space, and media outreach such as newsletters, newspapers or direct - mailed brochures. • Each partner will participate in plan update development activities such as: Steering Committee meetings Public meetings or open houses Workshops and planning partner training sessions Public review and comment periods prior to adoption. Attendance will be tracked at such activities, and attendance records will be used to track and document participation for each planning partner. No minimum level of participation will be established, but each planning partner should attempt to attend all such activities. • Each partner will be expected to perform a "consistency review" of all technical studies, plans, and ordinances specific to hazards identified within the planning area to determine the existence of plans, studies or ordinances not consistent with the equivalent documents reviewed in preparation of the County plan. For example: if a planning partner has a floodplain management plan that makes recommendations that are not consistent with any of the County's basin plans, that plan will need to be reviewed for probable incorporation into the plan for the partner's area. 2 ACT.A Page 512 of 869 INTRODUCTION • Each partner will be expected to review the risk assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to its jurisdiction. Contract resources will provide jurisdiction - specific mapping and technical consultation to aid in this task, but the determination of risk and vulnerability will be up to each partner. • Each partner will be expected to review the mitigation recommendations chosen for the overall county and determine if they will meet the needs of its jurisdiction. Projects within each jurisdiction consistent with the overall plan recommendations will need to be identified, prioritized and reviewed to determine their benefits and costs. • Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project, who will oversee the task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur. • Each partner will be required to complete its normal pre- adoption process prior to submitting the plan to its governing body for adoption. For example, if it is the community's normal process to submit a planning document to a Planning Commission prior to submittal to council for adoption, then that process must be followed for the adoption of this plan. • Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan. It should be noted that by adopting this plan, each planning partner also agrees to the plan implementation and maintenance protocol established in Volume 1. Failure to meet these criteria may result in a partner being dropped from the partnership by the Steering Committee, and thus losing eligibility under the scope of this plan. Linkage Procedures Eligible local jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this regional plan update may comply with DMA requirements by linking to this plan following the procedures outlined in Appendix B. ANNEX - PREPARATION PROCESS Templates Templates were created to help the Planning Partners prepare their jurisdiction - specific annexes. Since special purpose districts operate differently from incorporated municipalities, separate templates were created for the two types of jurisdictions. The templates were created so that all criteria of Section 201.6 of 44 CFR would be met, based on the partners' capabilities and mode of operation. Templates available for the planning partners' use were specific as to whether the partner is a municipality or a special purpose district and whether the annex is an update to a previous hazard mitigation plan or a first -time hazard plan. Each partner was asked to participate in a technical assistance workshop during which key elements of the template were completed by a designated point of contact for each partner and a member of the planning team. The templates were set up to lead each partner through a series of steps that would generate the DMA - required elements that are specific for each partner. The templates and their instructions can be found in Appendix C to this volume of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Workshop Workshops were held for Planning Partners to learn about the templates and the overall planning process. Topics included the following: • DMA • King County plan background • The templates 3 ACT.A Page 513 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes • Risk ranking • Developing your action plan • Cost/benefit review. Separate sessions were held for special purpose districts and municipalities, in order to better address each type of partner's needs. The sessions provided technical assistance and an overview of the template completion process. Attendance at this workshop was mandatory under the planning partner expectations established by the Steering Committee. There was 92- percent attendance of the partnership at these sessions. In the risk - ranking exercise, each planning partner was asked to rank each risk specifically for its jurisdiction, based on the impact on its population or facilities. Cities were asked to base this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on people, property and the economy. Special purpose districts were asked to base this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on their constituency, their vital facilities and the facilities' functionality after an event. The methodology followed that used for the countywide risk ranking presented in Volume 1. A principal objective of this exercise was to familiarize the partnership with how to use the risk assessment as a tool to support other planning and hazard mitigation processes. Tools utilized during these sessions included the following: • The risk assessment results developed for this plan • Hazard maps for all hazards of concern • Special district boundary maps that illustrated the sphere of influence for each special purpose district partner • Hazard mitigation catalogs • Federal funding and technical assistance catalogs • Copies of partners' prior annexes, if applicable. Prioritization 44 CFR requires actions identified in the action plan to be prioritized (Section 201.c.3.iii). The planning team and steering committee developed a methodology for prioritizing the action plans that meets the needs of the partnership and the requirements of 44 CFR. The actions were prioritized according to the following criteria: • High Priority— Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short term project) once funded. • Medium Priority— Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. • Low Priority— Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). These priority definitions are dynamic and can change from one category to another based on changes to a parameter such as availability of funding. For example, a project might be assigned a medium priority because of the uncertainty of a funding source, but be changed to high once a funding source has been 4 ACT.A Page 514 of 869 INTRODUCTION identified. The prioritization schedule for this plan will be reviewed and updated as needed annually through the plan maintenance strategy. Benefit /Cost Review 44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan to emphasize a benefit /cost analysis of the proposed actions. Because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, benefit /cost analysis was qualitative and not of the detail required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre - Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. A review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to costs and benefits as follows: • Cost ratings: High— Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action; implementation would require an increase in revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). Medium —The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years. Low —The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an existing, ongoing program. • Benefit ratings: High —The action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. Medium —The action will have a long -term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property or will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. Low — Long -term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term. Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost - beneficial and are prioritized accordingly. It should be noted that for many of the strategies identified in this action plan, funding might be sought under FEMA's HMGP or PDM programs. Both of these programs require detailed benefit/cost analysis as part of the application process. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application preparation. The FEMA benefit -cost model will be used to perform this review. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require this sort of analysis, the Partners reserve the right to define "benefits" according to parameters that meet their needs and the goals and objectives of this plan. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives Each planning partner reviewed its recommended initiatives to classify each initiative based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows: • Prevention — Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. 5 ACT.A Page 515 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes • Property Protection — Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter - resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness— Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection — Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services — Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects— Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. COMPATIBILITY WITH PREVIOUS APPROVED PLANS Of the 59 committed planning partners, 22 were covered by prior plans approved by FEMA. This does not include local governments covered under the initial 2004 Regional Plan that did not perform and update to that plan in 2009. Table 1 lists those communities, the status of those plans, and the role this regional plan will play in achieving compliance and the CRS status if applicable. These 22 plans identified over 280 initiatives. The progress made on these initiatives has been reviewed in the progress report included in Appendix B of Volume 1 of this plan update. FINAL COVERAGE UNDER THE PLAN Of the 59 committed planning partners, 54 fully met the participation requirements specified by the Steering Committee. The principal requirement not met by the other partners was the completion of the jurisdictional annex template following the workshops. All 54 partners that attended the workshop subsequently submitted completed templates. Only those 54 jurisdictions are included in this volume and will seek DMA compliance under this plan. The remaining jurisdictions will need to follow the linkage procedures described in Appendix B of this volume. Table 2 lists the jurisdictions that submitted letters of intent and their ultimate status in this plan. 6 ACT.A Page 516 of 869 INTRODUCTION TABLE 1. PRIOR PLAN STATUS Jurisdiction FEMA Approval Date Will Be Replaced by King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan? (Yes/No) CRS Community (Yes/No) King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Will Become CRS Plan of Record ?( Yes /No) City of Auburn City of Bothell 12/2/2009 Yes Yes Yes 6/17/2010 Yes No N/A City of Federal Way City of Issaquah 12/2/2009 Yes No N/A 1/28/2010 Yes Yes Yes City of Kent (including annex for Kent Fire 1/27/2005 Department/King County Fire District 37) Yes Yes Yes City of Mercer Island City of Pacific 6/16/2011 Yes No N/A 12/2/2009 Yes No N/A City of Redmond 1/8/2010 Yes No N/A City of Renton 4/19/2012 Yes Yes Yes City of Shoreline (including annex for Shoreline Fire Department /King County Fire District 4) 12/2/2009 Yes No n/a City of Snoq_ualmie 4/20/2010 Yes Yes Yes City of Tukwila 2/16/2011 Yes No N/A City of Woodinville (an annex to the North 11/29/2010 King and South Snohomish Counties Regional Mitigation Plan for Natural Hazards) Yes No N/A King County (Unincorporated) 1/28/2010 Yes Yes Nop Covington Water District Highline Water District King County Water District 19 King County Water District 111 North City Water District (known as Shoreline Water District at the time of the previous hazard mitigationplan ) Soos Creek Water District 1/28/2010 Yes N/A N/A 12/2/2009 Yes N/A N/A 12/28/2010 Yes N/A N/A 4/20/2010 Yes N/A N/A N /Ab Yes N/A N/A 3/18/2010 Yes N/A N/A Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District 12/2/2009 Yes N/A N/A Southwest Suburban Sewer District South King Fire and Rescue 1/28/2010 12/2/2009 Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A a. For unincorporated King County, the CRS plan of record is the 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update and Progress Report. b. The 2010 Shoreline Water District Hazard Mitigation Plan was not submitted to FEMA for approval. ACT.A 7 Page 517 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 2. PLANNING PARTNER STATUS Jurisdiction Letter of Attended Completed Covered by This Intent Date Workshop'? Template'? Plan'? Municipalities King County City of Algona City of Auburn City of Bellevue City of Bothell City of Burien City of Carnation City of Covington City of Clyde Hill City of Duvall City of Federal Way City of Issaquah City of Kent City of Kirkland City of Maple Valley City of Medina City of Mercer Island City of North Bend City of Pacific City of Redmond City of Renton City of SeaTac City of Shoreline City of Snoqualmie City of Tukwila City of Woodinville Town of Beaux Arts Village Town of Hunts Point Town of Skykomish N/A Yes Yes Yes 1/29/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/13/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/22/2013 Noa No No 2/12/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/13/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/11/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/12/2013 Nop No No 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/13/2013 Yes Yes Yes 1/31/2013 Yes Yes Yes 1/33/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes 1/30/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/11/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/22/2013 Yes Yes Yes 3/15/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/19/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/22/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/7/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/15/2013 Yes Yes Yes 3/14/2013 Yes Yes Yes 3/1/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/28/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/14/2013 Yes Yes Yes 2/23/2013 Yes Yes Yes 3/15/2013 Yes Yes Yes Fire Districts Burien Fire (King County Fire District #2) 1/24/2013 Yes Yes Yes Duvall Fire (King County Fire District #45) 2/15/2013 Yes Yes Yes Kent Fire 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes Shoreline Fire 2/13/2013 Yes Yes Yes ACT.A 8 Page 518 of 869 INTRODUCTION TABLE 2. PLANNING PARTNER STATUS Letter of Attended Completed Covered by This Jurisdiction Intent Date Workshop'? Template'? Plan'? Valley Regional Fire Authority 1/29/2013 Yes Yes Yes South King Co. Fire and Rescue 2/13/2013 No No No Vashon Island Fire & Rescue 1/31/2013 Yes Yes Yes School and Hospital Districts Kent School District 2/14/2013 Yes Yes Yes Lake Washington School District 3/15/2013 No No No Riverview School District 1/30/2013 Yes Yes Yes Evergreen Health (Public Hospital District #2) 2/5/2013 Yes Yes Yes Snoqualmie Hospital 2/25/2013 No No No Valley Medical (Public Hospital District #1) 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes Water, Sewer and Utility Districts Covington Water District 2/12/2013 Yes Yes Yes Highline Water District 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes King County Water District 19 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes King County Water District 20 2/20/2013 Yes Yes Yes King County Water District 90 2/12/2013 Yes Yes Yes King County Water District 111 2/25/2013 Yes Yes Yes King County Water District 125 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes North City Water District (formerly Shoreline 2/26/2013 Yes Yes Yes Water District) Coal Creek Utility District 1/30/2013 Yes Yes Yes Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District 2/26/2013 Yes Yes Yes Skyway Water & Sewer District 3/12/2013 Yes Yes Yes Soos Creek Water & Sewer District 2/27/2013 Yes Yes Yes Midway Sewer District 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes Ronald Wastewater District 2/13/2013 Yes Yes Yes Southwest Suburban Sewer District 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes Valley View Sewer District 2/21/2013 Yes Yes Yes Woodinville Water District 2/20/2013 Yes Yes Yes a. Cities of Bellevue and Covington decided to maintain their own plans after submitting letter of intent ACT.A 9 Page 519 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes KING COUNTY TRIBAL STAKEHOLDERS FEMA's Tribal Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance FEMA's 2010 Tribal Multi - Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance assists Indian tribal governments and other tribal entities in identifying and assessing their risk to natural hazards. The document offers the following types of assistance (44 CFR 201.7): • It helps Indian tribal governments identify their risks from natural hazards and protect their members and other resources. • It helps Indian tribal governments develop and adopt new mitigation plans, or revise or update existing mitigation plans, to meet the requirements of 44 CFR 201.7. • It helps plan reviewers evaluate mitigation plans from different Indian Tribal governments in a fair and consistent manner. • It helps Indian tribal governments exercise flexibility and apply for assistance as either a grantee or subgrantee under FEMA grant programs with a single plan type. • It provides guidance and culturally relevant examples to other tribal entities that comply with similar planning requirements under 44 CFR 201.6 as a local government. Indian tribal governments with an approved tribal mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR 201.7 may apply for assistance from FEMA as a grantee. If the Indian tribal government coordinates with the state for review of the tribal mitigation plan, then the Indian tribal government also has the option to apply as a subgrantee through a state or another tribe. A grantee is an entity such as a state, territory, or Indian tribal government to which a grant is awarded and that is accountable for the funds provided. A subgrantee is an entity —such as a community, local or Indian tribal government, state- recognized tribe, or private nonprofit organization —to which a subgrant is awarded and that is accountable to the grantee for use of the funds provided. If the Indian tribal government is eligible as a grantee or subgrantee because it has an approved tribal mitigation plan and has coordinated with the state for review, it can decide which option it wants to take on a case -by -case basis with respect to each federal disaster declaration, and for each grant program under a declaration, but not on a project -by- project basis within a grant program. For example, an Indian tribal government can participate as a subgrantee for public assistance, but as a grantee for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program under the same declaration. However, the Indian tribal government would not be able to request grantee status under HMGP for one HMGP project, then request subgrantee status for another HMGP project under the same declaration. By acknowledging the tribes as stakeholders, the King County regional planning partnership recognizes tribal level plans as existing and potential mechanisms that could support or enhance hazard mitigation in King County. This is a requirement of 44 CFR 201.6.b.3. While the King County regional planning effort and those of the tribal governments are separate and autonomous efforts, tribal plans offer an opportunity to partner and share information that may lead help to leverage resources in the planning area. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Brief Profile This section is excerpted from the City of Auburn's 2013 Annex to the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (http: / /www.auburnwa.gov/ Assets /EM /Auburn WA/Docs/hazmit2013.pdf) and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe website (http: / /www.muckleshoot.nsn.us /about- us /overview.aspx) 10 ACT.A Page 520 of 869 INTRODUCTION The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe whose membership is composed of descendants of the Duwamish and Upper Puyallup people who inhabited Central Puget Sound for thousands of years before non - Indian settlement. The Tribe's name is derived from the native name for the prairie on which the Muckleshoot Reservation was established. Following the Reservation's establishment in 1857, the Tribe and its members came to be known as Muckleshoot, rather than by the historical tribal names of their Duwamish and Upper Puyallup ancestors. Today, the United States recognizes the Muckleshoot Tribe as a tribal successor to the Duwamish and Upper Puyallup bands from which the Tribe's membership descends. The Muckleshoot Reservation consists of six sections situated diagonally, has 20 miles of boundaries, and encompasses 6 square - miles. Three sections (3 square miles) are within the municipal limits of the City of Auburn. The Muckleshoot Tribe is one of Washington's largest tribes, with a membership of about 3,300. Through the Indian Reorganization Act, the Tribe adopted its constitution in 1936. It provides a nine - member council with advice and input of the General Council, consisting of all community members, and it provides a full range of governance services to tribal members and tribal properties in the reservation. Status of Approved Plan The Mucklehoot Tribe does not currently have a FEMA- approved, state- level, multi - hazard mitigation plan; however, the Tribe is currently pursuing plan development. The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe Brief Profile The following information is excerpted from the 2011 Snoqualmie Tribe Hazard Mitigation Plan Ottp: / /www.snoqualmietribe.us/ sites /default/ files /linkedfles /snoqualmie tribe hmpfinal 11.1.11.pdf). The people known today as the Snoqualmie Tribe have lived in the Puget Sound region of Washington State since time immemorial, long before the early explorers came to the Northwest. They hunted deer, elk, and other game animals, fished for salmon and gathered berries and wild plants for food and medicinal purposes. The Snoqualmie Tribe currently has approximately 650 members. Historically, tribal members lived in an area of East King and Snohomish Counties that now contains the communities of Monroe, Carnation, Fall City, Snoqualmie, North Bend, Mercer Island and Issaquah. Tribal members continue to live in each of these communities. In 1855, Snoqualmie signed the Point Elliott Treaty creating a government -to- government relationship between the United States and the Snoqualmie Tribe. The Tribe ceded to the U.S. government all of its land between Snoqualmie Pass and Marysville. The Tribe lost federal recognition in 1953 when federal policies limited recognition to tribes having reservations. In October 1999, After 46 years of petitioning, the Bureau of Indian Affairs notified the Tribe's Fall City headquarters that the U.S. government had re- recognized the Snoqualmie Tribe and granted Snoqualmie Nation tribal status based on evidence that the Tribe had maintained a continuous community from historical times to the present. Recognition gave the Tribe the right to acquire its initial reservation land and to develop a casino to help fund tribal governance, administration and services to its members. In the decade since re- recognition, the Tribe has worked to develop programs and provide services to meet the needs of its members. The Tribe has developed a government, created medical clinics, and promoted economic development, social and health services, and housing programs. 11 ACT.A Page 521 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes On March 2, 2006 the Snoqualmie Reservation site was officially put into trust status. The Snoqualmie Casino (which opened in 2009) was built on the reservation and is used to pursue economic development and increase the financial resources of the Tribe for government operations. Status of Approved Plan The Snoqualmie Tribe has a FEMA- approved, state- level, multi - hazard mitigation plan effective October 2011 through October 11, 2016. Hazards of Concern The 2011 plan addressed the following hazards of concern: • Earthquake • Severe weather • Flood • Wildfire • Landslide /mass movement • Dam failure • Epidemic /pandemic • Abandonded mines • Hazardous materials. 12 ACT.A Page 522 of 869 INTRODUCTION ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS The following terms are used in the planning partner annexes: • ATC— Applied Technology Council • CED— Community and Economic Development (city department) • CEMP— Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan • CERT— Citizens Emergency Response Training • CFR —Code of Federal Regulations • cfs —cubic feet per second • CIP— Capital Improvement Plan • CRS — Community Rating System • DCD— Department of Community Development • DI— Ductile iron • DMA — Disaster Mitigation Act • DNRP— Department of Natural Resources and Parks (King County) • DOT — Department of Transportation (King County) • DPER— Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (King County) • EOC— Emergency Operations Center • EPA —U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • FEMA— Federal Emergency Management Agency • GIS— Geographic Information System • GMA— Growth Management Act (Washington State) • gpm— gallons per minute • Hazus- MH— Hazards, United States -Multi Hazard • HDPE— High - density polyethylene • HMGP— Hazard Mitigation Grant Program • IBC — International Building Code • IRC— International Residential Code • KCFD —King County Fire District • KCSO —King County Sheriff's Office • KCWD —King County Water District • mgd— million gallons per day • NFIP— National Flood Insurance Program • NOAA— National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • NPDES— National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 13 ACT.A Page 523 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2— Planning Partner Annexes • OEM — Office of Emergency Management (King County) • OFM— Office of Financial Management (Washington State) • PDM— Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program • PRV— Pressure - reducing valve • RCW— Revised Code of Washington • SCADA— Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition • SPU— Seattle Public Utilities • USGS —U.S. Geological Survey • WSDOT— Washington State Department of Transportation • WTD— Wastewater Treatment Division (a division of King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks) 14 ACT.A Page 524 of 869 CHAPTER 1. UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS 1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Janice Rahman, Hazard Mitigation Program Manager 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Telephone: (206) 205 -4061 e -mail Address: Janice.Rahman@KingCounty.gov Alternate Point of Contact Walt Hubbard, Director of Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Telephone: (206) 205 -4060 e -mail Address: Walt.Hubbard @KingCounty.gov 1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about King County and its history: • Date of Incorporation December 22, 1852 • Current Population- 253,100 as of 2013 estimates (unincorporated area only) • Population Growth —The population of King County as a whole grew by 3.9 percent between April 1, 2010 and July 1, 2012. However, the population living in unincorporated areas decreased dramatically due to annexations. In 2010, four major annexations reduced the total unincorporated population from 325,002 to approximately 253,100. • Location and Description — Unincorporated King County consists of both rural and urban areas outside of city limits. Rural unincorporated areas are outside the Urban Growth Area and are designated as Rural, Agriculture or Forest Resources by the King County Comprehensive Plan. Rural unincorporated areas include central and eastern King County and Vashon Island. Rural and Resource areas, which encompass the majority of King County's land area, cannot be annexed into a city. Unincorporated urban areas are located in western King County. Most of these are designated as "Potential Annexation Areas" and represent more than half of the unincorporated population. • Brief History —The Native American peoples inhabiting the area of present -day King County were first encountered by Euro- American explorers beginning in the late 18th century and by traders in the first half of the 19th century. With the influx of American settlers, pressures increased on the U.S. government to solve the problem of land tenure for the new arrivals. The solution, following the federal policies used to acquire territories across the continent, was to negotiate treaties ceding Indian lands to the federal government in exchange for limited reservation parcels, some services, and compensation. Despite the many difficulties affecting tribal organizations and reservations in the region, most groups are seeking to maintain their language, culture, and traditions. The federal Oregon Donation Land Act of 1850 encouraged settlement in the Oregon Territory. As desirable tracts were claimed south of the Columbia River, a number of pioneering settlers turned their attention northward to the Puget Sound region. In December of 1852, the Oregon Provisional Legislature established boundaries for King County. 1-1 ACT.A Page 525 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes Lumber played a major role in King County's early economy, due to the abundance of large and easily harvested timber and spurred by the arrival of the Great Northern Railroad through Stevens Pass in 1893. The industry largely peaked in the late 1920s. Some of the biggest changes to local industry came during World War II, as King County saw a massive expansion in its aerospace and shipbuilding capacity. The population increased rapidly as people moved to the area to meet the demand for workers. Following wartime production, labor demand dropped sharply, but the aerospace industry continued to develop at a reduced pace. The 1960s saw significant change to the environment and transportation systems in King County. Major improvements in water quality and sewage treatment practices helped to clean up Lake Washington, a water body contaminated by dumping and sewage. In 1962, the Howard Hanson Dam project was completed to provide flood control in the Green River Valley. Protection from periodic flooding made valley properties more attractive to developers, marking the acceleration of industrial and suburban expansion into the valley. The 1960s brought the Interstate highway system to the County, further facilitating socio- economic growth. The completion of Interstate 5, Interstate 405 on the east side, and State Highway 167 in the Green River Valley defined the region's transportation infrastructure as it has persisted to this day. In 1964, stronger building codes were created following an earthquake, and King County implemented its first Comprehensive Plan to guide growth and development. • Climate —King County enjoys a mild Pacific maritime climate. About two - thirds of Pacific Northwest precipitation occurs from October through March, with much of it captured in the mountains. King County receives an average of 38 inches of precipitation annually, which feeds a robust watershed of 760 lakes and reservoirs, 975 wetlands, and six major river systems that ultimately flow out along 100 miles of marine coastline. Precipitation declines from late spring to early fall, with high pressure systems to the west keeping the region fairly dry with pleasant summertime temperatures. River system flow peaks twice a year, fed by melting snowpack in the spring and heavier precipitation in the winter. As the climate continues changing globally, specific impacts on King County are likely to bring dramatic changes to the region's watershed system. • Governing Body Format —King County operates under a Home Rule Charter adopted by a vote of its citizens in 1968 and is organized under the council- executive form of government. Elected executive positions are the County Executive, the nine - member Metropolitan King County Council, the Prosecuting Attorney, the County Assessor, and the Director of Elections. Elected judicial positions are 51 Superior Court judges, 21 District Court judges, and the County Sheriff. The King County Executive is the chief executive officer of King County government, elected to a four -year term. The County Executive supervises executive departments, enforces all ordinances and state statutes within the County, presents an annual statement of governmental affairs to the Council, prepares and presents the proposed budget and budget message, prepares and presents comprehensive plans to the Council, including capital improvement plans for present and future development within the County, and nominates members of County boards and commissions. Each member of the County Council represents a specific geographic region known as a Council District. The County Council adopts and enacts ordinances, resolutions and motions, levies taxes, appropriates revenue, and adopts budgets. Council members are elected to staggered four -year terms. 1-2 ACT.A Page 526 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS Regional services provided by the King County government include prosecution, courts, jails, medical examiner services, voter registration, elections, recording, licensing, property assessment, tax collection, historic preservation, public transit, solid waste, potable and waste water treatment, public health, veteran assistance programs, flood control, emergency /disaster coordination, and enhanced 911. King County also operates and maintains the King County International Airport (Boeing Field). In addition, the County contracts with several cities to provide local services such as law enforcement. In unincorporated communities, the County is responsible for providing local services such as building and land use development, fire code enforcement, law enforcement, emergency coordination, road construction and maintenance, fire investigation, parks, and animal control. The King County Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the Office of Emergency Management will oversee its implementation. • Development Trends —King County's comprehensive land -use planning dates back to the 1960s. The Growth Management Act, passed in successive sessions of the Washington State Legislature in 1990 and 1991, seeks to protect and enhance the quality of life in King County and the Pacific Northwest. The first King County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1994. Before the adoption of the King County Comprehensive Plan, more than a third of annual residential development was occurring in unincorporated areas. Since December 1994, five new cities incorporated and numerous annexations occurred, shifting more than 220,000 people into city limits. The unincorporated population has decreased by 239,000 since the adoption of the comprehensive plan, largely through the incorporation of new cities. The unincorporated population within the Urban Growth Area continues to dwindle as annexations take place. However, the population of rural areas has grown slowly since about 1994. Unincorporated King County is home to 253,000 people, representing 13 percent of the County's population and 81 percent of its land area. 1.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1 -5. 1-3 ACT.A Page 527 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requ Building Code Yes No Yes Yes King County Code Title 16: Building and Construction Standards Updated 2013, (adopts International Building Code) Zoning Yes No No No King County Code Title 21A: Zoning. Updated 2013 Subdivisions Yes No No No King County Code Title 19A: Land Segregation. Updated 2013 Stormwater Management Yes No No No King County Code Title 9: Surface Water Management. Updated 2013 Post Disaster Recovery No No No No Ongoing development of regional recovery plan began 2013. Real Estate Disclosure Yes No Yes Yes Revised Code of Washington 42.56 Public Records Act. Updated 2012. Growth Management Yes No Yes Yes State Growth Management Act. Enacted 1990 King County Comprehensive Plan. Updated 2012 Site Plan Review Yes No Yes Yes King County Code Titles 16, 19A and 21A all require Site Plan Review. State Growth Management Act. Enacted 1990 Public Health and Safety Yes No No Yes Code of the King County Board of Health. Updated 2013 King County Code Title 12: Public Peace, Safety, and Morals. Updated 2013 Environmental Protection Yes No Yes Yes King County Comprehensive Plan. Updated 2012 King County Code Title 9: Surface Water Management, Title 13: Water and Sewer Systems, Title 18: Environmental Sustainability Program. Updated 2013 Equity and Social Justice Yes No No No Fair and Just Ordinance 16948. Adopted October 11, 2010 King County Equity and Social Justice Annual Report. October 2013 Planning Documents General or Yes No Yes Yes King County Comprehensive Plan. Updated Comprehensive Plan 2012 Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes Floodplain or Basin Plan Yes No Yes Yes King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. Updated 2013 Stormwater Plan Yes No Yes Yes State Growth Management Act. Enacted 1990 King County Stormwater Management Program. Updated 2013 ACT.A 1 -4 Page 528 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Strategic Plan Yes No No No King County Strategic Plan, 2010 -2014: Working Together for One King County. Adopted July 26, 2010 Climate Action Plan Yes No No No King County Strategic Climate Action Plan. Published December 2012 Capital Improvement Yes No No Yes State Growth Management Act. Enacted 1990. King County Budget, Capital Improvement Program. Updated 2013 What types of capital facilities does the Airport, ferry districts, information technology, transit, open space, parks, road plan address? services, solid waste, waste water, flood district, other King County government administrative facilities. How often is the plan revised /updated? Annually, as a function of budget. Plan Habitat Conservation Yes Plan No No No King County Critical Areas Ordinance, sections: Wetlands, Aquatic Areas, and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Updated 2009 Economic Yes Development Plan Shoreline Yes Management Plan No No No King County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9: Economic Development. Updated 2012 No No Yes King County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5: Shoreline Master Program. Updated 2012 Community Wildfire Yes Protection Plan No No No Community Wildfire Protection Plans, Tolt (2005), East Hobart Area (2012) Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Yes Emergency Management Plan Yes No Yes King County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Updated 2013 Threat and Hazard No No Identification and Risk Assessment No No Terrorism Plan No No No No Post - Disaster No No Recovery Plan Continuity of Yes Operations Plan No No No No No King County Continuity of Operations Plan. Updated January 2013 Public Health Plans Yes No No No King County Public Health Operational Master Plan. Approved 2007 Emergency Support Function 8 of Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) Basic Plan: Health, Medical, and Mortuary Services. Updated 2012 1-5 ACT.A Page 529 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Capital Improvements Project Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt t ou Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes Y Yes Yes (sewer only Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 1 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Available? ! Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes Department of Permitting and Environmental Review Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Yes Department of Permitting and Environmental Review Department of Emergency Management, Department of Permitting and Environmental Review, Department of Natural Resources an Parks Staff with training in benefit /cost analysis Surve ors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Yes Finance and Business Operations Division Yes Department of Transportation, Roads Survey Unit Yes Department of Information Technology, Department of Natural Resources and Parks Yes Department of Natural Resources and Parks Yes Each department has a someone designated to handle emergency management, organized into the Emergency Management Coordination Council Grant writers Yes Not specific to any one department 1-6 ACT.A Page 530 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain Bing Countv Water anti Land Resources Division /River and management in your community? Floodplain Management Section Who is your community's floodplain administrator'? Stcv c Blcifuhs_ Section (\Tanager_ Water anti Land (department/position) Resources Division /River and Floodplain Management Section Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff tics in your community? What is the date of adoption of your flood damage January I. 2007 _prevention ordinance? When was the most recent Community Assistance Last Visit vvas in 2009. Verification approved Mao 2012 Visit or Community Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community No have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are_ Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the tics. NN ith the follow ing limitations: flood risk within your community? (If no, please state I . Best available information developed in 2007 is not why) being used by FEMA and some jurisdictions because of dclav s related to the levee mapping polio. 2. Use of the 1°■ annual flood event does not rccognii.c areas of residual risk. Risk of higher magnitude events is not communicated to the public. Where levees are accredited or recognii.ed as accredited. residual risk in the levee-protected area is not communicated cicarh to the public. �. FEN1A maps do not reflect future buildout conditions. nor do they reflect recent anal\ ses of climate change impacts. Islam maps for smaller streams in urban or urbanii.ing areas of the count■ are based on old clata anti should be updated. Does your floodplain management staff need any Yes: assistance or training to support its floodplain I . CRS anti NFIP training are needed in the coming management program? If so, what type of v car to help us understand and apply the ncNN assistance /training is needed? manual. and build avv areness among jurisclictions in our community . 2. SNN iftvvater safery training for field staff NN ho perform Icvcc inspections and participate in flood patrols. Professional license /certification continuing education for engineers. geologists. ecologists. and certified floodplain managers. 4. Solov are 1rainine for ncvv hydraulic modclint; tools. Does your community participate in the Community tics. King Countv is a Class 2 community . Rating System (CRS)? If so, is your community No. King Countv is not currently seeking to improve its CRS seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is Classification. your community interested in joining the CRS program'? ACT.A 1 -7 Page 531 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Da Classifacd, Community Rating System Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Public Protection Fire Districts 14, 39 Fire Districts 4, 11, 18, 26, 36, 42 Fire Districts 2, 5, 16, 21, 24, 34, 37, 40, 41 Fire Districts 1, 10, 17, 20, 25, 27, 35, 43, 44, 45, 46 Fire Districts 13, 28, 38 Fire Districts 49, 51 Fire Districts 47, 50 StormReady Yes Yes Ycs Ycs Yes Yes Yes Ycs Ycs Yes 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 StormReady N/A N/A 10/01/1991 Not available Not available Not available Not available Notavailablc Not availablc Notiavailablc Not available Not available N/A N/A Firewise Tsunami Ready (if applicable) No No 1.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 1 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA - Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: 108 • Number of FEMA- Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: unknown • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: 3 1.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 1 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps for the County are included in Volume 1 of this plan. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are adequate for planning purposes. 1-8 ACT.A Page 532 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEN1A Disaster # (II applicable) Date Preliminary Damagc Assessment Flood Floods Severe storms Floods Heavy rains & flooding Earthquake Heavy rains & flooding Severe storms & flooding Severe storms, mudslides, & flooding Storms high tides, mudslides & flooding Volcanic eruption, Mt. St. Helens Severe storms & flooding Severe storms & flooding Severe storms & flooding Severe storms & flooding Severe storms & high tides Severe storms & high wind Severe storms, high wind, and flooding High winds, severe storms and flooding Severe winter storms, land & mudslides, flooding Heavy rains, snow melt, flooding, land & mudslides Earthquake Severe storms and flooding Hurricane Katrina evacuation Severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides Severe winter storm, landslides, and mudslides Severe storms flooding, landslides and mudslides Severe winter storm, landslides, mudslides, and flooding Severe winter storm and record and near record snow Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides, and mudslides Severe winter storm, flooding, landslides, and mudslides DR -50 DR -70 DR-137 DR -146 DR -I85 DR -I96 DR -328 DR -492 DR -545 DR -012 DR -023 DR -757 DR -784 DR -852 1/6/1990 DR -883 11/9/1990 DR -896 12/20/1990 DR -981 1/20/1993 DR-I079 11/7/1995 DR- 1 100 1/26/1996 DR-I159 1/15/1997 DR -II72 3/18/1997 DR-I36 I 2/28/2001 DR -1 499) 10/15/2003 EM -3227 8/29/2005 DR- 1 671 11/2/2006 DR-1682 12/14/2006 DR- 1 734 12/1/2007 DR-I8 17 1/6/2009 DR -1825 12/12/2008 2/25/1956 No information mailable 3/6/1957 No information mailable 10/20/1962 No information mailable 3/2/1963 No information aN ailablc 12/29/1964 No information mailable 5/11/1965 No information mailable 3/24/1972 No information a■ ailablc 12/13/1975 No information mailable 12/10/1977 No information mailable 12/31/1979 No information mailable 5/21/1980 No information mailable 1/16/1986 No information mailable 11/22/1986 No information aN ailablc $5.246.41 I $3.604.824 $477.737 $1.027.837 $3.031.519 $4.220_719 $3.570_309 $1.260.440 $1.700.000 $4.400.000 $3.838.804 $2.334.800 $7.707.260 $I.730_I90 DR -1063 DR -4056 1/14/2012 1/11/2011 No information mailable $2.200.000 1-9 ACT.A Page 533 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Hazard Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 - Earthquak 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Severe Weather Severe Winter eathe Flood Wildfire Landslide Dam Failure Avalanche !. Volcano Tsunami 51 51 51 24 24 18 9 9 7 3 1.6 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 1 -8 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. 1.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 1 -9 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 1 -10 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 1 -11 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 1 -10 ACT.A Page 534 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -8. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Status Action # Completed Carry Over Remov ecL to Plan No Longer Update Feasible Comments KCSO -1 SWD -1 ✓ Current budget constraints make it unlikely this action will occur. ✓ Project completed in 2009. SWD -2 SWD -3 SWD -4 ✓ SWD -5 PH -1 Project completed in 2009. Project completed in 2009. Project completed in 2009. Project completed in 2009. Sce PH -6 in Table 1 -9. PH -2 ✓ PH-3 PH -4 PH -5 PH -6a PH -6b Project completed ln 20 3. ...........1...... See PH -7 in Table 1 -9. See PH -8 in Table 1 -9. See PH -9 in Table 1 -9. Carried over; incorporated as part of FMD -1. Carried over; incorporated as part of FMD -2. PH-7 Project completed in 2010; PH -8 ✓ See PH -10 in Table 1 -9. ITS -1 ✓ A portion of action is completed and some aspects are carried over. See KCIT -1 and KCIT -3 in Table 1 -9. MKCT-1 ✓ Project completed in 2010 MKCT -2 ✓ See DOT -4 in Table 1 -9. FMD -1 ✓ Project completed in 2005. Project completed in 2005. FMD -3 ✓ Project completed in 2005 FMD-4 ✓ Project completed in 2005. FMD-5 This space is no 1 ✓ p longer occupied by Elections and action is no longer necessary_ FMO-1 ✓ Sce DPER -1 in Table 1 -9. FMO-2 ✓ See DPER -2 in Table 1 -9. FMO -3 FMO -4 DNRP -1 ✓ DNRP -2 DNRP -3 DNRP -4 DNRP -5 DNRP -6 DNRP -7 DNRP -8 DNRP -9 ✓ Ongoing outreach is not currently in the business plan; website provides some information See DPER -3 in Table 1 -9. Project completed in 2006. ✓ Feasibility study by Army Corps of Engineers determined project to be unfeasible. ✓ See DNRP -WLR -5 in Table 1 -9. ✓ See DNRP -WLR -6 in Table 1 -9. ✓ See DNRP -WLR -7 in Table 1 -9. ✓ See in Table 1 -9. P..... roJ ect completed in 2006 ✓ See DNRP- WLR -10 in Table 1 -9. ✓ See DNRP -WLR -9 in Table 1 -9. ACT.A Page 535 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? DNRP SWD 1— Seismic Design Standards. Continue to design and build facilities to meet or exceed seismic standards_ including redundant essential equipment. Apply current seismic standards to all renov ation or replacement of existing facilities and /or equipment. New and Earthquake 1, 2, 4 SWD Low Capital budget, Ongoing No Existing HMGP_ PDM DNRP- SWD -2— Vulnerability Assessment of Cedar Hills Landfill Structures. Conduct a ■ ulnerability assessment of buildings at the Cedar Hills Landfill to ascertain readiness. Existing Flood, 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 SWD Low Capital budget Ongoing No Earthquake, Severe Weather, Severe Winter Weather, Hazard Materials Spills DNRP -W LR -1 —Flood Insurance Program. Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This vv ill be accomplished through the implementation of flooclplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ vvIII meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP_ which include the lobovv ing: • Enforcing the adopted flood damage prev cntion ordinance • Participating in flooclplain identification and mapping updates • Providing public assistance and information on floodplain requirements and impacts. New and Flood 2,4,10,12 DNRP Low General Fund Long Term No Existing DNRP -W LR- 2— Landslide Hazard Coordination. Form an interdepartmental landslide hai.arcl committee that includes DNRP_ DPER, DOT and OEM. The committee vv ill address broad policA issues_ including capital projects, communication, code changes_ etc. New and Landslide, 2,4,7,10 DNRP Low Varied Short Term No Existing Flood DNRP -W LR -3— Proposed Hazard Mapping Phase 1. Update the current landslide hai.ard neap vv ith information that has been collected to date. New and Landslide, Flood 2,4 DNRP/DPER High TBD Short Term No Existing DNRP –W LR -4— Proposed Hazard Mapping Phase 11. Create a goo- database vv ith detailed information on landslide 1\ pes_ run out_ landslide clams_ etc. Database vv ill be searchable and upclatable as nevv information is acquired. New and Landslide, Flood 2,4 DNRP/DPER High TBD Short Term No Existing DNRP -W LR -5 —Flood Protection Facility' Maintenance. Maintain and repair clamaged structural elements of King Countv-s extensive i■ entory of flood protection facilities. New and Flood 10,12 DNRP High TBD Long Term Yes Existing ACT.A 1 -12 Page 536 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? DNRP -W LR- 6— River Corridor Restoration. Remov C. slope back or set back Countv -owned flood protection facilities and other structural features to allow for improN cd riparian habitat_ greater channel dig crsity and migration_ reclaimed flood storage and enhanced open space or recreational/-interpretive uses. New and Flood 4, 5, 6, 11, DNRP High TBD Long Term Yes Existing 12 DNRP -W LR -7 —Flood Hazard Mitigation. Acquire rcpctitiv cly damaged homes_ purchase underde■ eloped land to prey cnt future dc■ clopmcnt in flood prone areas. and_ w here cost- cffectiv c and feasible_ elevate residential homes that sustain recurring deep_ low - vclocity flooding. New and Flood 2,4,5,8,9 DNRP Low Flood Control Long Term Yes Existing District, Flood Mitigation Assistance DNRP -W LR- 8— Critical Facility Retrofit. Retrofit the Black Ri■ cr Pump Station by updating the fuel pumps to meet seismic requirements. Currently, the fuel supply tanks for king Countv flood facilities cannot \\ ithstand a moderate to major quake. New and Flood, 1, 4, 9 DNRP Medium HMGP, PDM, Short Term Yes Existing Earthquake General Funds DNRP -W LR -9 —Flood Hazard Reduction Programs. Conduct activ itics that arc v ital to the mitigation oldie natural hai.ards impacting king Countv _ such as hai.ard identification_ warning_ information dissemination and public outreach. New and Flood, 3, 4, 6, 7, DNRP Low General Funds Ongoing Yes Existing Earthquake, 11, 15 Landslide DNRP -W LR -10— Critical Facility Upgrade. Continue to update flood w arning tclemci v and gauging_ computers_ softw arc applications_ cmcrgcncv power and other response facilities. Existing Earthquake, 1, 3, 4 DNRP Low General Funds Ongoing Yes Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Severe Winter Weather DNRP - WTD -1— Seismic Design Standards. Continue to design and build facilities to meet or exceed seismic standards_ including redundant essential equipment. Apply current seismic standards to all rendv ation or replacement of existing facilities and /or equipment New and Earthquake 1, 2, 4 WTD Low Capital budget Ongoing No existing ACT.A 1 -13 Page 537 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? DNRP - WTD -2— Vulnerability Assessments. Conduct vulnerability assessments of WTD treatment plant facilities and conv CA ancc sv stern structures for flooding_ earthquakes_ large-scale power outages_ and hazardous material spills Into the collV CV mice s\ stem (accidental or deliberate_ I.C. terrorist action). The assessments should Include the follow ire: • RCv ICvv existing earthquake \ ulnerability assessments and identify facilities and structures that need further assessments. • RCv ICvv Cyisting emergency power generation capacities at treatment plants_ offsite facilities and interceptors (pipelines) to idcntil v ulncrabilitics and response &: restoration protocol enhancements. • Review existing spill response procedures and protocols for hazardous materials spills (both accidental and intentional releases) that impact flow s into the WTD system. Update and coordinate emergency procedures vv ith kcv fire departments and the Office of Emergency I lanagcmcnt. Existing Flood, 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 WTD Medium Operating Ongoing No Earthquake, budget Hazard Materials Spills DNRP - WTD- 3— ■oditications to Existing Facilities. Usc the data gathered by the earthquake vulncrabilitv assessments to identify capital projects that increase the resistance of the div ision-s structures and con CI anccs to clamagc or that allow a rapid rccoVcry from clamaee. Projects ma\ Include seismic bracing of equipment and piping_ rcmoV al oft-beam structures_ access road reinforcement for the West Point Treatment Plant_ or seismic upgrade of undervv atcr interceptors. New and Earthquake 1, 9 WTD Medium Capital budget Ongoing No Existing DNRP- WTD -4 —Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessments. Implement cost- cffecti■ c measures to address. through capital improvement and asset management programs_ the \ Oiler-ability of 20 facilities at risk of saltwater inflow The facilities were identified by a WTD anal\ sis of the vv astcvvatcr s\ stem to identify facilities at risk for saltvv atcr inflow from future sea IC■ CI rise. existing and predicted high tides_ and storm surges. New and Sea Level Rise, 1, 2, 3 WTD Low Capital and Long Term No existing Flood Operating (completion budget of capital projects by 2030) DNRP - WTD -5— Control System /Cyber Security Vulnerability Assessment and Procedure Audit. Implement the Ov ation project a multi -v car_ multi - million dollar upgrade of the Wastcvv ales Treatment Div ision s Icgacv control sv stems. WTD is in the process of updating its control sy stems. Vulnerability assessments arc clesigned into the Ov ation project. When the sv stem is operational_ a security audit would be conducted to ensure that policies and procedures arc in place protect the sv stem. New and Cyber attack 1, 3 WTD Medium Operating Long Term No existing budget ACT.A 1 -14 Page 538 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? DNRP - WTD -6— Emergency Communications Vulnerability Assessment. Perlbrm an assessment to determine the number of radios necessary to support operational readiness in the cv era of a Iv idcsprcad telecommunications failure. Currently all key operational facilities and offsite operation and maintenance vehicles arc equipped with SOO MHz radios_ constituting WTD's core emergency communications method. The analog equipment currently deploy al is first generation and is being sunsetted as the sv stem is con\ cried to a digital format. All of the di■ ision-s analog radios vv ill need to be replaced in the next 3 to 5 v cars. Perform a further assessment oldie reliability and deployment of other communications dev ices: cell phones_ smart phones_ iPads_ text messaging and the emcrgencA notification sv stem (Nly Slate /AlcrtSense). Existing All Hazards 1, 3 WTD Low Operating Short Term No budget (2014/15) DNRP- WTD -7 —GIS Emergency Response Mapping and Real -time Flow Data. Update the \V'TD /DNRP Emcrgenc. Response map Iv ith the current priority roads_ bridges_ earthquake liquefaction_ inundation and landslide tones and gas /petroleum pipelines_ under -laid IN ith WTD facilities and con\ CA ancc lines and cmcrgcnev outfalls to facilitate cmcrgcnev response and continuity of operations. Make this information aN ailablc through a password- protected website Ior select users. Explore connecting the map to real -time flow data. Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 3, 4 WTD Low Operating Short Term No budget (2014) DNRP - WTD -8— Emergency Event Management System. Determine the best method for WTD to manage and share cmcrgcncv response and continuity of operations activities across the dig ision-s Ike treatment plants and the di■ ision headquarters in the Ding Street Center. Determine if the Regional Information SN stem can fulfill this function and_ if not_ Iv hat alternati■ c sv stems arc mailable (W'ebEOC_ CodcRcd_ etc.) Existing All Hazards 1, 3 WTD Low Operating Short Term No Budget (2014/15) DNRP WTD -9— Emergency Response /Damage Assessment /FEMA Cost Tracking. To ensure maximum FEMA reimbursement for disaster repair /mitigation_ implement a system to capture and track emergency response activities and expenses from the beginning of incidents through damage assessment and restoration. Use this tracking system for all out -of- the - ordinary emergency cv cots. include labor_ equipment_ mileage_ supplies_ expendables and outside contracting associated ■v ith response and repair. Existing All hazards 1, 4, 5 WTD Low Operating Short Term/ No Budget Ongoing (2014/15) ACT.A 1 -15 Page 539 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? DNRP - WTD -10— Emergency and Disaster Response Staff Training. Identify and train WTD staff that NN ill be called upon to respond to emergencies and perform post - disaster reemo-v work. This training is required b\ Occupational Safety and Health Administration/Washington Industrial Safety and Health .Act (OSHA /\\ ISHA) for employees NN ho perform vvorl: responding to emergencies or at disaster sites after the initial emergentv response has been performed. • OSHA /\\ ISHA Emergency Response Training (\\ AC 29( -840) • Earthquake and Flood Response Applied Technology Council ATC -20, Post - Earthquake Safety EN ablation of Buildings: and ATC-45, Safety Evaluation of Buildings after Windstorms and Floods. • OSH A/\\ ISHA Disaster Site Worker Training Required for workers NN ho perform work at disaster sites after the initial emergcnev response is completed. New All hazards 1, 3, 15 WTD Low Operating Ongoing No Budget (2015) DOT -1— Update response plans to address terrorism preparedness_ including the follow ing: • Impro\ e existing sv stems to address new technologies that are a\ ailable for earl\ w capons -of -mass- destruction detection • Lev erage existing resources and partnerships (Securitas_ King Countv Sheriff's Office_ Seattle Police Department_ Seattle Fire Department) to train and exercise together for continuity during real-world ev ents. Existing Terrorism 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, DOT- Low Grant Long Term No 11 Emergency Services DOT -2— Update messaging_ response plans and procedures to address vv inter vv Gather_ including the follow ing: • Outreach to v ulnerable and at -risk populations for transportation for incliv iduals NN ho need to get to life -sav ing medical appointments (dialy sis_ chemotherapy) • Coordination NN ith healthcare and transportation partners to ensure access to medical care Existing Severe Weather, 3, 6, 8, 15 DOT- Low General Fund Long Term No Severe Winter Preparedness Weather DOT -3— Update and improv c plans to address continuity of transportation sere ices_ pro ision of medical care_ and infrastructure resilicnev _ including the following: • Plans and procedures for v‘orkforcc continuity and sexvice provision • Coordination with local partners on ev acuation and responder routes_ lifeline routes_ and transportation routes • Technical systems and IT infrastructure (c.g._ computer programs_ SCADA sv stems) Existing Earthquake 1, 3, 4, 8, DOT- Low General Fund Long Term No 1 l _ 15 Preparedness DOT -4— Install security cameras on public buses to deter crime associated w ith CI it unrest and terrorist acts. New and Terrorism 3, 7 DOT – Metro Low General Fund Ongoing Yes existing DPER -1— Continue inspection of existing and nevv construction. New and All Hazards 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 DPER Low Operating Ongoing Yes existing Budget ACT.A 1 -16 Page 540 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? DPER -2 —Prov ide plan rev lows for noted construction. New All Hazards 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 DPER Low Operating Ongoing Yes Budget DPER-3—Work vv ith schools and fire sere icc public educators to deliver public safety messages. Existing All Hazards 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 DPER Low Operating Ongoing Yes Budget FMD -1— Rcplacc Alder Tovver_ AIder Willi; and Youth Detention Facility vv ith a nevv modern ill velide justice center meeting all seismic standards. Planning is underway for the new _ v otcr- approv ed $210 million Children and Family Justice Center. Completion of the new facility is expected in 2018. New Earthquake 1, 2 FMD Low Dedicated Short Term Partly Bond (2018) FMD -2— Mitigate structural damage at King Countv Facilities. This initiative also involves training to determine structural clamagc during and after hai.ard ev ents. New and All 1, 5, 9, 11, FMD Medium General Fund, Ongoing Partly Existing 15 HMGP_ PDM FMD-3—Mitigate non - structural facility clamagc at King Countv facilities. This initiativ c also i■ oh es training to determine non - structural damage during and after hazard ev ells. Existing All 1, 5, 9, 11, FMD Medium General Fund Ongoing No 15 KCIT -1— Enterprise Server Optimization Project. Implement a standard \ irtual cm ironmcnt at the King Count\ Data Center to set the foundation for the King Countv Public Cloud Son ices to expand infrastructure rags. son Ice offerings. New All Hazards 1, 3 KCIT Low General Fund Short-Term Yes Existing KCIT- 2 —King County TV High - Definition Upgrade. Rcplacc obsolctc station infrastructure vv ith industry standard high - definition and digital equipment_ allow ing for deliv CIA of the highest Icy el of scry ice to the citii.ens of King Countv . New All Hazards 1, 3, 11 King County Low General Fund Short-Term No Existing Council KCIT- 3— Countywide Telephone System Replacement. Rcplacc obsolctc tcicphom infrastructure and telephone s' stems VA ith a modern and leatnre -rich unified communications solution. New Earthquake, 1, 3 KCIT Low General Fund Short-Term Yes Existing Flood, Severe Weather, Severe Winter Weather ACT.A 1 -17 Page 541 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? KCIT -4— Business Empowerment and User Mobility. Improve the King County wide area nctvvorl< to meet business requirements and provide a solid foundation for growth Nvithin a resilient and stable nets ork. New and Earthquake, 1, 3 KCIT Low General Fund Short-Term No Existing Flood, Winter Storm. Volcano KCIT - Administration Building Rewire. Upgrade nclvvorl< cabling in the King Countv Administration Building to meet infrastructure standards, provide a more robust nctvvorl< connectiv itv to the scry ices pro ided at the facility. and take advantage of technological advancements. New and Earthquake, 1, 3 KCIT Low General Fund Short-Term No Existing Winter Storm, Volcano KCIT -6— Distributed Antenna Network Phase 11. Install a distributed antenna network in the King County Department of Adult and Juv elide Detentions King Countv Correction Facility _ which has experienced radio communication dead spots. Distributed Antenna Newyork Phase I mitigated this problem for Floors 1 -3. Phase 11 will mitigate the problem for floors 4 -12. New Earthquake, 1, 3, 8 KCIT Low General Fund Short-Term No Existing Severe Winter Weather, Volcano KCIT -7 —GIS Aerial Mapping. Implement a regional initiati■ c_ led b\ King Countv _ to prov ide high - quality aerial photography and related GIS data to participating parties at a reduced cost. Enable seamless sharing of data across all participating parties_ (approx. 101) counties_ small and large cities, tribes and utilities.) New All Hazards 1, 3, 4, 5, 15 KCIT Low General Fund Short-Term No Existing KCIT -8— Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network. Implement a P25 Phase II standards -based voice radio net \V ork to pro ide increased COV erage with enhanced capabilities and ImproV c reliability for public safel\ users in the Central Puget Sound serV ice region. New All Hazards 1, 3, 15 King County High Ballot Measure Long -Term No Existing PH- 1— inform the public on risk- reduction techniques for a communicable disease event. --Stop Germs_ Stav Healthv -- public education campaign increases avv artiness of healthv betav iors_ including hand vv ashing and --CO v er v our cough.__ N/A Pandemic 6, 8, 11 PH- Medium Grant Long term No Influenza Preparedness ACT.A 1 -18 Page 542 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? PH- 2— Upclatc response plans to address pandemic preparedness_ inclucling the follow ing: • The allocation of resources (antiv irals_ v accinc_ personal protective equipment) from the strategic national stockpile • lmprov ements to scry cillance sv stems to address ncvv technologies that may be av ailablc during the pandemic • LCv craging existing priv ate and public partnerships (CBO_ hcalthcarc_ pharmacies) to scrvc as medication centers and increasing access to medications for hard -to -reach communities • Risk communications and messaging_ including use of social media N/A Pandemic 4, 6, 8,11, PH- Medium Grant Long Term No Influenza 15 Preparedness PH- 3— Upclatc response plans and procedures to address vv inter weather_ including the lobovv ing: • Outreach to \ ulncrable and at -risk populations for carbon monoxide poisoning prev cation • Transportation for individuals Nvho need to get to life -say ing medical appointments (dial v sis. Chemotherapy ) • Coordination vv ith healthcare pro iders and NWT' Healthcare Rcsponsc Network to ensure access to medical care • Coordination with shelter providers for first aid teams and access for people to re-charge medical equipment N/A Severe Weather, 6, 8, 15 PH- Low Grant Long Term No Severe Winter Preparedness Weather PH- 4— Upclatc and improv c plans to address continuity of public health scry ices_ pro ision of medical care and infrastructure resiliency _ inclucling the follow ing: • Plans and procedures for VA orklOrCC COntlnnity and scry Ice pro ision • Coordination vv ith NWT' Healthcare Rcsponsc Network and healthcare pro iders regarding equipment (c.g._ generators) • C'oordination vv ith healthcare pro iders on patient mOv ement and surge strategics (c.g._ alternate care facilities) • Technical and IT Infrastructure (c.g._ computer programs_ electronic health records) • Environmental health impacts (e.g., sewer, water, food safety ) N/A Earthquake 1, 3, 4, 8, PH- High Grant Long Term No N. _ 15 Preparedness PH -5 —an clop plans and procedures to incorporate impacts of climate change: • Assess av ailablc research regarding climate change impacts on Pacific Northwest • an clop messaging and coordinate public information regarding public health impacts of climate change (c.g._ increase in animal -to -human diseases_ increased heat_ and impacts on \ ulncrable communities) • Outreach to \ ulncrable and at -risk populations • Environmental health impacts (c.g._ bugs and air quality ) • Update of vv inter \\ cattier and extreme heat procedures N/A All Ha /arcis 2. 3.4. 6. 8_ PH- High Grant Long Term No 13. 15 Preparedness PH- 6— Support the general publics health and safety b\ educating Public Health staff in emergency and disaster response. N/A All Hazards 1, 2, 7, 8 PH Medium General Funds Ongoing Yes ACT.A 1 -19 Page 543 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? PH- 7— Dcvclop an infectious disease outbreak response team program. N/A Pandemic 3. 7 PH Low General Funds Short Term Yes PH- 8— Educate the public in disaster response actin ities. N/A All Hazards 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, PH Low General Funds Ongoing Yes 11 PH- 9— Support and enhance first responder disaster reporting and regional emergentv electronic data collection. N/A All Hazards 3, 4. 6. 7 PH Medium General Funds Ongoing Yes PH- 10— Enhance cm ironmcntal health response programs for terrorist acts im oh ing chemical and radioactiv 0 e\ cnts_ threats to food and Iv ater supply _ and airborne illnesses. N/A Terrorism 3. T I2 l H Lovv General Funds Ongoing tics OEM -1— Inform the public 011 personal and community preparedness actions thev can take to lessen their need for immediate response follow ing a disaster. --Take \N/inter by Storm-- and --What to Do to (\lake It Through-- are two outreach campaigns designed to get the message across to the whole community . These campaigns include trainings, presentations, and tools to facilitate increased community preparedness. Existing All hazards 6.8.1 1 OEM Low Grant Long -term No OEM- 2— Crcatc a program to facilitate training for small businesses to increase their resilience to all hazards. Training content would include emploNee preparedness_ business continuity and recovery planning. 1\lethods of (raining would include workshops_ tools_ and one -on -one help. New and All hazards 6,7,11,15 OEM Low Grant Long -term No existing OEM- 3— Managc and facilitate the Resilient king Countv initialsv c_ a countv \\ idc planning process for crafting a comprehensiv 0 Iong -term rccov a\ strategy follow ing an earthquake or major catastrophe. Dcv clop the Resilient King County final report and the long -terns recover plan. Existing All hazards 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, OEM Low Grant Short-term No 8, 9, 10, 11, 13. 15 OEM -4 —Take ad\ antage of technological and procedural improv ements in regional alert and w arning sv stems to prov idc the most el leciiv c_ efficient_ and cost - effectsv 0 messaging to residents_ businesses_ and Nov eminent_ especial'v during emergencies. Existing All hai.ards 3. 8 OEM Low Grant Long -terns No OEM -5— Continue to update and improve the Comprchcnsive EmeiNenev Management Ian (CE(\1P) and the Continuity of Operations Plan. Existing All hai.ards 2. 3. 7. 1 5_ OEM Low General Funds Short -terns No OEM -6— Integrate the ha/aid mitigation plan into other plans_ ordinances or programs to dictate land uses \\ 'thin the jurisdiction. New and All hazards 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, OEM Low General Funds Ongoing No Existing 10, 11, 12 ACT.A 1 -20 Page 544 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? OE -7- Continue to support the countywide initiatives in this plan. New and All hazards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, OEM Low General Funds Ongoing No Existing 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 OEM -8- Coordinate and actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy of this plan. New and All hazards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, OEM Low General Funds Ongoing No Existing 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 OEM -9- Continue to encourage community participation in incentivc -based programs such as CRS, Firewise and StormReady. New and Dam failure, 4, 6, 7, 8, OEM, DNRP Low General Funds Ongoing No existing Earthquake, 11, 12 Flood, Landslide, Severe Weather, Severe Winter ACT.A 1 -21 Page 545 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -10. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Initiative # of Objectives Mct Do Benefits Equal or Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant - Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priority (( DNRP -SWD -1 DNRP -SWD -2 DNRP -WLR -1 DNRP -WLR -2 Medium LON\ Low Lo\\ 4 Medium LON\ 4 Medium Lovv DNRP -WLR -3 2 Medium H i oh 2 Medium H i h 2 High High DNRP- WLR -h High H i oh DNRP —WLR -4 DNRP -WLR -5 DNRP -WLR -7 DNRP -WLR -8 DNRP -WLR -9 DNRP- WLR -10 DNRP -WTD -1 DNRP -WTD -2 DNRP -WTD -3 DNRP -WTD -4 DNRP -WTD -5 DNRP -WTD -6 DNRP -WTD -7 DNRP -WTD -B DNRP WTD -9 DNRP WTD -10 DOT -1 DOT -2 DOT -3 DOT -4 DPER -1 DPER -2 DPER -3 FMD -1 FMD -2 FMD -3 KCIT -1 KCIT -2 High Lovv Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes High Medium Yes High Lovv High Lovv Medium Lovv Medium Medium High Medium Medium Lovv High Medium High Lovv 4 High LON\ 2 Low LON\ 4 b Low Lo\\ High LON\ Medium LON\ High Lovv High LON\ Low Lo\\ High Lovv Medium LON\ Medium LON\ Medium Lovv Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Lo\\ LONN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ycs No No No Ycs Ycs Possibl Ycs Ycs Ycs No Ycs Ycs No Ycs Ycs No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Ycs Ycs No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Possibly Possibly Possibly Possibly Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High High High High LON\ Lo\\ INlcdium INlcdium High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High 1-22 ACT.A Page 546 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1-10. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Can Project Be of Do Benefit Is Project Funded Under Objectives Equal or Grant- Existing Programs/ Initiative # Met Benefits C'o s Exceed Costs? Eligible'? Budgets? Pdod^« KCrr'4 � Low Lov Yes No Yes High KCIT-5 T) KCrr_7 j Medium Lov Yes No Yes High KC|T'8 h Yes No No Nlcdium PH-1 ?; Medium Medium Yes No No Nlcdium PH-2 j Medium Medium Yes No No Nlcdium PH-3--- High Lov Yes No No Nludium PH-4 () Medium H igh No No No Nleclium _ PH-5 7 Medium Hi h No No No Lov PH-6 7 Medium Nlcdiuon Yes No Yes High PH-7 T) High Loo Yes No Yes High PH-8 h Low Lov Yes No Yes High PH-9 4 Low Nluhum No No Yes Nludium PH'10 Medium Loo Yes No Yes High OEM-1 Medium Lov Yes No No Nlcdium OEM-2 4 Medium Lov Yes No No Nlcdium OEM-3 |j Medium Loo Yes No Yes High {}BM-4 � High Lov Yes No No Nlcdium OEM-7 |j Medium Lov Yes No Yes High OEM-8 |j Low Lov Yes No Yes High OEM-9 ^ Medium Lov Yes No Yes High a. See Introduction for explanation of priorities. 1-23 ACT.A Page 547 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -11. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Hazard Type Initiative Addressing Hazard. by Mitigation Typep 3. Public Education and ANN arcncss I . PrcA cnlion 2. Property Protection 4. Natural 6. Resource Structural Protection 5. Emcrgcnc Scr ices Projects Avalanche Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Severe Winter Weather DPER I. KCIT -7. PH -5. OEM -3. OEM -5. OEM -6. OEM -7. OEM -8 DOT -3. DPER -I. DPER -2. KCIT -4. KCIT -7. PH -4. PH -5. OEM -3. OEM -5. OEM -6. OEM -7. OEM -8 WLR - I. WLR -2. WLR -7. DPER -I. DPER -2. KCIT -4. KCIT -7. PH -5. OEM -3. OEM -5. OEM -6. OEM -7. OEM -8 WLR -2. WLR -4. DPER I. DPER -2. KCIT -7. PH -5. OEM -3. OEM -5. OEM -6. OEM -7. OEM -8 DPER I. DPER -2. KCIT -4. KCIT -7. PH -3. PH -5. OEM -3. OEM -5. OEM -6. OEM -7. OEM -8 DPER I. DPER -2. KCIT -4. KCIT -7. PH -3. PH -5. OEM -3. OEM -5. OEM -6. OEM -7. OEM -8 OEM -2 SWD -1, SWD -2, WLR -8, WTD -1, WTD -2, WTD -3, FMD -1, FMD -2, FMD -3, KCIT -3, KCIT -5, OEM -2, SWD -2, WLR -2, WLR -3, WLR -7, WLR -8, WTD -2, WTD -4, KCIT -3, OEM -2 WLR -2 WLR -3, OEM -2, SWD -2, KCIT -3, KCIT -5, OEM -2, OEM -9 SWD -2, KCIT -3, KCIT -5, OEM -2, OEM -9 DPER -3. PH -5. PH -8. OEM -I. OEM -2 OEM -3. WLR -9. WLR -10. DPER -3. PH -5. PH -8. OEM -I. OEM -2. OEM -3. WLR - I. WLR -6. WLR -9. WLR -10. DPER -3. PH -5. PH -8. OEM -I. OEM -2. OEM -3. WLR -3. WLR -4. WLR -9. WLR -IO. DPER -3. PH -5. PH -8. OEM -I. OEM -2. OEM -3. WLR -I0. DOT -2. DPER -3. PH -3. PH -5. PH -8. OEM -I. OEM -2. OEM -3. OEM -9 WLR -I0. DOT -2. DPER -3. PH -3. PH -5. PH -8. OEM -I. OEM -2. OEM -3. OEM -9 PH -4 WLR -1, WLR -3, WLR -6, WLR -7 WLR -3, WLR -4 WTD -6. KCIT -8. PH -6. PH -9. OEM -4. OEM -5. WLR -9. WLR -lo. WTD -6. WTD -7. WTD -8. WTD -9. WTD - I o. DOT -3. FMD -2. FMD -3. KCIT -I. KCIT -2. KCIT -3. KCIT -5. KCIT -6. KC1T -8. PH -4. PH -6_ PH -9. OEM -4. OEM -5. WLR -9. WLR -lo. WTD -6. WTD -7. WTD -8. WTD -9. WTD -l0. KCIT -I. KCIT -2. KCIT -3. KCIT -8. PH -6. PH -9. OEM -4. OEM -5. WLR -9. WLR -lo. WTD -6. WTD -7. WTD -8. WTD-9. WTD -I0. KCIT -I. KCIT -2. KCIT -8. PH -6. PH -9. OEM -4. OEM -5. WLR -I0. WTD -6. WTD -7. WTD -8. WTD -9. WTD - 10. DOT -2. KCIT -I. KCIT -2. KCIT -3. KCIT -5. KCIT -6. KCIT -8. PH -3. PH -6. PH -9. OEM -4. OEM -5. WLR -lo. WTD -6 WTD -7. WTD -8. WTD -9. WTD - 10. DOT -2. KCIT -I. KCIT -2. KCIT -3. KCIT -5. KCIT -6. KCIT -8. PH -3. PH -6. PH -9, OEM -4, OEM -5, WLR -5 1 -24 ACT.A Page 548 of 869 UPDATE ANNEX FOR KING COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS TABLE 1 -11. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Hazard Type Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea Prevention 2. Property Edu Protection AA Public ation a arencss 4. Natural id Resource Protection 6. Structural 5. Emergency Services Projects Tsunami DPER -1, DPER -2, ! OEM -2, OEM -9 DPER -3, PH-5, KCIT -7, PH -5, PH -8 OEM -1, OEM -3, OEM -5, OEM -2, OEM-3; OEM -6, OEM -7, OEM -9 OEM -8 Volcano DPER -1, DPER -2, KCIT -5, DPER -3, PH -5,' KCIT -4, KCIT -7, OEM -2, OEM -9 PH -8 OEM -1, PH -5, OEM -3, OEM -, OEM-3' OEM -5, OEM -6, OEM -9 OEM -7, OEM-8 Wildfire DPER -1, DPER -2, OEM -2, OEM -9 DPER -3, PH -5, W'1D -7, WTD -8, PH -5, OEM -3, PH -8 OEM -1, WTD-9, WTD -10 , OEM -5, OEM -6, OEM -2, OEM -3, KCIT -1, KCIT -2, OEM -7, OEM-8 OEM -9 KCIT -8, PH; 6, PH -9, OEM -4, OEM -5, ID-7, WTD-8, W(T"1D -9, W ID- 1O ,:... KCIT -1, KCIT -2, KCIT -8, PH; 6, PH -9, OEM -4, OEM -5, W'1D -7, WTI)-8, WTD-9, W'1'll -11}, KCIT -1, KCIT -2, KCIT -5, KCIT -6, KCIT -8, PH -6, PH -9, OEM -4 OEM -5 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 1 -25 ACT.A Page 549 of 869 CHAPTER 2. CITY OF ALGONA ANNEX 2.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Primary Point of Contact Lee Gaskill, Police Chief 402 Warde Street Algona, WA 98001 Telephone: 253- 833 -2743 e -mail Address: policechief@algonawa.gov POINT OF CONTACT Alternate Point of Contact James Schrimpsher, Police Sergeant 402 Warde Street Algona, WA 98001 Telephone: 253- 833 -2743 e -mail Address: jamess@algonawa.gov 2.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation August 22, 1955 • Current Population -3,075 as of April 1, 2013 (WA Office of Financial Management) • Population Growth —The population of Algona increased by 22 percent from 2,451 in 2000 to 3,014 in 2010. • Location and Description —The City of Algona is located in South King County. Neighboring municipalities include Auburn to the north and east, Pacific to the south and unincorporated King County to the west. The City is 1.29 square miles and is largely composed of residential areas. The population density is about 2,336 individuals per square mile. In addition to residences the City has a small commercial area and a large Boeing Company plant is located in the easternmost portion of the City. • Brief History —The area that was to become Algona was platted in 1906 in 40 foot by 200 foot lots. In 1907 the town, then called Valley City, sent a letter to Washington D.C. requesting permit for a post office. The return letter indicated that the residents would need to choose a different name for the city as there was already a Valley City located in eastern Washington. A resident suggested the City be named "Algoma," which is an Indian name meaning "Valley of Flowers." The name was submitted, but somehow the name Algona was substituted. The town grew substantially from the early 1900s to its incorporation in 1955. Local stores were popular and there was dancing and picture shows shown in town several nights a week. In 1965 work started at the General Services Administration Depot in Auburn, a Boeing Company Fabrication Plant. This brought many changes to the town with a population at that time of 1,228. Since 1965 the town population has more than doubled as growth and new businesses have continued to enter the area. • Climate —The climate is similar to that of other areas in the Puget Sound Lowlands. Temperatures are generally mild with an annual average high around 60 degrees and an average annual low of about 45 degrees. Average annual precipitation is about 38 inches, with most occurring as rain in the winter months. 2-1 1 ACT.A Page 551 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes • Governing Body Format—Algona is a non - charter city governed by 35A of the RCW. The Mayor - Council form of government consists of an elected mayor, who serves as the City's Chief Administrative Officer, and five- member council elected at large. The City Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the Police Chief will oversee its implementation. • Development Trends —Based on projected growth trends, anticipated development trends for Algona are low, consisting primarily of residential development. 2.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 2 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 2 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 2 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 2 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 2 -5. TABLE 2 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinal Building Code Reg Yes No No Yes Chapter 15.04, December 2004 Zoning Yes No No No Chapter 22.08, May 2005 Subdivisions Yes No No No Chapter 19.20, December 2008 Stormwater Yes No Management No Yes Chapter 13.46 April 2010 Post Disaster Recovery Yes No No No Chapter 2.82, February 2009 Real Estate No No Disclosure Yes Yes Washington State Disclosure Law (RCW 64.06) Growth Yes No Management No Yes RCW 36.70A Site Plan Review Yes No No Yes Chapter 14.04, March 1997 Public Health and Yes Safety No No No Chapter 8.04, June 1997 Environmental Yes No Protection No Yes Chapter 16.04, November 1994 Planning Doeu ments General or Yes No Comprehensive Plan No Yes Chapter 14.08, December 2005 Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes Floodplain or No No Basin Plan Yes No King County Flood Control District Plan Stormwater Plan Yes No No No Chapter 13.46, August 2010 ACT.A 2 -2 Page 552 of 869 CITY OF ALGONA ANNEX TABLE 2 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Capital No No No No Improvement Plan What types of capital facilities does the plan address? NA How often is the plan revised /updated? NA Habitat Yes No No No Chapter 16.18, 1992 Conservation Plan Economic No No No No Development Plan Shoreline No No No No Management Plan Community No No No No Wildfire Protection Plan Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Yes No No No Chapter 2.82, February 2()()9 Emergency Management Plan Threat and Hazard No No Yes No King County Zone 3 Identification and Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan No No Yes No King County Zone 3 Post - Disaster Yes No No No Chapter 2.82, February 2009 Recovery Plan Continuity of Yes No No No Chapter 2.82, February 2009. Operations Plan Public Health Yes No No No Chapter 2.82, February 2009 Plans ACT.A 2 -3 Page 553 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 2 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to' Use`j Community Development Block Grants Capital Improvements Project Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes; TABLE 2 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management_ practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Yes Contract services with Grey and Osborn - engineer Contract services with Grey and Osborn - engineer Yes Contract services with Grey and Osborn - engineer Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Surveyors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Grant writers s City Administrator Yes Contract services with Grey and Osborn - engineer Yes Jones and Stokes - contracted services Yes Chief of Police Yes City -wide 2-4 4 ACT.A Page 554 of 869 CITY OF ALGONA ANNEX TABLE 2 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator'? (department /position) Public Works /Jimmy Griess', Public Work Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community'? What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance'? 1996! When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community N/A Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding No NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your community? (If no, please state why) Yes - the City of Algona is not in a flood plain and, has no areas of flooding. Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If N so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? No TABLE 2 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No Yes N/A 2 N/A Not available Public Protection Yes 4 Not available StormReady No N/A N/A Firewise No N/A N/A Tsunami Ready (if applicable) N/A N/A N/A 2.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 2 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA- Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of FEMA - Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: N/A ACT.A 2 -5 Page 555 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 2.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 2 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. TABLE 2 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS TABLE 2 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Type of Event FENIA Disaster # inapplicable) Date Prcliminary Damage Assessment Severe Winter Storm 4056 2012 No inlormation av ailablc Severe Winter Storm 1963 2011 No information aN ailablc Severe Winter Storm 1817 2009 No information aN ailablc Severe Winter Storm 1825 2008 No information aN ailablc Earthquake 1361 2001 No information aN ailablc Severe Winter Storms 1 159 1997 No information aN ailablc Earthquake I96 1965 No information M ailablc 2.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 2 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. 2.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 2 -8 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 2 -9 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 2 -10 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. ACT.A 2 -6 Page 556 of 869 TABLE 2 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank H azard Tv pc Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 Earthquake Scv ere Weather 51 51 3 Sc v ere Winter Weather 51 4 Wildfire 20 5 Volcano 18 6 Flood 18 7 8 9 10 Landslide Dam Failure Av alanchc Tsunami 18 10 0 0 2.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 2 -8 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 2 -9 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 2 -10 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. ACT.A 2 -6 Page 556 of 869 CITY OF ALGONA ANNEX TABLE 2 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline AL- 1— Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This \\ ill be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ \\ ill mcct the minimum requirements of the NFIP_ which include the follow ing: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prev cation ordinance_ • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates_ and • Pro\ iding public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts New and All Hazards 2,4,10,12 City Low General Fund Ongoing Existing Government AL- 2— IdcnliR critical facilities and update neaps in support of the dcv clopmcnl of a Continuily of Operations Plan. New and All hazards 1,7,13,14 City High FEMA Short-term Existing Government planning Grant, Local funds AL 3— Idcntif� v olcano ha/aid tones and dcv clop maps. Pro\ idc public outreach \ is community nevv sletter to dcv clop CA acuation plans. New and Volcano 2,4,6,15 City Medium FEMA Short-term Existing Government planning Grant, Local funds AL 4 —Adopt policies for higher standards for ncvv dcv clopmcnl near unstable areas. Pro\ ide additional public awareness during the permitting process. New Landslide 2,4,6,15 City Low General Fund Short-term Government AL-5—Where appropriate_ support retrofitting_ purchase_ or relocation of structures located in hai.ard -prone areas to protect structures from future damage_ vv ith properties 1v ith cyposurc to rcpcliliv c losses as a priorik . Existing All Hazards 5,7,9 City High FEMA Grant Long -term Government funding, local match AL- 6— Integrate the hai.ard mitigation plain into other plans_ ordinances or programs to dictate land uses vv ithin the jurisdiction. New and All Hazards 2,4,10 City Low General Fund Short term Existing Government AL- 7— Continue to support the county-wide initiatives identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, City Low General Fund Short term Existing 14.15 Government AL- 8— Actively participates in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, City Low General fund Short term Existing 14, 15 Government AL -9— Continue to pursue the dev clopmcnl of a capital improvements program (CIP) for the Cifv to fund future capital needs for the Cit. New and All hazards 1,4,9,12 City High General Fund Long term existing Government 2-7 7 ACT.A Page 557 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 2 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type 3. Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emcrgcncv 6. Structural Hazard Type 1 Pre cntion Protection ANN arcncss Protection Scry ices Projects Avalanche Earthquake 2.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 Flood 1.2.6.7 1,5 1.7 1,7 1.2.7 9 Landslide 2.4.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 Severe Weather 2.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 Severe Winter 2.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 Weather Tsunami Volcano 2.3.6.7 5 7 7 2.3.7 9 Wildfire 2.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 2-8 s ACT.A Page 558 of 869 TABLE 2 -9. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Initiative # # of Objcctiv es Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible' Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priorit<« AL -1 AL -2 4 4 Medium High Low High Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes High High AL -3 4 Medium I\ tedium Yes Yes Yes High AL -4 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High AL -5 3 High High Yes Yes No I\ tedium AL -6 AL -7 AL -8 AL -9 3 7 7 4 Medium Low Medium Low Low Low High High of priorities. Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ycs Ycs No Yes Yes Yes Yes High High High 1\ lcdium a. See Introduction for explanation TABLE 2 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type 3. Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emcrgcncv 6. Structural Hazard Type 1 Pre cntion Protection ANN arcncss Protection Scry ices Projects Avalanche Earthquake 2.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 Flood 1.2.6.7 1,5 1.7 1,7 1.2.7 9 Landslide 2.4.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 Severe Weather 2.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 Severe Winter 2.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 Weather Tsunami Volcano 2.3.6.7 5 7 7 2.3.7 9 Wildfire 2.6.7 5 7 7 2.7 9 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 2-8 s ACT.A Page 558 of 869 CITY OF ALGONA Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function N N 2 Medical Care Critical Infrastructure Q Q 7 CO U) 0 U) O a Transportation U) (6 N N Locations are approximate. N on CITY OF ALGONA Liquefaction Susceptibility Not Susceptible C N N T O N N 00 C 14.0) C 6 cs E 01 2 2 N N S . Q N N t E O E O N N N O§ _ t.Q.m N N N 'N Q _ H Q O 0 ..7, y 2-.. t O O-g U is O O'6 T y W N O E 6 , N O Q E D 0 01 Q -O 2 U 0 O '� t O a' N O N 0 2 7 S O Y N > > C N N - O t 7? "5 N O ' 7 O - O 3 E Y O O - c O %N - N N Y t 0 ;F N E t t 1 t N N (6 E N U N NN O. N Q" y O' 0 as C t O _; CITY OF ALGONA Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil 8E0.0 F m�_>�ooEvl C0 N U-0 N 0- y p 0 O w N 0 -O 0 0 y _ Q 0' N U C U O N U �.Q 0 y 0 0 d E • 15 N .t O NO N 2 3 U 13 O E O (" y C0 > > O 0 0 -O ° 2 O D E tl N p) N 0 N 0 0 (6 N C Q E 0 C O Q C N N O M N N E N U E 7 N Q O '0 7 0 N t),, 1-65 C M d O N C > U€ @ ( 15 C N a6 > _ O N N 0 O1 0 0 @ 13 X �1 D E (6 7. N C i. V -8 N U OL„.75. • Q N a.. 7 E 0 >. 02 N Era 2 0 .N 'p N 0 t O 63 1—c E 5-oEUayu u Y o 3 , -O m w0 a w EY ° om cE ° ° Zo E o ' m ...<o mm o w c o m m E E Q '-mx o m m � � n a m mm ∎ � o w- ai to . -C" < �m ��Ys`��a w� o��� �� a° a) _,0,n, 0 8.m.E24" _ Ln o� > .YZ V T2 2 L 2 a m _ =2 m c0 Y m E a� m o �n — >. °- Z -O -O y 0 .� an d 6 O ` m CO ° m p g „ N d E E— c M3 o m o m m w m m m =c N a IIUU m Vg o o m m s -o �•� o-o .c > o U —�-o voZ� � 2 T w a) = m 7 2 m J-8 Ul o a 2 2 r N 0 Z _ Emnmw .� 1 70.E8_ soE'cL01 = m e Q -E gs.m� o L 2 m E� �c m m E m= E 3 m m m �U m m� a! p . Q m Dam om Qmb°s 'm 0LoEca ° ingm° w ( > > d — N U Q o Q o N J QT w N .§ N § O N Q 0 w ,-0Q p C N .N i - j \ - j ff ®/[7 ®/7 0 /j\)/ _ _ _ _ )[ /\ /i \=$ Z °E_ _ \( ! -°§ §c'( m 2 / /E- 0 \ 7 _ _ = ) ) ]§ /) \\§) \\ \ \{ - ) }/ \\ @ @ o\ [ /J) /� :427 ® *= in \am� °=° )( N \ 5 -, &§ k I § =±o , / §\s =)§ \ \/ 10- E13 $ );J \\ 99 /) - =§=g _ )/ ® E2 - = \)L\ - �\! \)±e ) - { - _ - =\ :J - ta e cz _C \ / \ )\ \}\ \ -E\ \\\�\ )� \\ \7`§±±\( k\\ /22 )e §g°} 5q f: #: CITY OF ALGONA 2008 LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model Anderson 13 Fuel Classes Non - Burnable 4) Q 0 U) 0 O < N ❑ D ❑ 0 C ▪ CO 00 00 00 00 U U U U cti L.L L.L L.L L.L L.L L.L LL LL U- co _ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L o w 0 O V N N N wN i L O ct ) L O O co Q ow H E a0 0 C wL4 o w ._ - w - a N N.0 w E— Q`O O 6E OO .0 a 0 a) a) w '] z a) O > a _ c( z O L 0 O -Q U E °T c <.0 00 rEN,4 N wN O O wL4 o O U O wEw<L m r 0 w 2 a o 8-Q2 g E r m : w 0 m o 1— E`0 .5 '015 4:-., a 4 = - o0 T 3_ m E m _� a w N 't 0 Z a) -0 a) . w c w • w a)cL 2 m 2 .- w vo )U E o o " w t -a._ . L4 °a Q > 5 -a � T L= O L r N U U a O a U aO O- () 'O a) w Q ct5 -0 a) (1) O N O w = O U-0 U N N E .wa a) N N a w 0 ' 2 N g L4 - O L4 `c -O E O a oQw � w �aa d 'O 0O aO O 7 w C O 3 N r Q g a) w a) - a2 w QaLn N2 N Us w a O a ., C N L _ N N L4CC D it 8-0 O N E Ce wa s w> .O U 0 a 5 r'5 a w a0 ,, a o 3 E E a > o o `— w= c.I wUw a) w" o E E E o'c,ww o 2 as 0 on CHAPTER 3. CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX 3.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Sarah Miller, Emergency Preparedness Manager 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Telephone: (253) 876 -1909 e -mail Address: skmiller @auburnwa.gov Heather Kitchen, Emergency Management Assist. 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Telephone: (253) 875 -1992 e -mail Address: hkitchen @auburnwa.gov 3.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation -1891 • Current Population- 70,180 as of 2010 (Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM)) • Population Growth — Between 2000 and 2010 the population of Auburn increased 74.1 percent; however, a significant portion of this was the result of the annexation of Lea Hill and West Hill in 2008. • Location and Description —The City of Auburn is located in the southern Puget Sound area of the State of Washington, approximately 20 miles south of Seattle. Auburn has an area of approximately 29.83 square miles, with approximately 28.17 square miles located in King County and approximately 1.66 square miles located in Pierce County. The City lies at the south end of State Road 18, at its intersection with State Road 167. Mount Rainier lies approximately 55 miles to the southeast of the City. The diverse geography presents a need for consideration in all hazard mitigation plan planning efforts and influences the probability of landslides, floods, earthquakes, and volcano /lahar events. The topography includes the centrally located, north south Green River Valley, as well as the West Hill, East Hill, and Southeast plateaus. The City is part of two watersheds that flow to Puget Sound; the northern portion of the City occurs within the Green - Duwamish Watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area 9) and the southern portion lies within the Puyallup -White Watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area 10). The City boundaries include the Green and White Rivers, Bowman, Mill and Olson Creeks and as well as numerous small streams throughout the City. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT) is located both inside and outside the city limits of Auburn. The MIT was established in 1874, and is comprised of the descendants of the area's original Coast Salish peoples, The Muckleshoot Reservation consists of six sections situated diagonally, has 20 miles of boundaries, and encompasses six square - miles. Three sections (3 square miles) are within the municipal limits of the City of Auburn. Many of the landowners within the reservation boundaries are not tribal members over which the city has authority. The sections located outside the City are mostly surrounded by farms and rural areas, with 3-1 ACT.A Page 565 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes urbanization encroaching on the western portion. The Muckleshoot Tribe is one of Washington's largest tribes, with a membership of about 3,300. • Brief History —The City of Auburn was home to some of the earliest settlers in King County. Nestled in a fertile river valley, Auburn has been both a farm community and a center of business and industry for more than 150 years. Auburn is located near the original confluence of the Green and White rivers, both of which contain runoff water from the Cascade Mountain range. The valley was originally the home of the Skopamish, Smalhkamish, and Stkamish Indian tribes. The first white men in the region were explorers and traders who arrived in the 1830s. Settlers first came to the valley in the 1850s. On October 27, 1855, and Indian ambush killed nine people, including women and children In November, a military unit led by Lieutenant William Slaughter camped near what is now present -day Auburn. On December 4, 1855, a group of Indians attacked, killing Lt. Slaughter and two other men. A new treaty was written which provided the establishment of the Muckleshoot reservation, which is the only Indian reservation now within the boundaries of King County. The White River tribes collectively became known as the Muckleshoot tribe. White settlers, the Neely and Ballard families began returning to the area. In 1891, the town of Slaughter incorporated. Although many older citizens considered the town's name a memorial, many newer residents understandably felt uncomfortable with it. Within two years, the town was renamed Auburn, taken from the first line of Oliver Goldsmith's poem, The Deserted Village: "Sweet Auburn! Loveliest village of the plain." Auburn had been a bustling center for hop farming until 1890 when the crops were destroyed by aphids. After that, the farms were mostly dairy farms and berry farms. Nevertheless, flooding was still a problem for Auburn farmers up until the Howard Hanson Dam was built in 1962. The dam on the Green River, along with the Mud Mountain dam on the White River, provided controlled river management, which left the valley nearly flood free. Another impetus to Auburn's growth was the railroad. The Northern Pacific Railroad put a rail line through town in 1883, but it was the Seattle- Tacoma Interurban line that allowed easy access to both cities starting in 1902. The Interurban allowed farmers to get their product to the markets within hours after harvest. The railroad, along with better roads, caused many new companies to set up business in Auburn, among them the Borden Condensery (which made Borden's Condensed Milk) and the Northern Clay Company. Auburn grew through the twentieth century like many American towns. The 1920s were prosperous for citizens, but the Great Depression of the 1930s left many in need. World War II brought great hardship to many local Japanese farmers when they were moved to internment camps and their land taken from them. At the same time, local boys were sent to fight in the Pacific, and some died in battle. The postwar era was prosperous to Auburn, bringing more businesses and a community college to the city. In 1963, The Boeing Company built a large facility to mill sheet metal skin for jet airliners. As time went on, many farms disappeared as the land was converted to industrial use. In the 1990s, a large super -mall was built in the valley, enticing consumers from all over the Puget Sound region. Auburn has made the transition from small farms to large industries, but much of the city's history remains. A monument in the memory of Lieutenant Slaughter, erected in 1918, still stands in a local park. The Neely Mansion, built by the son of a pioneer in 1891, has been refurbished and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Auburn's downtown still 3-2 ACT.A Page 566 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX maintains a "Main Street U.S.A." appearance. (Sources: Clarence B. Bagley, 1929 and Josephine Emmons Vine, 1990) • Climate—Auburn's average annual snowfall is 8.6 inches per year and the average annual rainfall is 38.48 inches per year. Temperatures range between an annual average high of 61.7 degrees and an average low of 44.2 degrees. • Governing Body Format —The City of Auburn is a non - charter code city retaining the council; -mayor form of government, as provided in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35A.02.030 of the Optional Municipal Code for the state. A Mayor and seven Council Members serve the City of Auburn. The City Council is responsible for setting City policies as well as reviewing and approving Auburn's Hazard Mitigation Annex; Auburn Emergency Management will oversee the Plan's implementation. The City is organized into the following departments: Administration, Finance, Human Resources, Risk and Property Management, Information Services, Legal, Parks, Arts and Recreation, Planning, and Development, Police, and Public Works. • Development Trends —The City of Auburn established its land use pattern with adoption of the Comprehensive (Land Use) Plan in 1986. The Plan was amended to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) in April 1995 and is updated annually. The overall urban form of the City is heavily influenced by its location in a river valley surrounded by relatively steep hillsides. The organization of the land use pattern of the plan separates the City into three areas: the regional serving area (Western portion of Auburn) which is a concentration of employment base; the community serving area (Eastern Auburn) which contains a majority of the residential areas and locally oriented businesses; and the Downtown which uniquely serves both the region and local community. The western, eastern, and southern expansion of the city boundaries since 2004 has continued to add mainly residential areas. In 2004 Auburn's downtown was designated an "Urban Center" pursuant to the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Urban Centers are areas with concentrated housing and employments, supported by high capacity transportation systems and retail, recreational, public facilities parks and open space. Much of the county's growth in employment and a significant share of new housing are focused within urban centers. The City's development regulations, which include zoning, closely align with and implement the land use designations of the Comprehensive (Land Use) Plan. The zoning regulations are periodically updated. The City adopted its Critical Areas Ordinance in compliance with GMA in May 2005 (Ordinance No. 5894) to provide for the identification, regulation and protection of environmentally sensitive areas including wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, geologic hazard areas, groundwater protection areas, and flood hazard areas. The city updated its floodplain regulations, Chapter 15.68 of the City code in 2008 (Ordinance No. 6161) and updated its Shoreline Management Program in April 2009 (Ordinance No. 6235) in compliance with the State Shoreline Management Action RCW 90.58. The Green and White Rivers are subject to the shoreline regulations 3.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 3 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 3 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 3 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 3 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 3 -5. 3-3 ACT.A Page 567 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 3 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances Regnirf Building Code Yes No No Yes International Codes Adoption — Ordinance #6469, July 1, 2013 Zoning Yes No No No Major Sections Updated Ordinances #6433 & 6435, November 5, 2012 Subdivisions Yes No Yes Yes Major update Ordinance # 6239, June 1, 2009 Stormwater Management Yes No Yes Yes Revised to implement NPDES Ordinance #6283, December 21, 2009 Post Disaster Recovery No No No No Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Yes Washington State Disclosure Law (RCW 64.06) Growth Management Yes No No Yes Adoption of GMA compliant Comp. Plan, Ordinance #4788, September 5, 1995 Site Plan Review Yes No No No Required by geographic area or type of development Public Health and Yes Safety No Yes Yes Public Health Depts. Environmental Protection Yes No Yes Yes Critical Area Regulations, Model Toxics Control Act, etc. Planning Docur General or Yes No Yes Yes Updated annually, Ordinance #6489, Comprehensive Plan December 2, 2013 Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes Floodplain or Basin Plan No No Yes No King County Flood Control District Plan Stormwater Plan Yes No Yes Yes Revised to implement NPDES, Ordinance #6283, December 21, 2009 Capital Improvement Yes Plan What types No Yes Yes Ordinance #6489, December 2, 2013 of capital facilities does the plan address? Public and Critical How often is the plan revised /updated? Every year Habitat Conservation No Plan No Yes No City has not adopted Economic Development Yes Plan No No No (City has a 2005/2006 plan?) Shoreline Management Yes Plan No Yes Yes Ordinance #6235, April 20, 2009. Community Wildfire No Protection Plan No Yes No City has not adopted ACT.A 3 -4 Page 568 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 3 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Response co Planning Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Yes No Yes Yes 2009 CEMP Update with minor revisions in 2013 Threat and Hazard Yes No No Identification and Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan No No Yes Post - Disaster Recovery No Yes Plan Continuity of Yes No No Operations Plan Public Health Plans No No Yes No 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update No Auburn Police Dept. Regional Recovery Plan No 2009 CEMP No Public Health Depts. TABLE 3 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use‘ Community Development Block Grants Y Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Ycs' User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Y Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes' Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas Ycs State Sponsored Grant Programs Ycs Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes ACT.A 3 -5 Page 569 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 3 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Yes Planning/ Public Works Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Planning/ Public Works Yes Planning/ Public Works Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Surveyors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Yes Finance/ Human Resources Yes Public Works Yes Information Technology No Yes Emergency Management — Program Manager Grant writers Y+ s Planning/ Public Works TABLE 3 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your community? (If no, please state why) Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? Planning Planning/ Environmental Services Manager Yes March 31, 2010 March 26, 2008 No Yes Yes 3-6 ACT.A Page 570 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 3 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Partieipating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Public Protection StormReady Firewise Tsunami Ready (if applicable) Yes 5 05/01/2008 Yes 2 Not available Yes 4 Not available Blue Not available' N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 0 3.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 3 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA- Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: 0 • Number of FEMA - Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: 0 • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: N/A 3.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 3 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. 3.6 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 3 -8 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. 3.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 3 -9 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 3 -10 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 3 -11 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 3 ACT.A Page 571 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 3 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS TABLE 3 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Type of Event Hazard T. pc Date Prcliminary Damage Assessment FENI A Disaster # (if applicable) Severe Storms/ Floods/ Landslides/ Mudslides Severe Winter Storms/ Wind/ Landslides/ Mudslides 1 671 -DR -WA 16$2 -DR -WA Nov. 2 -11, 2006 Dec. 14 -15, 2006 $26.362 $75.860 Windstorm/ Snowstorm/ Cold Weather N/A Jan. 5 -16, 2007 No unusual expenses reported Excessive Heat Windstorm Severe Storms / Flooding Severe Winter Storm / record and near- record snow Severe Winter Storm/ Landslides/ Mudslides/ Flooding Excessive Heat Excessive Heat Snowstorm Rain Event Severe Winter Storm/ Flooding/ Landslides/ Mudslides N/A N/A 1 734 -DR -WA 1825 -DR -WA 1817 -DR -WA N/A N/A N/A N/A 1963-DR-WA July 9-11, 2007 No unusual expenses reported Oct. 18, 2007 No unusual expenses reported Dec. 1 -7, 2007 $3.280 Dec. 12, 2008 — $71.002 Jan. 5, 2009 Jan. 6 -16, 2009 initial expenses = $87.85 I Ongoing expenses approx. $4 million July 28-31, 2009_ No unusual cypcnscs reported _ Jut 8 -9 2010 No unusual expenses reported Nov. 22 -23, No unusual expenses reported 2010 Dec. 8 -18, 2010 $1.500 Jan. 11 -21, 2011 $93_954 ACT.A 3 -8 Page 572 of 869 TABLE 3 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Hazard T. pc Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 Scv ere Weather Scv ere Winter Weather Flood Landslide 45 45 27 27 5 Earthquake 18 6 Volcano 16 7 Wildfire 10 8 9 10 Dam Failure Tsunami A■ alanchc 9 3 3 ACT.A 3 -8 Page 572 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 3 -8. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Status Action # Completed Carry Over to Plan Update Remov ed: No Longer Feasible Comments AU -1 Yes AU -2 AU -3 Yes AU -4 Yes AU -5 AU -6 AU -7 AU -8 Completion in 2013 X Program Assessment Undefined Completed______________________ ________.