HomeMy WebLinkAbout4926
King County
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Phase 1
Prepared by:
Regional Partners and
King County Office of Emergency Management
November 2009
www.kingcounty.gov/prepare
Attachment A
16715
Point of Contact
For information regarding this plan or to comment on this plan, please contact the
King County Office of Emergency Management:
Staff Contact: Heather Kelly
Mailing Address: King County Office of Emergency Management
3511 NE 2nd St
Renton, WA 98056
Phone: (206) 205-4034
Fax: (206) 205-4056
Email: Heather.Kelly@kingcounty.gov
Website: http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/prepare.aspx
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Point of Contact i
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Acknowledgements
2009 RHMP Plan Update - Phase 1
King County Office of Emergency Management wishes to acknowledge the
contribution of many individuals for their hard work and dedication that made this
2009/2010 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan update possible. We extend
our grateful appreciation to the following individuals and their support staff:
Please forgive us if we have inadvertently left your name off this important partner
list. To add your name, contact Heather Kelly at King County Office of Emergency
Management, 206–205–4034, and you will be added to the RHMP Phase 2 list.
Special Contributors Acknowledgement
Chuck Hagerhjelm Washington State Emergency Management, Mitigation
Mark Stewart Washington State Emergency Management, Mitigation
Beverly O’Dea Washington State Emergency Management, Mitigation
Ryan Ike Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mark Casey Federal Emergency Management Agency
Kirsten Meyers Federal Emergency Management Agency
Brett Holt Federal Emergency Management Agency
Rob Flaner Tetra Tech, Inc.
Robin Gordon Snohomish County Emergency Management
Danielle Perry King County Library System (KCLS)
Lauren Mikov King County Library System (KCLS)
Steve Marten City of Seattle
Regional Hazard Mitigation Partners Acknowledgement
Chris Ricketts King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services
Joe Miles King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Acknowledgements Page ii
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Paul Reitenbach King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services
Stephanie
Warden
King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services
Ameer Faquir King County Department of Executive Services
Caroline
Whalen
King County Department of Executive Services
Jim Burt King County Department of Executive Services
Kelli Williams King County Department of Executive Services
Michael Strouse King County Department of Executive Services
Marlys Davis King County Department of Executive Services, KC OEM-911
Dennis Higgins King County Department of Natural Resouces and Parks
Jason Wilkinson King County Department of Natural Resouces and Parks
Lauren Smith King County Department of Natural Resouces and Parks
Allen Alston King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Brian Murray King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Larry Kimble King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Mark Isaacson King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Priscilla
Kaufmann
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Steve Bleifuhs King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Wendy Walkky King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Leo Griffin King County Department of Transportation
Mike DeCapua King County Department of Transportation
Mike Wines King County Department of Transportation
John Heath King County Office of Information Resource Management
John Klein King County Office of Information Resource Management
Chandler Felt King County Office of Strategic Planning and Performance
Management
Gwen Clemens King County Office of Strategic Planning and Performance
Management
Ray Moser King County Office of Strategic Planning and Performance
Management
Amy Eiden King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Acknowledgements Page iii
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Carol
Cummings
King County Sheriff’s Office
Ali Jaffe-Doty Public Health – Seattle & King County
Dennis
Worsham
Public Health – Seattle & King County
Holly Rohr Tran Public Health – Seattle & King County
Michael Loehr Public Health – Seattle & King County
Karen Ferreira Cities of Burien/Des Moines/Normandy Park
Sarah Miller City of Auburn
Vernon Owens City of Bellevue
Jennifer
Warmke
City of Bothell
Kory Batterman City of Des Moines
Patti Harris City of Des Moines
Ken Miller City of Federal Way
Mary Hobday City of Federal Way
Bret Heath City of Issaquah
Kris Finnigan City of Medina
Steve Roberge City of New Castle
Jay Bennett City of Pacific
Frank Iriarte City of Tukwila
David Remmem Federal Way School District
Dave Nelson King County Fire District #20
Gordon Olson King County Fire District #39- South King County
Scott Webster King County Fire District #43 - Maple Valley
Chief Mike
Barlow
King County Fire District 44
Chris Hall King County Water District #111
Tom Hoffman King County Water District #90
Larry Rudo Maple Valley Fire and life Safety
Pamela-Rae
Cobley
Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC
Representing:
Cedar River Water & Sewer District
Soos Creek Water and Sewer
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Acknowledgements Page iv
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
District King County Water District #111
Len Cornwell Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District
Laura Gallez SW Suburban Sewer District
King County Office of Emergency Management Project Staff
Robin Friedman King County Office of Emergency Management
Deirdre Totten King County Office of Emergency Management
Heather Kelly King County Office of Emergency Management
Jeff Bowers King County Office of Emergency Management
Lynne Miller King County Office of Emergency Management
Rich Tokarzewski King County Office of Emergency Management
Jeremy Grotbo King County Office of Emergency Management
(Americorps / Vista Volunteer)
Tony Calero King County Office of Emergency Management
(Americorps / Vista Volunteer)
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Acknowledgements Page v
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Plan Development
Section 3: Regional Profile
Section 4: Participating King County Government and Jurisdiction Profiles
Section 5: Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA)
Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment, Risk Analysis and Capabilities
Section 7: Regional Mitigation Strategy
Section 8: Annexes
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Table of Contents vi
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Section 1: Introduction
Executive Summary
In 2000, the federal government enacted the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA 2000; P.L.
106-390) requiring states, local jurisdictions and tribal governments to have an
approved mitigation plan in place to be eligible for mitigation funding. In 2004, King
County and its Office of Emergency Management committed to providing
coordination in an effort to identify possible alternatives and to secure funding for the
benefit of the region.
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) is a living document and
is now undergoing its first five-year major update in 2009. Most pertinent elements of
the 2004 RHMP have retained their integrity in the 2009 RHMP. Some sections of
this document have been significantly enhanced or are brand new in 2009 and will be
indicated as such. General updates and updates to documented FEMA declarations
and other significant hazard incidents have been updated and included from years
2004 – September 2009. Section 5, Hazard Identification, has added a new profile in
2009 titled Dam / Dam Safety and the Flooding hazard profile has been significantly
updated, among other profiles as indicated in the 2009 RHMP. All footnotes /
endnotes and links have been reviewed, verified, and updated as needed or
possible. This entire document has been reviewed, and significantly improved, with
many new sections.
In an effort to provide ease of understanding the RHMP update, the following
information should be considered. Matrix 1.1, titled King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan 2009, Matrix of Changes, has been created. This document details
all major changes made to the updated RHMP. The Matrix is located at the end of
this section. Additional changes are indicated within each RHMP section, and are
referenced accordingly. During development of this updated document, some
duplicated language has been removed, but reference has been made to the existing
language in other portions of the 2009 RHMP.
This document is the culmination of a cooperative Regional Planning Team effort and
required participation from King County internal government departments / agencies,
local government city jurisdictions, fire and utility districts, special purpose districts,
some school districts, King County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), State
of Washington Emergency Management Division (State EMD), and the U. S.
Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). This RHMP meets the requirement for a Hazard Mitigation Plan under the
amended Stafford Act (44 CFR, Part 201). Many local jurisdictions, communities,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
governmental agencies, and the public were involved in the RHMP development and
critical review process.
It is vital for the region to have a proactive, coordinated approach to mitigation.
Mitigation measures save lives, reduce injuries and prevent or decrease financial
losses from the many hazards our region faces. The 2009 RHMP examines efforts
that can be applied to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic
disruption, and disaster assistance costs through prevention and mitigation efforts.
Some projects are being implemented with existing funding sources. As additional
funding sources become available, the regional plan will guide the selection of
eligible projects from the criteria set forth in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) and from other mitigation funding sources.
The development of this document represents a coordinated effort of many elements
in the region. We are indebted to the staff of Washington State Emergency
Management, FEMA, technical writers, researchers and contributing members of the
participating workgroups. Each local mitigation strategy can stand alone but the
combined efforts provide greater return for the region as a whole. The underlying
regional mitigation plan goal is to implement the regional strategy through mutually
beneficial and cost-effective regional projects.
Plan Context and Limitations – Highlights
Planning for the 2009 RHMP update is occurring concurrently in two phases.
Phase 1 is a King County Plan – Base Plan, and includes a limited number of
jurisdictional annexes who were planning partners throughout the update
process. Phase 2 will incorporate the majority of all remaining jurisdictions from
within the county, as well as new planning partners who were not previously part
of the county’s RHMP. King County is comprised of over 154 distinct
jurisdictional entities which include cities, fire districts, utility districts, school
districts, special purpose districts, and others. Any jurisdiction can request to be
incorporated into this RHMP in a prescribed way as defined in Section 2 – Plan
Development, in the Plan Maintenance and Plan Management & Guidelines for
Adding a Jurisdiction to the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
sections. This process was elected because of the time constraints the county
was operating under as a result of the potential flood issues surrounding the
Howard Hanson Dam.
The county was required to shift focus from mitigation planning to plan for dam
response efforts to help ensure life safety and infrastructure protection. When it
became apparent that the county could not fulfill both requirements in the
timeframe necessary, the county not only hired additional personnel to work on
the update to the RHMP, but also shifted some of the responsibility associated
with this plan to other county departments. Additionally, with the expedited
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
process necessary to gain plan approval in the most expeditious manner, the
county was not able to devote the staff necessary to provide the technical
assistance needed for all jurisdictions to be able to complete their plan. It was
determined to be in the best interest of the county to ensure the county itself
maintained 44 CFR compliance by completing the Base Plan in advance to all of
the jurisdictional annexes. Therefore, the Phase 1 and 2 process was developed
by the county’s planning team. This allowed for continued compliance on the
part of the county, while also allowing for the addition of jurisdictions after the
Base Plan has been adopted.
Another major change within this RHMP update involves the King County
Government portion of the RHMP. The 2004 RHMP was written with a King
County Government Annex section contained in Annex B. For the 2009 RHMP,
the appropriate contents of the 2004 King County Government Annex B section
were incorporated into the Base Plan to include those parts being redistributed
into Sections 1-8, as appropriate. Because of the time constraints involved,
some of our partnering agencies chose to produce their own mitigation plan,
while others chose not to participate at all. For this reason, the current planning
document may lack details regarding particular portions of geographic King
County.
In 2009, a new section has been added to include guideline information on how
a jurisdiction can add on to the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
This guideline can be located in Section 2 - Plan Development, in the Plan
Maintenance and Plan Management section.
Preface and Overview
Why Develop a Mitigation Plan?
The rising cost from the impacts of natural disasters has led to renewed interest
in identifying effective ways to reduce our vulnerability to disasters. Natural
hazard mitigation plans help communities to reduce their risk from natural and
manmade hazards by identifying vulnerabilities and developing strategies to
lessen and sometimes even eliminate hazards.
Many communities resist adopting mitigation measures as they can be seen to
be restrictive, costly, without immediate tangible benefits, or are incompatible
with community development. However, effective mitigation measures are
designed with the future in mind. Consequently, our region is committed to
convincing its constituents to view mitigation as an opportunity to provide
sustainable development that improves the economic value and quality of life for
the region, its communities, businesses and residents.
Here are some benefits of mitigation planning for agencies within King County:
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-3
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
• Leads to a judicious selection of risk reduction actions by setting clear
goals and identifying and implementing policies and cost-effective
programs and actions that reduce the effects of losses from future
disasters.
• Builds partnerships to enhance collaboration and gain support among the
parties whose interests may be affected by hazard losses.
• Encourages a broad range of stakeholders to forge partnerships that pool
skills, expertise, and experience to achieve a common vision to ensure
that the most appropriate and equitable mitigation projects are
undertaken.
• Contributes to sustainable communities, ensuring future generations will
continue to enjoy the same or improved quality of life that we do.
• Links sustainability and loss reduction efforts to other goals, like
promoting open space planning that also prevents development in hazard
locations such as floodplains or landslide areas.
• Establishes funding priorities so agencies can better articulate their needs
to state and federal officials when funding becomes available, particularly
following a disaster for prioritized projects. Such communities can
present projects as an integral part of an overall, agreed-upon strategy,
rather than as projects that exist in isolation.
Most importantly, hazard mitigation “saves lives and property” from natural,
technological, or manmade, hazards through mitigation actions. If we can
identify potential hazards in our community, assess potential risk and impacts,
and access vulnerability assets and populations, then we have the opportunity to
develop strategies to help mitigate the impacts before, during and after a hazard
event.
In addition, future federal and state funding of mitigation projects depend on the
successful completion of a hazard mitigation plan. Only those states and
jurisdictions with approved plans that meet the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
and amended requirements criteria will be eligible to receive Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) funds in the future. Through a “regional” hazard
mitigation planning approach, participating agencies within King County will
optimize the benefits of working together and ensuring the best opportunity for
gaining future competitive grant funding for hazard mitigation projects.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-4
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-5
11/12/09
Recovery
Response
Preparedness
Mitigation
Disaster
•Retrofitting
•Land Use
Practices
•Land Issue
•Plans
•Training
•Exercises
•Reconstruction
•Repair
•Cost Recovery
Four Phases of Emergency Management
Mitigation Planning Process
Mitigation planning is the first of the four “phases of emergency management”
followed by preparedness, response and recovery. This “prevention-related”
aspect of emergency management often gets the least attention, yet is one of the
most important steps in creating a disaster-resistant community.
Mitigation is defined
as any sustained
action taken to
reduce or eliminate
long-term risk to life
and property from a
hazard event.
Mitigation
encourages long-
term reduction or
elimination of hazard
vulnerability. The
goal of mitigation is
to save lives and reduce property damage. Mitigation can accomplish this, and
should be cost-effective and environmentally sound. This, in turn, can reduce the
enormous cost of disasters to property owners and all levels of government. In
addition, mitigation can protect critical jurisdiction facilities, reduce exposure to
liability, and minimize community disruption. Examples include land use planning,
adoption of building codes, elevation of homes, acquisition and relocation of
homes away from floodplains, and public education.
There are also six steps in mitigation planning (new steps for 2009 update):
1. Organizing resources
2. Identifying hazards and vulnerability
3. Assessing risks
4. Developing mitigation strategies
5. Developing the Plan
6. Implementing, monitoring and updating the Plan
From the start, jurisdictions need to focus on the resources needed to develop a
successful mitigation planning process. An essential step includes identifying and
organizing interested members of the community as well as those with technical
expertise. A wide cross-section of planning participants is a necessary ingredient
in identifying and addressing regional hazard mitigation concerns, as well as
building overall consensus.
Attachment A
16715
Next, communities must identify the characteristics and potential consequences
of hazards that can occur locally and regionally. It is important to understand how
much of the community can be affected by specific hazard events and what the
impacts could be on important community assets. Some assets may be more at
risk than others simply because of where they are located and the function they
serve. Examples can include emergency operations centers, hospitals,
telecommunications, etc. Certain populations may be more at risk because of
where they live – densely-populated urban areas in a liquefaction zone are more
likely at risk during an earthquake than smaller populations living in more stable
areas of rural parts of the county. Other sectors of the population may get limited
emergency information because of communication obstacles.
By understanding the risks posed by hazards, jurisdictions and communities can
then determine their priorities and look for possible ways to avoid or mitigate the
impacts. The result is a well thought-out plan and strategy, along with effective
activities to mitigate such potential hazards.
To ensure the success of an ongoing program, it is critical that the RHMP
remains relevant. In order to do this the regional hazard mitigation planning
group must continually update the RHMP, monitor its progress, and conduct
periodic evaluations. In King County’s case, this can include incorporation of
new regional partners, incorporating improved collection and evaluation of
hazard data, and making sure mitigation activities are being accomplished.
How the Plan is Organized
The 2009 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized into eight
basic sections:
• Sections 1 and 2 provide an administrative overview of the planning
process.
• Section 3 provides a comprehensive profile of the region including maps;
this information is key in understanding the various aspects of the
community that are involved or can be impacted during hazard events.
• Section 4 profiles individual participating agencies.
• Section 5 includes hazard identification, vulnerability and impact
assessment information based on the eight of nine most common natural
hazard types that occur within our region with summaries of other major
hazard incidents our region experiences; additional identified hazard
topics will be addressed in priority order in subsequent years.
• Section 6 summarizes critical facilities in the region by category, and
summarizes the hazard incident of flooding with a detailed risk
assessment and repetitive losses in the six river basins in King County
(new for 2009).
• Section 7 outlines the county’s regional hazard mitigation strategy.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-6
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
• Section 8 includes annexes and other information in support of the first
seven sections of the main document. The sections are arranged in a
sequence that reflects the mitigation planning process itself.
Mission and Vision
The 2004 RHMP Taskforce developed the mission and vision statements with
input from the Partner’s group. It was the intent of both groups to keep these
statements simple and broad in scope, and to carry these forward in 2009.
The RHMP Taskforce reaffirmed the Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives for
the 2009 RHMP update.
Mission
“Reduce the impact of natural, technological and human-caused disasters
upon the communities within King County.”
Vision
“King County is a region where disasters have minimal impact on people,
infrastructure and the environment.”
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives are based on the mission and vision statements and
are listed in order of planning priority. Mitigation strategies and activities are
based on these goals:
1) Protect Life and Property
2) Support Emergency Services
3) Increase Public Awareness
4) Preserve Natural Systems and Resources
5) Encourage Partnerships
6) Enhance Planning Activities
1. Protect Life and Property
A. Implement activities that assist in protecting lives and property by making
homes, businesses, infrastructures, critical facilities, and other community
assets more resistant to losses from natural hazards.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-7
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
B. Maintain essential services, facilities and infrastructures during disasters.
C. Identify populations with special needs or those who may be more
vulnerable to the impacts of disasters or hazard events.
D. Reduce losses and repetitive damages from chronic hazard events.
E. Provide and/or improve emergency warning systems.
2. Support Emergency Services
A. Strengthen and support countywide disaster and emergency response
efforts.
B. Protect and maintain critical facilities, infrastructures and services essential
to emergency service and disaster response activities.
3. Increase Public Awareness
A. Enhance the public’s knowledge about hazards that occur in the region
and how they can be impacted.
B. Support education and outreach programs to increase the public’s
awareness about disaster preparedness, mitigation, emergency response,
and recovery activities.
C. Develop education strategies, programs and materials to reach populations
with special needs.
D. Provide and support comprehensive education activities that address all
sectors of the community.
4. Preserve Natural Systems and Resources
A. Ensure protection of agriculture, fish, wildlife, and natural resources.
B. Balance watershed planning, natural resource management, and land use
planning with natural hazard mitigation to protect life, property, the
environment and economy.
5. Encourage Partnerships
A. Strengthen communication and participation among public agencies,
citizens, non-profit organizations, businesses and industry.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-8
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
B. Coordinate hazard mitigation planning efforts with other local and regional
organizations involved in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery
activities.
6. Enhance Planning Activities
A. Improve data collection and evaluation processes for identifying critical
facilities, infrastructures, essential services, and populations at risk.
B. Improve hazard assessment information and resources.
C. Enhance and increase participation and representation on the Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan Taskforce and Partners Committee.
D. Facilitate ongoing review and implementation of the RHMP.
E. Actively monitor and evaluate the status, implementation and completion of
mitigation action items.
F. Routinely review, update and enhance all aspects of the RHMP.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Introduction Page 1-9
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
2009 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Matrix of Changes
Section 1, Matrix 1.1
Note: This Matrix of Changes documents most of the pertinent changes made
from the 2004 RHMP Plan to the 2009 RHMP Plan update. This 2009 Matrix
represents high level changes made during Phase 1 of the RHMP planning
process. Phase 2 planning information is indicated in the RHMP.
Section 1 – Introduction
2009
Executive Summary News additions for 2009 Plan update are shown as: (new
in 2009);
General, grammar, and statistical data updates as
available and/or are noted or assumed made;
Flooding hazard significantly updated, Section 5;
New sections added: Dam / Dam Safety, as example, in
Section 5, and throughout RHMP;
The 2009 Plan retains the same integrity in 8 sections, as
the 2004 RHMP, Section 1 – 7, Basic Plan, and Section 8 –
Annexes;
Matrix of Changes – New tracking document for 2009
Planning Context and
Limitations
Defined Phase 1 and Phase 2, for 2009 Plan update
The 2004 Annex B for King County Government was
eliminated and the information incorporated back in 2009
RHMP Sections 1-7, as appropriate.
New guideline information on how a jurisdiction can
request being added to the King County RHMP, located in
Section 2, for Phase 2.
Plan Organization Updated for 2009; Sections delineated
No KC Govt.; Annex B - incorporated
Matrix of Changes document will be located the end of
Section 1.
Section 2 – Plan Development
Planning Process - significantly updated for 2009; Phase 2 explained in detail
Common RHMP planning elements
For 2009, moved Cost-Benefit info to Section 7; from 2004 Plan, Section 2 and 5.
Public Involvement - significantly updated for 2009
Phase 1, King County Public Involvement Participation Table 2009, Annex E
Plan Maintenance and Plan Management - new for 2009
New tables to show 2004 and 2009 participants, in Phases
New - How Jurisdictions can join to the 2009 KC RHMP
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
New Letter of Intent, document 1.1 – in Annex B
2009 Adoption of Plan - updated
2009 RHMP Plan elements to be incorporated into other KC documents – updated
2004 Historical Planning Process Section, removed to Annex C in 2009
Participating Agencies Tables new for 2009
2004 2009
King County
Government
KC Govt - Annex B;
Independent filing of
7 King Departments
Phase 1 - King County Govt.