______. Completed X Program Assessment Undefined X Program Assessment Undefined X Program Assessment Undefined X No longer managed by the City TABLE 3 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objective Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated s Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? AU- 1— C'ontinuc to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This \\ ill be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ \\ ill meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP_ which include the lobovv ing: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance_ • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates, and • Prov iding public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts Ncvv and Flood 24,10.12 Planning Low General Fund Ongoing No existing AU- 2---- Retrofit Maintenance and Operations Facility to reduce susceptibility to earthquake damage Existing Earthquake 1,4,9 Public Medium General Fund, Ongoing No Works FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants A11 -3— Installation of seismic protection \ alv es on City resew oirs to pro ide for automatic shutoff in e\ ent of an earthquake. Existing Earthquake 1,4,9 Public Medium General Fund, Ongoing No Works FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants AU- 4— Upgrade computer sere or racks throughout the City to reduce susceptibility to earthquake damage Existing Earthquake 1,4,9 Information Medium General Fund Ongoing No Services ACT.A 3 -9 Page 573 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 3 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objective Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated s Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? AU -5— Purchase and implement soltVAare and harchN are to compl\ \\ 1111 the Stale certification requirements for earlv destruction of source documents after digitii.ation in compliance vv ith the State of \\ ashimdon Records Retention laws. This will safeguard records in case of disaster. New and Flood/ 7,13,14 Information Medium General Fund Ongoing No Existing Earthquake Services AU- 6— Expand and reconfigure storm aterdetention ponds on West Hill along S. 290th St. to reduce wintertime flooding along the v alley floor below. Existing Flooding, 1,4,9 Public High General Fund, Ongoing No Severe Weather Works FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants AU- 7— Prepare and adopt a ncvv optional Comprehensive Plan clement for Natural Hai.ard Reduction. New and All 2,4,10,12 Planning Low General Fund Short term No Existing AU-8—Measures to prev cnt acts of terrorism from occurring at kcv City facilities (Justice Center_ EOC_ City Hall. etc.) New and Other hazards of 1,9,13 Police/EM High General Fund Ongoing No Existing Interest AU- 9— Develop and adopt changes to Cily Code to limit tree remoN al Iv ithin certain sloped or landslide hai.ard susceptible arca Ncvv and Landslide 2.4.10 Planning Low General Fund Ongoing No Existing AU-10—Create part or lull -time FTE position to conduct disaster related public education lhroughoul the City New and All Hazards 4,6,11,15 Emergency Medium General Fund Ongoing No Existing Management AU- 11— Enhance capability to produce Cily slats and data capability New and All Hazards 4,7 Emergency Low General Fund Ongoing No Existing Management A11- 12— Create_ fund_ and administer a grant or low interest loan program that allow s homeowners to retrofit single family homes to protect against impacts from hazards of concern within the City. New and All Hazards 5,7,9 Human High General Fund, Long -term No Existing Services FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants AU -13— Conduct communilv education campaign to addresses pandemic flu issues (Sec Public Education also) New and Other hazards of 4,6,13,15 Emergency Medium General Fund Ongoing No Existing Interest Management ACT.A 3 -10 Page 574 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX ACT.A 3 -11 Page 575 of 869 TABLE 3 -10. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE TABLE 3 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX # of Initiative Objectiv es # Met Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objective s Met Lead Agency Estimated Sources of Cost Funding Timeline Included in Previous Plan? AU- 14— Continue to support the countv -vv ide initiativ es identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12, City of Low General Fund Short term Existing 13. 14, 15 Auburn No AU- 15 —Activ el\ participates in the plan maintenance stralegv identified in this plan. NeW and All Hazards 4,6,11,12, City of Low General fund Short term Existing 13, 14, 15 Auburn No ACT.A 3 -11 Page 575 of 869 TABLE 3 -10. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE # of Initiative Objectiv es # Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible? Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs /Budgets'? Priorit<« AU -1 4 AU -2 3 AU -3 3 AU -4 3 AU -5 � AU -6 AU -7 4 AU -8 3 AU-9 3 AU -10 4 AU -11 2 AU -12 3 Medium High High High Medium -- High High Medium High Medium Medium Low High Lo\\ Medium Medium Medium M edium - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- High L o\\ High Lo\\ 1Niedium Lo\\ High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes tins tins No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes High Yes Yes High High Yes High Yes High Yes High Yes High Yes High Yes High Yes Yes High High No (\Tedium AU -13 4 Low Lo \\ Yes No Yes High AU -14 7 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High AU -15 7 Medium Low of priorities. Yes l'cs Yes High a. See Introduction for explanation ACT.A 3 -11 Page 575 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 3 -11. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Hazard Type Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea Public 2. Property Education and, Protection Awareness; 4. Natural Resource Protection 6. Structural Proj ects Avalanche 714 15; 12 10,14 11 Dam Failure 7,14,15; 12 10,14 11 Earthquake 5,7,14,15; 2,3,4,12 10,14; 11 Flood 5.7.14.15! 1,12 1 10,14 1 6 Landslide 7 9,14,15 12 10,14 11, Severe Weather 7,14,15; 12 10,14 11 6 Severe Winter Weather 12 Tsunami Volcano 12 10,14 7 14 15 12 10,14; Wildfire 7,14,15 12 Other Hazards 14,15 8,12 10, 13,14 11 of Interest a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 3.8 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY • Objective 19.1 - To reduce potential hazards associated with flood plains without unduly restricting the benefits associated with the continued development of the Lower Green River Valley floor. • Objective 19.2 - To ensure that development is properly located and constructed with respect to the limitations of the underlying soils and subsurface drainage. • Objective 21.6 - Flood Hazard Reduction • Objective 19.3 - To reduce the risks associated with the transportation and storage of hazardous materials. 3.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Previously developed information related to City of Auburn boundaries and various hazards is presented in Figure 3 -1 through Figure 3 -7. Hazus- generated maps developed as part of this regional hazard mitigation plan update follow these figures. 3 -12 ACT.A Page 576 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX Figure 3 -1. City ofAuburn Map ACT.A 3 -13 Page 577 of 869 Inn County Regional Haza d Mitigation Plan U d t Volume 2 Planning P i e Annexes R IN O ro! / % MUM f Figure 3-2. Mu Qe h ot Indian Tribe Land ACT.A 3-14 Page 578 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX Figure 3 -3. 1995 FEMA Floodplain Map ACT.A 3 -15 Page 579 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes IS 1111)(1111) 1 '0111101 '101011 Figure 3-4. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas, Existing (blue) and Proposed (green) 3-16 ACT.A Page 580 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX fi 11'11 141k ,, r;;., •;.•'.,,;.,„.,.....,...,i,.j," ":::"..",,,, , ,.... ; ::::::-.1' ::: -. , 1,, . i . j.,.,.!.;,,:,7,.;.;;:r,,,,:::::,:::::::;:str'.. ''',,,;ii,:',,':'';:7:.,,'.:'::.!•:.,',•:,'„?':::,,.:,••,Z'..f.,h,.'..„.1.,::,,:•.::::::::::.............1i..„'......,............,„:„.....: ,-,.,:.,v.---:..7.--.7r-:-7.''..-''ia.:"''':T''°'.i,',: 0 0 „ .:,:,11. 00, 00' ',' ,r . ., •i „,'.0,0,....„.0„C„,,...,..„........, . 0.„ i.i. I ,,,,,, ., .f•.;! :::,.!.:.:!.........:,„.•:.„.,.„{,.. • 1"'":":„„,,,,„„.„. .•,:, i• •!.... ••(.,;; , ,,,.,.,.,;,:,„:„„:„,;::„.:.,,„;, .„•:•1...; .. _ ..,.....,....„..„....„,: ,,...„, '''. . . ....... ma 181 )". Figure 3-5. Landslide Hazard ACT.A 3-17 Page 581 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes Extent of Two Holocene Mudflows from Mount Rainier Kent Tacoma Sumner Puyallup °Illlm 0;4 " I) Enumclaw Buckley Q MU E F 5000 years o Iu Orting EpT 500 ye7 20 km 1 1 1 1 ' I 10 miles R U l MU ors 0 Puyallup River L 11M White River West Fork White River ouulnt F liwll Ilwl"uliwll a II USGS Top'nk U5GSCVC 1997 Modfled from. Crania #, eta?, 1979 Figure 3 -6. Historical Mudflows (Lahars) ACT.A 3 -18 Page 582 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN UPDATE ANNEX ,wirrdn F�.oudgain Flccd Hazard Areas Hydra,. volitk ewndarles ,rarrpartation 1sow.,Fo,6 Ta,ard:p. Wf_, „,dtsar, LrninsTrpreratee cot.. Figure 3 -7. Structures Within Auburn Special Flood Hazard Areas ACT.A 3 -19 Page 583 of 869 CITY OF AUBURN Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function 0 c N 7 c6 O > o to N p .0 N LL • U N 0 03 03 O U L 1 2 a u) O © �',°-0 Critical Infrastructure 0 U cA • N 7 E E m 0 0 Q Q CO U) O a Transportation Locations are approximate. T° = O r_ U p W w il 2 N 0 (/)> m e 0 = cuN U O mc7 CITY OF AUBURN Liquefaction Susceptibility Not Susceptible le C N O O N Q O 1:11 S Q m E m E >— Nt E m E O§ Q _ t 'Q .g N N Qp O N O 'N O O O O O U E N o QEz o m Q O Y 0 (.31 +La N Q t N U N S` E E N tT m as N Y 'O N 7 3 E = r N 0 0 y 0 is N O N .�. d o c N t O y O y j Q >. m m m V 0 e," T 0- y0 >. w y N d y •C y Q 7 m d U m t U :S E m a co N m N O m C O a 7 Q Q d m E N 7 N '= N 0 (n : O) w O • O O lL U o 0)C E Ui O N 0 = >Q> to m � 0 = — to N m g O m0 CITY OF AUBURN E • 22 § o X05 E % \ 2U 0 — a 2 D 2 L z N± �z Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil / m CITY OF AUBURN FEMA DFIRM Flood Hazard Areas < 1C 2 i P2 ° -* ° - }\ 0 , \ \ \� \� \} /p =� _ 0 217(32 k f n { .) -} \\ /(< \LT_ 0- / _ _ EN m - ‘- 0 0 3 0E:a'ors ±J Hoc / \ \. b St »tm f � 3 ) ' 2,= g-, —" :F » :.. ( ' � iz •-ye_er fit «.¥N.\\ . . .. . .. �� \ \` ®�� o�a�o�.c `o m> >'O L`O E.) E Oo �fl- MI ��jj m =Em�� --o� a�.. m ".� .gym 0 �� co mEa�� Z CO E� -8.E 4goo0E �0 �� °'�oV >. � 5U �E2m OgA/ /^U) o a�i �n a� 0 U m `m c� g 2 ` ,,1_3a9-7„-- 2 in - a� �a 2 o 0 o o 2- -0 1E N a 0 0 a 'O m 0 � .0 -O m UI 2 .- 0 ICI !HU . i!I ws • o- a o a) - o o 2 >Y m 0 1 'C m -O LO _ mO • �o- mo>. wo •-� moa 89.N aw. -oc tt N t O -c3.,2°-?3"5 d' .� 21 .. 'n-9-- m e >. a) N 'O 0 N 0 cp 000 i -o �'0 00to°:000> J� O 0.= 0,822s -o �-OC� 0ED5EE . 2 m m E m �' UI m m ' O ° w 0=°20v, .> =2-2 y O- - o N m O a s- a o m� aa)i m -o c� --la-- m ,, -. S a`, w 849,2 a 2 -o 'o m s °� 0 O �_ _ -° '- o p� m Y s E � -a' °c E� =' m m E m a � s m �A UL m m c �°) -o- aT .00 omin°som 3. -oEm w -o .. ,LE„ Ep.�- O„,4,,; •(n Q s ,,, -0o o o ai (Pw T, -o o m .- ' m s �.2 c n 0 1 m .T O. Y— `6 ai �,S U 0 -0 I (1 Ji TmT QO M T mm22, mm 0 . QE =am — m o m0�- ,,, — -O-m C7 •cE. >�o' >.,82.§2-8 wc-o-o 00 -00mL, o20�o �. -L1J0 o>. VRS 0 0 9, tO - 6 OL m C ‘,49,P2 m E 0 00m22' m z a) t . O O W J ms 0.Po2a om U-Ooa� 2Tcoi .mao >.m,o:8 w2ma2 c --oo O E am >om.(2 EITQ� �� coa-oO ma'v.2a 0aa0 oa.o�ma E4,o H w 0 0 E 0 -° Z -o N O .E S a D c o a c 0 r_ [.)S � Y = m 20 (n� me a ) m m 0 m0 C �t Li H U �® j \ — ff ®/[7 /7 cz.o 2 — — \(\ \ \i \=$ 2 \ \ 6 ^!2= )2„ §r 47 /)) - ° ®!% ct e- °§S °B > - -c = \�/ @ @ ®k [ J)) /� ° 00 o0 '`5' ))` ° °° e )/ 1.07t# ti3 N > \ 5 -,2E k E § =±o , / §\s =)§ . 0- E13$ );J,= E: 7 /S ` - _ , co 71 ® E)� {� 1 \)L\ - \® \ \)§ \ \ / _ )j :J_ 2= e -c - / \ )\ \ }\ \2,\ \\\�\ )� \\ \7`§±±\( k \\ _I 0_ 222 )222°` 5� f` -. /k33 /( /) /2 §E 7|7 _ y \&®0- '\2] }\ /§ �\((z% \oOo \�6\ \\ ƒ) \§! \)§ =7 \�)\ j_o 5§ %!t§ Ou,o) O \§ J /j -o-co- \). & 0 / CITY OF AUBURN 2008 LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model Anderson 13 Fuel Classes Non - Burnable I AI DD N CO LO (O OO O) 0 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL to to to to to to to to to LL LL LL LL LL��I�I I�L-L-� I��L--L��pp LL LL DDDDDD O p O U w' w C Q O N N N O U O .2 C N .CD 0 O E n U N O o Q O - C 0 N 2w w N H E 82 N _ (z C C L Q 22- .2 -o 7) N N 4 O U N E O a L �1W�-Ez ° 2 =a> w � N 1.) ce O �O w- . O N U (1 E d (4 L N O L a o a C Z w Z 2 ~ L t w o O pm 2 o w ( o Q ›°.' `n D)m 0 0) Q ,U 'a) L w °_ o a) 6)- o w N o � aN m Q U a N U t 41 0 o N a X a 8 w ° N L N m ` iN N ° N 2 a N 2o 0 ° �a -a "N a° o 1m O N O ) = .0 O a) a.) O o E E > m >. = r — H — aLaa.a — ° o L w LL=..wUw cw° E E Eoc _0E 7 >. O O O N U C) w w 0 45 Y r 0 m � 0 - - N O coo CHAPTER 4. TOWN OF BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE ANNEX 4.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Sue Ann Spens, Clerk- Treasurer 10550 SE 27th Street Beaux Arts, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 454 -8580 e -mail Address: townhall @beauxarts - wa.gov Alternate Point of Contact Richard Leider, Mayor 10550 SE 27th Street Beaux Arts, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 454 -8580 e -mail Address: mayor @beauxarts - wa.gov 4.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation -1954 • Current Population -290 as of April 1, 2012 (Washington State Office of Financial Management estimate) • Population Growth —The Town of Beaux Arts Village is a fully developed community with no real population growth. Population has hovered around 300 since the incorporation. • Location and Description —The Town of Beaux Arts Village is a residential -only town covering 50 acres and sitting on the eastern shore of Lake Washington at longitude W122 °12'7" and latitude N47 °35'9" in King County, Washington. Downtown Bellevue is about 3 miles north and Downtown Seattle is less than 10 miles west. The Town is located conveniently near both Interstate 90 and Interstate 405. • Brief History —The roots of Beaux Arts Village can be traced to the Society of Beaux Arts, a "school of every art and craft," established "to develop art and its appreciation here in the Northwest." Members of the Society dreamed of starting an art colony where they could live and work together. Three members of the Society, Frank Calvert, Alfred Renfro, and Finn Frolich, signed their names to the incorporation of the Western Academy of Beaux Arts in 1908 and purchased a 50 -acre tract of forest land, setting aside ten acres in the center for sketching grounds, workshops, cricket, a tennis court, and healthful recreation by members of the Beaux Arts Society. The artist colony did not thrive, but its influence on the unique character of the Village can still be seen today. In 1954, Beaux Arts Village was incorporated as a fourth -class Town, largely so that residents would retain a voice in its further development and could preserve the Village's unique character. • Climate —The Town of Beaux Arts Village has a mild oceanic climate, experiencing generally warm, but not hot summers and cool, but not cold winters, with a relatively narrow annual temperature range. The annual average high is 60.2 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average annual low is 44.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual average precipitation is approximately 36 inches and is dispersed more evenly throughout the year with no real dry season in typical years. • Governing Body Format —The Town of Beaux Arts Village is governed by a Mayor - Council form of government. The Town Council is the legislative and administrative body 4-1 ACT.A Page 591 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes and consists of a Mayor and five Councilmembers, all of whom are residents of the Town and elected at large. The Mayor and Councilmembers are volunteers who serve four -year terms and are eligible for re- election without term limits. The Town Council assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan and will oversee its implementation. • Development Trends — Current development trends range from restoring older homes of architectural significance to replacing smaller homes with larger homes, as is typical for this area of the Eastside. For all intent and purpose, the Town is fully built out; it includes only two or three lots that are large enough to be subdivided under current zoning rules. 4.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 4 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 4 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 4 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 4 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 4 -5. 4-2 ACT.A Page 592 of 869 TOWN OF BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE ANNEX TABLE 4 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances Regnrement Building Code Yes No No Yes BAV MC 15.05 (2010, 2013) Zoning Yes No No No BAV MC 18.10 (2009) Subdivisions Yes No No No BAV MC 17.05 (1999) Stormwater Management Yes No No Yes BAV MC 13.15 (1995) Post Disaster Recovery Yes No No Yes BAV MC 2.45 (2009) Real Estate Disclosure No No No Yes RCW 64.56 Growth Management Yes No No Yes BAV MC 18.05 (2004) Site Plan Review Yes No No No BAV MC 15.05 Public Health and Safety Yes No No No BAV MC Title 8 Environmental Protection Yes No No Yes BAV MC Title 16 Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan Yes No No Yes BAV MC 18.05 (2004) Under review in 2014- 15. Is the plan equipped toprovide linkage to this mitigation plan? No Floodplain or Basin Plan Yes No No No BAV MC 16.20 (2000) Stormwater Plan Yes No No No Not codified Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No No 6 -Year TIP, not codified What types of capital facilities does the plan address? Roads How often is theplan revised /updated? Annually Habitat Conservation Plan No Yes N No Washington State Bald Eagle Rules Economic Development Plan No No No No All SFR, no commercial activity Shoreline Management Plan Yes No No Yes BAV MC 16.10 (2013) Community Wildfire Protection Plan No No No No Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Emergency Yes No No Yes CEMP not codified, Management Plan Last updated 2013; pending State Review Threat and Hazard Identification and No No No No Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan No No No No Post - Disaster Recovery Plan Yes No No No CEMP, not codified Continuity of Operations Plan Yes No No No BAV MC 2.40 (2009) Public Health Plans No No No No ACT.A 4 -3 Page 593 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 4 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants l'cs Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Surface NN titer unlitv fee, Real Estate Excise Tax: King Countv Flood Control District -Basin Opportunity Fund Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Other TABLE 4 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Av ailable? Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management_ practices l"cs Town Building Official and Town Planner Engineers or professionals trained in building or l es Town Building Official infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Surveyors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Grant writers Yes Town Planner l es Clerk- Treasurer l es By contract l es By contract l es By contract l"es Assigned councilmember l es By contract 4-4 ACT.A Page 594 of 869 TOWN OF BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE ANNEX TABLE 4 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management inyour community? _Buildin Dc artment_ Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) None assigned Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? N+ What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? 2000 When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance None Contact'? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP No compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so,please state what they_are_ Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your NIA community? (If no, please state why) Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its Not at this time, floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, is N/A your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? TABLE 4 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule N/A N/A N/A Public Protection Yes 3 Not available StormReady No N/A N/A Firewise N/A N/A Tsunami Ready (if applicable) No N/A N/A 4.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 4 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA- Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: 0 • Number of FEMA - Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: 0 • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: N/A 4-5 ACT.A Page 595 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 4 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Prcliminar Damage Assessment Wind 11/2013 No estimate aN ailablc. Severe Winter Storm, DR -4056 Ice Storm Severe Winter Storm, DR -182 5 Heavy Snow High Wind DR-I682 12/2006 Heavy Rain 1/2006 Heavy Rain DR-I499 10/2003 Heavy Rain 11/2001 Earthquake (Nisqually) DR -1361 High Wind DR-98I Severe Winter Storm, DR -883 Heavy Snow 01/2012 No estimate aN ailablc. ( Minimal costs for remo\ al of debris from lallcn tree limbs.) 12/2008 No estimate aN ailablc. (Minimal costs for remo\ al of debris from fallen tree limbs and remov al of snow . ) $18.400 No estimate aN ailablc. No estimate aN ailablc. No estimate aN ailablc. 02/2001 No estimate aN ailablc. (No measurable damage to Town structures or streets.) 1/1993 No estimate a■ ailablc. (Minimal costs for remo\ al of debris from fallen tree limbs.) 12/1990 No estimate aN ailablc. (Minimal costs for rem() \ al of debris from fallen tree limbs and remov al of snow . ) Earthquake 4/1965 Wind DR -196 10/1962 No estimate aN ailablc. No estimate aN ailablc. 4.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 4 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. 4.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 4 -8 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 4 -9 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 4 -10 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 4-6 ACT.A Page 596 of 869 TOWN OF BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE ANNEX TABLE 4 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX TABLE 4 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Hai.ard T. pe Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Earthquake Scv ere Weather Scv ere Winter Weather Wildfire Flood Volcano Av alanchc Dam Failure Landslide 51 51 48 45 12 6 0 0 0 10 Tsunami 0 TABLE 4 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Sources of Funding Timeline BAV -1— Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This w ill be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ \\ ill meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP, which include the follow ing: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance_ • Participating in flooclplain identification and mapping updates_ and • Prov iding public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts New and All Hazards 2,4,10,12 Town Council Low General Fund Ongoing Existing BAV -2— Continue to educate residents on how to prevent loss of life and property clamagc from earthquakes_ storms_ and urban wildfires. New and All Hazards 4, 6, 7 Town Council Low General Fund Ongoing existing BAV -3 —Dc■ clop a Stormw atcr Management Comprchensiv c Plan. This w ill be accomplished b. using a 2009 sure C\ of the Tow it-s existing stormw titer facilities_ cletcrmining the additional infrastructure needed to upgrade the existing sv stem_ and developing a comprehensive plan for implementing the upgrades. New and Flood, Severe 1, 2, 4, 12 Town Council Medium General Fund, King Short Term existing Storm County Flood Control District grants ACT.A 4 -7 Page 597 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 4 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Sources of Funding Timeline BAV -4— Partner vv ith a neighboring city for snow remov al. This vv ill be accomplished by executing an Intel-local Agreement. Existing Severe Winter 1, 5, 7, 8 Town Council Low General Fund Short Term Storm BAV- 5— (\laintain the Tow ns existing in cntory of significant trees on Town propertv _ including rights of vv av _ and update as needed. This in cntory has resulted in a vv atch list for monitoring and maintaining the health of trees on public property and minimii.cs the hai.ard of dead trees_ tree limbs_ and fires. New and Wildfire, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 Town Council Low General Fund, Short Term existing Severe Storm Wash. State Dept. of Natural Resources grants BAV -6— Integrate the hai.ard mitigation plain into other plans_ ordinances or programs to dictate land uses vv ithin the jurisdiction. Ncvv All Ha /arcis 2.4.8.10 Tovv n Council Lovv General Fund Short -term BAV -7— \Where appropriate_ support retrofitting_ purchase_ or relocation of structures located in hai.ard -prone areas to protect structures from future clam AA I'll propCrtmCS \V Ith C \poSUrC 10 rCpCllllV C IOSSCS as a priority . Existing All Hazards 5,9,13 Town Council High FEMA grants, Local Long -term sources for local Match BAV -8 Continue to support the county -vv ide initiativ es identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, Town Council Low General Fund Ongoing Existing 14. 15 BAV -9 Activ clv participates in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, King County Low General Fund Ongoing Existing 14, 15 OEM, Town Council ACT.A 4 -8 Page 598 of 869 TOWN OF BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE ANNEX TABLE 4 -9. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Do Benefits # of Equal or Is Project Can Project Be Funded Initiative Objcctiv es Exceed Grant- Under Existing Met Benefits Costs Costs'? Eligible' Programs/ Budgets? Priorit< BAV -1 d Low LOvv Yes No Yes High BAV -2 3 Low LOvv Yes No Yes High BAV -3 d Medium Mcdium Yes Ycs Yes High BAV -4 4 Medium LOvv Yes No Yes High BAV -5 Medium Lovv Yes Ycs Yes Mcdium BAV -6 d Medium LOvv Yes No Yes High BAV -7 High High Yes Ycs No Mcdium BAV -8 7 Medium Low Yes No Yes High BAV -9 7 Low LOvv Yes Ycs Yes High a. See Introduction for explanation of priorities. TABLE 4 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea Hazard Type I . Prc\ cation 2. Propert \ Protection 3. Public Education and ANN arcncss 4. Natural Resource Protection 5. Emcrgcncv Scr\ ICCS 6. Structural Projects Avalanche Dam Failure Earthquake (6.9 7 2.8 5 8 Flood I.3.6.) 1,7 1.2.8 1,5 1.8 Landslide Severe Weather Severe Winter Weather 3.(x.9 3.(x.9 7 7 2.8 5 2.8 5 8 4.8 Tsunami Volcano O.9 7 2.8 5 8 Wildfire O.9 7 2.8 5 8 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. ACT.A 4 -9 Page 599 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 4.7 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS While Earthquake ranks as the highest hazard risk in the Town of Beaux Arts Village, the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake did not compromise any public facilities, and damage to private homes was minimal; however it should be noted that this intraslab (or Benioff) earthquake measured M7.0 on the Richter Scale, and its epicenter was 30 miles beneath the surface and centered 100 miles from Beaux Arts Village. It is estimated that an earthquake involving the Cascadia Subduction Zone could measure M9.0 on the Richter Scale, and while the energy released from such a quake would be spread over a large area, the impact on communities throughout the Puget Sound would be considerable. Similarly, an M7.0 crustal earthquake along any of the faults in the Seattle area would have a similar impact, because the epicenter would be much shallower than a subduction or intraslab quake. The Town has no historical incidences of flooding during Severe Storms, nor are there any flood zones identified within Town boundaries; however, the Town joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 2000 to allow residents to obtain flood insurance, if they felt such insurance was needed. Our geography is such that most stormwater flows through the existing stormwater conveyance system or down the steeper portions of our roads and drains into Lake Washington. In periods of heavy rain, stormwater can temporarily overwhelm this conveyance system, causing the excess water to flow along the unpaved portions of the rights of way and possibly damaging the rights of way or undermining the paved roadway. Stormwater can also flow from the roadway onto private property, causing local ponding in isolated areas. A Stormwater Management Comprehensive Plan will help the Town determine where the existing infrastructure needs improvement and will allow us to prioritize spending to complete these improvements. Some of the Town's utilities, e.g. electricity, telephone, and cable, are above ground; water and sanitary sewer are underground. It is not uncommon for homes in Beaux Arts Village to lose power during a Severe Storm or Severe Winter Storm due to fallen branches. In addition, these fallen branches create debris on the roadways that must be cleared and disposed of. If the power outage affects the well pump serving the Beaux Arts Water Department, an emergency connection to water from the Bellevue Water Utility automatically opens, ensuring that water customers retain access to a water supply. However, the Water Department incurs a surcharge for the volume of water used that is significantly higher than the cost to deliver water through the normal distribution system. During a Severe Winter Storm, unplowed snow can make travel on the roads dangerous. The Town has examined ways to address this problem locally, including stockpiling sand to spread on the most affected roads. A partnership with a nearby city to cooperatively remove accumulated snow from roadways will eliminate the hazard to motorists and private structures near the roadways. Residents in the Town value trees and have enacted rules to protect them and guide their replacement. The Town has a mature urban forest, which may be vulnerable to wildfire, though no such event has occurred in the Town since its development. In 2006, the Town performed an inventory of significant trees on Town rights of way and has continued to update it periodically Maintaining this inventory will continue to help us monitor the health of all public trees, especially those identified as needing to be watched. Removing dead or dying trees identified in the inventory or by other means will help us mitigate the danger of property damage due to falling limbs and wildfire. Education regarding the value of managing trees on private property will encourage similar stewardship among our residents. 4 -10 ACT.A Page 600 of 869 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function 0 0 N = (6 � U a) to > O N 00 N N 4 U _ 2 o_ cn Critical Infrastructure cn C O T co Q Q 'E = N = � E N a) co O N c 70 O (6 ..SSOo 0 O a S d 0 o',„.. Transportation Locations are approximate. Ou- 0 Liquefaction Susceptibility Not Susceptible Low to Moderate C,zN .O N N N-O O Q N O C (p N N C N O_ S> N Q N 2 E m E OQ § O t Q m O 0 w d = 46- -co O m N U N N O O O O U E N p Q E 13 o rn U • N O z` r O 0 Q O Y .� j O N Q .• N _. t 0 N S 3� E U N U 2 2 N O) (6 (6 -6 N 3 3 • = 0 N 0 N- 0 y N t r D • 0 y> >`N N �N Q N ✓ 0 w Q N 2 > y 3 y y s Q 7 N 2° U N • E�arna) 15 )N -O O_ 3 Q Q N N E 7 N '= N U 11111111,1,1,1,1„„, 9 419(_1 co fro ^I I� O z rgi o 2008 LANDFIRE Non - Burnable • N CO LO (O OO O) ▪ LL LL LL 0 LT LT 2 2 2 2 2 2 • co co co co co co co co co LL LL LL LL LL LL i LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL CO • ❑I 'n 1 000 0 0 0 U w C Q O N N N L O O 3 C O go L N V Ew d w w E P .— 2 �/% fn Z o° E L N _ O O Q Q OU == E o W J '• N O C L 0 0 z-5 p a g 2‘r5 O E N� a N N- C E o wow w o m .� ~ E w m 2, m Q Z o s a a O O U U c O J U . N U C 0'a 2 N o_ N N— fl-a ° . 't m a w ° 8 `O Q w o w m �X a o o7-O o 2 � L Q= ct N N UmCL° 0No '5 a) a�.�o� ce Dw ar - � o - )4 fa EN S E E L N -c N m . L) I o L a o o E O o E oas > wo 2 a O wcwaUo w )w° E .w TO _o E Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil N >.-O N 0 0 0 U O) N ° y O) N> 0 C (6 p L Q Fw -p N r; -° O Q O 2 0 Q O N E O O O N E 'O °-• (;) L C O N O O w N N L 6 LN y C (/ m C 0 y (� m 0 6 L Q (6 N U 0 • Q L .L-• 0 Y O O O p Q O O (6 O) (6 O) O (6 (6 -6 (6 N O> , C -O p d) p 6 L E -60> QO E- O E U (/1 r p o 2 0t/ Q (6 . N 0 N 0 0> c1 E -O Y OE (6 0 U O6 ° L O U O ▪ E E *D., ') U , O .� '6,328'82 O O0 QL > 0 o U-6 O) O (U6 O N N Q O O (6 E 0 > O L Q N L : N --00-00.-0000 .L- N -c -c F (6 O) U > U >i f/1 CHAPTER 5. CITY OF BOTHELL UPDATE ANNEX 5.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Jennifer Warmke, Emergency Preparedness Coord. 10726 Beardslee Boulevard Bothell, WA 98011 Telephone: (425) 486 -1678 e -mail Address: jennifer.warmke@ci.bothell.wa.us Alternate Point of Contact Bob Van Horne, Fire Chief 10726 Beardslee Boulevard Bothell, WA 98011 Telephone: (425) 486 -1678 e -mail Address: bob.vanhorne @ci.bothell.wa.us 5.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation -1909 • Current Population- 34,460 as of 2013 • Population Growth —The City of Bothell population has historically grown at a rate of around 1 percent per year, except when annexations add large numbers of citizens to the City. This overall growth rate is expected to continue, although the planned simultaneous annexation of nine areas of unincorporated King County early in 2014 will add over 6,000 citizens, pushing Bothell's population over 40,000. • Location and Description —The City of Bothell is in the north central region of King County and the south central region of Snohomish County. It is located on I -405, 12 miles north of Seattle, Washington. The City shares its boundaries with the cities of Woodinville, Kenmore and unincorporated areas of King and Snohomish Counties. The City of Bothell is unique in that it is located in two counties. The City's land area is 13.75 square miles with approximately 53 percent in King County and 47 percent in Snohomish County. • Brief History —The City of Bothell was incorporated in 1909. Since the first settlers arrived in the late 1800s, Bothell has evolved from a logging camp to an agricultural community to a bedroom suburb to a balanced city with well - established residential areas and thriving retail and employment centers. The historic downtown is the home of the Bothell City Hall, Bothell Police Department, Bothell Downtown Fire Station and other City administrative offices. • Climate — Bothell has a similar climate to the general Puget Sound region. Occasionally it does experience a variety of weather conditions because of its location in a Convergence Zone. The temperature tends to hover around 40.8 F in January, and 65.2 F in July. Bothell receives 35.96 inches of rain each year. • Governing Body Format —The basic structure of decision - making in the City consists of a seven - member elected City Council that will assume responsibility for adopting the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Emergency Preparedness Coordinator assists the City departments in the development and implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 5-1 ACT.A Page 605 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes • Development Trends —As of this 2014 update, Bothell is experiencing extensive detached single family residential development throughout the City, as well as substantial mixed -use and institutional redevelopment in and around downtown. This development is catalyzed by public roadway and other capital projects. The downtown redevelopment is expected to remain robust at least through 2016. 5.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 5 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 5 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 5 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 5 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 5 -5. TABLE 5 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Local Federal Authority Prohibitions Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances Requ Building Code Yes No Yes Yes BMC Title 20, last updated by Ord. 2124 (7/16/2013) Zoning Yes No Yes Yes BMC Title 12, last updated by Ord. 2123 (7/16/2013) Subdivisions Yes No Yes Yes BMC Title 15, last updated by Ord. 2123 (7/16/2013) Stormwater Management Yes No Yes Yes BMC Title 18, last updated by Ord. 2023 (6/16/2009) Post Disaster Recovery Yes No No No In CEMP see below Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Yes Washington State Disclosure Law (RCW 64.06) Growth Management Yes No Yes Yes BMC Titles 11– 22, last updated by Ord. 2124 (7/16/2013) Site Plan Review Yes No Yes Yes BMC Title 12, last updated by Ord. 2123 (7/16/2013) Public Health and Safety No No Yes Yes Seattle -King County, RMC policy and procedure. Some state mandates on public safety. Environmental Protection Yes No Yes Yes BMC Title 14, last updated by Ord. 2102 (10/16/2012) Planning Do umet General or Comprehensive Plan Yes No Yes Yes Imagine Bothell Comprehensive Plan last updated by Ord. 2112 (3/19/2013) Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes Floodplain or Basin Plan No No Yes No King County Flood Control District Plan ACT.A 5 -2 Page 606 of 869 CITY OF BOTHELL UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 5 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Stormwater Plan Yes No Yes Yes Bothell Surface Water Management Plan, last updated 2012 (no Ord. or Res.) Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No No 2013 — 19 Bothell Capital Facilities Plan, last updated by Res. 1292 (10/16/2012) What types of capital facilities does the plan address? Facilities, Parks, Water, Sewer, Transportation, Storm How often is theplan revised /updated? every 2 years Habitat Conservation Plan Yes No Yes Yes Natural Environment, Land Use and Shoreline Management elements of Comprehensive Plan, last updated by Ord. 2112 (3/19/2013) Economic Development Yes No Yes Yes Economic Development Element Plan of Comprehensive Plan, last updated by Ord. 1942 (12/27/2004) - - - - - - -- Shoreline Management Plan Yes No Yes Yes Shoreline Management Element of Comprehensive Plan, last updated by Ord 2112 (3/19/2013) Community Wildfire No No No No Protection Plan Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Emergency Yes No No Yes Resolution 1215 (4/1/08) Management Plan Threat and Hazard Yes No No No Hazard Mitigation Plan Identification and Risk Resolution 1256 (6/1/10) Assessment Terrorism Plan Yes No No No Annex to current CEMP Post - Disaster Recovery Plan No No No No Continuity of Operations No No No No Draft plan continues to evolve, Plan not formally adopted b Council Public Health Plans No No Yes No Agreement with Seattle/King County. Have Emergency Support Function 8 of CEMP that addresses in part. ACT.A 5 -3 Page 607 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 5 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes; Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes' Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes Yes — Water & Sewe Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 5 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Yes Community Development Department planners Public Works Department civil engineers Yes Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Surveyors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Grant writers Yes', Public Works Department, Civil Engineers, Community Development Department building plans examiners and building inspectors Community Development Department planners Public Works Department civil engineers Various Departments Yes Executive /Information Services /GIS Specialists No Yes Fire/Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Yes Various Departments 5-4 ACT.A Page 608 of 869 CITY OF BOTHELL UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 5 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management in your Public Works community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator'? (department /position) Public Works Director Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community'? No What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance'? Ordinance 1946 July, 2005'. When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community October 4, 2012 Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding No NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes community? (If no, please state why)------------------------------ ----- - - - - -- Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to No support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If No, not interested at this time so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? TABLE 5 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System N/A N/A Building_Code Effectiveness Grading_ _Schedule Yes 2 Not available Public Protection Yes 3 Not available StormReady Firewise N/A N/A N/A N/A Tsunami Ready (if applicable) No N/A N/A 5.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 5 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA- Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of FEMA - Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: Not applicable 5-5 ACT.A Page 609 of 869 Y2K NisQually Quake Severe Weather 1 079 11/7/95 2/9/96 1999 -2000 1361 2/28/01 1682 Flooding 1734 Severe Weather Winter Storm TABLE 5 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS FENIA Disaster Type of Event (if applicable) Date PrcliminarN Damage Assessment Windstorm King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1825 12/14 - 15,2006 12/1 -17, 2007 12/12/08 - 1/5/09 n a n a n a $73.808 $187.750 $361.000 5.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 5 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. TABLE 5 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Ha/aid Tv pc Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 Earthquake 54 2 Scv ere Weather 51 3 Scv ere Winter NN cathcr 51 4 Flood 24 5 Landslide 20 6 Wildfire 9 7 Dam Failure 5 8 Volcano (Ash Fall) 3 9 Av alai-:11c 0 10 Tsunami 0 Note: Hazard Risk Ranking for the City of Bothell was completed before the February 28, 2014 Annexation. 5.6 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 5 -8 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. 5-6 ACT.A Page 610 of 869 CITY OF BOTHELL UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 5 -8. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Status Carry Over Removed: Action to Plan No Longer # Completed'' Update Feasible Comments BO -1 BO -2 BO -3 BO -1 BO -2 BO -3 BO -4 1 Project completed in 2009 BO -5 Now BO -4 BO -6 Project completed in February 2012 BO -7 Action no longer considered but replaced with a new initiative to pursue inter -tie with adjacent Alderwood Water District. BO -8 Project completed in June 2012 BO -9 Action no longer considered feasible due to lack of funding and City financial capacity to complete action. BO -10 Station was remodeled in 2009. No further action is to be taken on this. BO -11 BO -12 BO -13 BO -14 BO -15 BO -16 Now BO -15 Now BO -5 Now BO -6 This initiative is related to improving safety along the existing shoulders of roadways and not truly a hazard mitigation plan initiative. Now BO -7 Now BO -8 BO -17 vi - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- BO -18 BO -19 BO -20 BO -21 BO -22 Now BO -9 Now BO -10 Project completed in 2007 Project completed in 2006 Project completed in 2010 Project completed in 2008 BO -23 A new City Hall is being built and at this point no further action is to be taken on this. BO -24 Now BO -11 BO -25 Built a new Public Works Operations Center in 2010. 5 ACT.A Page 611 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 5.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 5 -9 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 5 -10 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 5 -11 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. TABLE 5 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? BO -1 —Pro v ide seismic \ attics_ security barriers and improN c notification and response to Morningsidc Rcscry oir and Booster Station Existing Severe Weather, 1,3,8 Public Low Utility Ongoing Yes Power Failure Works BO- 2— Rehabilitate City bridges for prescry ation and maintaining the existing integrity for safe use. Rehabs may include seismic and safety improvements. Existing Flooding, 1,5 Public Low Street Ongoing Yes Earthquake, Works Severe Weather BO- 3— Installation of backup power supply and alarm s. stem at Islav vvDoti vv ater pump station. Existing Severe weather, 1,5 Public Low Utility 2015 Yes Earthquake Works BO -4 —This project realigns SR X22 one block to the south to create a nevv streamlined __T__ intersection at SR 527. SR 527 and 98th Avenue NE are extended south from Main Street to the nevv SR 522 realignment. The roaclhv av proN ides tvv o lanes in each direction vv ith Icft turn lanes as necessai\ . side'o all:s_ intersection improN cmcnts_ traffic signals_ ttilities_ Iightining_ and landscaping. Completion of this project \\ ill aid the city in Facilitating ev actiation during hazards events as well as retrofitting critical infrastructure. Existing & Severe weather, 1, 2 Public $55 M Capital 2013 Yes new earthquake Works High BO -5 —Prov idc disaster preparedness and awareness education to the general public and businesses Nv ithin the community. Existing All Hazard 8,11,13,14, Fire $2,480 General Budget Ongoing Yes 15 Low BO -6 —To prov idc funding for immediate action to address landslides_ erosion_ deterioration_ v andaiism and spot hazardous locations. Existing Landslides, 1,5 Public Low General Fund Short Term Yes Earthquake Works BO -7 —This project vv ill prov idc capacity and safety improN cmcnts and include roadvv ay ■v idening to a fi' c lane. roadway with intermittent median landscaping, bicycle lanes, curb, gutter_ and sidewalk. New & Severe weather, 1,2 Public $8.7 M Capital 2013 Yes Existing earthquake Works ACT.A 5 -8 Page 612 of 869 CITY OF BOTHELL UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 5 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? BO- 8— Intersection improv cmcnts at SR 524 and vv idcning the roachvay in the southbound direction from tvv0 to three lanes from SR 524 to about 500 ft north of 220th St SE. Existing Severe weather, 1,2 Public $6.8 M Capital Long Term Yes earthquake Works BO- 9— Intended to address the safety and access concerns on SR 524 between SR 527 and 39th ANC SE. Access improv cmcnts vv ill be limited to roadvv ay vv idcning to prov idc for left turn pockets and improv c sight distances. Existing Severe weather, 1,2 Public $8.4 M Capital Long Term Yes earthquake Works BO -10 —The Multivvay Boutivand will consist of four travel lanes_ a left turn lane_ tvvo side landscape medians_ tvv 0 side lanes with parking and wide sidevv alk. New & Severe weather, 1,2 Public $27 M Capital Long Term Yes Existing earthquake Works BO- 11 —Redev elopment of well field for primal-y self- sustaining source water_ and prov idc seismic upgrades to tank located at well -field site. New & Earthquake 1, 2 Public $2.0 M Utility Short Term Yes Existing Works BO- 12— Replace the existing Sammamish Riv er Bridge ON er Sammamish Riv er 01196111 AN e NE New & Earthquake 1,2,5 Public $4.8 M Capital Short Term No Existing Works BO- 13— Widen SR 522 segment ncvv IN annexed into the City of Bothell between current cifv limits and City of Kenmore to pi.0V ide COntlnuouS Business Access and Transit Zane In both direction_ sidewalk on the north side of the highvv ay and other related street improv cmcnts. New & Severe weather, 1,2 Public $45 M Capital Long Term No Existing earthquake Works BO- 14— Upgrade Horse Creek Pipeline in the dove ith hN brid an existing ntovv n area vv a open channel/ pipe sv stem. New & Flooding 1,2 Public $15 M Utility 2014 No Existing Works BO -1S- Consolidate four critical facilities into one facility that enhances the ability to better sery ice the general public and businesses IN ithin the community. New All hazards 1,3,9 Public High Capital Short term Yes Works ACT.A 5 -9 Page 613 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 5 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? BO- 16— Continuc to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This \\ ill be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ \\ ill meet the minimum requirements of the NFI P_ which include the follow ing: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prcvcation ordinance_ • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates_ and • Prov 'cling, public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts New and Flood 2,4,10,12 Public Low General Fund Ongoing No existing Works BO- 17— Where appropriate_ support retrofitting,_ purchase_ or relocation of structures located in ha /.ard -prone areas to protect structures from future damage_ AV Ilh properties \V ith exposure to rcpctitiN e losses as a priority. Existing All Hazards 5,7,9 City of High FEMA Grant Long -term No Bothell funding, local match 13O -18— Integrate the hai.ard mitigation plain into other plans_ ordinances or programs to dictate land uses within the jurisdiction. New and All Hazards 2,4,10 Planning Low General Fund Short term No Existing BO- 19— Continue to support the county -vv ide initiativ es identified in this plan. Ncvv and All Hai.ards 4.6.11.12.1 City of Lovv General Fund Short term No Existing 3. 14. 15 Bothell BO -20 —Atliv clv participates in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,1 City of Low General fund Short term No Existing 3, 14, 15 Bothell ACT.A 5 -10 Page 614 of 869 CITY OF BOTHELL UPDATE ANNEX ACT.A 5 -11 Page 615 of 869 TABLE 5 -10. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE # of Initiative Objcctiv es # Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible' Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priorit<« BO -1 3 BO -2 2 BO -3 2 BO -4 2 BO -5 5 BO -6 2 BO -7 2 High High High High High Medium High Low Lovv Lovv High Low Low High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes l'cs l'cs l'cs l'cs Ycs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High High High High High High High BO -8 2 Medium Mcdium Yes Yes No Mcdium BO -9 2 Medium Mcdium Yes Yes No Mcdium BO -10 2 High Low High INlcdium Medium High High Medium, High Medium, Medium Medium of High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs No Ycs No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 1Nlcclium 1Nlcdium 1Nlcdium 1Nlcdium High High High 1Nlcdium High High BO -11 2 BO -12 3 BO -13 2 BO -14 2 BO -15 3 BO -16 4 BO -17 3 BO -18 3 BO -19 7 BO -20 7 Low 1Nlcdium 1Nlcdium High Lovv High Lovv Low Low priorities. high a. See Introduction for explanation ACT.A 5 -11 Page 615 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 5 -11. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Hazard Type 1. Pr eve ntii Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3, Public 4. Natural Education and Resource 5. Erne Awareness Protection Service', 2. Property Protection 6. Structural Projects Avalanche Earthquake 1,2,3',4,5,6,7.8, ].2,3,5,61],17 9,10.11,12,18, 19,20 5,19 2,5,6 Flood 1,2,3,4,5,67,8, ,1,2,3,4,5,67,8. 9,10, 11,12,14, 9,10,11,12,14, 16,18,19,20 16,17 Landslide Severe Weather Severe Winter Weather Tsunami Volcano Wildfire 5, 6, 18,19,2'0 5,16 19 2,5,614,16 1,2,3.5,6,18,19,, 1,2,3,5,6,17 5,19 20 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,', 1,2,3,5,6,17 9,10,18,19,20 1,2,3,4,5,67,8,1 1,2,3,5,6,17 9,10,18,19,20 5,19 5,19 1, 2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13,15.19 2,5,6.11,12,13,15, 16,19 2,5,6 1,2,5,615 2,5,6 1,2,4,5;67 8,9,10,15 ,19 2,5,6 1,2,4,5.67,8,9,10,15', 5,6,17 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 5,19 5,6 5.6,15,19 1,2,4,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12,13 1,2,4,5,7,8,9, 10,11,12,13,14 ,16 1,2,6 1,2,4,6,7,8,9, 10 1.2.4.6.7.8.9 10 5 -12 ACT.A Page 616 of 869 CITY OF BOTHELL Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function Critical Infrastructure co C O T C O U • Q (6 N •C = _ (0 (0 = u) O 2i N N N N N O) N C N c O (6 ..SSOo O 2 ..SSoo m O 0 S O H Locations are approximate. :T C0 ow U o N Y � N 2 N 0 m a 0= 0) N cu O m0 0 CITY OF BOTHELL Liquefaction Susceptibility Not Susceptible c N N T O O N 00 c z O N as E 01 2 2 N N S T. Q N O 7 N t E O E O N N N O§ t Q .m N C N N 'N 0- ' Q O O N .- s -42'O O-(g) N U O N °O 0T y j N 0 E 6 N E-5 0 1 _a as O t t Q O z 'O 0 o . N N t 2 co N 0 Y N O' O N >O i`7 O - O E Y O ` N Y 3 0 E O t N c O O- O N, N t N w N N t O E t N N (6 E N U N NN Si . N Q" y 2 _ u N N C t ° y; CITY OF BOTHELL E • f 0 0 §o_% q \2q ± §± 2m C z c0 z Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil 0 / CITY OF BOTHELL 0.2 Percent Annual Flood Hazard W LL cc N 0 o O O (6 a) 2 U_ d) � Et N U C N " N 3 d • C P as 0 N TO_ 0 2. O ._ O LL ' N 0 O O O U O t ca O O O O O 0 _ w C -0 N N d (6 0 O d C N T O O O E u d E a) c.) Q - 0 N U 0 O • E O N N H 0 0 t 0 D w • O FTLI [!!) o Y E .. N U a> (4 � a as N 2 O m0 0 • LO _ - - -P f 14 2 /} _ - _ W })\ - \ - ano < - \ /r\< )� \y \\\ \ 0 Do (0 =E - -O = ! ±7 - - q m \& \ _ - mE >i \ @ # g \ { \) \ \ \�\ 5- - - 3072 ^ _ \ }{ »K "s \� �� .. -.)j a- 9 =°-0,72S G\ N!!!! e ) § m§J7aa[5 20 Wm Q \ <k2cp -kk2\ $)0)E 0 /� \ \ ���a,0) \{ �_ 0 -0 f j§ ,2.047_{$ ®` <0) O R _ - - _ Pf § »ia , 7 )$ ` °.` 766 ; ;m= ) - _ _ - } \({s —s, a( • y )§ EB, 20) \( ®§)7f«» ^ -8\ \ >/758/»f =_ E } / © \» / ® § /4212E «\k{/ \,2\11)0 /» {»MI»%0 0 ]\ @ / o.0 .0)2§ 0 >,0o`6W32- z \! }:> \G m$`E °o 0 DE <2j2222,: 2 ±r #co_wow ;a: <7a <; <=[ [ >fa > =,,£ ,s of a2Ooo 00J v7,J)). maa«GEo A -d,%we m. - 8N2,2 mo j z / CITY OF BOTHELL 2008 LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model Anderson 13 Fuel Classes Non - Burnable N M LC) CO o 6) O ▪ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL R • 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL m 0E1E3000000 00 d a o c a O - O c L O C N DIL Ct _ = V w t a ) o 0) O w O a ) VN 4 0 ) 0 o o N • Qa a) a 0a >E w m 2 a t a 2 w o 'a;.N'.vc �LO (E=01EU o U U O aN a -= g E 22 w 2.0 ,o - - o ' O E j L gzo L .a o U E a N E= o w N U o O ", O L -O O / E- 0 o L >O o- . a o Ow o QQO o o a 2, O a 0 (Do n`o - w < w(1j o oc C E = Oa w E -(7, 0 co L w .N � O _ d gp - w O — C a o o0 w 2 0 w Q c N a w oU O aEo 0 0 2 2t E ° � W r U 0 Q) 0) N O a Z 0 _r o -0 -0 v v _ a 0 0 H w ) m _ a 0 a w` 0 0 vi D 0) w o O U o W w 0 45 1 E t 0 0 E cons as � 0 0) — 0 0) O m0 0 CHAPTER 6. CITY OF BURIEN ANNEX 6.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Nhan Nguyen, Management Analyst 400 SW 152nd Street, Suite 300 Burien, WA 98166 Telephone: 206-439-3165 e -mail Address: nhann @burienwa.gov Alternate Point of Contact Maiya Andrews, Public Works Director 400 SW 152nd Street, Suite 300 Burien, WA 98166 Telephone: 206 - 248 -5514 e -mail Address: maiyaa @burienwa.gov 6.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation February 28, 1993 • Current Population- 48,030 as of April, 2013 • Population Growth —Less than 1% the past couple years. We expect the same trend to continue for at least a few years. • Location and Description —Burien is located south of West Seattle, north of City of Normandy Park, west of City of SeaTac and east of Vashon Island. It is a 100 - year -old waterfront community with six miles of Puget Sound shoreline. Burien is located at the intersection of two major shipping and transportation routes, State Route 509 and State Route 518, and is also located immediately to the west of SeaTac International Airport. Primarily a residential community, a significant percentage of Burien's housing is located on or adjacent to steep slopes overlooking the Puget Sound shoreline. • Brief History —The City of Burien was incorporated in 1993 and consists of 6.4 square miles with a population of 31,881 according to the 2000 US Census. The City annexed the area known as north Burien in 2010 from the 2009 election vote, adding 2.6 square miles and approximately 14,000 people. • Climate— Burien has a Mediterranean climate with dry warm summers and mild winters. Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 36 °F to 78 °F and is rarely below 27 °F or above 87 °F. The warm season lasts from June 22 to September 12 and cold season last from November 13 to March 2. • Governing Body Format —The City Council assumes the responsibility for the adoption of the plan; the City staff will oversee its implementation. • Development Trends —Puget Sound Regional Council has designated Burien as one of 25 Regional Growth Centers that will experience focused urban growth in the decades ahead. Current businesses include numerous health care, auto dealer, restaurant, and other services that support a growing population. 6-1 ACT.A Page 623 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 6.