No Annex B for KC Govt.: info
incorporated back into Basic Plan,
Sections 1-7 and Annexes;
Status update of KC Internal
Government agencies
Phase 2 – Jurisdictions
(expected for 2009 update)
Cities 14 cities
• Auburn
• Bellevue
• Bothell
• Burien
• Duvall
• Federal Way
• Issaquah
• Kirkland
• Medina
• Normandy Park
• North Bend
• Redmond
• SeaTac
• Woodinville
11 cities
Loss of 7 cities
• Duvall,
• Kirkland
• Normandy Park
• North Bend
• Redmond
• SeaTac
• Woodinville
Gaining 4 cities
• Des Moines
• Newcastle
• North Bend
• Pacific
• Tukwila
Net loss of 2 cities
Fire Districts 8 fire districts
• #2
• #11
• #36
• #39
• #40
• #43
• #44
• #45
3 fire districts
Loss of 6 districts
• #2
• #11
• #36
• #40
• #44
• #45
Gaining 1 district
• #20
Net loss of 5 districts
Utility Districts 15 utility districts
• Cedar River Water and
Sewer
• Coal Creek Utility
• Covington Water
• KC Water District #19
• KC Water District #20
9 utility districts
Loss of 8 districts
• Cedar River Water and
Sewer
• Coal Creek Utility
• Newcastle
• KC Water District #20
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-3
11/12/09
• KC Water District #90
• KC Water District #111
• Midway Sewer
• Northshore Utility
• Ronald Waste Water
• Shoreline Water
• Soos Creek Water
• Southwest Suburban
Sewer
• Val Vue Sewer
• Woodinville Water
• Northshore Utility
• Ronald Waste Water
• Shoreline Water
• Val Vue Sewer
• Woodinville Water
• Gaining 2 districts
• Covington Water
• Sammamish Water and
Sewer
Gaining 2 districts
• Highline Water
• Sammamish Water and
Sewer
Net loss of 4 districts
School Districts 2 school districts
• Lake Washington
• Vashon Island
1 school district
Loss of 2 districts
• Lake Washington
• Vashon Island
Gaining 1 district
• Federal Way
Net loss of 2 districts
Section 3 – Regional Profile1,2
2009
Ph Gease 1 neral updates if available
Po
De
Up
No
pulation and
mographics
dated 2009 estimates
• Population Distribution (update Table 3-1)
• Population by Age and Sex (update Table 3-2)
• Household, Cultural Diversity (update Tables 3-3, 3-4)
• Population Growth and Trends.
updates available
• People with Disabilities and Disability Type
Ho Up
(u
No
using dates for 2009
• Growth
• Household Size
pdate Table 3-7)
updates available
• Age of Construction
• Group Housing
Ge
Ju
Up
(2
va
opolitical
risdiction
dates for 2009
• King County Cities and Towns
009 U.S. estimates for population, land area, and land
lue. Update to Table 3-10)
• Native American Tribes
• School District Enrollment and School District Population
(update to table 3-11)
• Fire Districts Services Population and Area (update Table 3-
12)
Attachment A
16715
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-4
11/12/09
• Flood Control Zone Districts
(re-written for 2009 by DNRP)
• Drainage Districts (and additional 6 district contacts and map
3.7.5)
Ec Uponomy dates for 2009
• Employment and Employment by Industry (update to Table
3-13)
• Removed Bon-Macy’s, Washington Mutual Bank, and
Airborne; added World Vision and Weyerhaeuser
• International Trade
• Income and Wages
• Unemployment and Poverty (update to Table 3-14)
Tr
Up
(u
ansportation dates for 2009
• Air Service for Sea-Tac (updated for Plan 2009)
• Sound Transit Commuter Rail (updated for 2009)
• Commuting Trends / Patterns, Public Transit
pdated for 2009, update of Figure 3.1)
• Washington State Ferries
Em
Se
Up
(T
20
N
ergency
rvices
dates for 2009
• Fire Service (update to Table 3-15)
• Emergency Medical Service
• Law Enforcement (updated Table 3-16)
• King County Sheriff’s Office
ables 3-17, 3-18 statistics and response calls updated for
09)
• Emergency Communications (9-1-1) and Puget Sound
RCPPP Map
• Emergency Management and Search and Rescue
• Public Health
o updates available
• Hospitals – Emergency Care
Ed Up
No
ucation dates for 2009
• Public Primary
• Secondary Education
• and Post Secondary Education
updates available
• Types of Educational Buildings
Re
Upsources dates for 2009
• Water (new color watershed map for 2009)
• Seattle Public Utilities and Waste Water Treatment
• New for 2009: King County Solid Waste Management Plan
• Electricity
• Fuel Transmission Systems
La
De
an
an
Upnd Use,
velopment
d Growth,
d Annex F
dated for 2009 by DDES
• Designated Urban Growth Areas
• Land Use Trends and Growth Targets
M 20aps 03 maps were removed to New 2009 Annex K – 2004 Plan Maps
Attachment A
16715
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-5
11/12/09
Section 4 – (2009 Title) - Participating King County Government and
Jurisdiction Profiles (2003 Title) - Participating Agency Profiles
2004 2009
Phase 1 & 2 Explained, as in
Section 1, and 2
Expanded Phase 2 language
For Phase 1 - King
County Government
Departments /
agencies
1 conglomerated King
County Annex B
7 King County departments
/agencies
KC Annex B – removed; info
incorporated into Basic Plan
Sections 1-7, as appropriate
New summary tables for 2009,
updates of the 7 KC internal
departments; Addition of status
for King County internal
departments involved in 2009.
Phase 1 & 2 Explained, as in
Section 1, and 2
Expanded Phase 2 language
For Phase 2 -
City and, Fire Districts,
Utility Districts, and
School Districts
• 14 cities and
• departments
• 8 fire districts
• 15 utility district
• 2 school districts
Summary tables new for 2004
and 2009, updates of the
previous or additional agencies
• 11 cities
• 3 fire districts
• 9 utility districts
• 1 school district
Addition of profiles for agencies
involved in 2009. Omission of
agencies no longer involved in
2009. (for Phase 2)
Section 5 – Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis
Title Change in 2009 (from Assessment (2003) to Analysis (2009)
2004 2009
Profile of Hazards
2004, Section 2 –
cost benefit info
moved to
Section 7 (2009)
To make the hazard analysis more
helpful, adjective descriptors (high,
moderate, and low) are established
for each hazard’s probability of
occurrence and the county’s
vulnerability, or impact, in the event
of a hazard.
Moved Cost-Benefit info to
Section 7, from 2004, Section 2 and
5.
Flooding Hazard increase to High
Risk
Attachment A
16715
Understanding Risk Ratings,
Terminology Defined
New for 2009; new tables for 2004
and 2009, Updated from (2004)
Probability vs. Impact to Probability
and Impact
Summary of Results New Table for 2004 and 2009, to
include new Total Risk column
Five Year Plan cycle and
Source of Data
Expanded in 2009
HAZARDS All hazards updated with history of
events, links footnotes/end-notes;
as possible
Severe Weather High frequency /
moderate impact
If severe weather contributes to a
flooding incident(s), these
additional hazard rankings may be
suddenly upgraded because
flooding impacts increases the risk
of possible increased frequency of
secondary hazards
Tornado Added in response to recent
occurrence(s) as a result to severe
weather; new in 2009 text
Wind 1993 Windstorm Updated with 2006 Windstorm
Avalanche Updated with Interstate closures
since 2004
Flooding
High frequency /
moderate impact
Risk rating upgraded to high
frequency / high impact because
of the increased Howard Hanson
Dam issues and Green River Valley
risk of potential flooding in the next
five year period starting 2009 and
beyond
Major King County River
Basins &
King County Flood Control
District &
Flood Forecasting &
Green River Valley
potential flooding
Added for the 2009 Plan update by
the KC DNRP
New Tables 5.5A and 5.5B
Added New Table 5-7
History Update
(Flooding) Hazard Impacts Updated economic impacts listed in
accordance with Green River
Flooding
Past / Present Mitigation Efforts
updated
New NFIP added
New KC Flood Warning Center
Dams / Dam Safety
New Section in 2009
Added in response to the increased
risk of potential flooding within the
Green River Valley and Howard
Hanson Dam situational awareness
Landslide Updated to history and new map
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-6
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
(Earthquake) Hazard Impacts Added critical infrastructure
interruption as a result of disasters
associated with Earthquakes
Civil Disorder Updated to include increased
surveillance of annual Mardi Gras
Drought Updated to include 2005 history
update of water/snow pack
shortages
Hazardous Materials Updated to include current waste
sites and material response teams
Transportation Updated with current demographics
for transportation modes and
accidents since 2004;
Update of RPIN wording
Tsunami / Seiches Map new for 2009
• Pandemics(Epidemics)
• Volcanoes / Volcanic
activities
• Extreme Heat
• Pipeline (Utility Energy
Shortage)
Future hazard topics are identified
for the next RHMP
Section 6 – (2009 Title) - Vulnerability Assessment, Risk Analysis and
Capabilities (2004 title) Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Analysis
2004 2009
Planning Methodology Updated to include emphasis on Flooding, 6 major KC river
basins
Critical Facilities King
County
Per KC DNRP King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
Located in Annex G (FOUO)
King County Six Major
River Basins
Per KC DNRP; New in 2009, pages 6 - 3 through pages 6 - 22
Risk and Vulnerability assessment
NFIP language expanded
NFIP Repetitive Loss properties
Incorporated cities and unincorporated
Table 6-1 Deleted, replaced with Table 6.1: Major King County River
Basins, specifically the analysis of the 6 major King County
river basins
• South Fork Skykomish River
• Snoqualmie River
• Sammamish River
• Cedar River
• Green River
• White River
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-7
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Flood Control
District Information for Six
major King County River
Basins
Analysis for the 6 river basins provided by the King County
Flood Control District for 2009
• Flow
• Flood Characteristics
• Flood Exposure
• Economic Impact
• Development Trends
• Repetitive Loss
Capability Assessment New in 2009
Legal and Regulatory
Administrative and Technical
Fiscal
Vulnerable Populations
Defined
Updated
Table 6-1 Replaced in 2009 with Six Major River Basins
Table 6-2 Deleted as information is provided in Section 3
Section 7 – Regional Mitigation Strategy
2004 2009
Section 7 - Rewritten
Moved Cost-Benefit info to Section 7; from 2004 Plan, Section
2 and 5.
Critical Facilities List(s) Located in Annex G (FOUO)
Mitigation Strategies From 2004 Plan, KC Annex B, King County Departments /
Agencies; Evaluation of 2004 Initiatives - Status (upper right
hand corner) (retained in 2009)
New tables for 2009 King County Government - Internal /
Agencies; Status
Addition of status for King County internal departments
involved in 2009. Omission of KC Department / agencies who
have completed projects, removed to New 2009 Annex L;
2004 King County Government Initiatives – Completed
Section 8 – Annexes
2004 2009
Annexes for 2004
A-J
Annexes for 2009; New Annex Index with 4 title changes
(B-E) **
Updated content, as indicated
A-J
K-L (new for 2009)
Annex A Annex A – Plan Distribution List
**Annex B – Individual
Agency Plans
**Annex B – Individual Jurisdiction Plans (new title)
New Form 1.1 Letter of Intent; to join KC RHMP
Phase 1
KC Annex B - Moving pertinent sections back into Basic Plan,
Sections 1-7 for 2009, (partial list)
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-8
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Updated 2009
• KC Govt. department /agency tables (Section 2 and 4)
• Assistance (with mention of HHD hazard)
• 20/20 Software use
• KC Govt. Department / Agency Initiatives
• Recent Phase 1 and Phase 2 expected participation
• For 2009, from 2004 Plan, KC Annex B, King County
Departments / Agencies; Evaluation of 2004 Initiatives
Status (See upper right hand corner)
(Phase 2 – Expected Jurisdiction Participation – Section 2
and 4 Tables)
**Annex C – Agency
Participation
**Annex C – King County Government and Jurisdiction
Participation (new title)
New - KC Govt. Chart
Historical KC 2004 Planning Process Info (retained in 2009)
**Annex D - Plan
Adoption Documentation
**Annex D – King County Plan Adoption Documentation
(new title)
**Annex E - Public
Participation
**Annex E - Public Involvement Participation (new title)
New KC Govt. Chart
Annex F Annex F – Policy and Program Analysis
Annex G Annex G – Critical Facilities (FOUO)
New – KC DNRP Critical Facilities List - Flooding
Annex H Annex H - Potential Funding Sources
Annex I Annex I - References and Resources
Annex J Annex J - Glossary
New Annexes for 2009
Annex K - 2004 Plan Maps (removed from Section 3 and
Section 5 to Annex K) (Note: Maps are identified as 2003)
Annex L – 2004 King County Government Initiatives -
Completed (removed from 2004 KC Annex B)
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan: RHMP Changes for 2009 Matrix 1.1-9
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Section 2: Plan Development
This Section has substantive additions for 2009.
2009 King County Government and Jurisdiction Participation
(New for 2009)
Planning for the 2009 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP)
update is occurring in two phases, concurrently. Phase 1 is a King County Plan
– Base Plan, and includes a limited number of jurisdictional annexes who were
planning partners throughout the update process. Phase 2 will incorporate the
majority of all remaining jurisdictions from within the County, as well as new
planning partners who were not previously part of the County’s plan. King
County is comprised of over 154 distinct jurisdictional entities which include
cities, fire districts, utility districts, school districts, special purpose districts, and
others. Any jurisdiction can request to be incorporated into this Plan in a
prescribed way as defined in Section 2, Plan Maintenance and Plan
Management, Guidelines for Adding a Jurisdiction to the King County Regional
Hazards Mitigation Plan. This process was elected because of the time
constraints the County was operating under as a result of the potential flood
issues surrounding the Howard Hanson Dam.
The November 12, 2009 Plan publication includes King County Government and
a limited number of jurisdictions as Phase 1.
Phase 2 is anticipated to include all remaining jurisdictions who elect to be part of
the regional plan, as well as any new jurisdictions who wish to add on to the base
plan. Because of the issues involving Howard Hanson Dam as described in
detail in Section 1, it is presently unclear how many jurisdictions will create stand-
alone plans and not be part of the County’s base plan, and how many will
continue to be a part of the County’s Regional Plan. Tables 2.1-2.4
demonstrated the anticipated involvement as of the date of publication of the
Phase 1 Regional HMP.
King County OEM will continue regular outreach to all jurisdictions to ensure
maximum participation in the RHMP. Jurisdictions will continue to be able to
annex to the RHMP throughout the 5-year planning cycle as described in
Section 2, Plan Maintenance and Plan Management.
(Historic King County 2003 / 2004 Planning Process Information has been
removed from the body of the Base Plan and moved to Annex C to retain
historical data and maintain ease in review of the RHMP.)
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-2
11/12/09
2009 Planning Partners and Participating Jurisdictions
In the 2004 Plan, the King County internal departments / agencies were named
as demonstrated in the tables 2.1-2.5 below, and were included in the separate
Annex B: King County Government Departments. For the 2009 update, the
Annex B portion containing the King County internal departments / agencies has
been updated and incorporated into the main body of the Plan in this Section 2,
and referred to by updated names as shown in Table 2-1.1, below. The updated
2009 information is also used in Section 4, Participating King County
Government and Jurisdiction Profiles.
2004 List
King County Facilities Management
King County Department of Transportation
King County Executive Services, Information and Telecommunications
Services
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King County Sheriff's Office
T
(
able 2-1.1: *King County Government Departments /Agencies
new Table in 2009)
2004 2009
T
S
S
U
2
he departments below submitted either a
trategy and/or an Initiative in 2004
tatus
pdated in
009
D
S
x Nept. of Development and Environmental
ervices (DDES); Fire Marshal’s Office
o update
D
F
ept. of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP)
our divisions below:
W x x ater and Land Resources Division
x Wastewater Treatment Division
S x x olid Waste Division
x Parks Division
D epartment of Transportation (DOT)
R x oad Services Division
M x x etro King County Transit
F x x acilities Management Division (FMD)
K x x ing County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO)
O
(
x xffice of Information Resources Management
OIRM)
P
(x x ublic Health – Seattle & King County
PHSKC) (Note: new name since 2004)
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-3
11/12/09
Source: RHMP Participating agencies; 2004 Plan
.
.
* King County agency participation is listed above.
Note: The King County Flood Control District will develop their own All Hazards
Mitigation Plan in 2010
Note: The department names in Table 2-1.1 are shown as they currently exist in 2009
2009 Phase 2 - Planning
Phase 2 will incorporate and include additional jurisdictions from within the County.
Jurisdictions can include cities, fire districts, utility districts, school districts, special
purpose districts, and others. Any jurisdiction can request to be incorporated into this
Plan in a prescribed way as defined in Section 2, Plan Maintenance and Plan
Management, Guidelines for Adding a Jurisdiction to the King County Regional
Hazards Mitigation Plan.
Under Phase 2 of this planning process, the Base Plan will be reformatted to better
support hazard mitigation efforts on a regional basis. While Phase 1 of this process
established the foundation of the regional plan, Phase 2 will focus on reassembling
the regional components of the Plan. The jurisdictions listed in tables 2-2 through 2-4
below, as well as other local governments within the planning area who have not
been previous planning partners will be invited to join the King County Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) as a regional planning partner.
Key planning steps will be re-engaged to assure all planning partners are adequately
addressed and supported by plan content and policy direction. Phase 2 will include,
but are not limited to the following components:
• Organize Resources: the first task under Phase 2 will be to organize all eligible
local governments within the planning area will be invited to link to the RHMP.
• Revise the Risk Assessment: The risk assessment of the base plan will be
comprehensively revised to better support the ranking of risk associated with
the hazards of concern for each participating jurisdiction.
• Re-engage the public: A comprehensive outreach strategy will be deployed
that will provide the constituents of all planning partners an opportunity to
comment on the Plan and its policies.
• Re-assemble the Plan: Once all planning phases of Phase 2 are complete, the
regional plan will be reassembled into a format that clearly addresses each
planning partner, and clearly illustrates compliance with section 201.644CFR
for each planning partner. A key component of this step will be to clearly
define a plan maintenance strategy that will assure the plan and its policies
remain viable throughout the performance period for the plan.
• Plan Review and adoption: Since the scope of the RHMP base plan will be
enhanced under Phase 2, all planning partners linking to the base plan will be
required to formally adopt the RHMP as their hazard mitigation plan of record.
Attachment A
16715
Additionally, this reformatted plan will be sent to the State and FEMA for their
review and approval.
Planning Partners:
The Tables 2-1 through 2-4 represent the jurisdictions that participated in the
2004 Plan, and have either been current planning partners for the 2009 update, or
are anticipated to participate in Phase 2 of the 2009 Plan.
Table 2-1 King County Cities
Phase 2, 2009 information added
2004 2009
Phase 2
City of Auburn X pending
City of Bellevue X x
City of Bothell X x
City of Burien X x
City of Des Moines X NEW
City of Duvall X
City of Federal Way X x
City of Issaquah X x
City of Kirkland X
City of Medina X x
City of Newcastle X NEW
City of Normandy Park X
City of North Bend X
City of Pacific X NEW
City of Redmond X
City of SeaTac X
City of Tukwila Pending NEW
City of Woodinville X
Source: RHMP Participating agencies 2004
Table 2-2: Fire Districts
2004 2009
Phase 2
KCFD #2 -- Burien/Normandy Park X
KCFD #11 -- North Highline Fire District X
KCFD #20 – Skyway/Bryn Mawr/Lakeridge X NEW
KCFD #36 -- Woodinville Fire and Life Safety X
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-4
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
KCFD #39 South King Fire & Rescue
(annexed Federal Way and Des Moines)
X x
KCFD #40 – Spring Glen/Cascade/Fairwood X
KCFD #43 -- Maple Valley Fire and Life Safety X x
KCFD #44 -- Mountain View Fire and Rescue X
KCFD #45 – Duvall X
Source: RHMP Participating agencies; 2009 WA Fire Service Directory
Table 2-3: Utility Districts
2004 2009
Phase 2
Cedar River Water and Sewer District X
Coal Creek Utility District – Newcastle X
Covington Water District X x
Highline Water District X NEW
KC Water District #19 – Vashon Island X x
KC Water District #20 – Burien/ Riverton/
McMicken Heights X
KC Water District #90 – Renton X x
KC Water District #111 X x
Midway Sewer District, Kent/Des Moines X x
Northshore Utility District X
Ronald Waste Water District X
Sammamish Water and Sewer District x
Shoreline Water District X
Soos Creek Water and Sewer X x
Southwest Suburban Sewer District X Pending
Val Vue Sewer District X
Woodinville Water District X
Source: RHMP Participating agencies 2004
Table 2-4: School Districts
2004 2009
Phase 2
Federal Way School District Pending NEW
Lake Washington School District x
Vashon Island School District x
Source: RHMP Participating agencies 2004
In addition to the jurisdictional planning partners, the following represents King
County employees who were Planning Team Partners actively involved in the
development of the King County Base Plan, serving either as subject matter experts,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-5
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
or provided critical information which guided the development of all portions of the
2009 Plan.
Table 2-5: *King County Employees
(new Table in 2009)
Employee Department
Chris Ricketts King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services
Joe Miles King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services
Paul Reitenbach King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services
Stephanie
Warden
King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services
Ameer Faquir King County Department of Executive Services
Caroline
Whalen
King County Department of Executive Services
Jim Burt King County Department of Executive Services
Kelli Williams King County Department of Executive Services
Marlys Davis King County Department of Executive Services
Michael Strouse King County Department of Executive Services
Dennis Higgins King County Department of Natural Resouces and
Parks
Jason Wilkinson King County Department of Natural Resouces and
Parks
Lauren Smith King County Department of Natural Resouces and
Parks
Allen Alston King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks
Brian Murray King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks
Larry Kimble King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks
Mark Isaacson King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks
Priscilla
Kaufman
King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks
Steve Bleifuhs King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks
Wendy Walkky King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks
Leo Griffin King County Department of Transportation
Mike DeCapua King County Department of Transportation
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-6
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Mike Wines King County Department of Transportation
Deirdre Totten King County Office of Emergency Management
Heather Kelly King County Office of Emergency Management
Jeff Bowers King County Office of Emergency Management
Lynne Miller King County Office of Emergency Management
Rich
Tokarzewski
King County Office of Emergency Management
Robin Friedman King County Office of Emergency Management
Jeremy Grotbo King County Office of Emergency Management
(Americorps / Vista Volunteer)
Tony Calero King County Office of Emergency Management
(Americorps / Vista Volunteer)
John Heath King County Office of Information Resource
Management
John Klein King County Office of Information Resource
Management
Gwen Clemens King County Office of Strategic Planning and
Performance Management
Chandler Felt King County Office of Strategic Planning and
Performance Management
Ray Moser King County Office of Strategic Planning and
Performance Management
Amy Eiden King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
Carol
Cummings
King County Sheriff’s Office
Ali Jaffe-Doty Public Health – Seattle & King County
Dennis
Worsham
Public Health – Seattle & King County
Holly Rohr Tran Public Health – Seattle & King County
Michael Loehr Public Health – Seattle & King County
2009 Planning Process
(New for 2009)
A truncated planning schedule was necessitated by back-to-back disasters in
January 2009 (flooding, DR - 1817) and March 2009 (snowstorms, DR - 1825)
and in addition to the emergence of a significant threat of flooding in the Green
River Valley. The Planning Team had to undertake various elements of the
planning process concurrently, and the Phase 1 and Phase 2 approach to
planning, described above, emerged as a viable alternative for the Plan’s
completion. Hence, jurisdictions updated their annexes while the Phase 1,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-7
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Base Plan (first 8 Sections of the Plan) was undergoing concurrent review and
updates.