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 6 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 6 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 6 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 6 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 6 -5. TABLE 6 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances requirements Building Code Yes No No Yes BMC 15, adopted 2010 Zoning Yes No No No Yes BMC 19, adopted 2013 Subdivisions Yes No No No Yes BMC 17, adopted 2013 Stormwater Yes No No Yes Yes BMC 13, adopted 2013 Management Post Disaster Recovery No No No No Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Yes Washington State Disclosure Law (RCW 64.06) Growth Management Yes No No Yes Comprehensive Plan, adopted April 2013 - Site Plan Review Yes No No No BMC 17, adopted 2013 Public Health and Yes No No No Public health and safety Safety component of Comprehensive plan, 2013 - Environmental Yes No No Yes BMC 14 and 19, adopted 2013 Protection Planning Docume nts General or Yes No No Yes Comp plan includes a Comprehensive Plan Sustainability element will would provide good point for linkage to Hazard Mitigation Plan. Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigationplan? Yes Floodplain or Basin No No Yes No King County Flood Control Plan (PW) District Plan Stormwater Plan (PW) Yes No No No March 15, 2013 Capital Improvement Yes No No No CIP element in Comprehensive Plan Plan What types of capital facilities does the plan address? Transportation, Stormwater, Parks, Facilities How often is the plan revised /updated? Biennially Habitat Conservation No No No No Plan ACT.A 6 -2 Page 624 of 869 CITY OF BURIEN ANNEX TABLE 6 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY TABLE 6 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Community Development Block Grants No Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes Local Authority State or Federal Prohibitions Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Economic Development Plan Yes No No No Yes No Economic development element in Compplan October 3, 2013 Shoreline Management Plan Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes No No No No No Response/Recoery Planning Comprehensive Yes Emergency Management Plan Threat and Hazard No Identification and Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan No Post - Disaster Recovery No Plan No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No King County OEM King County OEM Continuity of Operations Plan Public Health Plans Yes Yes No No No No No No TABLE 6 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants No Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Incur Debt throu h_ Private Activi Bonds No Yes Yes (if mrtigaton is grant _e lirble___________ No Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers ________ Other ACT.A 6 -3 Page 625 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 6 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure constructionpractices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Surveyors Yes Yes Yes Yes No Public Works and Community Development/Planners and Engineers Public Works and Community Development/Engineers and Building Inspectors Public Works and Community Development/Engineers and Planners Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Yes Yes Yes Yes Contractor support Grant writers TABLE 6 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management inyouur community? Co mumt Development lain administrator? (department/position) .Ian Vo ;eeBuildi Official Who is your community's floodp :nstrator� �dep Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? What is the date of adoption of 1 9 9 When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community July 2, 2004 Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP No compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so,_please state what they are Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes community? (If no, please state why) Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support No its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, No is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification'? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? 6-4 ACT.A Page 626 of 869 CITY OF BURIEN ANNEX TABLE 6 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Public Protection StormReady Firewise Tsunami Ready (if applicable) N/A N/A Yes 3 Not available Yes 4 Not available No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 6 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA - Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: Six (6) • Number of FEMA- Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: None 6.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 6 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. 6.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 6 -8 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 6 -9 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 6 -10 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 6-5 ACT.A Page 627 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 6 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date PrcliminarN Damagc Assessment Severe Winter Storm, Flood, Landslides, and 4056 1/14 -1/23 -2012 S155.000 Mudslides Severe Winter Storm and Near Record Snow 1825 3/2/2009 0 Severe Winter Storm, Landslides, Mudslides and Flooding 1817 1/30/2009 0 Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides and Mudslides 1734 12/8/2007 S 1 74.6 I 1 Severe Winter Storm, Landslides and Mudslides 1682 2/14/2007 S240.056 Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides and Mudslides 1671 12/12/2006 0 Severe Storms, Flooding, Tidal Surge, Landslides and Mudslides Severe Storms and Flooding Earthquake Flooding Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides Severe Winter Storms and Flooding Ice and Snow Storms 1641 5/17/2006 0 1499 11/7/2003 0 1 361 3/1/2001 S17.585 1252 10/5/1998 0 1172 4/2/1997 0 1150 1/17/1997 S146.817 1152 1/7/1997 0 Severe Storms and Flooding Storms, High Winds and Floods 1 100 2/9/1996 S201.0r)4 1070 1/3/1996 S33.448 Severe Storm and High Winds o81 3/4/1993 No records ACT.A 6 -6 Page 628 of 869 TABLE 6 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Ha,ard Tv pc Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Earthquake Scv ere Weather Sc■ ere Winter Weather Flood Landslide Volcano Tsunami Wildfire 51 48 48 12 12 7 6 6 9 Av alai-:11c 0 10 Dam Failure 0 ACT.A 6 -6 Page 628 of 869 CITY OF BURIEN ANNEX TABLE 6 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Initiative 14BU -1 —Hay c a structural engineering firm cv aluatc Burien Community Center and make recommendation on necessary retrofits for continued functionality as an essential facility or replacement of the laciIIt\ . The C'onlnlnnitV Center is a kcA component of the City Infrastructure dedicated to coordinating response and recover following a disaster. Loss of the Community Center would mean that goy crnmcnt scry ices would not be av ailable and the building could not function as an emergentv shelter and recdv cry scry ices could not be offered at this location. New Earthquake, 1, 5, 8, 9, 12 Public Works $50,000 CIP, Grants Short-term High Winds High Ongoing and Winter Storms Initiative #BU -2 —Prov ide standby power generator sufficient to operate critical s. stems at Burien Conununity Center in e\ ent of loss of electrical pow cr. During a power failure the Community Center vv ould not be able to function. Gov crnmcnt sery ices would not be av ailable and recm ell sery ices could not be pro ided at this location. New Al Hazards 1, 5, 8, 9, 12 City of Burien $100,000 General Short-term High Fund, Ongoing Department of Homeland Security/ FEMA grants Initiative #BU- 3— Pursuc the design and construction of a Public Works Maintenance Facility to include an Emergency Operations Center. Currently_ the Public Works Maintenance staff is housed in a rental facility that has limited space_ this restricts the speed at which staff can respond to emergencies. Hay ing a facility that has space for material staging (including salt_ sand_ temporary asphalt and aggregates)_ space to house our Ecluctor truck (currently stored in the City of SeaTac)_ and other equipment w ith room to remov c plow s and prepare rigs for the ens ironmental conditions w ill greatly improv c the speed and efficiency of our crew during an emergency response. The cost for the facility (w ithout land) is estimated to be betty cell $1 I and $16 million. A suitable site w ill hay c to be acquired as w cll. New All Hazards 1, 5, 8, 9, 12 City of Burien $11 -16 EOC Grants, Long -term Million CIP High Initiative #BU -4 —Where appropriate_ support retrofitting_ purchase_ or relocation of structures located in hai.ard -prone areas to protect structures from future damage_ vv ith properties vv ith cxposurc 10 rcpctitiv e losses as a priority . Existing All Hai.ards 5.9.13 City of Burien High FEMA grants Long -term Initiative #BU -S— Integrate the hai.arcl mitigation plain into other plans_ ordinances or programs to dictate land uses vv ithin the jurisdiction. New All Hazards 2,4,8,10 Community Low General Fund Short-term Development ACT.A 6 -7 Page 629 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 6 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline Initiative 14BU -6— Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This vv ill be accomplished through the implementation of loodplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ vv ill meet the minimum requirements of the NFI P_ Ivhich include the 1'o11o1v ing: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance_ • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates, and • Prov iding public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts Ncvv and Flood 2.4.10.12 Community Lovv General Fund Ongoing Existing Dcv clopmcnt Initiative 4BU -7— Consider participation in incenti■ c based programs such as the CRS_ Fircvv ise and Storm Rcadv New and Flood, Severe 2,3,4,6,10,13 Community Low General Fund Long -term Existing Weather, Development Firewise Initiative #BU- 8— Continue to support the county -wide initiati■ es identified in this plan. Ncvv and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, City of Burien Low General Fund Ongoing Existing 14, 15 Initiative #BU- 9— Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, City of Burien Low General Fund Ongoing Existing 14, 15 TABLE 6 -9. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE # of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded Initiative Objectiv es Equal or Grant- Under Existing # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Programs/ Budgets? Priority(' BU -1 High Low Yes Ycs No I�lcdium BU -2 5 High (\Tedium Yes Ycs No Medium BU -3 5 High High Yes Ycs No Medium BU -4 3 High High Yes Yes None 1Nledium BU -5 4 Medium Lovv Yes No Yes High BU -6 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High BU -7 6 Medium Lovv Yes No No 1Nledium BU -8 7 High Low Yes No Yes High BU -9 7 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High a. See Introduction for explanation of priorities. 6-8 ACT.A Page 630 of 869 CITY OF BURIEN ANNEX TABLE 6 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Hazard Type Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 2. Property 1. Prevention ! Protection 3, Public 4. Natural Education and Resource Awareness Protection 5. Emergency 6. Structural Services Projects Avalanche Dam Failure Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Severe Winter Weather 589 5,6,7,8 9 5,89 5789 589 Tsunami Volcano Wildfire 5, 89 5 } 89 5,7, 89 1,4 5 2 4,6,7 678 5,6,7 2,3,6,7. 4 5 2 1,4,7 78 5,7 2,3.7+ 1,4 5 2 4 8! 5 4 8! 5 2 2 4,7 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 7 5,7 2,3,7; 6-9 ACT.A Page 631 of 869 CITY OF BURIEN Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function 0 0 U C N 7 co LL U > o N 8p .0 N LL O 0 N CO N O U L _ 2 a u) O © �'el °-0 Critical Infrastructure Transportation U) CO N N Locations are approximate. W 0 0 :,,,11111111111 CITY OF BURIEN Liquefaction Susceptibility Not Susceptible C 0- uj T O O O O ) C — 0 O _ C 2N N O • C Q E O 2 2 N N S a` Q O N t O O m O Nt E c E w 1N N 0 O �t Q. t N N'N 'O N 2 0-- a O 0 ' 'N .�t O a N O U y O O ) N 0 0 N >.3W N0 E(6 O• E -a00 Q 0 t t Na) 0 c 7 S O Y > > O 0 N ' C t O %7 O 12 3 O Y a2 . C O @ • O N N N N N S d 4_2 _02 N t @ E 6 6 O Y r N t E 2 0 N N O N z Q 4€' 8_ • n o 0) -O r) N N Ct 0 >N s N N a) ✓ J JO > N O N aos U 0 > O T N CON d . .-, U s2:(1,22 _S E m a rn O m d O N J (5 0 0 a Q N 0E2= N= coo N CITY OF BURIEN E • a) r 0 §o_ % cr E q \2 q ± §± 2m o ct z )± z Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil /± \\ \0 k\{ Ew 0 roce as- o 7f{ / CITY OF BURIEN < ,N -0 0 . 00 CO °- (6 m m 2 m.t E 2 - N co D o ...... N C rl p O 6 O O O . � LI 12 O L LT_ N N2 w -E-' -0 U_ N O U CD 2 o ca o 2 aO N a) .2 CD Et 2 c N O 2 Q Q N N >. >+ 0) (6 N d O O a) 2 i N 2' C E . LL O N C U N t E O O O d _ N P- 13 N U N N O a Q 1, LL .— O N O >` U U 0 .2 N d E O N ILO H of w c >. [4 0 2(0t1=3). m s E r —O s° O ▪ E ° a in W �� r � E� o a °aE�w m °�c ac o 2m L N a N— t Ul 0 Q s ( E >..c -O O w 0 N (1,)-8 o° 0 -° d FH Q m m OE ° Og /� m UMW- m Do E°�.'2mo `° °-2.� ,0 .�'c0 L N Q Z , N (6 (6 -O = p_ > m N O_ J -O c -° , • CI: M/�� • Q U p)N ,t' 2 0 =z O_°.2 N N V 2 d ,N00. o U rrTT \V o N r > a� 2 2 . -° 2 O w N O° UI C C 0.2-g L E m N �c °aai m2m20 °',6cE��m `6mEm E 3 °.m m�Um°mao c 7,a) _ m E 0 0 X° E ° �-° o° s 0 L o E T s °° Y u 2 m m> E w —° ° r rl °'°u mi � w> w� Y IA'§ m �� ac c .s soi c o°DnNo�c ma 73 -°n J C7N-° °.' ac, a3 a m Qm.o" °— mt Q ng - -m FH C -- o`mo4m 21 (w a� '=°p°q- H w » 0 ° E U -° O Y UI (n Q 2 M CO S .L.. U UI • 5 0 UI W° -O (n -° N (6 UI E m z Wo AMBAUM': CITY OF BURIEN -0 a co To N j E = _C \ CL ) � y Case 2 - Moderate Lahars Post -Lahar Sedimentation \6!)\ S2 2 - 'E )) \\ - 0E 0 00 0 0 5§ %!t§ hars (Recurrence Interval j 0 / :,111111111111111 CITY OF BURIEN 2008 LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model Anderson 13 Fuel Classes Non - Burnable N N (h U (O 00 O) 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 i LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL co (W n U W Q O N N N g - p 3 O V Q_ 0 V) d w w O I— E O a Q N O ._ lL _ .n U 9 U N p Q Q O N E Q p a N N O 2 0 O o (' " cem o U o f ° a Ua LL m o Q- 0 a 0 w H E `mQ '5. 42 a r C O 0 m o W a o >. o o )) _ Q r o w o w L 2 w u% m Z m d E , _O m ,„`t C LT_ z r w CO (7,0(1.2_ � ~ 0 0 0 0 2,2 0 U o 2 C U 0 .0 0 N rn 0 O J - O U O N N .N a fl-w U ct I); N O N C O a o) 0 O V) X O p O 4 L N Q w w _N N T, m w o- o a a a - C r �_ LETaE N o) 7011- a) o L N N m- Laaa - .- 71) m - N O O N> N N N> o = �N N L LLwwUw Uw U E r4 0 muululIIIIIII CHAPTER 7. CITY OF CARNATION ANNEX 7.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Ken Carter, City Manager PO Box 1238, 4621 Tolt Ave Carnation, WA 98014 Telephone: 425-333-4192 e -mail Address: kenc @carnationwa.gov Alternate Point of Contact Mary Madole, City Clerk PO Box 1238, 4621 Tolt Ave Carnation, WA 98014 Telephone: 425-333-4192 e -mail Address: mary @carnationwa.gov 7.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation— December 30, 1912 • Current Population -1,785 as of April 1, 2013 (WA OFM estimate) • Population Growth —The population of Carnation decreased from 1,893 in 2000 to 1,786 in 2010. This represents a 5.7 percent decrease. Population has remained stable from 2010 to 2013. • Location and Description — Carnation is approximately 1.25 square miles and is located in the northern Snoqualmie River Valley along State Route 203, nestled on the north side of the Tolt River and east of the Snoqualmie River. • Brief History- Settled in 1865, Carnation was officially incorporated on December 30, 1912, as Tolt. The name was changed to Carnation in 1917, back to Tolt on May 3, 1928, and finally back to Carnation again on October 29, 1951. The name Carnation was chosen to honor a nearby research farm operated by the Carnation Milk Products Company • Climate— Located on the eastside of the Puget Sound, Carnation boasts a generally mild climate. It supports organic farming and local dairy industry, averaging light rain throughout the year and mild winters. • Governing Body Format —City of Carnation is governed by a five- member City Council who elect one of their members as Mayor. The City Council appoints a City Manager who is the Chief Executive Officer of the City. • Development Trends — Population build -out for Carnation is estimated at approximately 4000 people. Infill development in small, platted areas will be the main source of this development. 7.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 7 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 7 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 7 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 7 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 7 -5. 7-1 ACT.A Page 639 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 7 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requir Building Code Zoning Subdivisions Stormwater Management Post Disaster Recovery Real Estate Disclosure Growth Management Site Plan Review Public Health and Safety Environmental Protection Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y International Building Code Ordinance No 831 on June 18, 2013 Title 15: Adopted in 1998 by Ordinance # 558 and as amended through Nov 2013 Title 15 Title 15 Washington State Disclosure Law (RCW 64.06) GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan 2004 to 2015, as amended Title 15 Municipal Code Title 8 Municipal Code Title 14 Planning Dornment General or Comprehensive Plan s Y N N Y Title 15 Is theplan equipped toprovide linkage to this mitigation plan? Floodplain or Basin Plan N N Stormwater Plan Y Capital Improvement Plan N Yes N N Y DOE, W. Washington Stormwater Manual Y N N Y Included in Comprehensive Plan Amendments What types of capital facilities does the plan address? Infrastructure How often is theplan revised /updated? Annually Habitat Conservation Plan N Economic Development Plan Y Shoreline Management Plan Y Community Wildfire Protection Plan N N N N N N N N/A N N Included in Comprehensive Plan Amendments N Y Shoreline Master Plan completed 2012..� .................� N N N/A ACT.A 7 -2 Page 640 of 869 CITY OF CARNATION ANNEX TABLE 7 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Response/Recooer Planning Comprehensive Emergency Y N N Y Adopted by Resolution No. Management Plan 3.14 August 2006 ... ............................... Threat and Hazard N N Y N King County OEM Identification and Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan N N Y N King County OEM Post _Disaster Recovery Pan N N N N N/A . �. �. �. �. �. �. �. �.. �. �. �. �. �. �. � ............................................. �.. ............................... Continuity of Operations Plan N N N N N/A Public Health Plans N N N N N/A TABLE 7 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Us Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas Yes State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes Other Real Estate Excise Tax, King County Flood Control District -Basin Opportunity Fund 3 ACT.A Page 641 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 7 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure constructionpractices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Surveyors Yes City Planner and contracted Engineer Yes Contracted Building Official services with City of Snoqualmie Yes Contracted Engineers Yes Contracted on as- needed basis Yes Contracted on as- needed basis Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Yes Contracted Engineers Yes Contracted services Yes City Manger Yes City staff and contracted services Grant writers TABLE 7 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management inyouur community? Plannin our community's lain administrator? (department /position) Planning; Who is y------- - - - - -- munay's floodp----------------------------- - - - - -- - -- Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? December 4 200 When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community 2012 Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP No compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so,_please state what they are Planner Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your community? (If no, please state why) Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your communi interested in .oinin_ the CRS sro_ram? Yes Yes better information concerning minor develop mei in floodplain is needed from FEMA No, Yes ACT.A 7 -4 Page 642 of 869 CITY OF CARNATION ANNEX TABLE 7 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Public Protection StormReady Yes 2 Yes 5 - No N/A N/A Firewise Tsunami Ready (if applicable) Yes Tolt Triangle 2005 Fire Council N/A N/A N/A 7.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 7 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA- Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of FEMA - Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: None TABLE 7 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Preliminary Da Assessmen age Flooding FEMA- 1817- DR -WA. Jan 6 -16 2009 Snow Storm FEMA- 1825 -DR -WA Dec 12, 2008 to Jan 5, 2009 $10,884 Wind Storm FEMA -DR- 1682 -WA Dec 14 -15, 2006 $3325 8 Nisqually Earthquake FEMA - 1361 -DR -WA Feb 28, 2001 Unkno 7.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 7 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. 7.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 7 -8 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 7 -9 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 7 -10 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 5 ACT.A Page 643 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 7 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX TABLE 7 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prev cation ordinance_ • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates_ and • Prov iding public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts New and All Hazards 2,4,10,12 Planning Low General Fund Ongoing Existing Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) H ai.ar d T. pc 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SCv crc Weather SCv crc Winter Weather Flood Earthquake Dam Failure Landslide Wildfire Volcano Av alai-:11c 48 48 42 32 18 12 9 7 0 9 Tsunami 0 TABLE 7 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline CA- 1— Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This vv ill be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ \\ ill meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP_ which include the follow ing• • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prev cation ordinance_ • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates_ and • Prov iding public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts New and All Hazards 2,4,10,12 Planning Low General Fund Ongoing Existing CA- 2— Maintain and expand CV acuation route srgnagc. Annual distribution of Informational Brochure explaining the evacuation plan, and showing the evacuation route map to affected properties. Existing Tolt Dam 3,4,7,11,13 Seattle Public $250 General Fund Ongoing Failure, Flood Utilities Annually Low CA- 3— Continue to maintain compliance vv ith and enforcement of current Building Codes and Standards New and All Hazards 3,10 City of $1000 General Fund Ongoing Existing Carnation Biennially Low ACT.A 7 -6 Page 644 of 869 CITY OF CARNATION ANNEX TABLE 7 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline CA -4 —Storm drainage improvements. Existing storm drains are un- mapped_ isolated and of unknow n capacity . Need in' estigativ c equipment to determine site_ location and blockages in existing s\ stems. The existing drains do not terminate in the riv cr_ but are strictly infiltration sv stems. Issue arises vv ilh strong and sudden deluge of rainfall. Because the system relies on infiltration, ketch basins fill tip and require cicanout on a regular basis. The City needs a storage tank to hold removed material_ and funding for compliant disposal of this hazardous material Existing Flood, Severe 1,2,5,12,13 City of $100,000 Department of Long term Weather, Carnation High Ecology/ EPA Severe Winter Grants Weather CA -5— Negotiate an Intel-local Agreement vv ith local School District to facilitate placement of a generator for local School District fuel storage tanks. These tanks vv ould then be available during long -term povv er outages to pro ide fuel for other emergency generators and emergency vehicles. Existing Severe 1,3,5,7,8,13 City of $5,000 Partnership Short term Weather, Carnation/Riv with School / Severe Winter erview School General Fund Weather District CA- 6— Integrate the hai.ard mitigation plain into other plans_ ordinances or programs to dictate land uses vv ilhin the jurisdiction. Nevv All Ha /ants 2.4.8.10 Planning Love General Fund Short -term CA- 7— Consider participation in incentive based programs such as the CRS. Firewise and StormReady New and Flood, Severe 2,3,4,6,10,13 City of Low General Fund Long -term Existing Weather, Carnation Wildfire CA-8—Where appropriate_ support retrofitting_ purchase_ or relocation of structures located in hai.ard -prone areas to protect structures from future damage_ with properties \\ ilh exposure 10 repeliliv e losses as a priority . Existing All Ha /ants 5.9.13 City of Btu-ion High FEMA grants Long -term CA- 9— Continue to support the county -vv ide ini.tiativ es identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, City of Low General Fund Ongoing Existing 14, 15 Carnation CA -10 Acll■ ely participate in the plan maintenance strategy Identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, City of Low General Fund Ongoing Existing 14, 15 Carnation ACT.A 7 -7 Page 645 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 7 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Hazard Type Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type° 2. 3. Public 4. Natural 5. Property Education and Resource Emcrgcncv 6. Structural I . Prev cntion Protection ANN arcncss Protection Scry ices Projects Avalanche Dam Failure 3.0.9.10 8 9 2.9 Earthquake 3 . 0 . 9 . I ( ) 8 9 9 Flood 1.3.6.7.9.10 1,7,8 1.7.9 1,7 1 .2.7.9 4,7 Landslide 3.0.9.10 8 9 9 Severe Weather 3.6.7.9.10 8 7.9 5.7.9 4 Severe Winter Weather 3.0.7.9.10 8 7.9 5.7.9 4 Tsunami Volcano 3.0.9.10 8 Wildfire 3.0.7.9.10 7,8 7.9 7 7.9 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 7-8 ACT.A Page 646 of 869 TABLE 7 -9. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Initiative # # of Objcctiv es Met Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible' Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priorit<« CA -1 CA -2 CA -3 CA -4 CA -5 4 5 2 5 0 Medium High High Medium Medium Low Mcdium Low Hi<th Mcdium Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No High 1Ntedium High 1Ntedium High CA -6 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High CA -7 0 Medium Low Yes No Yes High CA -8 3 High High Yes Yes No Mcdium CA -9 CA -10 7 7 Medium Lovv Medium Low of priorities. Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes High High a. See Introduction for explanation TABLE 7 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Hazard Type Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Type° 2. 3. Public 4. Natural 5. Property Education and Resource Emcrgcncv 6. Structural I . Prev cntion Protection ANN arcncss Protection Scry ices Projects Avalanche Dam Failure 3.0.9.10 8 9 2.9 Earthquake 3 . 0 . 9 . I ( ) 8 9 9 Flood 1.3.6.7.9.10 1,7,8 1.7.9 1,7 1 .2.7.9 4,7 Landslide 3.0.9.10 8 9 9 Severe Weather 3.6.7.9.10 8 7.9 5.7.9 4 Severe Winter Weather 3.0.7.9.10 8 7.9 5.7.9 4 Tsunami Volcano 3.0.9.10 8 Wildfire 3.0.7.9.10 7,8 7.9 7 7.9 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 7-8 ACT.A Page 646 of 869 CITY OF CARNATION and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function (6 N N 2 Medical Care Protective Function el N O O U d-0 c Other Facility Critical Infrastructure 0 Communications N E 0 Q Q 7 CO U) O d Transportation Wastewater Locations are approximate. CITY OF CARNATION Liquefaction Susceptibility Not Susceptible c N N T O O N 00 C ,z. O N N '6 O N C (p N N N 0 Q O 01 2 2 N N S T.0 Q ta O N E N N :goo& N t E O E O O§ _ (t 'Q • .m N N N 'N Q_ QO O N T2-.2. t O O-N g U O 8-2 ) „yW NO E6, N • O QE�0 O Q O O t t 'OZU pO .. N N t (6 0 1 0 7 S O Y >> O N N t as c 7? "5 N i` 7 O s O 3 E W O - .E., ...&' N - N N Y t N 0 w N E t t ) 92; O N N (6 E N U N NN N . N Q : 8 t 0 N C t O ; Q N N N > 0 N O Q O 6 3 U N O O Q w O t N O d 6 d O U N j 0 N N ” y 6 U E 3 °N O S N Q O) J n 0 0 Q < _ N (6 E • 2c 7 N '= N U U N N d' d N �U a Moderate to High 0 Low to Moderate O J Very Low to Low (0 N O CITY OF CARNATION E • - r 0 §o_% E q \2 q ± §± 2m C Et z(ƒ )± z Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil I / CITY OF CARNATION 0.2 Percent Annual Flood Hazard LL U o O • Q _° a) 2 U_ Q frs N d' U ON N U N (p d N • 3 (6 • o N O 0 O .' o ._ LL N 'is '0 O O O T 0 U 0 O t O t 2 N -0 _ O O O 0 w C -0 N N d N 0 Q d 3 N w C +- O O O 4a. "a- E U N E 0 a) c.) - ° Q -2 0 d E O N N H U w t .J' Zr. • .r* . ,,pp,,� uMYrort1om , • "' " "u', I III 1101 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuil 1 IIIIIIIIII uuu ° � > -.F,.= E a o-o xso o S as o mao - o - m m 3 m .E ,1 12214 2 o aU o � O o >c mo �2� w m -'o .w - • Y .2 -0 m m N o N > . - 6 -s " 0 L M Z FBI • L ♦ a a? °� w op> °' 2,-,>2 Y >. c a`' O) > N .w a o Y O S uw a.. , U) -O ( N = 13 -O ) 7 o ° o o`w 0E ° a n �°-o Y � _ 2,„o - o a a� > m mU o Do > . Z - 0 N p_ Z N N 6 O L o ' L 6 O j 6 O �O N oo) o o a 3 0 o m 2 7, v g m O n FB N Q o ix .o° ` '= 0 '5c o z vs Tt N 0 C7 - 0 42 ar r = o J 0 in .o ao 0 0(0 n0 „, _ o o L E .c -- a 0 o 0 `Q a- - 'a.9 mc a _ � o o O V N m4 O a). Q5'D�c -2,,,E>. - w mm woo-20 2 0 a) 2 0. Om N E -o 2 - c E. m 0 E o 0 , ) 2 0 0 0 rrTT O w s-o o s s ua o. E= • N wom6 -. o ,0-0 c " s0 w sU ,m02 .? om .05 O _Q L 3 0- 2, -0 > t Yu! a) > a) 6 > N c-O - W O ._ t - OY L'.- ° O - t U- Uc >, v O os J , 0 N i/1 N 3 T Z m p 2 °4 t ° O ) O °) O U 01 N -O m (9 . as _° a 92 T a m . .-.2t v.c `0 0 >. 7'0 z0)0,013,-ET ° 0 0 o N Q 8--000 > m o. a C N >. N O O 0 m°° m 1 0 m a) 4 0 m y 0 .� o .c o � r 2 (-)48.,=' > >. 5-2 R'� ='854-,0'-= E >. a1�n P 0. " 2 3 o O o < : >opo20E O)�2Q(DE50W< O°O°YQ< ><0 <`0 oQ.ED�Q-oo LE �g 1-2 �j �j 0 o E o 0 0 a Y in c0 Q m ri [o S `O o 0 in 5 0 w W 0 -o (� -o c'i m w .. in OO Y m " 4C 0 0 0 O rn CITY OF CARNATION Anderson 13 Fuel Classes Non - Burnable Pa' : -0 jj } \ } } \/ \§:la22=a0[\! { §0 -- .00{ ;{ — ;2 ± } ƒ2£,5« /E \ \ {)j \ \ _ \! §?{&\,§ ;2t j / } \ \ a ®)[« {;[ Ts S 21fl - §Jli2&3,e - :le82,,g. - - �, &B!° \ /§) /)8E15 !:; kA § § § § CO § 0) § § ``° ° -- %:$ \{ < °0t : / / {/ \ \ ! tE2(g,§:a; c_ & 0 \u)$t0E 05 45 0 a a.„ wE,wEa, � ) ) '6.0 15 f ; ;42M E E ) ƒ 101DOODOODO j CHAPTER 8. CITY OF CLYDE HILL ANNEX 8.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Primary Point of Contact Mitch Wasserman, City Administrator 9605 NE 24th Street Clyde Hill, WA 98004 Telephone: 425.453.7800 e -mail Address: mitch@clydehill.org POINT OF CONTACT Alternate Point of Contact William Archer, Police Chief 9605 NE 24th Street Clyde Hill, WA 98004 Telephone: 425.454.7187 e -mail Address: bill@clydehill.org 8.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation -1953 • Current Population -2,980 (from 2013 Washington State Office of Financial Management) • Population Growth —Due to development trends (the area is essentially built out) and the insignificant population growth since the 2010 Census was taken ( <1 %), no significant population changes are expected in the near future. • Location and Description The City of Clyde Hill, at about one square mile in size, is located east of the City of Seattle, separated by Lake Washington, and sits atop a hill with a maximum above sea -level elevation of 375 feet. State Route 520, a major, regional transportation corridor, borders the City to the north, partially intersecting the City's northeast -most corner. The City is physically bordered by the Cities of Bellevue (east and south), Medina (west), Hunts Point (northwest), Yarrow Point (north), and Kirkland (northeast). No portion of the Puget Sound borders the City, but within its boundaries are two (2) small bodies of water (ponds), one of which is in the northeast region (the Aqua Vista Division) and one of which is in the southwest region (the Clyde Loch Division). • Brief History —The area that is the City of Clyde Hill was settled by Irish immigrants in 1882 and was predominantly utilized for strawberries as well as lumber and other crops. By 1905, the area had grown by fifteen (15) families. By 1947 home - building accelerated and residents had built a community club. The result of this club was the eventually naming of the area "Clyde Hill" in reference to an area in Scotland. Incorporation occurred several years thereafter as a result of the community's desire to control land use development. Initially incorporated as a town, Clyde Hill reorganized as a non - charter Code City in 1998. • Climate —Clyde Hill's climate is typical of most cities in the region. In place of snowfall (which is receives very little of (5 ", as opposed to 25" nationally)), the City experiences a multitude of days during which it precipitates (150, as opposed to 100 nationally). Interestingly enough, however, its average rainfall (38 ") is on -par with the national average (36 "). Seasons are relatively mild; average temperatures are slightly lower than the national average (74 °, as opposed to 86 °, respectively) during the summer. Conversely, average temperatures are slightly higher than the national average (37 °, as opposed to 20 °, 8-1 ACT.A Page 653 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes respectively) during the winter. The City does, however, experience high winds somewhat frequently. • Governing Body Format —The City of Clyde Hill is governed by a Mayor - Council form of government, with the Council composed of five (5) councilmembers. Excluding the Mayor, the City is comprised of four (4) departments: Police, Public Works, Finance, and City Administration (including a City Administrator). The City also employs the use of two (2) commissions and a board of adjustment. The Mayor and City Administrator assume responsibility for the adoption of this plan; the City Administrator will oversee its implementation. • Development Trends — Two - thirds of the City is zoned Single Family Residential and is essentially built out. The City also has two (2) commercially -zoned properties, both of which are also built out (a coffee shop and a gas station). Excluding City Hall /Police Station and the adjacent fire station (contract services provided by the City of Bellevue), the only other major type of development in the City is school properties, which accounts for about a tenth of the City. The City has four (4) schools situated within its boundaries, one of which recently underwent redevelopment. No other major development is expected in the foreseeable future, as the City's plan is to retain/maintain its low- density residential community. This plan is supported by the unavailability of an annexable property. 8.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 8 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 8 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 8 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 8 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 8 -5. 8-2 ACT.A Page 654 of 869 CITY OF CLYDE HILL ANNEX TABLE 8 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances & Requirements Building Code Yes Yes Yes Title 15, 2010 Zoning Yes No Yes No Title 17, 1999 Subdivisions Yes No Yes No Title 16, 2001 Stormwater Management Yes No Yes Yes Title 13, 2009 Post Disaster Recovery No No No No Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Yes Washington State Disclosure Law (RCW 64.06) Growth Management Yes No Yes Yes Title 19, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . ................. Site Plan Review Yes No Yes No Title 15, 2010 Public Health and Safety Yes No Yes No Title 8, 1993 Environmental Protection Yes No Yes Yes Title 18, 1990 Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan Yes No Yes Yes Ord. 803, 1999 Is theplan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigationplan? Yes Floodplain or Basin Plan No No No No Stormwater Plan Yes No Yes Yes (Not formally adopted), 2012 Capital Improvement Plan Yes No Yes Yes Ord. 921, 2012 What types of capital facilities does the plan address? The Plan addresses the City's facilities, road system, stormwater system and parks. How often is the plan revised /updated? The Capital Improvements Plan is updated annually, during the budget process. Habitat Conservation Plan No No Yes No Economic Development an No P No Yes No . . . . . . . . . . ................. Shoreline Management Plan No No Yes Yes Community Wildfire Protection Plan No No Yes No Response/Recovery Planning; Comprehensive Emergency Management No No Yes Yes Plan Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk No No Yes No Assessment Terrorism Plan No No Yes No Post - Disaster Recovery Plan No No Yes No Continuity of Operations Plan No No Yes No Public Health Plans No No Yes No ACT.A 8 -3 Page 655 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 8 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible of Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs No Yes Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Other Yes Real Estate Excise Tax, King County Flood Control District -Basin Opportunity Fund TABLE 8 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Available? ! Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Staff with training m benefit/cost analysis Surve ors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Grant writers Yes City Administrator & Public Works Director /City Engineer Yes Public Works Director/City Engineer & Building Inspector Yes City Administrator & Public Works Director /City Engineer Yes ! City Administrator & Finance Director Not in -house Yes By Contract: NW Geo Graphics Fo Not in -house Yes City Administrator & Police Chief Yes City Administrator, Finance Director & Public Works Director 8-4 ACT.A Page 656 of 869 CITY OF CLYDE HILL ANNEX TABLE 8 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management in your City Administration community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator'? (department /position) City Administrator Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community'? No What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance'? Ordinance #892 - 2008 When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Community Assistance Contact Assistance Contact? - 1/26/2012 To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding No NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes community? (If no, please state why) -------- - - - - -- Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to Yes - refresher and/or general support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of courses, It has been five (5) assistance /training is needed? ears in sce tie Ci timed.' Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If No so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is Not at this time your community interested in joining the CRS program? TABLE 8 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System N/A N/A Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 99/99 N/A Public Protection StormReady Firewise Yes 3 Not available N/A N/A N/A N/A Tsunami Ready (if applicable) No N/A N/A 8.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 8 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA - Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: - 0 - • Number of FEMA- Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: - 0 - • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: - 0 - 8-5 ACT.A Page 657 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 8 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS FENIA Disaster # Type of Event (if applicable) Date Prcliminary Damage Assessment Wind 11/2013 No estimate available (Minimal costs for remOv al of debris from fallen tree limbs) Severe Winter Storm, Ice Storm DR -4056 01/2012 $ 100.0(1() to $250.0(1() Severe Winter Storm, Heavy Snow DR -1825 12/2008 $1OO.O0O to $250.000 High Wind DR -1682 12/2006 $ 10(1.000 to $250.000 Heavy Rain 1/2006 No estimate aN ailablc Heavy Rain DR -1400) 10/2003 No estimate aN ailablc Heavy Rain 11/2001 No estimate aN ailablc Earthquake (Nisqually) DR -1361 02/2001 No estimate av ailablc (No measurable damage to City structures or streets) High Wind DR -981 1/1993 No estimate a\ ailablc (Minimal costs for removal of debris from fallen tree limbs) Severe Winter Storm, Heavy Snow DR -883 12/1990 $10()_001) to $250.0 ()0 Earthquake 4/1965 No estimate av ailablc Wind DR-19O 10/1962 No estimate av ailablc 8.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 8 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. TABLE 8 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Hazard Ty pc Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 Earthquake 2 SCv ere Winter NN cathcr 2 SCvCIC NN cathcr 3 4 Stormvv atcr Floodine, Wildfire 5 Volcano 6 Landslide 6 Dam Failure 54 27 27 18 15 11 6 6 8-6 ACT.A Page 658 of 869 CITY OF CLYDE HILL ANNEX 8.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 8 -8 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 8 -9 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 8 -10 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. TABLE 8 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline CH- 1— Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This vv ill be accomplished through the implementation of lloodplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ vv ill meet the minimum requirements of the NFI P_ which include the follow ing: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prev cntion ordinance_ • Participating in lloodplain identification and mapping updates, and • Prov iding public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts New and Urban 2,4,10,12 Admin Low General Fund Ongoing Existing Flooding CH- 2— Continue to inform residents on how to prev ent loss of life and property damage from earthquakes_ storms_ and urban vv ildfires. Promote 72 -hour sell - sufficiency throughout the community New d All Hazards 4, 6, 7, 11 Admin Low General Fund Ongoing existing Grants CH -3 —Dcv clop a Stormvv tiler Management Comprchensiv c Plan. Update the City -s 1992 Plan by integrating recent sury cv ing and mapping information oldie Cily -s existing stormvv aler facilities_ determining the additional infrastructure needed to upgracic the existing S\ steal_ and dcV eloping a comprchensiV c plan for Implementing the upgrades. New and Severe Storm 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, Public Works Medium General Fund, Short Term Existing 12 King County Flood Control District, Grants CH -4 —an clop a City Snovv /ice management Plan. Update the City -s old plan by integrating the flew methods and strategics used for managing w inter storm ON cnts. Integrate a cilii.en communications clement to the updated Plan. New and Severe Winter 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Public Works Low General Fund Short Term Existing Storm 8, 11 CH -5 — Perform a seismic risk assessment of Cily Facilities. Determine v ulncrabilitics and the nccd to retrofit the Cily Hall and the Public Works facilities to vv ithstand earthquakes. Existing Earthquake 1, 3, 5, 9 Admin Medium Capital Fund, Short-term Grants ACT.A 8 -7 Page 659 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 8 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of existing assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline CH -6 — Dc■ clop and improv c a Communications Plan to keep residents informal of Iocal conditions and matters of Iocal importance to them. In estigatc integrating a communications tool that can be used when pow er is out. New and All Hazards 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 Admin Medium General Fund, Ongoing Existing Grants CH -7 — Dcv clop a Post Disaster Action Plan that includes a debris remov al component and building code related acti■ its that supports the Building Department during the reconstruction process. New and All Hazards 1, 3, 7, 11, 12 Administrator Low General Fund Short-term Existing Building Dept. CH -8 — EN aluatc potential for damage and determine what can be done to strengthen the vv cir /outfalls from the tvv 0 pri■ ate lakes in the City . Determine specific at risk homes. Existing Dam Failure, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 Administrator Medium General Fund Short-term Flood Public Works CH -9- Consider eN aluation of the Cifv -s building code enforcement program under the Building Code Effecti■ eness Grading Schcdulc_ administered by the WA Sur\ eN and Rating Bureau. New All Hazards 5,10 Building Low General Fund Short-term department CH -10 Integrate the hai.ard mitigation plain into other plans_ ordinances or programs to dictate land uses NA ithln the jurisdiction. New All Hazards 2.4.8.0 Public Works Low General Fund Short-term CH- 11— Consider participation in intendv c based programs such as the CRS_ Fircvv Ise and Storm Reactv New and Flood, Severe 2,3,4,6,10,13 City of Clyde Low General Fund Long -term existing Weather, Hill Wildfire CH- 12 —Where appropriate, support retrofitting_ purchase_ or relocation of structures located in hai.ard -prone areas to protect structures from future damage, vv ith properties with exposure to repetitive losses as a priority . Existing All Hazards 5,9,13 City of Clyde High FEMA grants Long -term Hill CH -13 Continue to support the countv -vvide initiatiNes identified in this plan. New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, City of Clyde Low General Fund Ongoing Existing 14. 15 Hill CH -14 Activ elv participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan. NeW and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,13, City of Clyde Low General Fund Ongoing Existing 14, 15 Hill ACT.A 8 -8 Page 660 of 869 CITY OF CLYDE HILL ANNEX TABLE 8 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3. Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emcrgcncv 6. Structural Hazard Type 1 Pre cation Protection ANN arcncss Protection Scry ices Projects Dam Failure 2.3.8.9.10.14 3,7,8,12 x.3.6.7.8.13 8 13 3,8 Earthquake 9.10.14 2.5.7,12 2.0.7.13 5.13 5 Flood 1.2.3.9.10.11. 1,3,7,11,12 1.2.3.0.7.11.13 3,11 11.13 3 14 Landslide 2.9.10.14 7,12 2.0.7.13 13 Severe Weather 3.9.10.1 1.14 1,3,4,7,12 2.4.0.7.13 3 4.1 1.13 3 Severe Winter Weather 9.10.11.14 12 Volcano 9.10.14 12 2.0.7.13 13 Wildfire 2.9.10.1 1.14 7,11,12 2.0.7.1 1.13 5,11 11.13 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 8-9 ACT.A Page 661 of 869 TABLE 8 -9. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Initiative # # of Objcctiv es Mct Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible' Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priorit<a CH -1 CH -2 CH -3 CH -4 CH -5 4 4 0 8 4 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Lovv Lovv Mcdium Low Mcdium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ycs Ycs No Ycs Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible High High High High High CH -6 5 High Mcdium Yes Ycs Possible High CH -7 5 Medium Low Yes Ycs Possible High CH -8 5 Low Mcdium No Ycs Possible Mcdium CH -9 CH -10 CH -11 CH -12 CH -13 CH -14 2 4 0 3 7 7 Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low High High Medium Lovv Low Low of priorities. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Ycs No Ycs Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 1Nlcdium High Mcdium 1Nlcdium High High a. See Introduction for explanation TABLE 8 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3. Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emcrgcncv 6. Structural Hazard Type 1 Pre cation Protection ANN arcncss Protection Scry ices Projects Dam Failure 2.3.8.9.10.14 3,7,8,12 x.3.6.7.8.13 8 13 3,8 Earthquake 9.10.14 2.5.7,12 2.0.7.13 5.13 5 Flood 1.2.3.9.10.11. 1,3,7,11,12 1.2.3.0.7.11.13 3,11 11.13 3 14 Landslide 2.9.10.14 7,12 2.0.7.13 13 Severe Weather 3.9.10.1 1.14 1,3,4,7,12 2.4.0.7.13 3 4.1 1.13 3 Severe Winter Weather 9.10.11.14 12 Volcano 9.10.14 12 2.0.7.13 13 Wildfire 2.9.10.1 1.14 7,11,12 2.0.7.1 1.13 5,11 11.13 a. See Introduction for explanation of mitigation types. 8-9 ACT.A Page 661 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 8.7 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY As the City's first Hazard Mitigation Plan, a number of action plan items are included in this plan that are necessary to assess, evaluate and determine risks for appropriate follow -up steps. 8.8 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Clyde Hill has already felt the sting from the top three hazards noted in the City's first Hazard Mitigation the Plan. The largest hazard potentially impacting Clyde Hill relates to earthquakes. Although the City escaped significant damage from the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake it is estimated that an earthquake involving the Cascadia Subduction Zone could measure M9.0 on the Richter Scale, and would have considerable impact on communities throughout the Puget Sound area. Similarly, an earthquake along any of the faults in the Seattle area would also extensively impact Clyde Hill. Second on the list of potential hazards relate to severe weather episodes. Strong winds, ice and snow have already crippled the community for multiple days at a time. With the majority of the transportation network on a hill, the impacts from ice and snow are critically important to plan for and mitigate. Also because the city is largely located on a hill, there are associated stormwater problems in the lower area of the community during severe storms. Performing an updated modeling analysis of the City's stormwater system will help to determine where the existing infrastructure can be improved and will allow the City to prioritize spending for future improvements. 8-10 ACT.A Page 662 of 869 CITY OF CLYDE HILL Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function N N 2 Critical Infrastructure (n O co 0 E E 0 0 0 (n (6 E 0 T Q Q CO a) a) 0 O d Transportation a) CO a) N N Locations are approximate. 0 oopat Lmo y C 0 ;:4 af/± • • F'rs ! ! • j • • 0 1.4 .w r ) .w� ,4 ,.e�1 r<5+� �� �.3It"~4 • 3 k i V xy +4�t _' rs Yr! i = •• rri, s; r '!'j'', CITY OF CLYDE HILL Liquefaction Susceptibility Not Susceptible c (6 N T p) U U O 3 3 N Y N N N 0) U N N _ O2 d d m N 'O m a Moderate to High 0 2 Low to Moderate O J Very Low to Low c > O N m t N N '6 a C S Q m 2 m E y N E m E O O§ .t _ Q .m N N N 'N Q_HQO O N y 24-2 O O- g U O O'6 0) >,yW NO E m, N O QED 0 Q O O t t m Z U 0 O . N O t p) m N S O Y > > O C m N ' O t -O O m i`7 O - � 3 E O Y O O- O N 0 N t w N N t O E t ' O %` NY 0 E O t ) m m m N .73 m E 0 U N NN N --2 N Q y 2 0 m C t O y; Q N N m i 0 D 20 Q m O S a U m 0 ' 2 _ > , , - a w O t N m d '6 0 m d d N j 0 N m ,c, y 6 U U s w N m 2 a E m a rn Jn 0 0 a < _ d m E N 7 N Z N U 3 N O 0) CITY OF CLYDE HILL E • - r 0 §o_% E q \2q ± §± 2m C z CO z Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil /± \\ \0 k\{ Ew 0 as- o 7f{ 3 � 0 f -+ w4 f ;.;■"7" CITY OF CLYDE HILL 2008 LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model Anderson 13 Fuel Classes Non - Burnable 1 [I D N (h LO (O OO O) 0 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LI 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 LL LL LLp �L-L°�I I�L-L��� IIL-L-� I�L-L�p �L-L-�I LLI ➢DDDDDD O U w C Q O N N N N .N. L O O .2 C p. C w' =010 (I) 0 d w w N H E N E, N a) .a" L- C Q Lw O 6 E Q a) L.� o f 'O N N w' (4 O 0 N O E O] a g w H E ° 2�a w '8 w asQ - � a °L � w m w w a O U O Q L a) m 2 w N C a) N =p U >. N ... (4 a) '- t O () - (7, Q 2 H E.N a) E a N O z U = za) ` N N U r E- ,0 . LO- ) D) N aJ 8) � m U a a) Q a ° ° o of —w Nam X a E N c w N L 4 L N ° a �N N ° w ° 42 =65 a° ) = 7,. ° — L m H a"i a E L° - 41 a m E O cci,) u_ te O a) a) O O E E a> aw >. LLC.0 Uw cw° E E E oc � .N O E 0 CHAPTER 9. CITY OF DUVALL ANNEX 9.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Boyd Benson, City Engineer 14525 Main Street NE Duvall, WA 98019 Telephone: (425) 788 -3434 e -mail Address: boyd.benson(a(duvallwa.gov Alternate Point of Contact Shaun Tozer, Project Manager 14525 Main Street NE Duvall, WA 98019 Telephone: (425) 788 -3434 e -mail Address: shaun.tozer@duvallwa.gov 9.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation January 6, 1913 • Current Population -7,120 as of April 2013 (Washington State Office of Financial Management) • Population Growth —Based on the data tracked by the US Census Bureau and the Office of Financial Management, Duvall has experienced a high rate of growth. The overall population increased 45 percent from 2000 to 2010 with an annual increase of 3 percent during 2010 to 2013. • Location and Description — Duvall is located near the Snoqualmie River on SR -203, approximately 25 miles northeast of Seattle, halfway between Monroe and Carnation. The City encompasses approximately 2.5 square miles on the east slope of the Snoqualmie Valley. • Brief History —The area that has become known as Duvall was historically the home of the Snoqualmie Native American tribe. The present day town was located on a hillside originally homesteaded by loggers that arrived in 1871. At that time logging and farming were the driving economic forces in Duvall which utilized the Snoqualmie River and the railroad for transporting goods. Since the late 20th century the city's pastoral appeal has been drawing both residents who commute to jobs in aeronautics and technology in nearby cities and those who choose to conduct business in a small town setting. • Climate— Duvall's weather is typical of the western Washington area, with wet rainy winters and mild summers. On average there are 154 sunny days per year. Annual average rainfall is 38 inches with 80% of that falling in the six -month period of November through April. The average daily July high is around 75 degrees and the January low is 34 degrees. The comfort index, which is based on humidity during the hot months, is 70 out of 100. Prevailing winds are from the southwest and average 11 mph. • Development Trends — Anticipated development levels for Duvall continue to be high and consist primarily of new single family residential developments, each commonly including 20 to 100 units, in the undeveloped portions of the City. With the increased demand for housing, attached multi - family residential and mixed use /live -work units are anticipated within higher density zones. The City of Duvall adopted its Comprehensive Plan in December 2006 and is currently in the process of updating the Plan in the 2013 through 2015 timeframe. The plan 9-/ ACT.A Page 667 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes focuses on coordinated and planned growth of the City in accordance with the Growth Management goals. • Governing Body Format — Duvall has a non - partisan mayor /council form of government. The part-time Mayor and seven council members are elected directly by the people for staggered four -year terms, all representing the community at large. The Mayor provides leadership to the City departments to direct the many functions of city government, and implements the policies and ordinances of the City Council. The city consists of six departments Finance, Planning, City Clerk, Police, Public Works, and Building. The City has four Boards and Commissions that report to the City Council. The Mayor and City Council assume responsibility for the adoption of this plan; The Public Works Department will oversee its implementation. 9.