Commonalities in the plan development process which partner jurisdictions will
rely on from the Base Plan are:
1) Goals and objectives;
2) Planning process;
3) Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA); (Section 5 &
Section 6);
4) Capabilities (Section 6);
5) Mitigation Strategies;
6) Plan Maintenance; and
7) Plan Management.
2009 Planning Team Meeting Participation
The Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Team for King County, comprised of
representatives from all participating jurisdictions shown above, met five times
as a group to coordinate this 2009 update of the Plan, one meeting was a
conference call. Representatives from King County departments / agencies,
partner jurisdictions, and the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), initially
convened on May 18, 2009. Planning Team members met again on June 15,
2009 and July 13, 2009 to discuss regional goals and strategies for mitigation
and report on progress in the preparation of jurisdictional annexes. A
conference call was held on September 17, 2009 with participants and the
State of Washington Emergency Management Division Mitigation Strategist to
discuss the Plan guidelines and crosswalk requirements and provide feedback
in the draft plans submitted for review. In addition, a FEMA and State EMD
Plan review and technical assistance session was held at the KC OEM
RCECC on September 29, 2009, to provide one-on-one guidance to
participant jurisdictions. (See List and sign-in sheets from these meetings in
Annex C).
In addition, the County’s Planning Team met several times weekly
commencing October through plan adoption, either in person or via telephone
conferences to coordinate work, conduct risk assessment and complete
Phase 1 of the Regional Plan.
2009 Planning Team Goals and Objectives
During the May 2009 kickoff meeting, partners elected to retain the regional
goals and objectives expressed in the original 2004 Plan, shown in Section 1.
These goals and objectives guided the updates of mitigation strategies and
initiatives in jurisdictional annexes to the Base Plan. The Planning Team also
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-8
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
maintained the Base Plan structure of the RHMP, except as indicated
otherwise, such as with the elimination of the King County Government
Annex B portion of the plan. This document is comprised of a Base Plan
(Sections 1 – 7, and Section 8, Annexes), including a statement of the regional
goals and a generalized, central Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Analysis (HIVA), located in Section 5 and Section 6. The HIVA recognizes
that there is a great deal of similarity across jurisdictions in regards to
vulnerability and risk. More specific risk and vulnerability profiles are covered
in each jurisdictional annex, where variations in geography, climate, hazards,
and critical infrastructure may necessitate specialized mitigation strategies and
initiatives to meet local jurisdictional needs.
While jurisdictions were updating their annexes, King County OEM took the
lead on updating the Base Plan in 2009. This division of workload is consistent
with the approach taken to develop the original Plan that began planning in
2003 with a FEMA approval and King County Council adoption in 2004. For
this 2009 update, the Planning Team agreed that OEM should focus on
updating historical information in the Plan, including general countywide
changes to risk factors, specifically flooding, and the occurrences of major
incidents and federally declared disasters in the history of events section of
each hazard.
As partner jurisdictions completed drafts of their annexes, OEM staff reviewed
the documents and provided comments and suggestions for improvement and
provided information from the Base Plan while it was under development.
Most annexes were completed in draft format by late August and provided to
Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) Mitigation
Strategist for advanced review. EMD provided comments back to the
Planning Team in mid-September, held an hour conference call on
September 17, 2009, and provided additional technical assistance to each
partner jurisdiction during an all-day session on September 29, 2009 at the RC
ECC. FEMA staff also participated in this effort to ensure consistency with
federal regulations and mitigation planning guidance.
Additional Planning Process Procedures:
During the planning process, all planning partners, both County level and local
jurisdictions, were required to conduct a review of not only the 2004 County’s
Base Plan, but also their own mitigation plan. During this review process, they
were instructed to focus on several elements and gather updated information
necessary to complete the plan. This review and update also included the
following:
• Ensure the governing body of this jurisdiction adopts the Regional Mitigation
Plan by local ordinance.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-9
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
• Contribute available geographic data necessary in the development of the
Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis including, but not limited to:
o land use data
o development patterns
o population figures
o infrastructure systems
o hazard data and history of incidents
• Develop a Hazard Analysis specific to their jurisdiction, utilizing the best
available science, current studies, reports, newspaper articles and oral
interviews
• Develop Local Mitigation Strategies (LMS) based on both the King County
Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis and their own analysis. The
LMS include:
o a set of mitigation goals specific to the jurisdiction aimed at reducing
long term vulnerability to hazards
o a list of mitigation projects and actions
o a description of how projects and actions were prioritized and
implemented
• Involvement in NIFP compliance, repetitive and severe repetitive loss
information, where appropriate
• Develop a capabilities assessment
• Incorporate recommendations, policies, and strategies included in the LMS
into other local planning tools and methods such as land use plans, Capital
Improvements Plans, site review processes, zoning ordinances, and others.
• Develop an internal schedule (or adopt the County’s schedule) for plan
maintenance and updating of the local jurisdiction's plan maintenance, to
include LMS and geographic data contained within the KC Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan guidelines, Section 2, Plan Maintenance and Plan
Management section
• Continue Public Involvement through various methods, e.g., posting of Plan on
website; providing hard copies for review at public locations; during on-going
open public meetings; health and safety fairs, etc.
During the planning meetings, the planning partners were instructed to review
the entire Plan with their individual planning teams to determine where
changes were needed respective to their jurisdiction. Jurisdictional annexes
were completed in draft form, and then reviewed by State and FEMA
representatives to advise of deficiencies. Thereafter, the jurisdictions
completed their annexes and submitted to the State and FEMA for final
review.
NOTE: A select few jurisdictions were able to complete their plans in time for
Phase 1, which will be provided to FEMA for review once the Base Plan has
been approved and formally adopted, but prior to the completion of Phase 2.
These jurisdictions developed individual mitigation strategies, some of which
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-10
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
are new and some of which are carry-overs from the previous 2004 edition.
Criteria for priority ranking are defined within each individual plan, and do not
necessarily follow the concept utilized in the Base Plan. These jurisdictions
will continue to be part of the planning team for Phase 2, and will follow the
same criteria established for rating and ranking of hazards and
strategies/initiatives during the Phase 2 development period.
King County Government Related Public Involvement
For the 2009 Plan update, in addition to the Regional Hazard Mitigation
Planning Team meetings as described above, the public has been afforded
numerous opportunities to comment on the 2009 DRAFT King County
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Plan has remained posted online at the
current link: (http://www.kingcounty.gov/mitplan) since its initial drafting in
2003 / 2004 with a link to OEM staff contact emails. The public has also been
notified through other formal means to view and provide input on the Plan
online since 2004.
For the 2009 Plan update, King County OEM published public notices in the
King County Journal newspaper on December 1, 2005, and in four community
newspapers on August 5, 2009, and again on October 28, 2009, including the
Kent Reporter, Bothell/Kenmore Reporters, and the Snoqualmie Valley Record
to announce the availability of the 2009 Plan online for review and input by a
posted Questionnaire feedback document. The Seattle Times newspaper
announcement was also included in October 2009. Copies of these notices
are attached in Annex E.
Other vehicles were also used for Public Involvement, such as a Public
Announcement made on the evening of September 29, 2009 at the King
County Library System (KCLS) Board Meeting. Also, copies of the DRAFT
RHMP and selected Annexes were placed in 5 KCLS Libraries, Government
Section, to include Bellevue, Bothell, Redmond, Auburn, and KCLS online. A
Questionnaire was also posted on the website and survey results will be
included by report in Annex E of this Plan documentation. Those comments
will be reviewed and, if appropriate, will be included within the Phase 2 portion
of the Plan development.
A list is provided for all the Public meetings held in Annex E. Due to the
Howard Hanson Dam and Green River Flood Planning efforts, which were
occurring simultaneously with the Hazard Mitigation Planning initiative, all
public meetings held by OEM for the purpose of collecting public input for the
Regional Hazard Mitigation were restricted to gathering comments related to
the remaining hazards, and not Howard Hanson Dam and Green River
Flooding.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-11
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
In addition to the public meetings held for the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan,
Emergency Management staff attended in excess of 12 meetings related to
flooding as the result of the Howard Hanson Dam and Green River potential
for flooding for the next possible 3-5 years, or until the repairs necessitated are
ascertained by the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE).
In addition to the above, Annex E, King County Public Involvement Table
2009, Phase 1, provides a synopsis of all King County Government related
public involvement methods which occurred during the five years since Plan
adoption.
Any comments received from the public requests for input will be documented
and become part of Annex E summary of public input documentation for this
update as well as for future annual and 5-year updates.
2009 Planning Team External Jurisdiction Public Involvement
The following demonstrates additional public involvement for the jurisdictions
who have been involved in the planning process for this Plan update: Each
jurisdiction’s annex will also contain additional information concerning their
public involvement.
City of Newcastle – Public Hearing, May 5, 2009.
City of Pacific – City Council Meeting, May 26, 2009.
Water District #19 – Board of Commissioners Meeting, June 9, 2009,
Highline Water District – Board of Commissioners Meetings, June 17
and August 19, 2009.
Maple Valley Fire and Life Safety – Board of Fire Commissioners
Meeting, June 18, 2009.
Soos Creek Water and Sewer District – Board Of Commissioners
Meeting, July 1, 2009.
Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District – Board of
Commissioners Meeting, July 20, 2009.
City of Federal Way – City Council Meetings, July 21, September 15,
2009.
City of Bothell – City Council Meeting and Public Hearing, July 14 and
July 21, 2009.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-12
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Water District #111 – Board of Commissioners Meeting, July 23, 2009.
City of Bellevue – City Council Meeting, August 3, 2009.
City of Des Moines – Public Comment Meeting, August 6, 2009.
City of Issaquah – Public Hearing, August 13, 2009.
Covington Water District – Board of Commissioners Meeting,
September 16, 2009.
Plan Maintenance and Plan Management
(New for 2009)
This plan maintenance and plan management process is consistent for all
jurisdictions within King County who are part of the Regional Plan. The 2009
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be managed and maintained
by a designated King County Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
Program Management staff person(s) who will monitor, evaluate and
coordinate the update of the RHMP with “Planning Team” participants.
The King County Office of Emergency Management Director/ Program
Manager is the designated keeper of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
(RHMP). The King County Office of Emergency Management will be
responsible for administering changes to the Base Plan, facilitating the
planning process for new partners, and forwarding annual revisions to
Washington State Emergency Management for review.