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 9 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 9 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 9 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 9 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 9 -5. TABLE 9 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Local Authority State or Federal Prohibitions Other Jurisdictional Authority State Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinances Regnrements Building Code Yes Zoning Yes Subdivisions Yes Stormwater Management Yes Post Disaster Recovery Yes Real Estate Disclosure No Growth Management Yes Site Plan Review Yes No No Yes No Yes DMC Title 10, 9/26/13 (Ord.; 1154), WSDLI electrical Yes DMC Title 14, 12/13/12 (Ord. 1143) No No No No No No Yes DMC 14.66, 7/24/08 (Ord. 1073) Yes DMC 9.06, 8/13/09 (Ord. 1090) Yes 4/10/03, Ord. 973 No No No Yes No No Yes Washington State Disclosure Law (RCW 64.06) Yes 2006 Comp Plan, DMC 14.72, 7/12/07 (Ord. 1056) Yes DMC 14.66, 7/24/08 (Ord. 1073) Public Health and Safety Yes Environmental Protection Yes No Yes Yes DMC Title 6, 1913 to 2011, Washington State Department of Health No Yes Yes DMC 14.42, 7/12/07 (Ord. 1056), Washington State Department of Ecology ACT.A 9 -2 Page 668 of 869 CITY OF DUVALL ANNEX TABLE 9 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Planning Docume nts General or Comprehensive Yes No No Yes Available on Website Plan Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes. Currently links to: Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis. August 2003. John Labadie, Emergency Management Consultant. Seattle, WA Floodplain or Basin Plan No No No No Stormwater Plan Yes No No Yes NPDES Phase II Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No Yes Updated Annually (Water, roads, ewer, storm, parks, facilities) Habitat Conservation Plan Yes No No Yes Addressed in DMC Critical Areas Economic Development Yes No No Yes Available on Website Plan Shoreline Management Plan Yes No No Yes DMC 14.78 (in progress), DOE Authori ty Community Wildfire No No No No Protection Plan Response/Recovery Planning Comprehensive Emergency Yes No No Yes Updated 2014 Management Plan (CEMP) Threat and Hazard Yes No No Yes See CEMP Identification and Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan Yes No Yes Yes See CEMP Post - Disaster Recovery Plan Yes No No Yes See CEMP Continuity of Operations Yes No No Yes See CEMP Plan Public Health Plans NA NA NA NA Washington State Department of Health ACT.A 9 -3 Page 669 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 9 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible of Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs NA Yes Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Other Yes Real Estate Excise Tax, King County Flood Control District -Basin Opportunity Fund TABLE 9 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Available? ! Department/Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Yes Planning, Engineering, and Public Works Departments Yes Engineering and Public Works Departments Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Planning and Engineering Departments Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Planning and Engineering Departments Surveyors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Grant writers Outside Consultant Yes Planning and Engineering Departments Yes Engineering Department Yes Engineering and Public Works Departments Yes Planning, Engineering, and Public Works Departments 9-4 ACT.A Page 670 of 869 CITY OF DUVALL ANNEX TABLE 9 -4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management in your Planning Department community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator'? (department /position) Planning Director Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community'? No (training in 2014) What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance'? May 9, 2013 When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Community Assistance Visit - Assistance Contact? 4/28/2005, Community Assistance Contact - 1/27/2012 To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding No NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes community? (If no,please state why) Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to Certified floodplain manager support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of training is needed assistance /training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If No so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is Maybe your community interested in joining the CRS program? TABLE 9 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System No N/A N/A Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 4 Not available Public Protection (WSRB 2013) Yes 5 2013 StormReady Firewise Tsunami Ready (if applicable) Na Yes N/A N/A Stillwater North N/A N/A 2011 N/A 9.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 9 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA- Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: 0 • Number of FEMA - Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: 0 • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated: NA ACT.A 9 -5 Page 671 of 869 Flooding Snow NA NA 11/24/90 Information Not Av ailablc 12/18/90 Information Not Av ailablc Storm Inau uratlon Da y) NA 1 g 1/20/93 Information Not Av ailablc Flooding NA 02/09/96 Information Not Av ailablc Snow/ice (Hanukkah Eve) NA 12/26/1996 Information Not Av ailablc Nisqually Earthquake NA 2/28/2001 Information Not Av ailablc Flooding Flooding Flooding Flooding I499-DR 10/20/03 Information Not Av ailablc NA 12/11/04 Information Not Av ailablc NA 1/11/06 Information Not Av ailablc Wind Flooding Flooding Flooding Snow Event Flooding 1671 -DR I082 -DR NA 1734 -DR NA 11/7/06 12/14/06 3/25/07 12/03/07 11/7/08 I825-DR 12/18/08 Information Not A'v ailablc Information Not A'v ailablc Information Not A'v ailablc `.35.000 Information Not A■ ailablc $45.94 I I817-DR 1/7/09 $8.420 Flooding NA 12/12/10 $70.850 Flooding NA 3/31/11 Information Not A■ ailablc TABLE 9 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS FEMA Disaster # Type of Event (if applicable) Date PrcliminarN Damage. Assessment Snow and Wind King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 4056 -DR 1/17/12 $63.000 9.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 9 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. 9.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 9 -8 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 9 -9 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 9 -10 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 9-6 ACT.A Page 672 of 869 CITY OF DUVALL ANNEX TABLE 9 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX TABLE 9 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank Hai.ard Tv pc Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Scv ere Weather Scv ere Winter Weather Earthquake Wildfire Flood Landslide Dam Failure Volcano Av alai-who 51 51 48 24 18 16 16 7 0 10 Tsunami 0 TABLE 9 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or Existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline DU- GF1— Complete Structural cv aluation and seismic retrofits of City buildings and facilities to imprm c resistance to earthquakes inclucling_ but not limited to, the follow ing: • Upgrading computer serf cr_ racks, and facilities to improve IT system continuity . • Improv c security measures and equipment including possible sury cillancc and duress buttons. Existing Earthquake, 1,3,5,9 Duvall Public Medium Grants, General Short-term Weather Works Department & Utility Funds DU- GF2— Construct ncvv earthquake resistant Public Works facility to support critical Cite functions including vv ater and SCvv er utilities, equipment_ facilities maintenance_ and streets operation. New Earthquake, 1,3,5,9 Duvall Public Medium Grants, General Long -term Weather Works Department & Utility Funds DU- GF3— Construct a ncvv earthquake resistant City Hall to support critical City functions including IT Emergency Management. Continuity of Operations. and Emergency Management and Operations. New Earthquake, 1,3,5,9 City High Grants, General Long -term Weather Administration & Utility Funds DU- GF4— Install Emergentv Vchicic fuel storage tanks at the Public Works Yard (diesel_ gasoline) and Police Department (gasoline). New All Hazards 1,5,9 Duvall Public Low Grants, Utility Short-term Works Department Fund ACT.A 9 -7 Page 673 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 9 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or Existing Assets Hazards Objectives Mitigated Met Estimated Lead Agency Cost Sources of Funding Timeline DU- GF5— ImproN c EOC communications including_ but not limited to_ the follow ing: • Improvcd radio communications (8O0/900 radios_ City and Fire UHF /VHF radios). • Radio Repeater and /or Low power radio transmitter for public information announcements. New and Existing All Hazards 1,3,5,7 Duvall Public Low Grants, General Short-term Works Department & Utility Funds DU- F1— Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This \\ ill be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that_ at a minimum_ w ill meet the minimum requirements of the NFI P including the loIIovv ing: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevcntion ordinance_ • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates_ and • Pro\ iding public assistance /information on floodplain requirements and impacts. New and Existing Flood, Dam 2,4,8,9,10 Duvall Planning Low Grants, General Ongoing Failure Department Fund DU- F2— EN. aluate the City -s need or requirement to classify properties using the Community Rating System. New Flood, Dam 2,4,8,9,10 Duvall Planning Low Grants, General Short-term Failure Department Fund DU- F3— Support Iloodwvav restoration and hazard mitigation activities including bank protection at 1cCormicl: Part: and other public properties and facilities. New and Existing Flood, Dam 2,5,9,12 Duvall Public Medium Failure Works Department Grants, General Fund Ongoing DU- F4— Continue to implement and improNc the surface waler utilil\ programs management which include the Capital ImproNement Program_ maintenance program, and public education program. related to flood hazard and operation program_ NPDES Existing Flood, Dam 1,2,4,5,9,1 Duvall Public Low Grants, Utility Ongoing Failure 2 Works Department Fund DU- F5— Determine and implement mitigation measures including con\ cv ancc or stormw alcr facility improN cmcnls for locations w ilh repeliliv c stormw alcr flooding and /or other ha /arcis that impact properly and /or roadw s including_ but not limited lo_ the follow ing: • Stormw atcr con\ cv ance s\ stem at the intersection of NE Miller Street and 3rd Place NE to rcducc flooding of adjacent residences and roachy . • Ditch system at NE Big Rock Road w est of 275th Av c NE to rcducc roadw ay flooding. New and Existing Flood 1,2,5,9,12 Duvall Public Medium Grants, Utility Short-term Works Department Fund DU-F6—EN aluatc and mitigate basin. New Flood, Landslide landslides and landslide hazards 1,2,5,9,12 Duvall Public Works Department \\ the Coc Clemons Creek drainage Medium Grants, General Long -term Fund 9-8 ACT.A Page 674 of 869 CITY OF DUVALL ANNEX TABLE 9 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or Existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline DU -W 1— Complete structural ev aluation and seismic retrofits of the Crestv ievv Reser\ oir and the Big Rock Road Reser\ oir to increase earthquake resistance and vv ater supply continuitv . Include seismic protection valy es and improv ed SCADA/TeIemetry to pro ide automatic shut -off ability in the Cv Cnt of an earthquake (CIP Projects F2_ F4_ and F$). Existing Earthquake, 1,2,5,9 Duvall Public High Grants, Utility Short-term Wildfire Works Department Fund DU- W2— Upgrade approximately 2.900 feet of inadequate fragile 10 -inch diameter asbestos - concrete vv ater main at the Tolt 2 vv ater connection to increase w ater suppl} reliability (CIP Project R4). Existing Earthquake, 1,2,5,9 Duvall Public High Grants, Utility Short-term Landslide, Works Department Fund Flood, Fire DU- W3— Install vvtiter main looping and system upgrades to improve resistance to earthquakes_ lire flow and redundancy Including_ but not limited to_ the folioVA ing: • 272nd AN e NE loop from NE 114th Street to NE 143rd Place (450 Pressure Zone_ CIP Project L I ). • 3rd AN NE loop from NE 143rd Place to NE Big Rock Road (450 Pressure Zone_ CIP L2). • Batten Road NE from NE 140th Place to NE Big Rock Road (61 5 Pressure Zone_ CIP L3). • 1st AN NE from NE Virginia Street to NE Stephens Street (330 Pressure Zone_ CIP L5). • 266th Place NE from NE I43rd Place to 266th Circle NE (450 Pressure Zone, CIP L6). New Earthquake, 1,2,5,9 Duvall Public High Grants, Utility Short-term Wildfire Works Department Fund DU -W4—EN aluate backup vv atcr supplies including operational improv ements at the existing Tav for Landing wellhead (CIP Project FI ). Existing Earthquake, 1,2,5,9 Duvall Public Low Grants, Utility Short-term Wildfire Works Department Fund DU- W5— Enhance Physical Security detection and response capabilities for critical facilities including vvatcr (reserVoirS_ pinup station_ pressure reducing and relief stations) and SCVACr (NN asteVAater treatment plant and pump stations) facilities. Existing All Hazards 1,2,5,9 Duvall Public Low Grants, Utility Short-term Works Department Fund DU -S 1— Complete cfficicncv Cv aluation_ redundanev improv ements. and Wastevv ater Treatment Plant retrofits to increase earthquake resistance and pro idc continuitv of operations follow ing power supplv disruption. Existing Earthquake, 1,2,5,9 Duvall Public Medium Grants, Utility Short-term Weather_ Flood Works Department Fund DU- S2— Complete cfficicncv evaluation. redundancy improv ements. and Sevver Lift Station retrofits to increase earthquake resistance and continuitv of operation lobovv ing power suppl\ disruption including_ but not limited to: • Emergenev generator and pump backup improv ements. • Crest\ icvv /Cedars Pump Station bypass and elimination. Includes installation of 1.000 feet of nevv main from existing pump station to Sierra (Evans Pond) subdivision and pump station abandonment. Existing Earthquake, 1,2,5,9 Duvall Public Medium Grants, Utility Short-term Weather Works Department Fund ACT.A 9 -9 Page 675 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 9 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or Existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline DU- S3— Complete slip lining of existing inadequate concrete segmented SC1ver main to increase earthquake resistance. Existing Earthquake 1,2,5,9 Duvall Public Medium Grants, Utility Ongoing Works Department Fund DU- P1— Upclatc the Comprchcnsiv c Emcrgcnev Management Plan in accordance vv ith \\ AC 118-30 and RC\V 38.52. Existing All Hazards 2,3,4,5,6,7, Duvall Public Low Grants, General Ongoing 10 Works Department & Utility Funds DU- P2— Upclatc the Hai.ard Mitigation Plan in the King County Regional Hai.ard Mitigation conjunction with Plan update project Existing All Hazards 2,3,4,5,6,7, Duvall Public Low Grants, General Ongoing 10 Works Department & Utility Funds DU- P3— Continue coordination vv ith Duv all (KCFD 45) Fire Department. Eastsidc Fire and Rescue. Riv cry icvv School District_ Seattle Public Utilities_ City of Carnation_ and King Countv Office of Emcrgcnev- [\lanagement. Existing All Hazards 1,2,3,6,7, Duvall Public Low Grants, General Ongoing 1] _13 Works Department & Utility Funds DU-P4—EN aluatc and improv c notification_ cv acuation_ and response planning for areas vv ithin the Tolt Reservoir and the Culmbacl: Reservoir potential inundation areas. Existing All Hazards 1,3,4,7,11, Duvall Public Low Grants, General Ongoing 13.15 Works Department & Utility Funds DU -P5 —E\ aluatc_ map_ and educate v ulncrablc populations vv ithin the Ci1v Existing All Hazards 4,8 Duvall Public Low Grants, General Short-term Works Department Fund DU- P6— Support and enhance first responder National Incident Management System and Incident Command System training_ EOC preparedness_ and electronic data collection (ATC -20_ other). Existing All Hazards 1,3,7,15 Duvall Public Low Grants, General Ongoing Works Department & Utility Funds DU-P7—Maintain personal supplies_ consumablcs_ and equipment to support 20 responders for scv en day s of emergentv response activ hits. Existing All Hazards 1,3 Duvall Public Low General & Ongoing Works Department Utility Funds DU- P8— Complctc undcrgrounding of Ovcnccad utilities \\ here possible and support undcrgrounding dcv clopmcnt requirements to reduce potential for pow cr outages and injuries from clowned lines. Existing Earthquake, 1,2,5,8,9, Duvall Public Low Grants, General Ongoing Weather 10 Works Department & Utility Funds ACT.A 9 -10 Page 676 of 869 CITY OF DUVALL ANNEX TABLE 9 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX New or Existing Hazards Objectives Estimated Sources of Assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Cost Funding Timeline DU- P9— Evaluate and implement dedicated partial full time employce equivalents (FTE's) for the emergency! management program including Emergency Management and Public Information Officer partial FTE's Existing All Hazards 1,2,3,7 Duvall Public Medium Grants, General Short-term Works Department & Utility Funds DU- P14— Support Public safety with disaster response education, training, and other activities. Coordinate with Riverview School District and Duvall (KCFD 45) Fire Department educators to deliver public safety, messages including earthqu ake pandemic, widespread loss of utilities and access, and other emergency management issues. Existing All Hazards 3,4,6,7,8, Duvall Public Low Grants, General Ongoing 11,13,14,1 Works Department & Utility Funds 5 DU- P11— Coordinate with local volunteer organizations including Carnation - Duvall Citizen Corps. Promote volunteer training activities, pre - certification, and the CERT and Map Your Neighborhood programs. Existing All Hazards 3,4,7,11,13 Duvall Public Low Grants, General Ongoing ,14 Works Department & Utility Funds DU- P12— Coordinate with local grocery; equipment, fuel supply, and contractors to provide materials, fuel, consumables, and services during emergencies Existing All Hazards 1,7,13,14, Duvall Public Low General & Ongoing 15 Works Department Utility Funds 9 -11 ACT.A Page 677 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes ACT.A 9 -12 Page 678 of 869 TABLE 9 -9. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE # of Initiative Objcctiv es # Mct Benefits Costs Do Benefits Equal or Exceed Costs? Is Project Grant- Eligible' Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priorit<« DU -GF1 4 DU -GF2 4 DU -GF3 4 DU -GF4 3 DU -GF5 4 High High High High High Medium Medium Medium Low Low Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ycs Yes Yes Ycs Yes Possibly No No Possibly Yes Nlcdium 1Nlcdium 1Nlcdium High High DU -F1 5 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High DU -F2 5 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High DU -F3 5 Medium Medium Yes Ycs Possibly Mcdium DU -F4 6 DU -F5 5 DU -F6 5 DU -W1 4 DU -W2 4 DU -W3 4 DU -W4 4 DU -W5 4 DU -S1 4 DU -S2 4 DU -S3 4 DU -P1 7 DU -P2 7 DU -P3 6 Medium Low High 1Nlcdium Medium Nledium High High Medium Hi<,h High , High Medium Low Medium, Lovv Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Mcclium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs Yes Yes No No Yes No Possibly Yes Yes Possibly Possibly Yes Yes Yes Yes High 1Nlcdium 1Nlcdium High Lovv Nlcdium High High 1Nlcdium 1Nlcdium High High High High DU -P4 7 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High DU -P5 2 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High DU -P6 4 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High DU -P7 I DU -P8 6 DU -P9 4 DU -P10 9 DU -P11 6 DU -P12 5 High Low Medium Low Medium 1N led ium Medium Lovv Medium Lovv Medium Low of priorities. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ycs Ycs Ycs Ycs No Yes Possibly Possibly Yes Yes Yes High 1Nlcdium 1Nlcdium High High High a. See Introduction for explanation ACT.A 9 -12 Page 678 of 869 CITY OF DUVALL ANNEX ACT.A 9 -13 Page 679 of 869 TABLE 9 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea Hazard Type I . Prev cntion 2. Property Protection 3. Public 4. Natural Education and Resource ANN arcncss Protection 6. Structural 5. Emcrgcnc Son ices Projects Dam Failure Fl. F2. F3. F4. P I . P2. P3. P0. P7 GF1, GF2, GF3, GF4, F2, F3, F4, W5 GFS. F I. F2. F1, F2, F3, F4 P I . P2. P 1 0 . P 1 1 GF I . GF2. GF3. GF4. F3, F4 GFS. F I . W5. P I . P2. P3. P5. P0. P7. P9. P 1 1 . PI2 Severe Winter P 1 . P2. P3. Weather P6. P7 Earthquake P I. P2. P3. PO. P7 Flood F I. F2. F3. F4. Pl. P2. P3- P4. P0. P7 Landslide P 1 . P2. P3. P0. P7 GF1, GF2, GF3, GFS. P I. P2. Si, S2, S3 GF4, W5, S1, P I 0 . P I I S2, S3, P8 GF1, GF2, GF3, GFS. P I. P2. W2, Si, S2, GF4, Wl, W2, P10. P 1 1 S3 W3, W4, W5, Si, S2, S3, P8 GF1, GF2, GF3, GFS. F I. F2. F1, F2, F3, F4, GF4, F1, F2, F3, P 1 . P2. P4. P10. F5, F6, Si, S2, F4, F5, F6, W5, P 1 1 S3 Si, S2, S3 GF1, GF2, GF3, GFS. P I. P2. F6, W2, W6 GF4, F6, W2, P10. P 1 1 W5 GF I. GF2. GF3. GF4. P8 GFS. NV5. S I. 52. 53. P 1 . P2. P3. P5. P0. P7. P8. P9. PI I. P12 GF I. GF2. GF3. GF4. W1, W2, GFS. NV I. NV2. NV3. W4. W3, W4, P8 W5. SI. 52. 53. Pl. P2. P3. P5. P0. P7. P8. P9. P1I. P12 GF I. GF2. GF3. GF4. F3, F4, F5, GFS. AV5. 51. 52. 53. F6 P 1 . P2. P3. P4. P5. P0. P7. P9. P 1 1 . P 12 GF I. GF2. GF3. GF4. F6, GFS. NV2. AV5. Pl. P2. P3. P5. P0. P7. P9. P 1 1 . P12 Severe Weather P 1 . P2. P3. P0. P7 Severe Winter P 1 . P2. P3. Weather P0. P7 Volcano P 1 . P2. P3. P0. P7 Wildfire P I. P2. P3. P0. P7 GF1, GF2, GF3, GF4, W5, Si, S2, S3, P8 GF1, GF2, GF3, GF4, W5, S1, S2, S3, P8 GF1, GF2, GF3, GF4, W5 GF1, GF2, GF3, GF4, Wl, W2, W3, W4, W5 of mitigation types. GFS. P I. P2. Si, S2, S3 P10. P 1 1 GFS. P I. P2. Si, S2, S3 P10. P 1 1 GFS. P I. P2. P10. P 1 1 GFS. P I. P2. Wl, W2, W3 P10. P 1 1 GF I. GF2. GF3. GF4. P8 GFS. AV5. 51. 52. 53. P 1 . P2. P3. P5. P0. P7. N. P9. P 1 1 . P 12 GF I. GF2. GF3. GF4. P8 GFS. AV5. 51. 52. 53. P 1 . P2. P3. P5. P0. P7. N. P9. P1 I. P12 GF I. GF2. GF3. GF4. GFS. AV5. Pl. P2. P3. P5. P0. P7. P). PI I. P12 GF I. GF2. GF3. GF4. W1, W2, GFS. AV I. NV2. NV3. NV4. W3, W4 \V5. P 1 . P2. P3. P5. P0. P7. P9. P1 I. P12 a. See Introduction for explanation ACT.A 9 -13 Page 679 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 9.7 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY The City of Duvall is relatively isolated with respect to road access, topography, and the Snoqualmie River. Historically, vehicle access to Duvall has been limited or lost during Snoqualmie River flooding events which often have included inundation of SR -203 and bridge approaches adjacent to the river. Road access to the City was severely limited during the week -long electricity outage that followed the December 2006 windstorm (1682 -DR) and severe weather and flooding in 2009. The loss of access and electricity following these events resulted in lost work, personal and economic hardship, and scarce food and fuel supplies within the city limits. Effects similar to those experienced in 2006 and 2009 are probable during a large earthquake event, with potential for complete loss of road access and utility services (electricity, gas, communication). Future evaluation is needed to understand the hazard to the community and economy of Duvall associated with prolonged (greater than three days) loss of access. The evaluation should consider availability of resources and outside assistance associated with flooding, earthquake, or other disaster events that would limit access to the City. 9 -14 ACT.A Page 680 of 869 CITY OF DUVALL and Infrastructure Critical Facilities Government Function 0 U c m _ 0 > co N (p .0 N LL U 0 N N O U L 1 2 a co O © �' , °-0 Critical Infrastructure U) 0 O a Transportation a) CO N N Locations are approximate. N 0 N O • CITY OF DUVALL Liquefaction Susceptibility Not Susceptible C (i) V) T C 0 (6 N '6 O Q) C O O O 0) O O (6 N C Q O O 2 2 N N S >O°-`.0 Q N O N E t O O m '0 E° E N N N N_ t w O t Q N N N N 0) 2 • N �' �' 0 Q- H' t N N '6 , N U_ Q O 0 ' 'N co 0_ 0 0 -O O .-42. t O Q O U y O 0 N 0) CO N >.3W N0 E(6tiN°0E -50Q O O t t '0 Z U 00 . N O t (6 co 0 'noY > > ° d) d ' t m 0 O %7O — 2 3 0 Y Q° ., O 0• O N N N N N S d O O N t 0 E 6 s O 0 0 U Y r N t 2 J 0 E 0-0 N N O N t O Q't N - N Q • 0 -0 r 0 N N C t N N N .72 ) V • O N O N U >. T N J 2 _1 > > C N d �° N N N U N N .- _° 3$2 N N ' 0' E (6 Q 0) D-12 (n o o Q Q N (6 E 2 7 N= N 0 (0 0 CITY OF DUVALL E � c S ® c 0 (NI < N � \ Q o o Q A 0 Mercalli Scale, Potential Shaking /ƒ ƒ\ a =E= - 77 §7s- - B -.9-0) - 7ƒ22/2\ ®, \\ {0013E —c2 2 f\2®/ -$ \2\ co z / «(.e§Ekj - Gf ° /.2E \ .) 2Z {ffee e7 /f)=)( : °!t /§ / /f \ \[ //\5/)] ]&]3E«tt$ \f_{ «o=] = °! /]t §]r #k /00 20 ®ƒ ƒ5 ƒ0 co <.2 o.c of j CITY OF DUVALL E E2 f 0 0 §o_% Cr E u) \2q ± §± 72m o ct z )± z Site Class B - Rock Site Class C - Very Dense Soil, Soft Rock Site Class D - Stiff Soil Site Class E - Soft Soil /± \\ \0 k\{ 0 roce o 7f{ LO CITY OF DUVALL Mercalli Scale, Potential Shaking O) C 2 J O N T) "5 ^ E N N -L-"----' 0) W 0 0) 0) p X 0 ( > i W z > > > > > X X . U U t U d) O 13 p E U O 0 C O N N ) rz U C U 9-o. Q.O d O .-- O d .2 S d d i N O 0 . Y xr csi N j 0 ..N O d y m (� N ii_ (7, 6— Q : O O O d E — p R C E _ O N N C= l Q Q ` O O :' O U N Q 5 N U 7C N 0 O O C E 'O . p ,O C 0 N2 Q C N 3) mN O C 'O 2 -6 N d ._ N � N p) C .E 0 0 .N .N N 2 Lo N. Z O ..O OI V O N O --, IL) C N E % (6 6 O N 6 N U y QO ° 7 rn C N O � _ w i i E 3 N Q Q :O co 0 0 E O E O 0 c w CITY OF DUVALL FEMA DFIRM Flood Hazard Areas D N CO 2 0 0 0 LL T N 0 O O O d LL F IIIIIIIIIIII 0.2 Percent Annual Flood Hazard Lu LL N 0 C O O_ U_ O • N U N N U O • " N 3 E • C U N T• O_ 'O (6 O .E0 o ._ LL O 'O O O O U O t O t 2 N ▪ O O O w C O O d N O 7 0 L O C O • ) E U O E p • U Q • N a - N U w O E O N (6 H U w t N 0) U cu N O U O O V) (4 (4 0 p_C 4 o 2 O O U N m N O ®! - -z E ;G 7E 7§/° CO }\ \ \) \7 {< \_ _ 4/ {7 ) 2 i/} [ j: \ • - \ ] : {\)\ - \) \/205/ \ - �\ \)��\ cl q # \\ 0 (2072 > )_ \ &E \ \\\ ` 2 ,i- cp. \ @ 2 \{ \ \)\ \} uoQo ) = )KJ7a,>p \ >\% {f { }[ k \ \k� j« /:/ (7, 9a'Ti> w 2422 )\» -®) }© 0 72 } \\ )a ®) «) \) 5)00= )f[ §§ 0v » P/\>«/ d 7$ -24"72(1' O ) > \2}{ § - { /(%k\ /«\ 5/`s'2= \ *m7f44 § { {) {_ -%{ >«>oO8°. -0 722 _ E za»®#Ke� 3a \! \ §$ p2 =m.E {)\2)e =0a.50 Q,- V CO { §f:f7 { {# a«« \0)5 -, —, E 0 >)t.Q m$®=20. \e <«jf[ »2J 2 ±r #co,,ow - 4 <$! <; #%[ [ >fa <omwo rf a2c8E- 22$&ww=&60J2toameEe0» m:9w2 2& j z CITY OF DUVALL 2008 LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model Anderson 13 Fuel Classes Non - Burnable N (h LO (O OO O) 0 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LI 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 LL LL LL LL LL��I�I I�L-L-� I��L--L��pp LL LL DDDDDD O O U w C Q O N N N N.N. L O O .2 C (V N .a) E Q L w O 6 E co Cr) Z C U E C r N '_ O Q N OU — a) Q a .2 o O f H O O N a ) N w - 4 w � O 0 a E w O a L gETDo °;DN _ L (6w O Q ct, w- . d s QL a) � E d w N C a) N =p U >. N ... (4 a) '— N N Z.L.. a. (n - N Q .2 H C N N a) (` O Tt O E- ,0 . N a) - aJ Ez 4 � U NU � Q aNU UO Ot —w a n -L(7, b ° X a ON c w N L 4 L N ° a ` N ° ° 2 N 0�° wa"N a O - a° ) ° =ter — -- L aL a a a O ° O ,.I O O O O O E E a> aw >. L_ C.0 Uw cw° E E E oc � E King ('onnty Regional hazard Mitigation Plan t jnhite Volume 2: Planning, Partner 1 nnexes APPENDIX A. PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS ACT .A Page 689 of 869 APPENDIX A. PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS One of the goals of the multi jurisdictional approach to hazard mitigation planning is to achieve compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for all participating members in the planning effort. There are several different groups who will be involved in this process at different levels. In order to provide clarity, the following is a general breakdown of those groups: the planning team, which is customarily the Tetra Tech Team and those actually responsible for the plan's written development; the Steering Committee, which represent members from the planning partnership that serve as the oversight body, assuming responsibility for many of the planning milestones prescribed for this process to help reduce the burden of time required by each planning partner; the planning partners are those jurisdictions or special purpose districts that are actually developing an annex to the regional plan; and the planning stakeholders, which are the individuals, groups, businesses, academia, etc., from which the planning team gains information to support the various elements of the plan. DMA compliance requires that participation be defined in order to maintain eligibility with respect to meeting the requirements which allow a jurisdiction or special purpose district to develop an annex to the base plan. To achieve compliance for all partners, the plan must clearly document how each planning partner that is seeking linkage to the plan participated in the plan's development. The best way to do this is to clearly define "participation." For this planning process, "participation" is defined by the following criteria: • Estimated Level of Effort. It is estimated that the total time commitment to meet these "participation" requirements for a planning partner not participating on the Steering Committee would be approximately 40 hours over the 12 to 14 month period. This time is reduced somewhat for special purpose districts. • Participate in the Process. As indicated, it must be documented in the plan that each planning partner "participated" in the process to the best of your capabilities. There is flexibility in defining "participation," which can vary based on the type of planning partner (i.e.: City or County, vs. a Special Purpose District) involved. However, the level of participation must be defined at the on -set of the planning process, and we must demonstrate the extent to which this level of participation has been met for each partner. This planning process will utilize a Steering Committee that will assume responsibility for many of the planning milestones prescribed for this process to help reduce the burden of time required by each planning partner. This committee will be representative of the whole body and you as a planning partner will have input on its makeup. This committee will meet periodically (frequency to be determined by the committee) throughout the process and provide direction and guidance to the planning team. Steering Committee meetings are not mandatory meetings for all planning partners. If you are not on the committee, your attendance is not required; however, it is our hope that all planning partners will attempt to remain engaged with this process. Each committed planning partner will be notified of the date and time for all scheduled steering committee meetings.The planning team will also request support from the partnership during the public involvement phase of the planning process. Support could be in the form of providing venues for public meetings, attending these meetings as meeting participants, providing technical support, etc. • Duration of Planning Process. This process is anticipated to take 12 to 14 months to complete. It will be easy to become disconnected with the process objectives if you do not participate in some of these meetings to some degree. The planning team will keep all A-1 ACT.A Page 691 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes planning partners apprised of plan development milestones via informational bulletins that will be periodically distributed to the entire partnership. • Critical Facility Update. All planning partners will be requested to update their critical facilities /infrastructure lists for use during the risk assessment. The CDMS extension to Hazaus will be used for this process, and guidance will be provided by the planning team.If the list is not updated, Hazus default data will be used. Updating this list provides a much more detailed analysis. • Capability Assessment. All planning partners will be asked to identify their capabilities during this process. This assessment will look at the regulatory, technical, financial and floodplain management capabilities of each municipal partner. Special purpose districts will perform a different type of capability assessment. These capability assessments will require a review of existing plans, studies, ordinances and programs pertinent to each jurisdiction to identify policies or recommendations that can complement the hazard mitigation initiatives selected (e.g., comprehensive plans, basin plans or hazard - specific plans) This step is important because increasing a jurisdiction's capability is a viable mitigation action. • Action /Strategy Review. All previous planning partners will be required to perform a review of the strategies from their respective prior action plan to: determine those that have been accomplished and how they were accomplished; and why those that have not been accomplished were not completed. The planning team will be available to assist with this task. • Action Plan Development. Each planning partner must identify and prioritize an action plan that they will strive to implement to reduce the risks from hazards they have ranked that impact their jurisdiction. • Plan Adoption. The plan must be adopted by each jurisdiction. One of the benefits to multi jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources. This means more than monetary resources. Resources such as staff time, meeting locations, media resources, technical expertise will all need to be utilized to generate a successful plan. In addition, these resources can be pooled such that decisions can be made by a peer group applying to the whole and thus reducing the individual level of effort of each planning partner. This will be accomplished by the formation of a steering committee made up of planning partners and other "stakeholders" within the planning area. The size and makeup of this steering committee will be determined by the planning partnership during our kick -off meeting. This body will assume the decision - making responsibilities on behalf of the entire partnership. This will streamline the planning process by reducing the number of meetings that will need to be attended by each planning partner. The assembled Steering Committee for this effort will meet monthly (unless decided otherwise) on an as- needed basis as determined by the planning team, and will provide guidance and decision making during all phases of the plan's development. With the above participation requirements in mind, each planning partner will be asked to aid this process by being prepared to develop its section of the plan. To be an eligible planning partner in this effort, each Planning Partner will be asked to provide the following: • A "Letter of Intent to participate" or Resolution to participate to the Planning Team (see exhibit A). • Designate a lead point of contact for this effort. This designee will be listed as the hazard mitigation point of contact for your jurisdiction in the plan. • Identify an un- burdened billing rate for this point of contact which will be used to calculate the in -kind match for the grant that is funding this project. A-2 ACT.A Page 692 of 869 PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS • Approve the Steering Committee. • If requested, provide support in the form of mailing list, possible meeting space, and public information materials, such as newsletters, newspapers or direct mailed brochures, required to implement the public involvement strategy developed by the Steering Committee. • Participate in the process. There will be many opportunities as this plan evolves to participate. Opportunities such as: — Steering Committee meetings — Public meetings or open houses — Workshops/ Planning Partner specific training sessions — Public review and comment periods prior to adoption At each and every one of these opportunities, attendance will be recorded. Attendance records will be used to document participation for each planning partner. No thresholds will be established as minimum levels of participation. However, each planning partner should attempt to attend all possible meetings and events. • There will be one mandatory workshop that all planning partners will be required to attend. This workshop will cover the proper completion of the jurisdictional annex template, which is the basis for each partner's jurisdictional chapter in the plan. Failure to have a representative at this workshop will disqualify the planning partner from participation in this effort. The schedule for this workshop will be such that all committed planning partners will be able to attend. • After participation in the mandatory annex workshop, each partner will be required to complete their annex and provide it to the planning team in the time frame established by the Steering Committee. Technical assistance in the completion of these annexes will be available from the planning team. Failure to complete your annex in the required time frame may lead to disqualification from the partnership. • Each partner will be asked to review the Risk Assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities specific to its jurisdiction. Contract resources will provide the jurisdiction specific mapping and technical consultation to aid in this task, but the determination of risk and vulnerability will be up to each partner (through a facilitated process during the mandatory workshop). • Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project, who will oversee the task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur. • Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan. Planning tools and instructions to aid in the compilation of this information will be provided to all committed planning partners. Each partner will be asked to complete their annexes in a timely manner and according to the timeline specified by the Steering Committee. ** Note * *: Once this plan is completed, and FEMA approval has been determined for each partner, maintaining that eligibility will be dependent upon each partner implementing the plan implementation- maintenance protocol identified in the plan. A-3 ACT.A Page 693 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes Exhibit A Example Letter of Intent to Participate King County Hazard Mitigation Planning Partnership CIO Tetra Tech, Inc. 19803 N. Creek Parkway Bothell, WA 98011 Via email at: rob.flaner(a�tetratech.com Dear King County Planning Partnership, Please be advised that the (insert City or district name) is committed to participating in the update to the King County Regional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan. As the (title, e.g., Chief Administrative Official) for this jurisdiction, I certify that I will commit all necessary resources in order to meet Partnership expectations as outlined in the "Planning Partners expectations" document provided by the planning team, in order to obtain Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) compliance for our jurisdiction. Mr. /Ms. will be our jurisdiction's point of contact for this process and they can be reached at (insert: address, phone number and e-mail address). We understand that this designated point of contact's time will be applied to the "in- kind" local match for the grant that is funding this project. To aid in the determination of this local match, we have determined that the fully burdened bill rate for our designated point of contact is $ . The funding source for our point of contact's position within our jurisdiction is / is not through federal funds. If it is through federal funds, what percentage of their salary is federally funded? Sincerely, A-4 ACT.A Page 694 of 869 PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS Exhibit B (Current) Planning Team Contact information Name Representing Address Phone e -mail Janice Rahman King County OEM 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 (206) 205 -4061 Janice.Rahman(a Kingcountv.go v Sam Ripley King County OEM 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 (206) 205 -4072 Sam.Riplev(dkingcountv.gov Rob Flaner Tetra Tech, Inc. 90 S. Blackwood Ave Eagle, ID 83616 (208) 939 -4391 Rob.flaner(a�tetratech.com A-5 ACT.A Page 695 of 869 King ('onnty Regional hazard Mitigation Plan t jnhite Volume 2: Planning, Partner 1 nnexes APPENDIX B. PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO THE REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE ACT .A Page 697 of 869 APPENDIX B. PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO THE REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE Not all eligible local governments in King County are included in the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Some or all of these non - participating local governments may choose to "link" to the Plan at some point to gain eligibility for programs under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA). In addition, some current partners may not continue to meet eligibility requirements due to a lack of participation prescribed by the plan. The following "linkage" procedures define the requirements established by the Planning Team for dealing with an increase or decrease in the number of planning partners linked to this plan. No currently non - participating jurisdiction within the defined planning area is obligated to link to this plan. These jurisdictions can chose to do their own "complete" plan that addresses all required elements of Section 201.6 of Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR). INCREASING THE PARTNERSHIP THROUGH LINKAGE Eligible jurisdictions located in the planning area may link to this plan at any point during the plan's performance period. It is expected that linking jurisdictions will complete the requirements outlined below and submit their completed template to the lead agency (King County Office of Emergency Management) for review within three months of beginning the linkage process: • The eligible jurisdiction requests a "Linkage Package" by contacting the Point of Contact (POC) for the plan: Janice Rahman, Project Manager King County Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 (206) 205 -4061 Janice . Rahman(a(kingcounty. gov • The POC will provide a linkage procedure package that includes linkage information and a linkage tool -kit: Linkage Information ❑ Procedures for linking to the regional hazard mitigation plan update ❑ Planning partner's expectations for linking jurisdictions ❑ A sample "letter of intent" to link to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan ❑ A copy of Section 201.6 of 44 CFR, which defines the federal requirements for a local hazard mitigation plan. Linkage Tool -Kit ❑ Copy of Volume 1 and 2 of the plan ❑ A special purpose district or city template and instructions ❑ A catalog of hazard mitigation alternatives ❑ A "request for technical assistance" form ❑ An annex review check -list ❑ A sample resolution for plan adoption • The new jurisdiction will be required to review both volumes of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which include the following key components for the planning area: B-1 ACT.A Page 699 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes Goals and objectives The planning area risk assessment Comprehensive review of alternatives Countywide initiatives Plan implementation and maintenance procedures. Once this review is complete, the jurisdiction will complete its specific annex using the template and instructions provided by the POC. Jurisdictions can request technical assistance (TA) by completing the TA form provided in the linkage package and submitting it to the POC. The POC will coordinate the provision of the TA based on resources available at the time of the request. • The development of the new jurisdiction's annex must not be completed by one individual in isolation. The jurisdiction must develop, implement and describe a public involvement strategy and a methodology to identify and vet jurisdiction - specific actions. The original partnership was covered under a uniform public involvement strategy and a process to identify actions that covered the planning area described in Volume 1 and Volume 2 of this plan. Since new partners were not addressed by these strategies, they will have to initiate new strategies and describe them in their annex. For consistency, new partners are encouraged to develop and implement strategies similar to those described in this plan. • The public involvement strategy must ensure the public's ability to participate in the plan development process. At a minimum, the new jurisdiction must solicit public opinion on hazard mitigation at the onset of the linkage process and hold one or more public meetings to present the draft jurisdiction - specific annex for comment at least two weeks prior to adoption by the governing body. The POC will have resources available to aid in the public involvement strategy, including: The questionnaire utilized in the plan development Presentations from public meeting workshops and the public comment period Flyers and information cards that were distributed to the public Press releases used throughout the planning process The plan website. • The methodology to identify actions should include a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard and a description of the process by which chosen actions were identified. As part of this process, linking jurisdictions should coordinate the selection of actions amongst the jurisdiction's various departments. • Once their public involvement strategy and template are completed, the new jurisdiction will submit the completed package to the POC for a pre- adoption review to ensure conformance with the Regional plan format and linkage procedure requirements. • The POC will review for the following: Documentation of public involvement and action plan development strategies Conformance of template entries with guidelines outlined in instructions Chosen initiatives are consistent with goals, objectives and mitigation catalog of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update A designated point of contact • Plans will be reviewed by the POC and submitted to Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) for review and approval. 8-2 ACT.A Page 700 of 869 PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO THE REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN • EMD will review plans for federal compliance. Non - compliant plans are returned to the lead agency for correction. Compliant plans are forwarded to FEMA for review with annotation as to the adoption status. • FEMA reviews the new jurisdiction's plan in association with the approved plan to ensure DMA compliance. FEMA notifies the new jurisdiction of the results of review with copies to EMD and the approved plan lead agency. • New jurisdiction corrects plan shortfalls (if necessary) and resubmits to EMD through the approved plan lead agency. • For plans with no shortfalls from the FEMA review that have not been adopted, the new jurisdiction governing authority adopts the plan and forwards adoption resolution to FEMA with copies to lead agency and EMD. • FEMA regional director notifies the new jurisdiction's governing authority of the plan's approval. The new jurisdiction plan is then included with the regional plan, and the new jurisdiction is committed to participate in the ongoing plan implementation and maintenance strategies. DECREASING THE PARTNERSHIP The eligibility afforded under this process to the planning partnership can be rescinded in two ways. First, a participating planning partner can ask to be removed from the partnership. This may be done because the partner has decided to develop its own plan or has identified a different planning process for which it can gain eligibility. A partner that wishes to voluntarily leave the partnership shall inform the POC of this desire in writing. This notification can occur any time during the calendar year. A jurisdiction wishing to pursue this avenue is advised to make sure that it is eligible under the new planning effort, to avoid any period of being out of compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act. After receiving this notification, the POC shall immediately notify both the Washington State Emergency Management Division and FEMA in writing that the partner in question is no longer covered by the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, and that the eligibility afforded that partner under this plan should be rescinded based on this notification. The second way a partner can be removed from the partnership is by failure to meet the participation requirements specified in the "Planning Partner Expectations" package provided to each partner at the beginning of the process, or the plan maintenance and implementation procedures specified under Chapter 21 in Volume 1 of the plan. Each partner agreed to these terms by adopting the plan. Eligibility status of the planning partnership will be monitored by the POC. The determination of whether a partner is meeting its participation requirements will be based on the following parameters: • Are progress reports being submitted annually by the specified time frames? • Are partners notifying the POC of changes in designated points of contact? • Are the partners supporting the Steering Committee by attending designated meetings or responding to needs identified by the body? • Are the partners continuing to be supportive as specified in the Planning Partners expectations package provided to them at the beginning of the process? 8-3 ACT.A Page 701 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes Participation in the plan does not end with plan approval. This partnership was formed on the premise that a group of planning partners would pool resources and work together to strive to reduce risk within the planning area. Failure to support this premise lessens the effectiveness of this effort. The following procedures will be followed to remove a partner due to the lack of participation: • The POC will advise the Steering Committee of this pending action and provide evidence or justification for the action. Justification may include: multiple failures to submit annual progress reports, failure to attend meetings determined to be mandatory by the Steering Committee, failure to act on the partner's action plan, or inability to reach designated point of contact after a minimum of five attempts. • The Steering Committee will review information provided by POC, and determine action by a vote. The Steering Committee will invoke the voting process established in the ground rules established during the formation of this body. • Once the Steering Committee has approved an action, the POC will notify the planning partner of the pending action in writing via certified mail. This notification will outline the grounds for the action, and ask the partner if it is their desire to remain as a partner. This notification shall also clearly identify the ramifications of removal from the partnership. The partner will be given 30 days to respond to the notification. • Confirmation by the partner that they no longer wish to participate or failure to respond to the notification shall trigger the procedures for voluntary removal discussed above. • Should the partner respond that they would like to continue participation in the partnership, they must clearly articulate an action plan to address the deficiencies identified by the POC. This action plan shall be reviewed by the Steering Committee to determine whether the actions are appropriate to rescind the action. Those partners that satisfy the Steering Committee's review will remain in the partnership, and no further action is required. • Automatic removal from the partnership will be implemented for partners where these actions have to be initiated more than once in a 5 -year planning cycle. 8-4 ACT.A Page 702 of 869 King ('onnty Regional hazard Mitigation Plan t jnhite Volume 2: Planning, Partner 1 nnexes APPENDIX C. ANNEX INSTRUCTIONS AND TEMPLATES ACT .A Page 703 of 869 King County Regional IIu:und Mitigation Plan [ 'plate Volume 2: Planning Partner 1 nnex e∎ Appendix 01. Annex Instructions and Templates for Municipalities ACT A Page 705 of 869 Updated November 2013 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPALITY ANNEX TEMPLATE This document provides instructions for city and county governments participating in multi - partner hazard mitigation planning. These instructions are intended for municipalities that do not have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan. Assistance in completing the template will be available in the form of a workshop for all Planning Partners in November and technical assistance as requested and as funding allows. Any questions on completing the template should be directed to: Rob Flaner 208. 939.4391 Rob.Flaner@TetraTech.com Fully completed templates must be completed and returned by: Friday, January 17, 2014. A NOTE ABOUT FORMATTING The template for the jurisdiction annex is a Microsoft Word document in a format that will be used in the final plan. Partners are asked to use this template so that a uniform product will be completed for each partner. Partners who do not have Microsoft Word capability may prepare the document in other formats, and the planning team will convert it to the Word format. Content should be entered within the yellow, highlighted text that is currently in the template, rather than creating text in another document and pasting it into the template. Text from another source will alter the style and formatting of the document. The numbering in the document will be updated when completed annexes are combined into the final document. Please do not adjust any of this numbering. Municipality Annex :' This document provides instructions for completing; the jurisdictional annex template for city and county'! governments. Please refer all questions to: Rob Flaner 208.939.4391 rob.flaner(&tetratech.co Please complete and return Friday, January 17, 2014 Please email completed template to: Kristen Gelino 425.482.7801 n.gelino@tetratech.co Associated Materials: Along withthe annex template and these instructions, you', have been provided with other materials th information that is needed for completing, the template, Be sure to review these materials before you begin the process of filling'; in the template: SHELDUS historical event data Summary -of -loss matrix for the hazard mitigation plan Results from the hazard mitigation plan questionnaire; Catalog of funding programs, Catalog of mitigation alternatives, and Fact sheet on Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). ACT.A 1 Page 707 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE In the chapter title at the top of page 1, type in the complete official name of your jurisdiction (The City of Metropolis, Jefferson County, etc.), replacing the yellow, highlighted text. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e -mail address for the primary point of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan. In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction. JURISDICTION PROFILE Provide information specific to your jurisdiction as indicated, in a style similar to the example provided in the box at right. This should be information that was not provided in the overall mitigation plan document. For population data, use the most current population figure for your jurisdiction based on an official means of tracking (e.g., the U.S. Census or state office of financial management). Please be sure to include information about who will adopt the Plan and who will oversee plan implementation. Consider using the following sentence: assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; will oversee its implementation. For each bullet point, please replace the highlighted, yellow text with your jurisdiction - specific information. Example Jurisdiction Profile: • • • Date of Incorporation -1858 Current Population - 17,289 as of July 2006 Population Growth —Based on the data tracked by the California Department of Finance, Arcata has experienced a relatively flat rate of growth. The overall population has increased only 3.4% since 2000 and has averaged 0.74% per year from 1990 to 2007 • Location and Description —The City of Arcata is located on California's redwood coast, approximately 760 miles north of Los Angeles and 275 miles north of San Francisco. The nearest seaport is Eureka, five miles south on Humboldt Bay. Arcata is the home of Humboldt State University and is situated between the communities of McKinleyville to the north and Blue Lake to the east. It sits at the intersection of US Highway 101 and State Route 299. • Brief History —The Arcata area was settled during the California gold rush in the 1850s as a supply center for miners. As the gold rush died down, timber and fishing became the area's major economic resource. Arcata was incorporated in 1858 and by 1913 the Humboldt Teachers College, a predecessor to today's Humboldt State University was founded in Arcata. Recently, the presence of the college has come to shape Arcata's population into a young, liberal, and educated crowd. In 1981 Arcata developed the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife sanctuary, an innovative environmentally friendly, sewage treatment enhancement system. • Climate— Arcata's weather is typical of the Northern California coast, with mild summers and cool, wet winters. It rarely freezes in the winter and it is rarely hot in the summer Annual average rainfall is over 40 inches, with 80% of that falling in the six - month period of November through April. The average year - round temperature is 59 °F. Humidity averages between 72 and 87 percent. Prevailing winds are from the north, and average 5 mph. • Governing Body Format —The City of Arcata is governed by a five- member City Council. The City consists of six departments: Finance, Environmental Services, Community Development, Public Works, Police and the City Manager's Office. The City has 13 Committees, Commissions and Task Forces, which report to the City Council. • Development Trends— Anticipated development levels for Arcata are low to moderate, consisting primarily of residential development. The majority of recent development has been intill Residentially, there has been a focus on affordable housing and a push for more secondary mother -in -law units on properties. The City of Arcata adopted its general plan in July 2000. The plan focuses on issues of the greatest concern to the community. City actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations, zoning, subdivision and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with such a plan. Future growth and development in the City will be managed as identified in the general plan. 2 ACT.A Page 708 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: Please do not attempt to complete this section of the template by yourself. You will need to reach out to other departments within your jurisdiction to find the answers to these questions. Departments such as, Planning, Public Works/Engineering, and Emergency Services are responsible for the implementation of many of the capabilities listed in this assessment. If you find that your jurisdiction does not have any of the listed capabilities, then ask yourself or the responsible department "why ?" Remember, increasing capability is a way to reduce risk and is, therefore, a viable mitigation action. Legal and Regulatory Capability Describe the legal authorities available to your jurisdiction and /or enabling legislation at the state level affecting planning and land management tools that can support hazard mitigation initiatives. In Table 1 -1, indicate "Yes" or "No" for each listed code, ordinance, requirement or planning document in each of the following columns: • Local Authority —Enter "Yes" if your jurisdiction has prepared or adopted the identified item; otherwise, enter "No." If yes, then enter the code or ordinance number and its date of adoption in the comments column. It is very important that you list the code citation as well as date of adoption. Identification of old codes often are leads to identifying mitigation actions. For example, if your flood damage prevention ordinance has a date of adoption prior to 2004, there is a good chance that the ordinance is out of compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This should be addressed as an action in your action plan. If a code has been updated since its initial adoption date, please provide the date of the most recent update. • State or Federal Prohibitions —Enter "Yes" if there are any state or federal regulations or laws that would prohibit local implementation of the identified item; otherwise, enter "No." • Other Regulatory Authority —Enter "Yes" if there are any regulations that may impact your initiative that are enforced or administered by another agency (e.g., a state agency or special purpose district); otherwise, enter "No." • State Mandated —Enter "Yes" if state laws or other requirements enable or require the listed item to be implemented at the local level; otherwise, enter "No." A Note On Planning Documents: Comprehensive Plans - Jurisdictions that engage in comprehensive planning may wish to 1 ink their plan to the hazard mitigation plan. This linkage can 'occur in many related elements such as the safety element or in the critical areas discussion of the land use element. Capital Improvement Programs – CIPs may address a variety of infrastructure such as sewer, water, drainage, roads and storm water. Capital Facilities Plans are a required element of the Washington State Growth Management Act; however, counties and municipalities may have differing definitions of "capital." Fiscal Capability Identify what financial resources (other than the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program) are available to your jurisdiction for implementing mitigation initiatives. Complete Table 1 -2 by indicating whether each of the listed financial resources is accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter "Yes" if the resource is fully accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter "No" if there are limitations or prerequisites that may hinder your eligibility for this resource. 3 ACT.A Page 709 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Administrative and Technical Capability This section requires you to take inventory of the staff/personnel resources available to your jurisdiction to help with hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of specific mitigation actions. Complete Table 1 -3 by indicating whether your jurisdiction has access to each of the listed personnel resources. Enter "Yes" or "No" in the column labeled "Available ?" If yes, then enter the department and position title in the right -hand column. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance For those communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance program (NFIP), this section will aid in meeting the requirements specified in 44CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii)), dealing with the maintenance of NFIP compliance. This section asks a series of questions aimed at identifying the community's floodplain management program and any inherent needs within that program. Table 1 -4 asks nine questions about the community floodplain management program. To complete this table, you will need to identify the department responsible for floodplain management within your jurisdiction. Guidance on how to respond to each of these questions is as follows: What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? All communities that participate in the NFIP must appoint a department that is responsible for the administration of its floodplain management program. This can be designated in the actual ordinance language. Places to check include; Building Department, Community Development, Public Works or Engineering Department Who is your Community's Floodplain A (Department/Position Administrator? r This position will be designated in the Community's flood damage prevention ordinance. Please confirm that this position is still acting as the designated Flood Plain Administrator. If it is not, then you will need to amend your ordinance. Do you have any Certified Floodplain Managers (CFM) on staff within your community? The Association of State Floodplain Managers has established a national program for professional certification of floodplain managers. The program recognizes continuing education and professional development that enhance the knowledge and performance of local, state, federal, and private- sector floodplain managers. The role of the nation's floodplain managers is expanding due to increases in disaster losses, the emphasis being placed upon mitigation to alleviate the cycle of damage - rebuild- damage, and a recognized need for professionals to adequately address these issues. This certification program lays the foundation for ensuring that highly qualified individuals are available to meet the challenge of breaking the damage cycle and stopping its negative drain on the nation's human, financial, and natural resources. What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? Check the date your floodplain management ordinance was last adopted/amended. Please site the code number and whether this date reflects the initial adoption date or an amendment date. When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit (CAV) or Community Assistance Contact (CAC)? The CAV is the method utilized by FEMA to monitor NFIP compliance. CAV's are supposed to occur every 3 to 5 years. They can be performed by the FEMA Regional Office or by the State Coordinating Agency. The best source for this information is your ACT.A 4 Page 710 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Community Mitigation Related Classifications The Planning Team will complete Table 1 -5 to indicate your jurisdiction's participation in various national programs related to natural hazard mitigation. You do not need to provide information for this table. JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Chronological List of Hazard Events In Table 1 -6, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of ACT.A 5 Page 711 of 869 Community Floodplain Administrator. If she or he does not know, you should check with the State NFIP Coordinator: Scott McKinney, Washington Department of Ecology 360 - 407 -6131 scott.mckinnevnecywa.gov To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. If any administrative problems or potential violations are identified during a CAV the community will be notified and given the opportunity to correct those administrative procedures and remedy the violations to the maximum extent possible within established deadlines. The best source for this information is your Community Floodplain Administrator. If she does not know, you should check with the State NFIP Coordinator. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your community? (If no, please state why). If you believe that the flood hazard maps for your community do not adequately address the flood risk, please provide an explanation. If you believe the maps do adequately address the flood risk within your community, please answer "Yes." Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? What do you need to make your floodplain management program better? Do you need staffing, training, better maps? This is the section where you identify needs. Needs result in actions. If you identify needs here, you should identify an action in your action plan to address those needs. It is plausible to answer "nothing" here. But to do so, you need to have a very well established floodplain management program or little or no floodplain to manage. Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? The CRS program is a part of the National Flood Insurance Program that rewards participating communities for exceeding the minimum requirements of the NFIP by lowering the cost of flood insurance premiums in participating jurisdictions. The CRS provides credit for 18, non - structural flood mitigation activities. The CRS program is voluntary, and communities must be in full compliance and good standing under the NFIP to be eligible to apply. Community Mitigation Related Classifications The Planning Team will complete Table 1 -5 to indicate your jurisdiction's participation in various national programs related to natural hazard mitigation. You do not need to provide information for this table. JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Chronological List of Hazard Events In Table 1 -6, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of ACT.A 5 Page 711 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template damage it caused. Please refer to the summary of natural hazard events in the SHELDUS historical data included in your tool kit. Potential sources of damage information include: • Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state • Insurance claims data • Newspaper archives • Other plans /documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.) • Citizen input. Repetitive Loss Properties A repetitive loss property is any property for which FEMA has paid two or more flood insurance claims in excess of $1,000 in any rolling 10 -year period since 1978. The Planning Team will provide information regarding repetitive loss properties for your jurisdiction. Please do not worry about completing this portion of the template. HAZARD RISK RANKING The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area. The risk - ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and the economy. A detailed discussion of the concepts associated with risk ranking is provided in the overall hazard mitigation plan. The instructions below outline steps for assessing risk in your jurisdiction to develop results that are to be included in the template. Determine Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. In Table 1, list the probability of occurrence for each hazard as it pertains to your jurisdiction, along with its probability factor, as follows: • High — Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium — Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2) • Low — Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1) • None —If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area. For example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. 6 ACT.A Page 712 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 1. HAZARD PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE Hazard Type Probability Probability Factor Determine Potential Impacts of Each Hazard The impact of each hazard was divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on the economy. These categories were also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on the economy was assigned a weighting factor of 1. Steps to assess each type of impact are described below. Impacts on People To assess impacts on people, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. In Table 2, list the potential impact of each hazard on people in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) ACT.A Page 713 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 2. HAZARD IMPACT ON PEOPLE Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 3 Impacts on Property To assess impacts on property, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event. In Table 3, enter the cost estimates for potential damage to exposed structures, taken from the "Summary of Loss" matrix provided with these instructions. TABLE 3. COST ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES Estimate of Potential Dollar Hazard type Losses to Exposed Structures In Table 4, list the potential impact of each hazard on property in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor. Determine impact based on damage estimates from Table 3, as follows: • High Impact -25% or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) 8 ACT.A Page 714 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Medium Impact -10% to 24% of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -9% or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 4. HAZARD IMPACT ON PROPERTY Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 2) Impacts on the Economy To assess impacts on the economy, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total assessed value of property in the county. For some hazards, such as wildland fire, landslide and severe weather, vulnerability is the same as exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards. In Table 5, list the potential impact of each hazard on the economy in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High Impact— Estimated loss from the hazard is 15% or more of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact— Estimated loss from the hazard is 5% to 14% of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact— Estimated loss from the hazard is 4% or less of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) 9 ACT.A Page 715 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 5. HAZARD IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 1 Determine Risk Rating for Each Hazard A risk rating for each hazard is determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and the economy: • Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy} Using the results developed in Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5, complete Table 6 to calculate a risk rating for each hazard of concern. TABLE 6. HAZARD RISK RATING Hazard Type Probability Factor (P) Sum of Weighted Impact Factors on People, Property & Economy (I) Risk Rating (P !x I) 10 ACT.A Page 716 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Complete Risk Ranking in Template Once Table 6 has been completed above, complete Table 1 -7 in your template. The hazard with the highest risk rating in Table 6 should be listed at the top of Table 1 -7 and given a rank of 1; the hazard with the second highest rating should be listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings should be given the same rank. It is important to note that this exercise should not override your subjective assessment of relative risk based on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of the template. Remember, one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of initiatives in your plan. If you identify an initiative with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard you have ranked low, that project will not be competitive in the grant arena. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Action Plan Matrix Identify the initiatives your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. Refer to the mitigation catalog for mitigation options you might want to consider. Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of initiatives: • Select initiatives that are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and vision of the hazard mitigation plan. The approved goals, objectives and vision are included in your tool kit. • Identify projects where benefits exceed costs. • Include any project that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility. • Know what is and is not grant- eligible under the HMGP and PDM (see fact sheet provided). Listing HMGP or PDM as a potential funding source for an ineligible project will be a red flag when this plan goes through review. If you have projects that are not HMGP or PDM grant eligible, but do mitigate part or the entire hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section. • Although you should identify at least one initiative for your highest ranked risk, a hazard - specific project is not required for every hazard. If you have not identified an earthquake related project, and an earthquake occurs that causes damage in your jurisdiction, you are not discounted from HMGP project grant eligibility. Complete Table 1 -8 for all the initiatives you have identified: • Enter the initiative number and description. Wording Your Initiative Descriptions: Descriptions of your initiatives need rioti provide great detail. That will come when you apply for a project grant. Provide enough information to identify the project's scope and impact. The following are typical descriptions for an action plan initiative: • Initiative 1- Address Repetitive Loss properties. Through targeted mitigation, acquire, relocate or retrofit the five repetitive loss structures in the County as funding opportunities become available. Initiative 2-Perform a non- structural, seismic retrofit of City; Hall. Initiative 3-Acquire floodplain property in the Smith subdivision. Initiative 4— Enhance the County flood warning capability by joining the NOAA "Storm Ready" program. 11 ACT.A Page 717 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Indicate whether the initiative mitigates hazards for new or existing assets. • Identify the specific hazards the initiative will mitigate. • Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the initiative addresses. The approved goals, objectives and vision are included in your tool kit. • Indicate who will be the lead in administering the project. This will most likely be your governing body. • Identify funding sources for the project. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share. Refer to your fiscal capability assessment (Table 1 -2) to identify possible sources of funding. • Indicate the time line as "short term" (1 to 5 years) or "long term" (5 years or greater). Technical assistance will be provided upon request. Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives Complete the information in Table 1 -9 as follows: • Initiative #— Indicate the initiative number from Table 1 -8. • # of Objectives Met —Enter the number of objectives the initiative will meet. • Benefits —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. Medium: Project will have a long -term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. Low: Long -term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. • Costs —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (e.g., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project. Medium: Could budget for under existing work -plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing ongoing program. If you know the estimated cost of a project because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the amount. • Do Benefits Equal or Exceed the Cost? —Enter "Yes" or "No." This is a qualitative assessment. Enter "Yes" if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter "No" if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.) • Is the Project Grant - Eligible? —Enter "Yes" or "No." Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP and PDM. 12 ACT.A Page 718 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets? —Enter "Yes" or "No." In other words, is this initiative currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as grants? • Priority— Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short term project) once funded. Medium: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. Low: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). This prioritization is a simple review to determine that the initiatives you have identified meet one of the primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP /PDM project grants. The prioritization will identify any projects whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs. Analysis of Mitigation Actions Complete Table 1 -10 by summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following six mitigation types: • Prevention — Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection — Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter - resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness— Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection — Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services — Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects — Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions. 13 ACT.A Page 719 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK /VULNERABILITY In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates such as EPA's Bio- terrorism assessment requirement for water districts. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this template. As you complete your template, please forwa Kristen Gelino Tetra Tech, Inc. 425.482.7801 isten. elino(aJTetraTech.co 14 ACT.A Page 720 of 869 CHAPTER 1. INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX 1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Primary Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address POINT OF CONTACT Alternate Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address 1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation —Insert Date of Incorporation • Current Population —Insert Population as of Insert Date of Population Count • Population Growth —Insert Discussion of Population Growth • Location and Description —Insert Description of Location, Surroundings, Key Geographic Features • Brief History —Insert Summary Discussion of Jurisdiction's History • Climate —Insert Summary Discussion of Climate • Governing Body Format —Insert Summary Description of Governing Body • Development Trends —Insert Summary Description of Development 1.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1 -5. 1-1 ACT.A Page 721 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinanees & Requirements Building Code Zonings Subdivisions Stormwater Management Post Disaster Recovery Real Estate Disclosure Growth Management Site Plan Review Public Health and Safety Environmental Protection Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes or No Floodplain or Basin Plan Stormwater Plan Capital Improvement Plan What types of capital facilities does the plan address? How often is the plan revised /updated? Yes or No Habitat Conservation Plan Economic Development Plan Shoreline Management Plan Community Wildfire Protection Plan Response /Recovery Planning Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan Post - Disaster Recovery Plan Continuity of Operations Plan Public Health Plans ACT.A 1 -2 Page 722 of 869 Accessible o Us Eligibl{ INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX TABLE 1 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Community Development Block Grants Capital Improvements Project Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Other TABLE 1 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Available? ! Department /Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Surveyors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Grant writers 1-3 ACT.A Page 723 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1-4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your community? (If no, please state why) Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? TABLE 1 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Public Protection Storm Ready Firewise Tsunami Ready (if applicable) 1.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 1 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA- Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: Insert # • Number of FEMA - Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: Insert # • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been Mitigated: Insert # 1-4 ACT.A Page 724 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX TABLE 1 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster 4' (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment 1-5 ACT.A Page 725 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 1 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. Delete this paragraph if no maps available. TABLE 1 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank �d Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1-6 ACT.A Page 726 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX 1.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 1 -8 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 1 -9 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 1 -10 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. ACT.A 1 -7 Page 727 of 869 TABLE 1 -8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards existing assets Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline Initiative #t-1)e scription Initiative # - Descriptio Initiative # - Descriptio Initiative #Description, Initiative #Description, Initiative #Description, Initiative #Description, Initiative #Description, ACT.A 1 -7 Page 727 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -9. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Initiative # of Objectives' Do Benefits Equal or Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? IsP an ct Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priori Eligible`? a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. s ACT.A Page 728 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX TABLE 1 -10. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3, Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. E Hazard Type 1, Prcvcntion' Protection Awareness Protection S •gs Andy 6. Structural Projects Avalanche Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami Volcano Wildfire a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of mitigation types. 1.7 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1.8 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1-9 ACT.A Page 729 of 869 Updated November 2013 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING MUNICIPALITY UPDATE ANNEX TEMPLATE This document provides instructions for city and county governments participating in multi - partner hazard mitigation planning. These instructions are intended for municipalities that currently have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan. Assistance in completing the template will be available in the form of a workshop for all Planning Partners in November and technical assistance as requested and as funding allows. Any questions on completing the template should be directed to: Rob Flaner 208. 939.4391 Rob.Flaner@TetraTech.com Fully completed templates must be completed and returned by: Friday, January 17, 2014. A NOTE ABOUT FORMATTING The template for the municipal jurisdiction annex is a Microsoft Word document in a format that will be used in the final plan. Partners are asked to use this template so that a uniform product will be completed for each partner. Partners who do not have Microsoft Word capability may prepare the document in other formats, and the planning team will convert it to the Word format. Content should be entered within the yellow, highlighted text that is currently in the template, rather than creating text in another document and pasting it into the template. Text from another source will alter the style and formatting of the document. The numbering in the document will be updated when completed annexes are combined into the final document. Please do not adjust any of this numbering. Municipality Update Annex:i This document provides instructions for completing; the jurisdictional annex template for city and county! governments. Please refer all questions to: Rob Flaner 208.939.4391 rob.flaner(&tetratech.co Please complete and return by Friday, January 17, 2013 Please email completed template to: Kristen Gelino 425.482.7801 kris ten.gelino@tetratech.co Associated Materials: Along with' the annex template and these instructions, you', have been provided with other materials 'with information that is needed for completing, the template, Be sure to review these materials before you begin the process of fillingin the template: SHELDUS historical i event data Summary -of -loss matrix for the hazard mitigation plan Results from the hazard mitigation plan questionnaire; Catalog of funding programs, Catalog of mitigation alternatives, and Fact sheet on Hazard', Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). ACT.A 1 Page 731 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE In the chapter title at the top of page 1, type in the complete official name of your jurisdiction (The City of Metropolis, Jefferson County, etc.), replacing the yellow, highlighted text. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e -mail address for the primary point of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan. In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction. JURISDICTION PROFILE Provide information specific to your jurisdiction as indicated, in a style similar to the example provided in the box at right. This should be information that was not provided in the overall mitigation plan document. For population data, use the most current population figure for your jurisdiction based on an official means of tracking (e.g., the U.S. Census or state office of financial management). Please be sure to include information about who will adopt the Plan and who will oversee plan implementation. Consider using the following sentence: assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan; will oversee its implementation. For each bullet point, please replace the highlighted, yellow text with your jurisdiction - specific information. Example Jurisdiction Profile: • • • Date of Incorporation -1858 Current Population - 17,289 as of July 2006 Population Growth —Based on the data tracked by the California Department of Finance, Arcata has experienced a relatively flat rate of growth. The overall population has increased only 3.4% since 2000 and has averaged 0.74% per year from 1990 to 2007 • Location and Description —The City of Arcata is located on California's redwood coast, approximately 760 miles north of Los Angeles and 275 miles north of San Francisco. The nearest seaport is Eureka, five miles south on Humboldt Bay. Arcata is the home of Humboldt State University and is situated between the communities of McKinleyville to the north and Blue Lake to the east. It sits at the intersection of US Highway 101 and State Route 299. • Brief History —The Arcata area was settled during the California gold rush in the 1850s as a supply center for miners. As the gold rush died down, timber and fishing became the area's major economic resource. Arcata was incorporated in 1858 and by 1913 the Humboldt Teachers College, a predecessor to today's Humboldt State University was founded in Arcata. Recently, the presence of the college has come to shape Arcata's population into a young, liberal, and educated crowd. In 1981 Arcata developed the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife sanctuary, an innovative environmentally friendly, sewage treatment enhancement system. • Climate — Arcata's weather is typical of the Northern California coast, with mild summers and cool, wet winters. It rarely freezes in the winter and it is rarely hot in the summer Annual average rainfall is over 40 inches, with 80% of that falling in the six - month period of November through April. The average year - round temperature is 59 °F. Humidity averages between 72 and 87 percent. Prevailing winds are from the north, and average 5 mph. • Governing Body Format —The City of Arcata is governed by a five- member City Council. The City consists of six departments: Finance, Environmental Services, Community Development, Public Works, Police and the City Manager's Office. The City has 13 Committees, Commissions and Task Forces, which report to the City Council. • Development Trends— Anticipated development levels for Arcata are low to moderate, consisting primarily of residential development. The majority of recent development has been intill Residentially, there has been a focus on affordable housing and a push for more secondary mother -in -law units on properties. The City of Arcata adopted its general plan in July 2000. The plan focuses on issues of the greatest concern to the community. City actions, such as those relating to land use allocations, annexations, zoning, subdivision and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements, must be consistent with such a plan. Future growth and development in the City will be managed as identified in the general plan. 2 ACT.A Page 732 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: Please do not attempt to complete this section of the template by yourself. You will need to reach out to other departments within your jurisdiction to find the answers to these questions. Departments such as, Planning, Public Works/Engineering, and Emergency Services are responsible for the implementation of many of the capabilities listed in this assessment. If you find that your jurisdiction does not have any of the listed capabilities, then ask yourself or the responsible department "why ?" Remember, increasing capability is a way to reduce risk and is, therefore, a viable mitigation action. Legal and Regulatory Capability Describe the legal authorities available to your jurisdiction and /or enabling legislation at the state level affecting planning and land management tools that can support hazard mitigation initiatives. In Table 1 -1, indicate "Yes" or "No" for each listed code, ordinance, requirement or planning document in each of the following columns: • Local Authority —Enter "Yes" if your jurisdiction has prepared or adopted the identified item; otherwise, enter "No." If yes, then enter the code or ordinance number and its date of adoption in the comments column. It is very important that you list the code citation as well as date of adoption. Identification of old codes often are leads to identifying mitigation actions. For example, if your flood damage prevention ordinance has a date of adoption prior to 2004, there is a good chance that the ordinance is out of compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This should be addressed as an action in your action plan. If a code has been updated since its initial adoption date, please provide the date of the most recent update. • State or Federal Prohibitions —Enter "Yes" if there are any state or federal regulations or laws that would prohibit local implementation of the identified item; otherwise, enter "No." • Other Regulatory Authority —Enter "Yes" if there are any regulations that may impact your initiative that are enforced or administered by another agency (e.g., a state agency or special purpose district); otherwise, enter "No." • State Mandated —Enter "Yes" if state laws or other requirements enable or require the listed item to be implemented at the local level; otherwise, enter "No." A Note On Planning Documents: Comprehensive Plans - Jurisdictions that engage in comprehensive planning may wish to link their plan to the hazard mitigation plan This linkage can occur in many related elements such as the safety element or in the critical areas discussion of the land use element. Capital Improvement Programs – CIPs may address a variety of infrastructure such as sewer, water, drainage, roads and storm water.' Capital Facilities Plans are a required element of the Washington State' Growth Management Act; however, counties and municipalities may have differing definitions of "capital." Fiscal Capability Identify what financial resources (other than the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program) are available to your jurisdiction for implementing mitigation initiatives. Complete Table 1 -2 by indicating whether each of the listed financial resources is accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter "Yes" if the resource is fully accessible to your jurisdiction. Enter "No" if there are limitations or prerequisites that may hinder your eligibility for this resource. 3 ACT.A Page 733 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Administrative and Technical Capability This section requires you to take inventory of the staff/personnel resources available to your jurisdiction to help with hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of specific mitigation actions. Complete Table 1 -3 by indicating whether your jurisdiction has access to each of the listed personnel resources. Enter "Yes" or "No" in the column labeled "Available ?" If yes, then enter the department and position title in the right -hand column. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance For those communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance program (NFIP), this section will aid in meeting the requirements specified in 44CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii)), dealing with the maintenance of NFIP compliance. This section asks a series of questions aimed at identifying the community's floodplain management program and any inherent needs within that program. Table 1 -4 asks nine questions about the community floodplain management program. To complete this table, you will need to identify the department responsible for floodplain management within your jurisdiction. Guidance on how to respond to each of these questions is as follows: What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? All communities that participate in the NFIP must appoint a department that is responsible for the administration of its floodplain management program. This can be designated in the actual ordinance language. Places to check include; Building Department, Community Development, Public Works or Engineering Department Who is your Community's Floodplain A (Department/Position Administrator? r This position will be designated in the Community's flood damage prevention ordinance. Please confirm that this position is still acting as the designated Flood Plain Administrator. If it is not, then you will need to amend your ordinance. Do you have any Certified Floodplain Managers (CFM) on staff within your community? The Association of State Floodplain Managers has established a national program for professional certification of floodplain managers. The program recognizes continuing education and professional development that enhance the knowledge and performance of local, state, federal, and private- sector floodplain managers. The role of the nation's floodplain managers is expanding due to increases in disaster losses, the emphasis being placed upon mitigation to alleviate the cycle of damage - rebuild- damage, and a recognized need for professionals to adequately address these issues. This certification program lays the foundation for ensuring that highly qualified individuals are available to meet the challenge of breaking the damage cycle and stopping its negative drain on the nation's human, financial, and natural resources. What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? Check the date your floodplain management ordinance was last adopted /amended. Please site the code number and whether this date reflects the initial adoption date or an amendment date. When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit (CAV) or Community Assistance Contact (CAC)? The CAV is the method utilized by FEMA to monitor NFIP compliance. CAV's are supposed to occur every 3 to 5 years. They can be performed by the FEMA Regional Office or by the State Coordinating Agency. The best source for this information is your ACT.A 4 Page 734 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Community Mitigation Related Classifications The Planning Team will complete Table 1 -5 to indicate your jurisdiction's participation in various national programs related to natural hazard mitigation. You do not need to provide information for this table. JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Chronological List of Hazard Events In Table 1 -6, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of ACT.A 5 Page 735 of 869 Community Floodplain Administrator. If she or he does not know, you should check with the State NFIP Coordinator: Scott McKinney, Washington Department of Ecology 360 - 407 -6131 scott.mckinnevnecywa.gov To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. If any administrative problems or potential violations are identified during a CAV the community will be notified and given the opportunity to correct those administrative procedures and remedy the violations to the maximum extent possible within established deadlines. The best source for this information is your Community Floodplain Administrator. If she does not know, you should check with the State NFIP Coordinator. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your community? (If no, please state why). If you believe that the flood hazard maps for your community do not adequately address the flood risk, please provide an explanation. If you believe the maps do adequately address the flood risk within your community, please answer "Yes." Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? What do you need to make your floodplain management program better? Do you need staffing, training, better maps? This is the section where you identify needs. Needs result in actions. If you identify needs here, you should identify an action in your action plan to address those needs. It is plausible to answer "nothing" here. But to do so, you need to have a very well established floodplain management program or little or no floodplain to manage. Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? The CRS program is a part of the National Flood Insurance Program that rewards participating communities for exceeding the minimum requirements of the NFIP by lowering the cost of flood insurance premiums in participating jurisdictions. The CRS provides credit for 18, non - structural flood mitigation activities. The CRS program is voluntary, and communities must be in full compliance and good standing under the NFIP to be eligible to apply. Community Mitigation Related Classifications The Planning Team will complete Table 1 -5 to indicate your jurisdiction's participation in various national programs related to natural hazard mitigation. You do not need to provide information for this table. JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Chronological List of Hazard Events In Table 1 -6, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of ACT.A 5 Page 735 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template damage it caused. Please refer to the summary of natural hazard events in the SHELDUS historical data included in your tool kit. Potential sources of damage information include: • Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state • Insurance claims data • Newspaper archives • Other plans /documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.) • Citizen input. Repetitive Loss Properties A repetitive loss property is any property for which FEMA has paid two or more flood insurance claims in excess of $1,000 in any rolling 10 -year period since 1978. The Planning Team will provide information regarding repetitive loss properties for your jurisdiction. Please do not worry about completing this portion of the template. HAZARD RISK RANKING The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area. The risk - ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and the economy. A detailed discussion of the concepts associated with risk ranking is provided in the overall hazard mitigation plan. The instructions below outline steps for assessing risk in your jurisdiction to develop results that are to be included in the template. Determine Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. In Table 1, list the probability of occurrence for each hazard as it pertains to your jurisdiction, along with its probability factor, as follows: • High — Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium — Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2) • Low — Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1) • None —If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area. For example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. 6 ACT.A Page 736 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 1. HAZARD PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE Hazard Type Probability Probability Factor Determine Potential Impacts of Each Hazard The impact of each hazard was divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on the economy. These categories were also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on the economy was assigned a weighting factor of 1. Steps to assess each type of impact are described below. Impacts on People To assess impacts on people, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. In Table 2, list the potential impact of each hazard on people in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No impact —None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) ACT.A Page 737 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 2. HAZARD IMPACT ON PEOPLE Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 3 Impacts on Property To assess impacts on property, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value exposed to the hazard event. In Table 3, enter the cost estimates for potential damage to exposed structures, taken from the "Summary of Loss" matrix provided with these instructions. TABLE 3. COST ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES Estimate of Potential Dollar Hazard type Losses to Exposed Structures In Table 4, list the potential impact of each hazard on property in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor. Determine impact based on damage estimates from Table 3, as follows: • High Impact -25% or more of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) 8 ACT.A Page 738 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Medium Impact -10% to 24% of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -9% or less of the total assessed property value is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the total assessed property value is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 4. HAZARD IMPACT ON PROPERTY Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 2) Impacts on the Economy To assess impacts on the economy, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total property value vulnerable to the hazard event. Values represent estimates of the loss from a major event of each hazard in comparison to the total assessed value of property in the county. For some hazards, such as wildland fire, landslide and severe weather, vulnerability is the same as exposure due to the lack of loss estimation tools specific to those hazards. In Table 5, list the potential impact of each hazard on the economy in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High Impact— Estimated loss from the hazard is 15% or more of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact — Estimated loss from the hazard is 5% to 14% of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact— Estimated loss from the hazard is 4% or less of the total assessed property value (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —No loss is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) 9 ACT.A Page 739 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 5. HAZARD IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 1 Determine Risk Rating for Each Hazard A risk rating for each hazard is determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and the economy: • Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + economy} Using the results developed in Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5, complete Table 6 to calculate a risk rating for each hazard of concern. TABLE 6. HAZARD RISK RATING Hazard Type Probability Factor (P) Sum of Weighted Impact Factors on People, Property & Economy (I) Risk Rating (P !x I) 10 ACT.A Page 740 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Complete Risk Ranking in Template Once Table 6 has been completed above, complete Table 1 -7 in your template. The hazard with the highest risk rating in Table 6 should be listed at the top of Table 1 -7 and given a rank of 1; the hazard with the second highest rating should be listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings should be given the same rank. It is important to note that this exercise should not override your subjective assessment of relative risk based on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of the template. Remember, one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of initiatives in your plan. If you identify an initiative with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard you have ranked low, that project will not be competitive in the grant arena. STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES In this section, provide a status report of actions recommended in your previous hazard mitigation plan. You must be able to reconcile your original action plan to meet FEMA requirements for plan updates. Enter all the recommended actions from your previous plan in Table 1 -8 and put an ✓ in one of the following three columns for each action to indicate its status: • Completed —If the action has been completed, place a check mark in this column and enter a brief explanation in the "Comments" column (e.g., "Action #WC31 was completed by the Public Works Department on 3/12/2009 "). Ongoing actions, such as annual outreach projects or maintenance activities, should also be indicated as "Completed," with a statement about the ongoing nature of the action provided in the "Comments" column (e.g., "Ongoing action, implemented annually by Community Development Department "). • Carry Over to Plan Update —If you did not complete an action and want to carry it over to your updated action plan, place a check mark in this column, and enter an explanatory statement in the comment section (e.g., "Action carried over as Action #WC14 in updated action plan "). • Removed; No Longer Feasible —If you want to remove an action because you have determined that it is no longer feasible, place a check mark in this column. "No longer feasible" means that you have determined that you do not have the capability to implement the action or that the action does not serve the best interest of your jurisdiction. Lack of funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding for an action is no longer available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the action is no longer feasible (e.g., "Action no longer considered feasible due to lack of political support to complete it. ") HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Action Plan Matrix Identify the initiatives your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. Refer to the mitigation catalog for mitigation options you might want to consider. Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of initiatives: • Select initiatives that are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and vision of the hazard mitigation plan. The approved goals, objectives and vision are included in your tool kit. 11 ACT.A Page 741 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Identify projects where benefits exceed costs. • Include any project that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility. • Know what is and is not grant - eligible under the HMGP and PDM (see fact sheet provided). Listing HMGP or PDM as a potential funding source for an ineligible project will be a red flag when this plan goes through review. If you have projects that are not HMGP or PDM grant eligible, but do mitigate part or the entire hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section. • Although you should identify at least one initiative for your highest ranked risk, a hazard - specific project is not required for every hazard. If you have not identified an earthquake related project, and an earthquake occurs that causes damage in your jurisdiction, you are not discounted from HMGP project grant eligibility. Complete Table 1 -9 for all the initiatives you have identified: • Enter the initiative number and description. • Indicate whether the initiative mitigates hazards for new or existing assets. • Identify the specific hazards the initiative will mitigate. • Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the initiative addresses. The approved goals, objectives and vision are included in your tool kit. • Indicate who will be the lead in administering the project. This will most likely be your governing body. • Identify funding sources for the project. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share. Refer to your fiscal capability assessment (Table 1 -2) to identify possible sources of funding. • Indicate the time line as "short term" (1 to 5 years) or "long term" (5 years or greater). • Enter "Yes" or "No" to indicate whether this initiative was included in the previous version of this hazard mitigation plan. Technical assistance will be provided upon request. Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives Complete the information in Table 1 -10 as follows: • Initiative #— Indicate the initiative number from Table 1 -9. • # of Objectives Met —Enter the number of objectives the initiative will meet. • Benefits —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: – High: Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. Wording Your Initiative Descriptions: Descriptions of your initiatives need not provide; great detail. That will come when you apply for a project grant. Provide enough information to identify the project's scope and impact. The following are typical descriptions for an action plan initiative: • Initiative 1— Address Repetitive Loss properties. Through targeted mitigation, acquire, relocate or retrofit the five repetitive loss structures in the County as funding opportunities become available. Initiative 2— Perform a non- structural, seismic retrofit of City Hall. Initiative 3— Acquire floodplain property in the Smith subdivision.! Initiative 4— Enhance the County flood warning capability by joining the NOAA "Storm Ready" program. 12 ACT.A Page 742 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Medium: Project will have a long -term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. Low: Long -term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. • Costs —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (e.g., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project. Medium: Could budget for under existing work -plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing ongoing program. If you know the estimated cost of a project because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the amount. • Do Benefits Exceed the Cost? —Enter "Yes" or "No." This is a qualitative assessment. Enter "Yes" if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter "No" if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.) • Is the Project Grant - Eligible? —Enter "Yes" or "No." Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP and PDM. • Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets? —Enter "Yes" or "No." In other words, is this initiative currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as grants? • Priority— Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short term project) once funded. Medium: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. Low: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). This prioritization is a simple review to determine that the initiatives you have identified meet one of the primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP /PDM project grants. The prioritization will identify any projects whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs. Analysis of Mitigation Actions Complete Table 1 -11 by summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following six mitigation types: 13 ACT.A Page 743 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Prevention — Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection — Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter - resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness— Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection — Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services — Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects — Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK /VULNERABILITY In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates such as EPA's Bio- terrorism assessment requirement for water districts. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this template. 14 ACT.A Page 744 of 869 CHAPTER 1. INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX 1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION Primary Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Alternate Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address 1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history: • Date of Incorporation —Insert Date of Incorporation • Current Population —Insert Population as of Insert Date of Population Count • Population Growth —Insert Discussion of Population Growth • Location and Description —Insert Description of Location, Surroundings, Key Geographic Features • Brief History —Insert Summary Discussion of Jurisdiction's History • Climate —Insert Summary Discussion of Climate • Governing Body Format —Insert Summary Description of Governing Body • Development Trends —Insert Summary Description of Development 1.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 1 -1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in Table 1 -2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 1 -3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 1 -4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 1 -5. 1-1 ACT.A Page 745 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictional State Authority Prohibitions Authority Mandated Comments Codes, Ordinanees & Requirements Building Code Zonings Subdivisions Stormwater Management Post Disaster Recovery Real Estate Disclosure Growth Management Site Plan Review Public Health and Safety Environmental Protection Planning Documents General or Comprehensive Plan Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes or No Floodplain or Basin Plan Stormwater Plan Capital Improvement Plan What types of capital facilities does the plan address? How often is the plan revised /updated? Yes or No Habitat Conservation Plan Economic Development Plan Shoreline Management Plan Community Wildfire Protection Plan Response /Recovery Planning Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Terrorism Plan Post - Disaster Recovery Plan Continuity of Operations Plan Public Health Plans ACT.A 1 -2 Page 746 of 869 Accessible o Us Eligibl{ INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 1 -2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Community Development Block Grants Capital Improvements Project Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard -Prone Areas State Sponsored Grant Programs Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Other TABLE 1 -3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff /Personnel Resources Available? ! Department /Agency /Position Planners or engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices Engineers or professionals trained in building or infrastructure construction practices Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Surveyors Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Emergency manager Grant writers 1-3 ACT.A Page 747 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1-4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your community? (If no, please state why) Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance /training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your community interested in joining the CRS program? TABLE 1 -5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Public Protection Storm Ready Firewise Tsunami Ready (if applicable) 1.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 1 -6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: • Number of FEMA- Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: Insert # • Number of FEMA - Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: Insert # • Number of Repetitive Flood Loss /Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been Mitigated: Insert # 1-4 ACT.A Page 748 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 1 -6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster 4' (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment 1-5 ACT.A Page 749 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 1 -7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps are included at the end of this chapter. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. Delete this paragraph if no maps available. TABLE 1 -7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank �d Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1-6 ACT.A Page 750 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX 1.6 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 1 -8 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. TABLE 1 -8. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Action Status Carry Over Removed to Plan No Longer Update Feasible Comments ACT.A 1 -7 Page 751 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 1 -9 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 1 -10 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 1 -11 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. ACT.A 1 -8 Page 752 of 869 TABLE 1 -9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline Included in Previous Plan? Initiative #Ilescripfion, Initiative #Description, Initiative #Ilescripfion, Initiative #Description, Initiative #Ilescripfion, Initiative #Description, Initiative #Ilescripfion, Initiative #Description, ACT.A 1 -8 Page 752 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 1 -10. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Initiative # of Objectives' Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded Equal or an Under Existing Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? j Programs/ Budgets? Priori a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. ACT.A 1 -9 Page 753 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -11. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3, Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. E Hazard Type 1, Prcvcntion' Protection Awarcncss Protection S •gs Ancy 6. Structural Projects Avalanche Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami Volcano Wildfire a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of mitigation types. 1.8 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1 -10 ACT.A Page 754 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX Maps to Be Inserted Here, If Any; Delete this page if no maps 1 -11 ACT.A Page 755 of 869 King County Regional IIu:und Mitigation Plan [ 'plate Volume 2: Planning Partner 1 nnex e∎ Appendix C2. Annex Instructions and Templates for Special- Purpose Districts ACT A Page 757 of 869 Updated November 2013 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL - PURPOSE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE This document provides instructions for special - purpose districts participating in multi - partner hazard mitigation planning. These instructions are intended for districts that do not have a previously approved hazard mitigation plan. Assistance in completing the template will be available in the form of a workshop for all planning partners in November and technical assistance as requested and as funding allows. Any questions on completing the template should be directed to: Rob Flaner 208. 939.4391 Rob.FlanerOlTetraTech.com Fully completed templates must be completed and returned by: Friday, January 17, 2014. A NOTE ABOUT FORMATTING The template for the jurisdiction annex is a Microsoft Word document in a format that will be used in the final plan. Partners are asked to use this template so that a uniform product will be completed for each partner. Partners who do not have Microsoft Word capability may prepare the document in other formats, and the planning team will convert it to the Word format. Content should be entered within the yellow, highlighted text that is currently in the template, rather than creating text in another document and pasting it into the template. Text from another source will alter the style Special Dist This document provides instructions for completing the jurisdictional annex template for special purpose districts. Please refer all questions to: Rob Flaner 208.939.4391 rob.flariergtetratech.corri Please complete and return by: Friday, January 17, 2014 Please email rcompleted template to: Kisten Gelino 425.482.780 kristen. gelino (a�tetrate1 tech.coin Associated Materials: Along with the annex template and these instructions, you have been provided with other materials' with information that is needed for completing the template. Be sure to review these materials before you begin the process of filling in the template: SHELDUS historical event data Summary -of -loss matrix for the hazard mitigation plan, Results from the hazard mitigation plan questionnaire, Catalog of funding prograns' Catalog of mitigation alternatives, and Fact sheet on Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). and formatting of the document. The numbering in the document will be updated when completed annexes are combined into the final document. Please do not adjust any of this numbering. CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE In the chapter title at the top of page 1, type in the complete official name of your jurisdiction (West County Fire Protection District #1, Burgville Flood Protection District, etc.) replacing the yellow, highlighted text. ACT.A 1 Page 759 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e -mail address for the primary point of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan. In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction. JURISDICTION PROFILE Narrative Profile Please provide a brief summary to profile your jurisdiction. Include the purpose of the jurisdiction, the date of inception, the type of organization, the number of employees, the mode of operation (i.e., how operations are funded), the type of governing body, and who has adoptive authority. Describe who the jurisdiction's customers are (if applicable, include number of users or subscribers). Include a geographical description of the service area. Provide information in a style similar to the example provided in the box at right. This should be information that was not provided in the overall mitigation plan document. Please be sure to include in this profile description who will assume responsibility for the adoption of implementation of the plan. Example .Inrischctcon'IV rrative P ofile. Humboldt Community Services District is i a special - purpose district created in 1952 to provide water, sewer, and street lighting to the unincorporated area surrounding the City of Eureka known as Pine Hill & Cutters. The ! District's designated service areas expanded throughout the years to include other unincorporated areas of Humboldt County known as Myrtletown, Humboldt Hill, Fields Landing, King Salmon, and Freshwater. A five- member elected Board of Directors governs the District. The Board assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan. the General Manager will oversee its implementation. As of April 30, 2007, the 'District serves 7,305 water connections and 6,108 sewer connections, with a current staff of 21. Funding comes primarily through rates and revenue bonds. the plan and who will oversee the Summary Information Complete the bulleted list of summary information as follows: • Population Served —List the estimated population that your jurisdiction provides services to. If you do not know this number directly, create an estimate (e.g., the number of service connections times the average household size for the service area based on Census data). • Land Area Served —Enter the service area of your jurisdiction in acres or square miles. • Value of Area Served —Enter the approximate assessed value of your service area. If you do not have this information, the County should be able to provide a number using the County Assessor's database. • Land Area Owned —Enter the area of property owned by the jurisdiction in acres or square miles. • List of Critical Infrastructure/ Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction —List all infrastructure and equipment that is critical to your jurisdiction's operations and is located in 2 ACT.A Page 760 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template a natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the item and give its estimated replacement -cost value. Examples are as follows: Fire Districts — Apparatus and equipment housed in a facility that is located in a natural hazard risk zone. This is the equipment that is essential for you to deliver services to this area should a natural hazard occur. It is not necessary to provide a detailed inventory of each engine and truck and its contents. A summary will suffice, such as "5 Engines, 2 ladders, and their contents ". Do not list reserve equipment. Dike /Flood Control Districts —Miles of levees, pump stations, retention/detention ponds, tide gates, miles of ditches, etc., within natural hazard risk zones. Water Districts —Total length of pipe (it is not necessary to specify size and type), pump stations, treatment facilities, dams and reservoirs, within natural hazard risk zones. Public Utility Districts —Miles of power line (above ground and underground), generators, power generating sub - stations, miles of pipeline, etc., within natural hazard risk zones. School Districts — Anything within natural hazard risk zones, besides school buildings, that is critical for you to operate (e.g., school buses if you own a fleet of school buses). • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment —Enter total replacement -cost value of the critical infrastructure and equipment listed above. • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction —List all buildings and other facilities that are critical to your jurisdiction's operations and are located in a natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the facility and give its estimated replacement -cost value. • Total Value of Critical Facilities— Enter total replacement -cost value of the critical facilities listed above. • Current and Anticipated Service Trends— Enter a brief description on how your jurisdiction's services are projected to expand in the foreseeable future and why. Note any identified capital improvements needed to meet the projected expansion. Examples are as follows: For a Fire District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land uses will represent an increase in population and thus a projected increase in call volume. Our District is experiencing an average annual increase in call volume of 13 percent. For Dike /Drainage /Flood Control District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land use will result in an increase in impermeable surface within our service area and thus increase the demand on control facilities. For a Water District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land use will represent an increase in the number of housing units within the service area and thus represent an expansion of the district's delivery network. 3 ACT.A Page 761 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLAN List any federal, state, local or district laws, ordinances, codes and policies that govern your jurisdiction that include elements addressing hazard mitigation. Describe how these laws may support or conflict with the mitigation strategies of this plan. List any other plans, studies or other documents that address hazard mitigation issues for your jurisdiction or may allow you to support or enhance actions identified in this plan. Note whether the documents could have a positive or a negative impact on the mitigation strategies of this plan. Some examples of plans that may be relevant include Emergency Response Plan, Continuity of Operations Plan, Recovery Plan, and Capital Improvement Program. "None applicable" is a possible answer for this section. JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY In Table 1 -1, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it caused. Please refer to the SHELDUS historical event data included on your cd.. Potential sources of damage information include: • Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state • Insurance claims data • Newspaper archives • Other plans /documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.) • Citizen input. HAZARD RISK RANKING The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area. The risk - ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and operations. A detailed discussion of the concepts associated with risk ranking is provided in the overall hazard mitigation plan. The instructions below outline steps for assessing risk in your jurisdiction in order to develop results that are to be included in the template. Determine Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. In Table 1, list the probability of occurrence for each hazard as it pertains to your jurisdiction, along with its probability factor, as follows: • High — Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium — Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2) • Low — Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1) • None —If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area. For example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no 4 ACT.A Page 762 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. TABLE 1. HAZARD PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE Hazard Type Probability Probability Factor Determine Potential Impacts of Each Hazard The impact of each hazard was divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on your jurisdiction's operations. These categories were also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on operations was assigned a weighting factor of 1. Steps to assess each type of impact are described below. Impacts on People To assess impacts on people, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. In Table 2, list the potential impact of each hazard on people in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) 5 ACT.A Page 763 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 2. HAZARD IMPACT ON PEOPLE Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 3) Impacts on Property To assess impacts on property, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total value of buildings, equipment and infrastructure that is exposed to the hazard event. In Table 3, enter the cost estimates for potential damage to the jurisdiction's exposed buildings, equipment and infrastructure, taken from the "Summary of Loss" matrix provided with these instructions. TABLE 3. COST ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES Hazard type Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Jurisdiction- Owned Facilities Exposed to the Hazard In Table 4, list the potential impact of each hazard on property in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor. Determine impact based on damage estimates from Table 3, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) 6 ACT.A Page 764 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 4. HAZARD IMPACT ON PROPERTY Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 2) Impacts on the Jurisdiction's Operations Impact on operations is assessed based on estimates of how long it will take your jurisdiction to become 100 percent operable after a hazard event. The estimated functional downtime for critical facilities has been estimated for most hazards within the planning area. In Table 5, list the potential impact of each hazard on the operations of your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High = functional downtime of 365 days or more (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium = Functional downtime of 180 to 364 days (Impact Factor = 2) • Low = Functional downtime of 180 days or less (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact = No functional downtime is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) You will need to consult the risk assessment for this task. The critical facilities exposed to each hazard have been identified, and the impacts on operability have been estimated for most of the hazards within the planning area. If the functional downtime component has not been provided for a hazard in the risk assessment, consider the impact on operability of that hazard to be low. ACT.A Page 765 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 5. HAZARD IMPACT ON OPERATIONS Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 1 Determine Risk Rating for Each Hazard A risk rating for each hazard is determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and operations: • Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + operations} Using the results developed in Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5, complete Table 6 to calculate a risk rating for each hazard of concern. TABLE 6. HAZARD RISK RATING Hazard Type Probability Factor (P) Sum of Weighted Impact Factors on People, Property & Operations (I) Risk Rating (P !x I) 8 ACT.A Page 766 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Complete Risk Ranking in Template Once Table 6 has been completed above, complete Table 1 -2 in your template. The hazard with the highest risk rating in Table 6 should be listed at the top of Table 1 -2 and given a rank of 1; the hazard with the second highest rating should be listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings should be given the same rank. It is important to note that this exercise should not override your subjective assessment of relative risk based on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of the template. Remember, one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of initiatives in your plan. If you identify an initiative with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard you have ranked low, that project will not be competitive in the grant arena. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Action Plan Matrix Identify the initiatives your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. Refer to the mitigation catalog for mitigation options you might want to consider. Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of initiatives: • Select initiatives that are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and guiding principles of the hazard mitigation plan. • Identify projects where benefits exceed costs. • Include any project that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility. • Know what is and is not grant- eligible under the HMGP and PDM (see fact sheet provided). Listing HMGP or PDM as a potential funding source for an ineligible project will be a red flag when this plan goes through review. If you have projects that are not HMGP or PDM grant eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section. • Although you should identify at least one initiative for your highest ranked risk, a hazard - specific project is not required for every hazard. If you have not identified an earthquake related project, and an earthquake occurs that causes damage in your jurisdiction, you are not discounted from HMGP project grant eligibility. Complete Table 1 -3 for all the initiatives you have identified: • Enter the initiative number and description. • Indicate whether the initiative mitigates hazards for new or existing assets. • Identify the specific hazards the initiative will mitigate. Wording Your Initiative Descriptions: Descriptions of your initiatives need not provide great detail. That will come when you apply for a project grant. Provide enough information to identify; the project's scope and impact. The followingare typical descriptions for an action plan initiative: • Initiative 1-Address Repetitive Loss properties. Through targeted mitigation, acquire, relocate or retrofit the five repetitive loss structures in the County as funding opportunities become available. Initiative 2— Perform a non- structural, seismic retrofit of City Hall. Initiative 3— Acquire floodplain property in the Smith subdivision. Initiative 4- Enhance the County flood warning capability by joining the NOAA "Storm Ready" program. 9 ACT.A Page 767 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the initiative addresses. Approved objectives have been included in your tool kit. • Indicate who will be the lead in administering the project. This will most likely be your governing body. • Identify funding sources for the project. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share. • Indicate the time line as "short term" (1 to 5 years) or "long term" (5 years or greater). Technical assistance will provided upon request. Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives Complete the information in Table 1 -4 as follows: • Initiative #— Indicate the initiative number from Table 1 -3. • # of Objectives Met —Enter the number of objectives the initiative will meet. • Benefits —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. Medium: Project will have a long -term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. Low: Long -term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. • Costs —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project. Medium: Could budget for under existing work -plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing ongoing program. If you know the estimated cost of a project because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the amount. • Do Benefits Equal or Exceed the Cost? —Enter "Yes" or "No." This is a qualitative assessment. Enter "Yes" if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter "No" if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.) • Is the Project Grant - Eligible? —Enter "Yes" or "No." Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP and PDM. • Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets? —Enter "Yes" or "No." In other words, is this initiative currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as grants? 10 ACT.A Page 768 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Priority— Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short term project) once funded. Medium: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. Low: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). This prioritization is a simple review to determine that the initiatives you have identified meet one of the primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP /PDM project grants. The prioritization will identify any projects whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs. Analysis of Mitigation Actions Complete Table 1 -5 summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following six mitigation types: • Prevention — Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection — Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter - resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness— Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection — Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services — Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects — Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK /VULNERABILITY In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates such as EPA's Bio- terrorism assessment requirement for water districts. 11 ACT.A Page 769 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Use this section add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this template. As you complete your template, please forwa Kristen Gelino, Tetra Tech, Inc. 425.482.7801 isten,Gelino(&,,TetraTech.co 12 ACT.A Page 770 of 869 CHAPTER 1. INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX 1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Primary Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address POINT OF CONTACT 1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE Insert Narrative Profile Information, per Instructions Alternate Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction: • Population Served —Insert Population as of Insert Date of Population Count • Land Area Served —Insert Area • Value of Area Served —The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • Land Area Owned —Insert Area • List of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction: Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment —The total value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction: Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item • Total Value of Critical Facilities —The total value of critical facilities owned by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • Current and Anticipated Service Trends —Insert Summary Description of Service Trends 1.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan: • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan 1-1 ACT.A Page 771 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan 1.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 1 -1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. TABLE 1 -1. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment 1-2 ACT.A Page 772 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX 1.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 1 -2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. TABLE 1 -2. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank d Tye Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1-3 ACT.A Page 773 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1.6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 1 -3 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 1 -4 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 1 -5 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. ACT.A 1 -4 Page 774 of 869 TABLE 1 -3. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards existing assets Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline Initiative #-1)e p o Initiative # Description Initiative #-1)e p o Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description ACT.A 1 -4 Page 774 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX TABLE 1-4. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY Initiative # of Objectives' Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded Equal or an Under Existing Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? j Programs/ Budgets? Priori a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. ACT.A 1 -5 Page 775 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -5. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3, Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emca Hazard Type 1.,Prevcntion Protection Awareness Protection Scry •gs Ancy 6. Structural Projects Avalanche Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami Volcano Wildfire a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of mitigation types. 1.7 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1.8 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1-6 ACT.A Page 776 of 869 Updated November 2013 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL - PURPOSE DISTRICT UPDATE ANNEX TEMPLATE This document provides instructions for special - purpose districts participating in multi - partner hazard mitigation planning. These instructions are intended for districts that currently have a previously approved hazard mitigation plan. Assistance in completing the template will be available in the form of a workshop for all planning partners in November and technical assistance as requested and as funding allows. Any questions on completing the template should be directed to: Rob Flaner 208. 939.4391 Rob.FlanerOlTetraTech.com Fully completed templates must be completed and returned by: Friday, January 17, 2014. A NOTE ABOUT FORMATTING The template for the jurisdiction annex is a Microsoft Word document in a format that will be used in the final plan. Partners are asked to use this template so that a uniform product will be completed for each partner. Partners who do not have Microsoft Word capability may prepare the document in other formats, and the planning team will convert it to the Word format. Content should be entered within the yellow, highlighted text that is currently in the template, rather than creating text in another document and pasting it into the template. Text from another source will alter the style Special Distric Update Annex: This document provides instructions for completing the jurisdictional annex template for special purpose districts. Please refer all questions to: Rob Flaner 208.939.4391 rob.flariergtetratech.corri Please complete and return hy: Friday, January 17, 2014 Please email rcompleted template to: Kisten Gelino 425.482.780 ten. gelino (a�tetrate1 tech.coin kris Associated Materials• ` Along with the annex template and these instructions, you have been provided with other materials' with information that is needed for completing the template. Be sure to review these materials before you begin the process of filling in the template: SHELDUS historical event data Summary -of -loss matrix for the hazard mitigation plan, Results from the hazard mitigation plan questionnaire, Catalog of funding program' Catalog of mitigation alternatives, and Fact sheet on Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). and formatting of the document. The numbering in the document will be updated when completed annexes are combined into the final document. Please do not adjust any of this numbering. CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE In the chapter title at the top of page 1, type in the complete official name of your jurisdiction (West County Fire Protection District #1, Burgville Flood Protection District, etc.) replacing the yellow, highlighted text. ACT.A 1 Page 777 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e -mail address for the primary point of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan. In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction. JURISDICTION PROFILE Narrative Profile Please provide a brief summary to profile your jurisdiction. Include the purpose of the jurisdiction, the date of inception, the type of organization, the number of employees, the mode of operation (i.e., how operations are funded), the type of governing body, and who has adoptive authority. Describe who the jurisdiction's customers are (if applicable, include number of users or subscribers). Include a geographical description of the service area. Provide information in a style similar to the example provided in the box at right. This should be information that was not provided in the overall mitigation plan document. Please be sure to include in this profile description who will assume responsibility for the adoption of implementation of the plan. Example Jurisdiction; /V1 rrative P ofile. Humboldt Community Services District is i a special - purpose district created in 1952 to provide water, sewer, and street lighting', to the unincorporated area surrounding the City of Eureka known as Pine Hill & Cutten. The ! District's designated service areas expanded throughout the years to include other unincorporated areas of Humboldt County known as Myrtletown, Humboldt Hill, Fields Landing, King Salmon, and Freshwater. A five- member elected Board of Directors governs the District. The Board assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan. the General Manager will oversee its implementation. As of April 30, 2007, the 'District serves 7,305 water connections and 6,108 sewer connections, with a current staff of 21. Funding comes primarily through rates and revenue bonds. the plan and who will oversee the Summary Information Complete the bulleted list of summary information as follows: • Population Served —List the estimated population that your jurisdiction provides services to. If you do not know this number directly, create an estimate (e.g., the number of service connections times the average household size for the service area based on Census data). • Land Area Served —Enter the service area of your jurisdiction in acres or square miles. • Value of Area Served —Enter the approximate assessed value of your service area. If you do not have this information, the County should be able to provide a number using the County Assessor's database. • Land Area Owned —Enter the area of property owned by the jurisdiction in acres or square miles. • List of Critical Infrastructure/ Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction —List all infrastructure and equipment that is critical to your jurisdiction's operations and is located in 2 ACT.A Page 778 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template a natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the item and give its estimated replacement -cost value. Examples are as follows: Fire Districts — Apparatus and equipment housed in a facility that is located in a natural hazard risk zone. This is the equipment that is essential for you to deliver services to this area should a natural hazard occur. It is not necessary to provide a detailed inventory of each engine and truck and its contents. A summary will suffice, such as "5 Engines, 2 ladders, and their contents ". Do not list reserve equipment. Dike /Flood Control Districts —Miles of levees, pump stations, retention/detention ponds, tide gates, miles of ditches, etc., within natural hazard risk zones. Water Districts —Total length of pipe (it is not necessary to specify size and type), pump stations, treatment facilities, dams and reservoirs, within natural hazard risk zones. Public Utility Districts —Miles of power line (above ground and underground), generators, power generating sub - stations, miles of pipeline, etc., within natural hazard risk zones. School Districts — Anything within natural hazard risk zones, besides school buildings, that is critical for you to operate (e.g., school buses if you own a fleet of school buses). • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment —Enter total replacement -cost value of the critical infrastructure and equipment listed above. • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction —List all buildings and other facilities that are critical to your jurisdiction's operations and are located in a natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the facility and give its estimated replacement -cost value. • Total Value of Critical Facilities— Enter total replacement -cost value of the critical facilities listed above. • Current and Anticipated Service Trends— Enter a brief description on how your jurisdiction's services are projected to expand in the foreseeable future and why. Note any identified capital improvements needed to meet the projected expansion. Examples are as follows: For a Fire District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land uses will represent an increase in population and thus a projected increase in call volume. Our District is experiencing an average annual increase in call volume of 13 percent. For Dike /Drainage /Flood Control District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land use will result in an increase in impermeable surface within our service area and thus increase the demand on control facilities. For a Water District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land use will represent an increase in the number of housing units within the service area and thus represent an expansion of the district's delivery network. 3 ACT.A Page 779 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLAN List any federal, state, local or district laws, ordinances, codes and policies that govern your jurisdiction that include elements addressing hazard mitigation. Describe how these laws may support or conflict with the mitigation strategies of this plan. List any other plans, studies or other documents that address hazard mitigation issues for your jurisdiction or may allow you to support or enhance actions identified in this plan. Note whether the documents could have a positive or a negative impact on the mitigation strategies of this plan. Some examples of plans that may be relevant include Emergency Response Plan, Continuity of Operations Plan, Recovery Plan, and Capital Improvement Program. "None applicable" is a possible answer for this section. JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY In Table 1 -1, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it caused. Please refer to the SHELDUS historical event data included on your cd.. Potential sources of damage information include: • Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state • Insurance claims data • Newspaper archives • Other plans /documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.) • Citizen input. HAZARD RISK RANKING The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area. The risk - ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and operations. A detailed discussion of the concepts associated with risk ranking is provided in the overall hazard mitigation plan. The instructions below outline steps for assessing risk in your jurisdiction in order to develop results that are to be included in the template. Determine Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. In Table 1, list the probability of occurrence for each hazard as it pertains to your jurisdiction, along with its probability factor, as follows: • High — Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium — Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2) • Low — Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1) • None —If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area. For example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no 4 ACT.A Page 780 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. TABLE 1. HAZARD PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE Hazard Type Probability Probability Factor Determine Potential Impacts of Each Hazard The impact of each hazard was divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on your jurisdiction's operations. These categories were also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on operations was assigned a weighting factor of 1. Steps to assess each type of impact are described below. Impacts on People To assess impacts on people, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. In Table 2, list the potential impact of each hazard on people in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) 5 ACT.A Page 781 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 2. HAZARD IMPACT ON PEOPLE Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 3) Impacts on Property To assess impacts on property, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total value of buildings, equipment and infrastructure that is exposed to the hazard event. In Table 3, enter the cost estimates for potential damage to the jurisdiction's exposed buildings, equipment and infrastructure, taken from the "Summary of Loss" matrix provided with these instructions. TABLE 3. COST ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES Hazard type Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Jurisdiction- Owned Facilities Exposed to the Hazard In Table 4, list the potential impact of each hazard on property in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor. Determine impact based on damage estimates from Table 3, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) 6 ACT.A Page 782 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 4. HAZARD IMPACT ON PROPERTY Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 2) Impacts on the Jurisdiction's Operations Impact on operations is assessed based on estimates of how long it will take your jurisdiction to become 100 percent operable after a hazard event. The estimated functional downtime for critical facilities has been estimated for most hazards within the planning area. In Table 5, list the potential impact of each hazard on the operations of your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High = functional downtime of 365 days or more (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium = Functional downtime of 180 to 364 days (Impact Factor = 2) • Low = Functional downtime of 180 days or less (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact = No functional downtime is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) You will need to consult the risk assessment for this task. The critical facilities exposed to each hazard have been identified, and the impacts on operability have been estimated for most of the hazards within the planning area. If the functional downtime component has not been provided for a hazard in the risk assessment, consider the impact on operability of that hazard to be low. ACT.A Page 783 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 5. HAZARD IMPACT ON OPERATIONS Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 1 Determine Risk Rating for Each Hazard A risk rating for each hazard is determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and operations: • Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + operations} Using the results developed in Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5, complete Table 6 to calculate a risk rating for each hazard of concern. TABLE 6. HAZARD RISK RATING Hazard Type Probability Factor (P) Sum of Weighted Impact Factors on People, Property & Operations (I) Risk Rating (P !x I) 8 ACT.A Page 784 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Complete Risk Ranking in Template Once Table 6 has been completed above, complete Table 1 -2 in your template. The hazard with the highest risk rating in Table 6 should be listed at the top of Table 1 -2 and given a rank of 1; the hazard with the second highest rating should be listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings should be given the same rank. It is important to note that this exercise should not override your subjective assessment of relative risk based on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of the template. Remember, one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of initiatives in your plan. If you identify an initiative with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard you have ranked low, that project will not be competitive in the grant arena. STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES In this section, provide a status report of actions recommended in your previous hazard mitigation plan. You must be able to reconcile your original action plan to meet FEMA requirements for plan updates. Enter all the recommended actions from your previous plan in Table 1 -3 and put a ✓ in one of the following three columns for each action to indicate its status: • Completed —If the action has been completed, place a check mark in this column and enter a brief explanation in the "Comments" column (e.g., "Action #WC31 was completed by the Public Works Department on 3/12/2009 "). Ongoing actions, such as annual outreach projects or maintenance activities, should also be indicated as "Completed," with a statement about the ongoing nature of the action provided in the "Comments" column (e.g., "Ongoing action, implemented annually by Community Development Department "). • Carry Over to Plan Update —If you did not complete an action and want to carry it over to your updated action plan, place a check mark in this column, and enter an explanatory statement in the comment section (e.g., "Action carried over as Action #WC14 in updated action plan "). • Removed; No Longer Feasible —If you want to remove an action because you have determined that it is no longer feasible, place a check mark in this column. "No longer feasible" means that you have determined that you do not have the capability to implement the action or that the action does not serve the best interest of your jurisdiction. Lack of funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding for an action is no longer available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the action is no longer feasible (e.g., "Action no longer considered feasible due to lack of political support to complete it. ") HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Action Plan Matrix Identify the initiatives your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. Refer to the mitigation catalog for mitigation options you might want to consider. Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of initiatives: 9 ACT.A Page 785 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Select initiatives that are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and guiding principles of the hazard mitigation plan. • Identify projects where benefits exceed costs. • Include any project that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility. • Know what is and is not grant- eligible under the HMGP and PDM (see fact sheet provided). Listing HMGP or PDM as a potential funding source for an ineligible project will be a red flag when this plan goes through review. If you have projects that are not HMGP or PDM grant eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section. • Although you should identify at least one initiative for your highest ranked risk, a hazard - specific project is not required for every hazard. If you have not identified an earthquake related project, and an earthquake occurs that causes damage in your jurisdiction, you are not discounted from HMGP project grant eligibility. Complete Table 1 -4 for all the initiatives you have identified: Wording Your Initiative Descriptions :+ Descriptions of your initiatives need not provide great detail. That will come when you apply for a project grant. Provide enough information to identify the project's scope and impact. The following are typical descriptions for an action plan initiative: • Initiative 1— Address Repetitive Loss properties. Through targeted mitigation, acquire, relocate or retrofit the five repetitive loss structures in the County as funding opportunities become available. Initiative 2-Perform a non- structural, seismic retrofit of City Hall. Initiative 3— Acquire floodplain property in the Smith subdivision. Initiative 4— Enhance the County flood warning capability by joining the NOAA "Storm Ready" program. • Enter the initiative number and description. • Indicate whether the initiative mitigates hazards for new or existing assets. • Identify the specific hazards the initiative will mitigate. • Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the initiative addresses. Approved objectives have been included in your tool kit. • Indicate who will be the lead in administering the project. This will most likely be your governing body. • Identify funding sources for the project. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share. • Indicate the time line as "short term" (1 to 5 years) or "long term" (5 years or greater). Technical assistance will provided upon request. Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives Complete the information in Table 1 -5 as follows: • Initiative #— Indicate the initiative number from Table 1 -4. • # of Objectives Met —Enter the number of objectives the initiative will meet. • Benefits —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: – High: Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. 10 ACT.A Page 786 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Medium: Project will have a long -term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. Low: Long -term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. • Costs —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project. Medium: Could budget for under existing work -plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing ongoing program. If you know the estimated cost of a project because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the amount. • Do Benefits Exceed the Cost? —Enter "Yes" or "No." This is a qualitative assessment. Enter "Yes" if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter "No" if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.) • Is the Project Grant - Eligible? —Enter "Yes" or "No." Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP and PDM. • Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets? —Enter "Yes" or "No." In other words, is this initiative currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as grants? • Priority— Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short term project) once funded. Medium: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. Low: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). This prioritization is a simple review to determine that the initiatives you have identified meet one of the primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP /PDM project grants. The prioritization will identify any projects whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs. Analysis of Mitigation Actions Complete Table 1 -6 summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following six mitigation types: 11 ACT.A Page 787 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Prevention — Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection — Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter - resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness— Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection — Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services — Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects — Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK /VULNERABILITY In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates such as EPA's Bio- terrorism assessment requirement for water districts. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Use this section add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this template. As you complete your template, please fo Kristen Gelino, Tetra Tech, Inca 425.482.7801 step, Gelino(a TetraTech.com 12 ACT.A Page 788 of 869 CHAPTER 1. INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX 1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address 1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE Insert Narrative Profile Information, per Instructions Alternate Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction: • Population Served —Insert Population as of Insert Date of Population Count • Land Area Served —Insert Area • Value of Area Served —The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • Land Area Owned —Insert Area • List of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction: Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment —The total value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction: Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item • Total Value of Critical Facilities —The total value of critical facilities owned by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • Current and Anticipated Service Trends —Insert Summary Description of Service Trends 1.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan: • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan 1-1 ACT.A Page 789 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan 1.4 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 1 -1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. TABLE 1 -1. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment 1-2 ACT.A Page 790 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX 1.