Ongoing public involvement will continue to be part of this Plan. The plan will
remain on the County’s website, requesting input on an on-going basis. At the
end of the 5-year plan cycle, State EMD and FEMA must again approve of the
Plan “pending Plan adoption” by the King County Council. Plan maintenance
will be the same for the Base Plan and for all jurisdictional annexes, unless the
respective annex states otherwise.
Each update cycle will also include outreach to jurisdictions who may wish to
join the Regional Plan, and to other partners such as businesses, academia,
non-profits, or other interested parties who wish to be involved in the planning
process.
All King County Departments or agencies, and any other external jurisdictions,
special purpose districts, fire and utility districts, school district, or agencies
intending to be planning partners in the King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan during the next five year planning cycle will maintain a
designated point of contact, or liaison, to serve as Mitigation Lead
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-13
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
representative. These designated representative will become a member of the
“Planning Team”. Representatives will participate in and provide future Plan
updates at Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan review intervals, will track and/or
administer projects, or provide information on any future development ideas or
proposals for Plan review and maintenance for the next five year Plan
planning cycle. A new participant can join the County’s Regional Plan at any
time during the planning cycle in accordance with the guidelines stated herein.
Planning meetings will be convened as stated in the table below.
The annual update meetings stipulated in the 2005 RHMP, did not occur, but
will be re-instituted for the current plan cycle to facilitate the flow of information
within the Planning Team. The Planning Team and potential new participants
will convene commencing in the summer of 2010, dates dependent upon the
Phase 2 planning cycle, but to occur on an annual basis to review, discuss
and record updated information. The updates will be published on the county
website each year. Each participant of the 2009 King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan will meet to review, coordinate and collaborate with each other
on Plan updates and/or changes. Any changes in liaison will be reported to
KC OEM as they occur. Any significant sudden hazard or potential impact will
be liaised in the appropriate, expected way.
Changes or additions by all RHMP participant organizations will be
documented and incorporated into the King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan as appropriate. Additional plan information in the following
areas will be captured for incorporation in the next plan update:
• Disaster proclamation, disaster declaration, or hazard incident(s) and
detailed documented impacts; additions to history of incidents section
• Changes to the functions or mission of the department, agency, or
jurisdiction that impact hazard mitigation administration and any
components of the Plan
• Changes, additions, or deletions in the types of project or services
provided or changes in ordinances, codes, etc.
• Updates to hazard mitigation projects such as status, completion, or
supporting functions and/or other programs
• Provide footnotes or endnotes updates and other documented sources
• Ongoing public involvement as described below
The table below identifies responsibilities for King County OEM Program Manager
staff and generalized Plan update and Plan maintenance responsibilities for all
participants.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-14
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan (RHMP)
Responsibilities
Department, Agency, and / or
Jurisdiction Participant
RHMP Responsibilities
Meeting
Frequency
Lead review process of RHMP
and oversees Plan updates or
changes; and next five year cycle
Plan updates and/or timelines
KC OEM Program Manager Meeting
Convened by KC
OEM.
Annually starting
Summer 2010;
more often during
the last year of
the 5 year
planning cycle/ or
as needed
KC OEM will develop and lead
internal and external RHMP
communications related to any
KC OEM RHMP Plan changes or
known State or Federal guideline
changes; meeting
announcements, etc., other
KC OEM Program Manager Ongoing
After each hazard, the Regional
Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
partners will convene to
determine how the hazard has
impacted the jurisdictions
involved and to review the RHMP
Plan strategies.
KC OEM Program Manager and
all participants; continuing and
new
Incident
determined
Annually, the Regional Hazard
Mitigation Planning Team
partners will convene to review
the RHMP Plan strategies.
KC OEM Program Manager and
all participants; continuing and
new
Incident
determined
Participate in KC OEM RHMP
Plan review process
All participants; continuing and
new
Ongoing
Review individual department,
agency, jurisdiction, fire district,
special purpose district, or school
district Plan, etc; AND
incorporate components and
elements and changes into Plan
to reflect current circumstances
All participants; continuing and
new
Annually
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-15
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Provide a copy of the changes to
KC OEM once a year by the
annual meeting; (or if significant,
such as a Liaison change,
provide to KC OEM, as it occurs).
All participants; continuing and
new
Annually
Public Involvement All participants; continuing and
new
Ongoing
Future Public Involvement
Ongoing Public involvement as part of the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation
Plan planning process will be undertaken via five vehicles, but not limited to the
following:
1. Continued public involvement will be through published annual
announcements in selected newspapers soliciting the public’s RHMP Plan
review and public comments or input and will be posted on the County
website. The public is invited to attend to provide oral or written feedback to
the KC OEM designated Mitigation staff person, or to a designated King
County email address.
2. Notification of any future public meetings on the update of the KC
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be advertised in local newspaper(s).
The KC OEM designated Mitigation staff person will be responsible for
providing prior notification of any King County Government meetings to the
newspaper(s) with times and dates.
3. Hard copy of Plan. A hard copy of the DRAFT 2009 RHMP Plan, has been
made available to the public on October 22, 2009 at five geographically
dispersed King County Public Libraries, identified as Bellevue, Bothell,
Redmond, Auburn, and KCLS online Libraries. The Plan is a Reference copy
only found in the Library Government Section and cannot be taken off the
premises. When Plan updates are available, the Plan “guts” will be provided
to KCLS for redistribution into the hard copy, 3 ring binders A portion of this
Plan, Annex G, is exempt from disclosure under RCW Section
42.17.310(1)(ww) of the Public Disclosure Act, RCW 42.17 250 et seq.
4. A Web Version Copy of this Plan Document The DRAFT 2009 RHMP
also will be available for the public on the KC OEM’s website, 10/02/09
version. A portion of this Plan, Annex G, is exempt from disclosure under
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-16
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
RCW Section 42.17.310(1)(ww) of the Public Disclosure Act, RCW 42.17
250 et seq.
5. Ongoing feedback will be requested from the public by the King County
Office of Emergency Management, and participating jurisdictions. The public
will be encouraged to provide feedback in a statement called Request for
Input, placed where the Plan is posted on the City website, that includes
contact information for KC OEM’s designated staff Mitigation person(s).
Guidelines for Adding a Jurisdiction to the King County Hazard Mitigation Plan
(new for 2009).
These guidelines were developed in cooperation with the Washington State
Military Department, Emergency Management Division, Mitigation Section. This
guideline has been incorporated into the Plan as part of the 2009 King County
Plan update.
1. The jurisdiction wishing to join the Plan contacts the King County Office of
Emergency Management with a request to become a participant of the
Plan by filling out the RHMP Letter of Intent document in Annex B, 1.1.
Letter of Intent Signatory Form RHMP 09.
2. The King County Office of Emergency Management provides the
jurisdiction with a copy of the approved plan, planning requirements and
any other pertinent data.
3. The jurisdiction reviews the Plan and develops the portions of the Plan
that are specific to the jurisdiction as directed by King County Office of
Emergency Management staff. This portion of the Plan must meet the
requirements of the current FEMA Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning
Guidance including a public involvement process and documentation.
4. The new jurisdiction submits its portions of the Plan to the King County
Office of Emergency Management and the new jurisdiction Plan is
forwarded to the State Hazard Mitigation Strategist for review and
compliance with current FEMA Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning
Guidance and amendments.
5. The State Hazard Mitigation Strategist reviews the new jurisdiction plan
for compliance with current local hazard mitigation planning guidance in
conjunction with the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. If the
new jurisdiction Plan does not meet the required standard, the State
Hazard Mitigation Strategist will work with the jurisdiction to resolve
issues until it does.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-17
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
6. The State Hazard Mitigation Strategist forwards the new jurisdiction plan
to FEMA Region X for review and approval.
7. Upon approval from FEMA Region X and adoption by the governing
authority, the new jurisdiction is considered part of the King County
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and will comply with the update schedule
of the Plan and the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
2009 Adoption of Plan and Documentation
On November 12, 2009 the King County Administrative Team transmitted copies of
the entire KC RHMP to the King County Council, which clears the way for King
County to formally adopt the Plan. The King County Administrative Team also
transmitted copies of the entire KC RHMP on November 12, 2009 to State EMD for
review and submission to FEMA for concurrent review and approval. This 2009 King
County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) document will be adopted by the
King County Council on November 23, 2009, by Ordinance # XX (See Annex D,
Items XXX). The King County Council adoption dates and all documentation for the
KC RHMP will be found in Annex D. State EMD and FEMA conditionally approved
the Plan on November XX. A copy of the approval confirmation documentation of the
Plan will be provided in Annex D after Plan approval is granted by State EMD and
FEMA. As part of Phase 2, each specific partner jurisdiction adoption documentation
will be found in each jurisdictional Plan located in Annex B.
2009 Incorporation of Plan Components into other Plans
Appropriate RHMP Plan elements and components will be referenced into the King
County Comprehensive Plan appropriate sections, added into the next iteration of the
Comprehensive Plan, the King County Countrywide Planning Policies (CPPS),
Capital Improvement Plans, land use regulatory authority and any other appropriate
King County Plan revisions.
Implementation of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
The same implementation process was utilized in the 2009 Plan updates as with the
2004 Plan, as follows:
All signatory agencies to the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan will
implement their designated strategies through the following funding mechanisms
unless otherwise designated in their individual annexes:
• Capital Improvement Program Budgets
• Operations Budgets
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-18
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
• Grant Proposals where available
• Expansion of Public Education program scope
• Proposals for bond levies where applicable
Most signatory agencies operate on annual budget cycles. Some large projects may
require implementation over multiple budget cycles (pipeline replacement is an
example). Progress and changes were addressed in the regular revisions of this Plan
by all signatory agencies as noted under Plan Administration and Maintenance
below.
Signatory jurisdictions, departments and agencies as part of the 2009 RHMP are
responsible for the maintenance of their individual strategies, revision of
incomplete mitigation initiative efforts, and submission of those changes to the
King County Office of Emergency Management for review by the Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Team. RHMP amendments, revisions and
additions are to be provided to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning
Team, annually, for review. Changes to RHMP Sections 1 through Section 8,
Annexes, will be affirmed by the impacted King County internal government
department managers.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Plan Development Page 2-19
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Section 3: Regional Profile
Information in reference to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, or other publications
previous to 2008-09, is the latest and most up to date information provided by the
Local/State and Federal Governments, or individual private enterprises.
Geography1,2,3
Clallam
Jefferson
Grays Harbor
Pacific
Whatcom
Skagit
Snohomish
King
Pierce
Lewis
Mason
Cowlitz
Thurston
Clark
Skamania
Klickitat
Yakima
Kittitas
Chelan
Douglas
Grant
Okanogan Ferry Stevens
Pend
Oreille
SpokaneLincoln
Adams Whitman
Franklin
Benton Walla Walla
Columbia
Garfield
Asotin
Wahkiakum
Island
Kitsap
San Juan
Region 6
Located on Puget Sound in
Washington State and covering 2,134
square miles, King County is nearly
twice as large as the average County
in the United States.