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 1 -2 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. TABLE 1 -2. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank d Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1-3 ACT.A Page 791 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1.6 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 1 -3 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. TABLE 1 -3. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Status Action # Co' p Carry Over Removed; to Plan No Longer tcd Update Feasible Comments 1-4 ACT.A Page 792 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX 1.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 1 -4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 1 -5 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 1 -6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. ACT.A 1 -5 Page 793 of 869 TABLE 1-4. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline Included in Previous Plan? Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description ACT.A 1 -5 Page 793 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -5. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY Initiative # of Objectives' Do Benefits Equal or Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? IsP an ct Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Programs/ Budgets? Priori Eligible`? a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. 1-6 ACT.A Page 794 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 1 -6. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3, Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emca Hazard Type 1.,Prevcntion Protection Awareness Protection Scry �gs ncy 6. Structural s Projects Avalanche Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami Volcano Wildfire a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of mitigation types. 1.8 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1-7 ACT.A Page 795 of 869 King County Regional IIu:und Mitigation Plan [ 'plate Volume 2: Planning Partner 1 nnex e∎ Appendix C3. Annex Instructions and Templates for Fire Districts ACT A Page 797 of 869 Updated November 2013 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FIRE DISTRICT ANNEX TEMPLATE This document provides instructions for fire districts participating in multi - partner hazard mitigation planning. These instructions are intended for districts that do not currently have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan. Assistance in completing the template will be available in the form of a workshop for all planning partners in November and technical assistance as requested and as funding allows. Any questions on completing the template should be directed to: Rob Flaner 208. 939.4391 Rob.FlanerOITetraTech.com Fully completed templates must be completed and returned by: Friday, January 17, 2014. A NOTE ABOUT FORMATTING The template for the jurisdiction annex is a Microsoft Word document in a format that will be used in the final plan. Partners are asked to use this template so that a uniform product will be completed for each partner. Partners who do not have Microsoft Word capability may prepare the document in other formats, and the planning team will convert it to the Word format. Content should be entered within the yellow, highlighted text that is currently in the template, rather than creating text in another document and pasting it into the template. Text from another source will alter the style Fire District Annex;: This document provides instructions for completing, the jurisdictional annex template for fire districts. Please refer all questions to. Rob Flaner 208.939.4391 rob.flanergtetratech.co Please complete and return by: Friday, January 17, 2014 Please email completed template to: Kristen Gelino 425.482.7801 tetratech.co kris Associated Materials: Along with the annex template and these instructions, you have laeen provided with other materials with information that is needed for completing the template. Be sure to review these materials before you begin the process of filling in the template: • SHELDUS historical event data Summary -of -loss matrix for the hazard mitigation plan, Results from the hazard mitigation plan questionnaire, Catalog of funding programs Catalog of mitigation alternatives, and Fact sheet on Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). and formatting of the document. The numbering in the document will be updated when completed annexes are combined into the final document. Please do not adjust any of the numbering. CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE In the chapter title at the top of page 1, type in the complete official name of your jurisdiction (West County Fire Protection District #1, Burgville Flood Protection District, etc.) replacing the yellow, highlighted text. ACT.A 1 Page 799 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e -mail address for the primary point of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan. In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction. JURISDICTION PROFILE Narrative Profile Please provide a brief summary to profile your jurisdiction. Include the purpose of the jurisdiction, the date of inception, the type of organization, the number of employees, the mode of operation (i.e., how operations are funded), the type of governing body, and who has adoptive authority. Describe who the jurisdiction's customers are (if applicable, include number of users or subscribers). Include a geographical description of the service area. Provide information in a style similar to the example provided in the box at right. This should be information that was not provided in the overall mitigation plan document. Please be sure to include who will assume responsibility for the adoption of the plan and who will oversee the implementation of the plan. Example .Inrischctcon'IV rrative P ofile. Humboldt Community Services District is i a special - purpose district created in 1952 to provide water, sewer, and street lighting to the unincorporated area surrounding the City of Eureka known as Pine Hill & Cutters. The ! District's designated service areas expanded throughout the years to include other unincorporated areas of Humboldt County known as Myrtletown, Humboldt Hill, Fields Landing, King Salmon, and Freshwater. A five- member elected Board of Directors governs the District. The Board assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan. the General Manager will oversee its implementation. As of April 30, 2007, the 'District serves 7,305 water connections and 6,108 sewer connections, with a current staff of 21. Funding comes primarily through rates and revenue bonds. Summary Information Complete the bulleted list of summary information as follows: • Population Served —List the estimated population that your jurisdiction provides services to. If you do not know this number directly, create an estimate (e.g., the number of service connections times the average household size for the service area based on Census data). • Land Area Served —Enter the service area of your jurisdiction in acres or square miles. • Value of Area Served —Enter the approximate assessed value of your service area. If you do not have this information, the County should be able to provide a number using the County Assessor's database. • Land Area Owned —Enter the area of property owned by the jurisdiction in acres or square miles. • List of Critical Infrastructure/ Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction —List all infrastructure and equipment that is critical to your jurisdiction's operations and is located in a natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the item and give its estimated replacement -cost value. Example is as follows: 2 ACT.A Page 800 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Fire Districts — Apparatus and equipment housed in a facility that is located in a natural hazard risk zone. This is the equipment that is essential for you to deliver services to this area should a natural hazard occur. It is not necessary to provide a detailed inventory of each engine and truck and its contents. A summary will suffice, such as "5 Engines, 2 ladders, and their contents ". Do not list reserve equipment. • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment —Enter total replacement -cost value of the critical infrastructure and equipment listed above. • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction —List all buildings and other facilities that are critical to your jurisdiction's operations and are located in a natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the facility and give its estimated replacement -cost value. • Total Value of Critical Facilities— Enter total replacement -cost value of the critical facilities listed above. • Current and Anticipated Service Trends— Enter a brief description on how your jurisdiction's services are projected to expand in the foreseeable future and why. Note any identified capital improvements needed to meet the projected expansion. Examples are as follows: For a Fire District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land uses will represent an increase in population and thus a projected increase in call volume. Our District is experiencing an average annual increase in call volume of 13 percent. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLAN List any federal, state, local or district laws, ordinances, codes and policies that govern your jurisdiction that include elements addressing hazard mitigation. Describe how these laws may support or conflict with the mitigation strategies of this plan. List any other plans, studies or other documents that address hazard mitigation issues for your jurisdiction or may allow you to support or enhance actions identified in this plan. Note whether the documents could have a positive or a negative impact on the mitigation strategies of this plan. Some examples of plans that may be relevant include Emergency Response Plan, Continuity of Operations Plan, Recovery Plan, and Capital Improvement Program. "None applicable" is a possible answer for this section. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS If you know your jurisdiction's Public Protection number, please enter it under the "Classification" column in Table 1 -1. If you do not know if your jurisdiction participates in this program or do not know the number, please leave it blank and the Planning Team will provide this information for you. No entries are needed for the other items in Table 1 -1. JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY In Table 1 -2, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it caused. Please refer to the SHELDUS historical event data included on your dvd. Potential sources of damage information include: • Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state • Insurance claims data • Newspaper archives 3 ACT.A Page 801 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Other plans /documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.) • Citizen input. HAZARD RISK RANKING The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area. The risk - ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and operations. A detailed discussion of the concepts associated with risk ranking is provided in the overall hazard mitigation plan. The instructions below outline steps for assessing risk in your jurisdiction in order to develop results that are to be included in the template. Determine Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. In Table 1, list the probability of occurrence for each hazard as it pertains to your jurisdiction, along with its probability factor, as follows: • High — Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium — Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2) • Low — Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1) • None —If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) TABLE 1. HAZARD PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE Hazard Type Probability Probability Factor 4 ACT.A Page 802 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area. For example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. Determine Potential Impacts of Each Hazard The impact of each hazard was divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on your jurisdiction's operations. These categories were also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on operations was assigned a weighting factor of 1. Steps to assess each type of impact are described below. Impacts on People To assess impacts on people, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. In Table 2, list the potential impact of each hazard on people in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 2. HAZARD IMPACT ON PEOPLE Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 3 5 ACT.A Page 803 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Impacts on Property To assess impacts on property, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total value of buildings, equipment and infrastructure that is exposed to the hazard event. In Table 3, enter the cost estimates for potential damage to the jurisdiction's exposed buildings, equipment and infrastructure, taken from the "Summary of Loss" matrix provided with these instructions. TABLE 3. COST ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES Hazard type Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Jurisdiction Owned Facilities Exposed to the Hazard In Table 4, list the potential impact of each hazard on property in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor. Determine impact based on damage estimates from Table 3, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) 6 ACT.A Page 804 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 4. HAZARD IMPACT ON PROPERTY Hazard Type pact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 2 Impacts on the Jurisdiction's Operations Impact on operations is assessed based on estimates of how long it will take your jurisdiction to become 100 percent operable after a hazard event. The estimated functional downtime for critical facilities has been estimated for most hazards within the planning area. In Table 5, list the potential impact of each hazard on the operations of your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High = functional downtime of 365 days or more (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium = Functional downtime of 180 to 364 days (Impact Factor = 2) • Low = Functional downtime of 180 days or less (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact = No functional downtime is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 5. HAZARD IMPACT ON OPERATIONS Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor(Unweighted Factor x 1 ACT.A Page 805 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template You will need to consult the risk assessment for this task. The critical facilities exposed to each hazard have been identified, and the impacts on operability have been estimated for most of the hazards within the planning area. If the functional downtime component has not been provided for a hazard in the risk assessment, consider the impact on operability of that hazard to be low. Determine Risk Rating for Each Hazard A risk rating for each hazard is determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and operations: • Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + operations} Using the results developed in Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5, complete Table 6 to calculate a risk rating for each hazard of concern. TABLE 6. HAZARD RISK RATING Hazard Type Probability Factor (P) Sum of Weighted Impact Factors on People, Property & Operations (I) Risk Rating (P !x I) Complete Risk Ranking in Template Once Table 6 has been completed above, complete Table 1 -3 in your template. The hazard with the highest risk rating in Table 6 should be listed at the top of Table 1 -3 and given a rank of 1; the hazard with the second highest rating should be listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings should be given the same rank. It is important to note that this exercise should not override your subjective assessment of relative risk based on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of the template. Remember, one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of initiatives in your plan. If you identify an initiative with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard you have ranked low, that project will not be competitive in the grant arena. 8 ACT.A Page 806 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Action Plan Matrix Identify the initiatives your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. Refer to the mitigation catalog for mitigation options you might want to consider. Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of initiatives: • Select initiatives that are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and guiding principles of the hazard mitigation plan. • Identify projects where benefits exceed costs. • Include any project that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility. • Know what is and is not grant- eligible under the HMGP and PDM (see fact sheet provided). Listing HMGP or PDM as a potential funding source for an ineligible project will be a red flag when this plan goes through review. If you have projects that are not HMGP or PDM grant eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section. Wording Your Initiative Descriptions: Descriptions of your initiatives need not provide great detail. That will come when you apply for a project grant. Provide enough information to identify the project's scope and impact. The following are typical descriptions for an • plan initiative: • Initiative 1-Address Repetitive Loss properties. Through targeted mitigation, acquire, relocate or retrofit the five repetitive loss structures in the County as funding opportunities become available. Initiative 2— Perform a non- structural, seismic retrofit of City, Hall. Initiative 3- Acquire floodplain property in the Smith subdivision. Initiative 4- Enhance the County flood warning capability by joining the NOAA "Storm Ready" program. • Although you should identify at least one initiative for your highest ranked risk, a hazard - specific project is not required for every hazard. If you have not identified an earthquake related project, and an earthquake occurs that causes damage in your jurisdiction, you are not discounted from HMGP project grant eligibility. Complete Table 1 -4 for all the initiatives you have identified: • Enter the initiative number and description. • Indicate whether the initiative mitigates hazards for new or existing assets. • Identify the specific hazards the initiative will mitigate. • Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the initiative addresses. Approved objectives have been included in your tool kit. • Indicate who will be the lead in administering the project. This will most likely be your governing body. • Identify funding sources for the project. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share. • Indicate the time line as "short term" (1 to 5 years) or "long term" (5 years or greater). Technical assistance will provided upon request. Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives Complete the information in Table 1 -5 as follows: • Initiative #— Indicate the initiative number from Table 1 -4. ACT.A 9 Page 807 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • # of Objectives Met —Enter the number of objectives the initiative will meet. • Benefits —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. Medium: Project will have a long -term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. Low: Long -term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. • Costs —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project. Medium: Could budget for under existing work -plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing ongoing program. If you know the estimated cost of a project because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the amount. • Do Benefits Equal or Exceed the Cost? —Enter "Yes" or "No." This is a qualitative assessment. Enter "Yes" if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter "No" if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.) • Is the Project Grant - Eligible? —Enter "Yes" or "No." Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP and PDM. • Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets? —Enter "Yes" or "No." In other words, is this initiative currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as grants? • Priority— Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short term project) once funded. Medium: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. Low: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). This prioritization is a simple review to determine that the initiatives you have identified meet one of the primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP /PDM project grants. The prioritization will identify any projects whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs. 10 ACT.A Page 808 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Analysis of Mitigation Actions Complete Table 1 -6 summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following six mitigation types: • Prevention — Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection — Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter - resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness— Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection — Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services — Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects — Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK /VULNERABILITY In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates such as EPA's Bio- terrorism assessment requirement for water districts. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Use this section to add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this template. As you complete your template, please forwa Kristen Gelino, Tetra Tech, Inc' 425.482.7801 Kristen.Gelino@TetraTech.com 11 ACT.A Page 809 of 869 CHAPTER 1. INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX 1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Primary Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address POINT OF CONTACT 1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE Insert Narrative Profile Information, per Instructions Alternate Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction: • Population Served —Insert Population as of Insert Date of Population Count • Land Area Served —Insert Area • Value of Area Served —The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • Land Area Owned —Insert Area • List of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction: Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment —The total value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction: Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item • Total Value of Critical Facilities —The total value of critical facilities owned by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • Current and Anticipated Service Trends —Insert Summary Description of Service Trends 1.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan: • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan 1-1 ACT.A Page 811 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan 1.4 CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS The jurisdiction's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 1 -1. TABLE 1 -1. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Public Protection Storm Ready Firewise Tsunami Ready 1.5 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 1 -2 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. TABLE 1 -2. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment 1-2 ACT.A Page 812 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX 1.6 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 1 -3 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. TABLE 1 -3. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank d Tye Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1-3 ACT.A Page 813 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 1 -4 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 1 -5 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 1 -6 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. ACT.A 1 -4 Page 814 of 869 TABLE 1-4. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or Hazards existing assets Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline Initiative #-1)e p o Initiative # Description Initiative #-1)e p o Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description Initiative #Description ACT.A 1 -4 Page 814 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME ANNEX TABLE 1 -5. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY Initiative # of Objectives' Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded Equal or an Under Existing Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? j Programs/ Budgets? Priori a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. ACT.A 1 -5 Page 815 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -6. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3, Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emca Hazard Type 1.,Prevcntion Protection Awareness Protection Scry •gs Ancy 6. Structural Projects Avalanche Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami Volcano Wildfire a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of mitigation types. 1.8 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1-6 ACT.A Page 816 of 869 Updated November 2013 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FIRE DISTRICT UPDATE ANNEX TEMPLATE This document provides instructions for fire districts participating in multi - partner hazard mitigation planning. These instructions are intended for districts that currently have a previously approved hazard mitigation plan. Assistance in completing the template will be available in the form of a workshop for all planning partners in November and technical assistance as requested and as funding allows. Any questions on completing the template should be directed to: Rob Flaner 208. 939.4391 Rob.FlanerOlTetraTech.com Fully completed templates must be completed and returned by Friday, January 17, 2014. A NOTE ABOUT FORMATTING The template for the jurisdiction annex is a Microsoft Word document in a format that will be used in the final plan. Partners are asked to use this template so that a uniform product will be completed for each partner. Partners who do not have Microsoft Word capability may prepare the document in other formats, and the planning team will convert it to the Word format. Content should be entered within the yellow, highlighted text that is currently in the template, rather than creating text in another document and pasting it into the template. Text from another source will alter the style and formatting of the document. The numbering in the document will be updated when completed annexes document. Please do not adjust any of this numbering. Fire District Update Annex: This document provides instructions for completing, the jurisdictional annex template for fire districts. Please refer all questions to. Rob Flaner 208.939.4391 rob.flanergtetratech.co Please complete and return by: Friday, January 17, 2014 Please email completed template to: Kristen Gelino 425.482.7801 ! ilgelino@tetratech.co kris Associated Materials: Along with the annex template and these instructions; you have been provided with other materials with information that is needed for completing the template. Be sure to review these materials before you begin the process of filling in the template: • SHELDUS historical event data Summary -of- loss matrix for the hazard mitigation plan, Results from the hazard mitigation plan questionnaire, Catalog of funding program' Catalog of mitigation alternatives, and Fact sheet on Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre - Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM). are combined into the final CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE In the chapter title at the top of page 1, type in the complete official name of your jurisdiction (West County Fire Protection District #1, Burgville Flood Protection District, etc.) replacing the yellow, highlighted text. ACT.A 1 Page 817 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Please provide the name, title, mailing address, telephone number, and e -mail address for the primary point of contact for your jurisdiction. This should be the person responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating the annex for your jurisdiction. This person should also be the principle liaison between your jurisdiction and the Steering Committee overseeing development of this plan. In addition, designate an alternate point of contact. This would be a person to contact should the primary point of contact be unavailable or no longer employed by the jurisdiction. JURISDICTION PROFILE Narrative Profile Please provide a brief summary to profile your jurisdiction. Include the purpose of the jurisdiction, the date of inception, the type of organization, the number of employees, the mode of operation (i.e., how operations are funded), the type of governing body, and who has adoptive authority. Describe who the jurisdiction's customers are (if applicable, include number of users or subscribers). Include a geographical description of the service area. Provide information in a style similar to the example provided in the box at right. This should be information that was not provided in the overall mitigation plan document. Please be sure to include in this profile description who will assume responsibility for the implementation of the plan. Example .Innsdactaon /V Humboldt Community Services District is i a special - purpose district created in 1952 to provide water, sewer, and street lighting to the unincorporated area surrounding the City of Eureka known as Pine Hill & Cutten. The District's designated service areas expanded throughout the years to include other unincorporated areas of Humboldt County known as Myrtletown, Humboldt Hill, Fields Landing, King Salmon, and Freshwater. A five- member elected Board of Directors governs the District. The Board assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan. the General Manager will oversee its implementation. As of April 30, 2007, the District serves 7,305 water connections and 6,108 sewer connections, with a current staff of 21. Funding comes primarily through rates and revenue bonds. adoption of the plan and who will oversee the Summary Information Complete the bulleted list of summary information as follows: • Population Served —List the estimated population that your jurisdiction provides services to. If you do not know this number directly, create an estimate (e.g., the number of service connections times the average household size for the service area based on Census data). • Land Area Served —Enter the service area of your jurisdiction in acres or square miles. • Value of Area Served —Enter the approximate assessed value of your service area. If you do not have this information, the County should be able to provide a number using the County Assessor's database. • Land Area Owned —Enter the area of property owned by the jurisdiction in acres or square miles. • List of Critical Infrastructure/ Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction —List all infrastructure and equipment that is critical to your jurisdiction's operations and is located in a natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the item and give its estimated replacement -cost value. Examples are as follows: 2 ACT.A Page 818 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Fire Districts — Apparatus and equipment housed in a facility that is located in a natural hazard risk zone. This is the equipment that is essential for you to deliver services to this area should a natural hazard occur. It is not necessary to provide a detailed inventory of each engine and truck and its contents. A summary will suffice, such as "5 Engines, 2 ladders, and their contents ". Do not list reserve equipment. • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment —Enter total replacement -cost value of the critical infrastructure and equipment listed above. • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction —List all buildings and other facilities that are critical to your jurisdiction's operations and are located in a natural hazard risk zone. Briefly describe the facility and give its estimated replacement -cost value. • Total Value of Critical Facilities— Enter total replacement -cost value of the critical facilities listed above. • Current and Anticipated Service Trends— Enter a brief description on how your jurisdiction's services are projected to expand in the foreseeable future and why. Note any identified capital improvements needed to meet the projected expansion. Examples are as follows: For a Fire District: Portions of the jurisdiction have experienced a 13 percent growth over the last five years. Land use designations allow for an increase in light commercial and residential land uses within the service area. This increase in density of land uses will represent an increase in population and thus a projected increase in call volume. Our District is experiencing an average annual increase in call volume of 13 percent. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLAN List any federal, state, local or district laws, ordinances, codes and policies that govern your jurisdiction that include elements addressing hazard mitigation. Describe how these laws may support or conflict with the mitigation strategies of this plan. List any other plans, studies or other documents that address hazard mitigation issues for your jurisdiction or may allow you to support or enhance actions identified in this plan. Note whether the documents could have a positive or a negative impact on the mitigation strategies of this plan. Some examples of plans that may be relevant include Emergency Response Plan, Continuity of Operations Plan, Recovery Plan, and Capital Improvement Program. "None applicable" is a possible answer for this section. CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS If you know your jurisdiction's Public Protection number, please enter it under the "Classification" column in Table 1 -1. If you do not know if your jurisdiction participates in this program or do not know the number, please leave it blank and the Planning Team will provide this information for you. No entries are needed for the other items in Table 1 -1. JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY In Table 1 -2, list in chronological order (most recent first) any natural hazard event that has caused damage to your jurisdiction since 1975. Include the date of the event and the estimated dollar amount of damage it caused. Please refer to the SHELDUS historical event data included on your cd.. Potential sources of damage information include: • Preliminary damage estimates your jurisdiction filed with the county or state • Insurance claims data • Newspaper archives 3 ACT.A Page 819 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Other plans /documents that deal with emergency management (safety element of a comprehensive plan, emergency response plan, etc.) • Citizen input. HAZARD RISK RANKING The risk ranking performed for the overall planning area is presented in the risk assessment section of the overall hazard mitigation plan. However, each jurisdiction has differing degrees of risk exposure and vulnerability and, therefore, needs to rank risk for its own area, using the same methodology as used for the overall planning area. The risk - ranking exercise assesses two variables for each hazard: its probability of occurrence; and its potential impact on people, property and operations. A detailed discussion of the concepts associated with risk ranking is provided in the overall hazard mitigation plan. The instructions below outline steps for assessing risk in your jurisdiction in order to develop results that are to be included in the template. Determine Probability of Occurrence for Each Hazard A probability factor is assigned based on how often a hazard is likely to occur. In Table 1, list the probability of occurrence for each hazard as it pertains to your jurisdiction, along with its probability factor, as follows: • High — Hazard event is likely to occur within 25 years (Probability Factor = 3) • Medium — Hazard event is likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 2) • Low — Hazard event is not likely to occur within 100 years (Probability Factor = 1) • None —If there is no exposure to a hazard, there is no probability of occurrence (Probability Factor = 0) TABLE 1. HAZARD PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE Hazard Type Probability Probability Factor The probability of occurrence of a hazard event is generally based on past hazard events in an area. For example, if your jurisdiction has experienced two damaging floods in the last 25 years, the probability of occurrence is high for flooding and scores a 3 under this category. If your jurisdiction has experienced no 4 ACT.A Page 820 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template damage from landslides in the last 100 years, your probability of occurrence for landslide is low, and scores a 1 under this category. Determine Potential Impacts of Each Hazard The impact of each hazard was divided into three categories: impacts on people, impacts on property, and impacts on your jurisdiction's operations. These categories were also assigned weighted values. Impact on people was assigned a weighting factor of 3, impact on property was assigned a weighting factor of 2 and impact on operations was assigned a weighting factor of 1. Steps to assess each type of impact are described below. Impacts on People To assess impacts on people, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total population exposed to the hazard event. The degree of impact on individuals will vary and is not measurable, so the calculation assumes for simplicity and consistency that all people exposed to a hazard because they live in a hazard zone will be equally impacted when a hazard event occurs. In Table 2, list the potential impact of each hazard on people in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the population is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the population is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 2. HAZARD IMPACT ON PEOPLE Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 3 Impacts on Property To assess impacts on property, values are assigned based on the percentage of the total value of buildings, equipment and infrastructure that is exposed to the hazard event. In Table 3, enter the cost estimates for potential damage to the jurisdiction's exposed buildings, equipment and infrastructure, taken from the "Summary of Loss" matrix provided with these instructions. 5 ACT.A Page 821 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 3. COST ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES Hazard type Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Jurisdiction- Owned Facilities Exposed to the Hazard In Table 4, list the potential impact of each hazard on property in your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor. Determine impact based on damage estimates from Table 3, as follows: • High Impact -30% or more of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium Impact -15% to 29% of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 2) • Low Impact -14% or less of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to the hazard (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact —None of the total assessed property value of facilities, equipment and infrastructure is exposed to a hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 4. HAZARD IMPACT ON PROPERTY Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 2' ACT.A 6 Page 822 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template Impacts on the Jurisdiction's Operations Impact on operations is assessed based on estimates of how long it will take your jurisdiction to become 100 percent operable after a hazard event. The estimated functional downtime for critical facilities has been estimated for most hazards within the planning area. In Table 5, list the potential impact of each hazard on the operations of your jurisdiction, along with its impact factor, as follows: • High = functional downtime of 365 days or more (Impact Factor = 3) • Medium = Functional downtime of 180 to 364 days (Impact Factor = 2) • Low = Functional downtime of 180 days or less (Impact Factor = 1) • No Impact = No functional downtime is estimated from the hazard (Impact Factor = 0) TABLE 5. HAZARD IMPACT ON OPERATIONS Hazard Type Impact Impact Factor Weighted Impact Factor (Unweighted Factor x 1 You will need to consult the risk assessment for this task. The critical facilities exposed to each hazard have been identified, and the impacts on operability have been estimated for most of the hazards within the planning area. If the functional downtime component has not been provided for a hazard in the risk assessment, consider the impact on operability of that hazard to be low. Determine Risk Rating for Each Hazard A risk rating for each hazard is determined by multiplying the assigned probability factor by the sum of the weighted impact factors for people, property and operations: • Risk Rating = Probability Factor x Weighted Impact Factor {people + property + operations} Using the results developed in Tables 1, 2, 4 and 5, complete Table 6 to calculate a risk rating for each hazard of concern. ACT.A Page 823 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template TABLE 6. HAZARD RISK RATING Hazard Type Probability Sum of Weighted Impact Factors on Factor (P) People, Property & Operations (I) Risk Rating (P !x I) Complete Risk Ranking in Template Once Table 6 has been completed above, complete Table 1 -3 in your template. The hazard with the highest risk rating in Table 6 should be listed at the top of Table 1 -3 and given a rank of 1; the hazard with the second highest rating should be listed second with a rank of 2; and so on. Two hazards with equal risk ratings should be given the same rank. It is important to note that this exercise should not override your subjective assessment of relative risk based on your knowledge of the history of natural hazard events in your jurisdiction. If this risk ranking exercise generates results other that what you know based on substantiated data and documentation, you may alter the ranking based on this knowledge. If this is the case, please note this fact in the comments at the end of the template. Remember, one of the purposes of this exercise is to support the selection and prioritization of initiatives in your plan. If you identify an initiative with a high priority that mitigates the risk of a hazard you have ranked low, that project will not be competitive in the grant arena. STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES In this section, provide a status report of actions recommended in your previous hazard mitigation plan. You must be able to reconcile your original action plan to meet FEMA requirements for plan updates. Enter all the recommended actions from your previous plan in Table 1 -4 and put a ✓ in one of the following three columns for each action to indicate its status: • Completed —If the action has been completed, place a check mark in this column and enter a brief explanation in the "Comments" column (e.g., "Action #WC31 was completed by the Public Works Department on 3/12/2009 "). Ongoing actions, such as annual outreach projects or maintenance activities, should also be indicated as "Completed," with a statement about the ongoing nature of the action provided in the "Comments" column (e.g., "Ongoing action, implemented annually by Community Development Department "). • Carry Over to Plan Update —If you did not complete an action and want to carry it over to your updated action plan, place a check mark in this column, and enter an explanatory statement in the comment section (e.g., "Action carried over as Action #WC14 in updated action plan "). 8 ACT.A Page 824 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Removed; No Longer Feasible —If you want to remove an action because you have determined that it is no longer feasible, place a check mark in this column. "No longer feasible" means that you have determined that you do not have the capability to implement the action or that the action does not serve the best interest of your jurisdiction. Lack of funding does not mean that it is no longer feasible, unless the sole source of funding for an action is no longer available. Place a comment in the comment section explaining why the action is no longer feasible (e.g., "Action no longer considered feasible due to lack of political support to complete it. ") HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Action Plan Matrix Identify the initiatives your jurisdiction would like to pursue with this plan. Refer to the mitigation catalog for mitigation options you might want to consider. Be sure to consider the following factors in your selection of initiatives: • Select initiatives that are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and guiding principles of the hazard mitigation plan. • Identify projects where benefits exceed costs. • Include any project that your jurisdiction has committed to pursuing regardless of grant eligibility. • Know what is and is not grant- eligible under the HMGP and PDM (see fact sheet provided). Listing HMGP or PDM as a potential funding source for an ineligible project will be a red flag when this plan goes through review. If you have projects that are not HMGP or PDM grant eligible, but do mitigate part or all of the hazard and may be eligible for other grant programs sponsored by other agencies, include them in this section. Wording Your Initiative Descriptions: Descriptions of your initiatives need not provide great detail. That will come when you apply for a project gran t. Provide enough information to identify; the project's scope and impact. The following are typical descriptions for an • plan initiative: • Initiative 1- Address Repetitive Loss properties. Through targeted mitigation, acquire, relocate or retrofit the five repetitive loss structures in the County as funding opportunities become available. Initiative 2—Perform a non- structural, seismic retrofit of City, Hall. Initiative 3- Acquire floodplain property in the Smith subdivision. Initiative 4- Enhance the County flood warning capability by joining the NOAA "Storm Ready" program. • Although you should identify at least one initiative for your highest ranked risk, a hazard - specific project is not required for every hazard. If you have not identified an earthquake related project, and an earthquake occurs that causes damage in your jurisdiction, you are not discounted from HMGP project grant eligibility. Complete Table 1 -5 for all the initiatives you have identified: • Enter the initiative number and description. • Indicate whether the initiative mitigates hazards for new or existing assets. • Identify the specific hazards the initiative will mitigate. • Identify by number the mitigation plan objectives that the initiative addresses. Approved objectives have been included in your tool kit. • Indicate who will be the lead in administering the project. This will most likely be your governing body. • Identify funding sources for the project. If it is a grant, include the funding sources for the cost share. 9 ACT.A Page 825 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template • Indicate the time line as "short term" (1 to 5 years) or "long term" (5 years or greater). Technical assistance will provided upon request. Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives Complete the information in Table 1 -6 as follows: • Initiative #— Indicate the initiative number from Table 1 -5. • # of Objectives Met —Enter the number of objectives the initiative will meet. • Benefits —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. Medium: Project will have a long -term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. Low: Long -term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. • Costs —Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project. Medium: Could budget for under existing work -plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. Low: Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing ongoing program. If you know the estimated cost of a project because it is part of an existing, ongoing program, indicate the amount. • Do Benefits Exceed the Cost? —Enter "Yes" or "No." This is a qualitative assessment. Enter "Yes" if the benefit rating (high, medium or low) is the same as or higher than the cost rating (high benefit/high cost; high benefit/medium cost; medium benefit/low cost; etc.). Enter "No" if the benefit rating is lower than the cost rating (medium benefit/high cost, low benefit/medium cost; etc.) • Is the Project Grant - Eligible? —Enter "Yes" or "No." Refer to the fact sheet on HMGP and PDM. • Can Project Be Funded Under Existing Program Budgets? —Enter "Yes" or "No." In other words, is this initiative currently budgeted for, or would it require a new budget authorization or funding from another source such as grants? • Priority— Enter "High," "Medium" or "Low" as follows: High: Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short term project) once funded. Medium: Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years once funded. 10 ACT.A Page 826 of 869 Instructions for Completing Municipality Annex Template – Low: Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for completion is long term (5 to 10 years). This prioritization is a simple review to determine that the initiatives you have identified meet one of the primary objectives of the Disaster Mitigation Act. It is not the detailed benefit/cost analysis required for HMGP /PDM project grants. The prioritization will identify any projects whose probable benefits will not exceed the probable costs. Analysis of Mitigation Actions Complete Table 1 -7 summarizing the mitigation actions by hazard of concern and the following six mitigation types: • Prevention — Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • Property Protection — Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter - resistant glass. • Public Education and Awareness— Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school -age and adult education. • Natural Resource Protection — Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. • Emergency Services — Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and the protection of essential facilities. • Structural Projects — Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms. This exercise demonstrates that the jurisdiction has selected a comprehensive range of actions. FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK /VULNERABILITY In this section, identify any future studies, analyses, reports, or surveys your jurisdiction needs to better understand its vulnerability to identified or currently unidentified risks. These could be needs based on federal or state agency mandates such as EPA's Bio- terrorism assessment requirement for water districts. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Use this section add any additional information pertinent to hazard mitigation and your jurisdiction not covered in this template. As you complete your template, please Kristen Gelino, Tetra Tech, Inc. 425.482.7801 Kristen. Gelino@TetraTech.com 11 ACT.A Page 827 of 869 CHAPTER 1. INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX 1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address 1.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE Insert Narrative Profile Information, per Instructions Alternate Point of Contact Name, Title Street Address City, State ZIP Telephone: Phone # e -mail Address: email address The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction: • Population Served —Insert Population as of Insert Date of Population Count • Land Area Served —Insert Area • Value of Area Served —The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • Land Area Owned —Insert Area • List of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction: Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item • Total Value of Critical Infrastructure /Equipment —The total value of critical infrastructure and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction: Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Description of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item Insert Value of Item • Total Value of Critical Facilities —The total value of critical facilities owned by the jurisdiction is Insert Total Value • Current and Anticipated Service Trends —Insert Summary Description of Service Trends 1.3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS The following existing codes, ordinances, policies or plans are applicable to this hazard mitigation plan: • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan 1-1 ACT.A Page 829 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan • Insert Name of Code, Ordinance, Policy or Plan 1.4 CLASSIFICATION IN HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS The jurisdiction's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 1 -1. TABLE 1 -1. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Public Protection Storm Ready Firewise Tsunami Ready 1.5 JURISDICTION - SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 1 -2 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. TABLE 1 -2. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS Type of Event FEMA Disaster 4' (if applicable) Date Preliminary Damage Assessment ACT.A 1 -2 Page 830 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX 1-3 ACT.A Page 831 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1.6 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 1 -3 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. TABLE 1 -3. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank d Type Risk Rating Score (Probability x Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1-4 ACT.A Page 832 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX 1.7 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 1 -4 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared. TABLE 1-4. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Status Carry Over Removed; Action to Plan No Longer # Complctcd Update Feasible Comments 1-5 ACT.A Page 833 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes 1.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 1 -5 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 1 -6 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 1 -7 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. ACT.A 1 -6 Page 834 of 869 TABLE 1 -5. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to new or existing assets Hazards Mitigated Objectives Met Lead Agency Estimated Cost Sources of Funding Timeline Included in Previous Plan? Initiative #Ilescription Initiative #Ilescription Initiative #Dcseription Initiative #Ilescription Initiative #Dcseription Initiative #Ilescription Initiative #Dcseription Initiative #Ilescription ACT.A 1 -6 Page 834 of 869 INSERT JURISDICTION NAME UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 1 -6. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY Initiative # of Objectives' Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded Equal or an Under Existing Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? j Programs/ Budgets? Priori a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities. ACT.A 1 -7 Page 835 of 869 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 1 -7. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard, by Mitigation Typea 3, Public 4. Natural 2. Property Education and Resource 5. Emca Hazard Type 1.,Prevcntion Protection Awareness Protection Scry •gs Ancy 6. Structural Projects Avalanche Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Weather Tsunami Volcano Wildfire a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of mitigation types. 1.9 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Insert text, if any; delete section if not used 1.10 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Insert text, if any; delete section if not used s ACT.A Page 836 of 869