King County is geographically
diverse, extending from Puget Sound
in the west to 8,000-foot Mount Daniel
at the Cascade crest to the east.
Except for the northern boundary shared with Snohomish County, each of the
County’s borders reflects unique geographic contours. The eastern boundary
closely follows the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, the crest of the Cascade
Range. The White River delineates the County’s southern boundary, while the
western part of the County faces Puget Sound.
King County contains a wide variety of landforms including saltwater, coastline,
river floodplains, plateaus, slopes and mountains, punctuated with lakes and
salmon streams. Lake Washington, covering 35 square miles, and Lake
Sammamish with eight square miles are the two largest bodies of fresh water.
Vashon and Maury Islands in Puget Sound and Mercer Island in Lake
Washington provide different island environments. Major rivers include the
Snoqualmie, White, Green and Cedar Rivers, which all flow out of the Cascade
Mountains through the County.
The western part of the County, where the vast majority of the population has
settled, is an alluvial plain near sea level. In the east are the Cascade Mountains.
The County only has three vehicular exits to the east: Stevens Pass, Stampede
Pass and Snoqualmie Pass. A substantial portion of the eastern King County is
in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Climate4,5
King County's climate is mild and moderately moist; winters are comparatively
warm with mild, temperate summers. The average summer temperature is 64
degrees, and temperatures climb over 90 degrees only a few days per year.
During the winter, temperatures rarely drop below freezing (only 15 days per
year). The area's wet season extends from October through April, during which
82 percent of annual rainfall occurs (about 35 inches a year). Heavy rainfall is
rather rare; instead the area experiences a stable level of light rain throughout
the winter. Snow accumulations below the 2,000-foot level are uncommon and
rarely remain two days after such storms. The average monthly snowfall is .98
inches over a five-month period in the winter, with the heaviest accumulations
occurring in December and January.
Population and Demographics1,3,6,7
With a population of 1,909,300 and 29 percent of the state’s population, King
County is the largest county in Washington State, and the 14th largest in the
nation. It is also the most densely populated area in the state, with an average of
895 people per square mile. As a populous large county with a major central city,
King County comprises the majority of the “Seattle-Bellevue-Everett-Tacoma”
metropolitan area.
Population Distribution1,6,7
Although the total land area of King County of 2,134 square miles, the majority of
the population resides on only 400 square miles of incorporated land or 19
percent of the land base.
About 82 percent of King County residents, 1,566,120 people, live in the county’s
39 incorporated cities and towns; about 32 percent live in Seattle alone, the
largest City in the Pacific Northwest. The next three largest cities are Bellevue,
Federal Way and Kent. During the 1990s there was a strong increase in
incorporations and annexations. Among the new cities formed in the 1990s are
Burien, Covington, Kenmore, Maple Valley, Newcastle, Sammamish, Shoreline,
and Woodinville.
Unincorporated King County, the territory outside any city, is home to about
343,180 people or 18 percent of the County’s population on 81 percent of its land
area. Most of this population resides on the Seattle-sized portion within the
Urban Growth Area designated by Growth Management. Unincorporated areas
of King County range from urban communities such as White Center, Kingsgate
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
and Fairwood to small rural communities, farmland, commercial forest, national
forest and wilderness area with almost no residents.
More than 92 percent of the population in the County lives in densely settled
urbanized areas, with the remaining living in rural and resource areas.
See Map 3-1: Population Density.
Population by Age and Sex6
King County has an aging population with a median age near 38. People ages
18-64 account for the majority of the population, about 62 percent. Young people
age 18 and under account for 28 percent of the population. Approximately one in
ten people living in King County is older than 65.
Table 3-1: Population by Age
Age Group Population %
0-4 118,445 6.3%
5-17 286,110 15.3%
18-64 1,267,922 67.6%
65+ 203,042 10.8%
Total 1,875,519 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2008
American Community Survey Estimates
The median age for both male and female are very close, age 36.1 for male and
37.91 for female. The number of males and females are proportionally the same,
until age of 65 and older where the percentage of females increases significantly
over that of males.
Table 3-2: Population by Sex
Age Group Male
Population % Female
Population %
0-19 222,752 25.8% 211,984 24.3%
20-54 496,004 57.4% 482,995 55.4%
55-64 70,432 8.1% 71,095 8.1%
65-84 67,962 7.9% 89,270 10.2%
85+ 7,307 .8% 17,233 2.0%
Total-2000 864,457 100% 872,577 100%
Total-2009 956,559 50.1% 952,741 49.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2008 Census
*U.S. Census Bureau 2009 estimate of total population
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-3
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Households1
As of 2006, King County is estimated to have about 752,000 households, an
increase of 42,000 since the 2000 Census. The average household size is 2.38,
and while household size in some Eastside communities continue to decline, it
remains stable in Seattle and is actually increasing in some South County
communities. The majority of households, about 707,000 (94%) are located
within an urban area while the remaining 45,000 (6%) of households are located
in rural areas.
The County has more single-person households than family households
consisting of a married couple with children. The number of married couples
without children exceeds the number of married couples with children. Single
parent households represent a smaller percentage of the population in King
County than nationally – and smaller in Seattle than in the suburbs.
Table 3-3: Household Types
Household Types Number of
Households %
Married with children 156,800 20.9%
Married, no children 189,700 25.2%
Single Parents, other family 95,400 12.7%
Single-person households
Other
245,900
64,100
32.7%
8.5%
Total 751,900 100%
AGR from 2008
Cultural Diversity1,6
King County exhibits growing diversity; its racial and ethnic characteristics
shifting significantly in the last ten years. Over 30 percent of the County’s
population is now comprised of people of color or different ethnic groups. The
County is more ethnically diverse than the state as a whole.
According to the 2000 Census, ethnic diversity increased from 16.7 to 27 percent
during the preceding decade. As of 2008, the Hispanic or Latino population grew
to 144,000 persons making up 7.7 percent of the population. The Asian
population has increased to 251,000 persons, accounting for 13.4 percent of the
population. The African-American population has been growing less rapidly,
about 23 percent over the last ten years, and the Native American population has
remained about the same. The Non-Hispanic White population is the slowest
growing racial group.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-4
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Table 3-4: Cultural Diversity
Ethnic Category Population %
Non-Hispanic White 1,288,482 68.7%
Asian 251,320 13.4%
Hispanic 144,415 7.7%
Black or African American 116,282 6.2%
Pacific Islander 11,253 0.6%
Native American 18,755 1.0%
Two or more races 45,012 2.4%
Total 1,875,519* 100%
Source: 2008 Census Bureau estimate*
While Seattle is quite diverse, the dispersion of persons of color outside Seattle
is the more profound trend. Bellevue has the highest percentage of Asian
population. South King County is experiencing the most dramatic increase in
diversity, with minority populations doubling and tripling in several communities.
Tukwila has the largest percentage of minorities, 46 percent. Burien, Sea Tac
and Federal Way have large Pacific Island communities as well as black, Latino
and Asian populations. Countywide, the foreign-born population has nearly
doubled to 268,000 people or 15 percent of the population. Immigrants to King
County have come from all over the world, with Mexico, China, Vietnam, and the
Philippines sending the most people in the last ten years. King County also has
7,200 residents from the Ukraine and 5,500 from Russia – both significant
increases in the last decade.
Approximately 93,000 persons over the age of five (5.4 percent of the population)
are non-Native English speakers. Almost half of this linguistically isolated
population speaks Asian or Pacific Island languages, including Chinese,
Vietnamese, Tagalog and Korean. The diversity of languages has also increased
greatly, especially Russian and Spanish.
Nearly one in five King County residents does not speak English as their primary
language at home, and about eight percent speak English less fluently.
People with Disabilities6
About 16.1 percent of the King County population over the age of five has a
disability. The breakdown between males and females is relatively close, with
males experiencing a slightly higher disability rate. People over the age of 65
account for 10.8 percent of the entire population, yet this age group represents
the largest percentage of people with disabilities, almost 40 percent. About 15
percent of working-age adults have a disability that does not require them to be
institutionalized, and about two in three are employed.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-5
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Table 3-5: Non-Institutionalized Disabled Population
(people age 5 years and over)
Age Total
Population
Population with
a Disability %
5-15 242,496 12,689 5.0%
16-64 1,199,800 177,507 14.8%
Over 65 175,083 69,647 39.8%
Total 1,617,379* 259,843 16.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Census
(Latest data available by State and Federal government
agencies in October of 2009).
Specific types and breakdowns of disabilities can be difficult to ascertain from
Census reports since data is based on self-identification. Participants may not
perceive and identify certain impairments or physical/mental challenges as a
“disability.” The statistics in the table below reflect general disability categories
and reflect the possibility that more than one type of disability may apply to a
single individual.
Table 3-6: Disability by Type
(people 5 years and over)
Type Population %
Sensory 52,388 3.2%
Physical 105,173 6.5%
Mental 72,457 4.5%
Self-Care 33,488 2.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Census
(Latest data available by State and Federal
government agencies in October of 2009).
Population Growth and Future Trends1,3,6,7
King County has been growing less rapidly than other parts of the state. The
County is a large and mature county that saw rapid growth during earlier periods.
Since 2000, King County’s population has grown by 10 percent, a modest rate
compared to other areas and nearby Puget Sound counties. However, given the
large population already here, the growth numbers are significant. The increase
in population since 2000 – 172,000 people – is equivalent to the total current
population of the cities of Bellevue and Auburn combined. The majority of King
County’s growth is due to natural increase – our own children. Just over one-third
of our growth is due to people moving into the County – primarily as immigration
from overseas.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-6
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
South King County has experienced the biggest share of the County’s growth,
more than half, and the south remains the largest of three sub-areas with more
than 650,000 residents. Rural areas of the County have grown at relatively slow
rates.
Net population migration is a major contributor to population change, and
typically varies as a result of changing economic conditions. King County is
forecasted to grow by an additional 237,000 persons, twelve percent, to just over
2.1 million by 2020. The bulk of this growth is expected to occur within
designated Urban Growth Areas as identified in the Countywide Planning
Policies (CPPs).
Housing1,3,6
The vast majority of the King County population, 98 percent, lives in single-
family, multi-family and other types of residential housing. About two percent live
in group quarters.
There are approximately 812,000 housing units in King County as of the year
2008, an increase of more than 61,000 units from 2000. About 60 percent of the
housing stock consists of single-family housing, including detached houses and
attached town-homes. The number of multifamily units, apartments and
condominiums is 302,000, or 38% of the housing stock. Home ownership
accounts for 61.9 percent. Fully 465,000 households in the County own their own
home. The median value of single family home was $394,000 in 2007. Average
rents rose to $875.
Growth and Household Size1
The number of housing units in King County is growing as fast as the population.
The increase in housing since 1990 is almost evenly divided between single
family including mobile homes and multi-family. Household size has stabilized
after declining in the 1970s and 1980s and slight declines are anticipated in
coming years, to an estimated 2.30 persons by 2020.
Table 3-7: Housing Development
Single-Family Multi-Family Mobile Homes Other
59.1% 38.4% 2.4% 0.1%
Source: 2008 King County Annual Growth Report
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-7
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Age of Construction1
The age of King County’s housing stock generally mirrors the state average, but
is slightly older with a greater percentage of units built before 1960. About two-
thirds of all homes were built prior to 1980.
TABLE 3-8: HOUSING – YEAR BUILT
Pre-1939 – 1959 1960 – 1979 1980 – 2000
King 33.5% 32.5% 33.9%
Washington State 29.4% 32.7% 37.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of Housing Characteristics 2000
(Latest data available by State and Federal government agencies in
October of 2009).
Group Housing
Group housing consists of school dormitories, nursing homes, military quarters,
and institutional-type facilities. In 2000, there were 37,619 people living in a
group living arrangement.
Table 3-9: Group Housing Types
Type of Quarters
Group
Housing
Population
% Group
Housing
Population
Correctional Facilities 4,402 11.7
Nursing Homes 6,849 18.2
Hospitals/wards, hospices and schools
for chronically ill and disabled 714 1.9
Juvenile Institutions 560 1.5
College Dormitories 11,136 29.6
Military Quarters 232 .6
Group Homes/Quarters 5,570 14.8
Crews-Maritime Vessels 310 .8
Other 7,846 20.9
Total 37,619 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000 Group Quarters Population by Group
Quarters Type (Latest data available by State and Federal government
agencies in October of 2009).
According to Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, there
are currently 1,418 licensed family homes in King County with a capacity of
12,610 people. This equals 20 percent of the state’s total. Based on 2002 data,
vacancy rates are in the 13-15 percent range.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-8
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Homelessness8
City of Seattle Human Services Department estimates there are 6,000 homeless
people in Seattle and King County on any given night. Of the 6,000 it is estimated
that 1,000 are not sheltered. The number of estimated homeless youth (ages 12-
24) range from up to 1,000 in Seattle and up to 2,000 or more in King County.
King County and Seattle have an extensive network of emergency shelter
facilities with total year-round capacity of over 2,700 slots. Additional emergency
shelter is made available as a response to winter weather, October through
March. Homeless individuals and families who are not housed in shelter facilities
typically utilize benches, parking garages, vehicles, areas under roads and
bridges, doorways, parks, greenbelts, bus stops, alleys and other locations.
Geopolitical Jurisdiction1,7,9-14,18-22
Governmentally, King County is divided into 40 jurisdictions including County and
39 cities. In addition to county government and cities, there are other public
agencies and taxing districts that contribute the overall governmental
infrastructure. They include the Port of Seattle, Native American Tribes, school
districts, fire protection districts, public hospital districts, water districts, sewer
districts, flood control zone districts, drainage districts, parks and recreation
districts, and other miscellaneous districts. This section identifies all public
agencies defined as a “taxing authority.”
King County Government10,11
King County operates under a Home Rule Charter adopted by a vote of the
citizens of King County in 1968 and is organized under the Council-Executive
form of county government. The Metropolitan King County Council is the policy-
making legislative body of the County. The Council’s nine members are elected
by district and serve on a full-time basis. The County Council sets tax levies,
makes appropriations, and adopts and approves the annual operating and capital
budgets for the County. The County Executive serves as the chief executive
officer for the County. Other elected County officials include the Prosecuting
Attorney, Sheriff, Elections Director, Judges and Assessor. Every eligible County
resident, including those in cities, has an opportunity to vote for County elected
officials.
King County provides regional services to all residents of the County, including
people who live in cities. These include public transportation, courts and related
legal services, property tax appraisals and collections, criminal detention,
rehabilitative services, public health care, records and elections, emergency
management, water quality, flood control, sewage treatment and disposal,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-9
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
regional parks and facilities, and the King County International Airport (Boeing
Field). In unincorporated communities, the County provides additional local
services such as building and land use development, fire code enforcement,
police protection, road construction and maintenance, fire investigation, local
parks and animal control. In addition, the County has contracts with some cities
to provide local services to incorporated areas of the County. Other local
services in unincorporated communities are provided by fire, utility, library and
hospital districts which operate independently of County government.
The majority of King County’s funding is derived from taxes and charges for
services. Other revenues include licenses and permits, intergovernmental
revenue, federal grants (direct and indirect), federal shared revenues, state
grants, state shared revenues, state entitlements, grants from local units,
intergovernmental payment, fines and forfeits and miscellaneous revenue11.
See Map 3-2: Incorporated Cities & Towns.
Cities and Towns 1,7,9
There are 39 cities and towns in King County, the largest number of any county
within Washington State. The largest city is Seattle with a population of
602,000 people. The next largest cities include Bellevue with 120,600 people,
followed by Federal Way, Kent, Renton, all with populations over 50,000. In
contrast, some of the smallest cities or towns like Skykomish, Beaux Arts and
Hunts Point have populations less than 500. The Cities of Auburn and Algona
are partially located in Pierce County to the south and a portion of Bothell is
located in Snohomish County to the north. Cities and towns located in King
County are identified on Table 3-10.
Cities and towns are governed either by a council/mayor or a council/city
manager form of government.
Municipal government generally provides the same types of local services as
county government. Depending on the size and needs of the jurisdiction, such
services typically include: fire, police, building and land use development, public
works (roads, transportation, and utilities), human services, parks and recreation,
economic development, waste management, and municipal court services. Some
cities and towns may contract with other agencies, such as fire districts or the
King County Sheriff’s Office, for services.
The majority of funding for municipalities comes from property and other taxes
including sales, business and occupation, motor fuel, admission, leasehold
excise, utility, gambling and lodging taxes. Additional funding is provided from
special licensing fees, permit fees, grants, state-shared per capita distributions,
fines and penalties, grants, EMS levies, franchise fees, charges for service,
mitigation fees (fire, parks, transportation), parks fees, and investment interest.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-10
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
See Map 3.2: Unincorporated King County, Cities and Towns.
Table 3-10: King County Cities
City 2000
Population
2009
Population
2008
Land Area
(sq. miles)
2008
Assessed
Value
(in thousands)
Algona 2,460 2,760 1.31 410,821
Auburn (KC portion) 42,901 60,820 28.20 5,728,381
Beaux Arts 307 315 0.08 115,583
Bellevue 109,827 120,600 33.30 31,485,646
Black Diamond 3,970 4,180 6.72 579,160
Bothell (KC portion) 16,185 17,260 5.67 3,275,422
Burien 31,881 31,890 7.43 3,845,145
Carnation 1,893 1,910 1.17 202,888
Clyde Hill 2,890 2,815 1.06 1,579,857
Covington 13,783 17,530 5.85 1,885,074
Des Moines 29,267 29,270 6.54 2,936,128
Duvall 4,616 5,980 2.20 828,259
Enumclaw 11,116 11,460 4.15 1,068,154
Federal Way 83,259 88,580 22.54 9,010,356
Hunts Point 443 465 0.29 765,357
Issaquah 11,212 26,890 11.36 5,890,000
Kenmore 18,678 20,450 6.17 2,941,435
Kent 79,524 88,380 29.06 11,556,075
Kirkland 45,054 49,010 10.55 11,452,502
Lake Forest Park 13,142 12,820 3.59 2,162,443
Maple Valley 14,209 20,840 5.67 2,303,190
Medina 3,011 2,970 1.41 2,681,076
Mercer Island 22,036 22,720 6.32 8,900,540
Milton (KC portion) 814 830 0.56 82,373
Newcastle 7,737 9,925 4.46 2,051,576
Normandy Park 6,392 6,485 2.55 1,278,891
North Bend 4,746 4,760 2.96 679,244
Pacific (KC portion) 5,373 6,200 1.83 459,833
Redmond 45,256 51,890 16.23 12,774,174
Renton 50,052 83,650 22.31 9,659,678
Sammamish 34,104 40,670 18.22 8,739,143
Sea Tac 25,496 25,730 10.29 4,606,470
Seattle 563,374 602,000 86.06 121,621,131
Shoreline 53,025 54,320 11.59 7,293,134
Skykomish 214 210 0.33 24,535
Snoqualmie 1,631 9,730 6.45 1,725,359
Tukwila 17,181 18,170 9.17 4,450,244
Woodinville 9,194 10,670 5.66 2,555,579
Yarrow Point 1,008 965 0.36 716,576
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-11
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Cities Total
1,387,261 1,566,120 400. $ 290,362,432
Unincorporated King
County
349,234 343,180
1,734. $50,633,008
King County Total 1,737,046 1,909,300 2134. $360,995,440
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2008 U.S. Census, 2008 King County Annual Grown Report, April
2009 Office of Financial Management Washington State
* (April 2009)
Port of Seattle12
The Port of Seattle is a municipal corporation created in 1911 by the voters of
King County. They are charged with construction, maintenance and operation of
harbor and airport facilities, including seaport cargo and vessel-handling
terminals, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Fishermen’s Terminal, and Bell
Street Pier Cruise Terminal at Pier 66. Their services and facilities accommodate
transportation of cargo and passengers by air, water and land; provide a home
for the fishing industry; and foster economic vitality and quality of life for King
County citizens. The Port operates its own police and fire departments. The port
is governed by port commissioners elected by the citizens of King County. Their
funding is obtained through property taxes, interest earnings, bond issues,
grants, passenger facility charges, and other miscellaneous revenue.
See Map 3-3: Port of Seattle Properties.
Native American Tribes13,14,15
There are two Native American Tribes located within King County, the
Muckleshoot and Snoqualmie Tribes.
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT) was established in 1874 and is comprised of
the descendants of the area’s original Coast Salish peoples. The Tribe has lived
in this area for thousands of years. As time passed, a number of people from
other local Tribes, such as the Duwamish and Snoqualmie, were absorbed into
the Muckleshoot Tribe, as well as other neighboring federally recognized Tribes
including the Tulalip and Suquamish. The six square-mile Muckleshoot
Reservation located near Auburn is laid out diagonally and has 20 miles of
boundaries. Most of the reservation is surrounded by farms and rural lands, with
urbanization encroaching on the western portion. The Muckleshoot Tribe is one
of Washington State’s larger tribes, with a population of about 3,300. Through the
Indian Reorganization Act, the Tribe adopted its constitution in 1936. It provides
for a nine-member council. With advice and input of the General Council
comprised of all community members, the Muckleshoot Tribal Council provides a
full range of government services to the reservation13,14.
See Map 3-4: Muckleshoot Indian Reservation.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-12
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
The Snoqualmie people have lived in the Snoqualmie River Valley from at least
1844 to the present. After 67 years of petitioning, the Snoqualmie Tribe was re-
recognized by the Federal Government in 1999. This provided the Tribe with the
right to acquire its initial reservation land. The Snoqualmie Tribe currently has
approximately 1,000 members. Historically, the tribal members lived in the area
of east King and Snohomish Counties that now contain the communities of
Monroe, Carnation, Fall City, Snoqualmie, North Bend, Mercer Island and
Issaquah. Tribal members continue to live in each of these communities. The
Tribe is governed by a tribal constitution and elected council. The Tribe’s
governing structure includes building codes, health codes and other standard
governmental functions15.
School Districts1,17,18
There are 20 school districts within King County that provide an opportunity for
education to all children. They include:
Table 3-11: School Districts
School District 2000 District
Population
October 2008
Enrollment
Auburn #408 67,700 14,936
Bellevue #405 114,600 17,249
Enumclaw #216 25,500 4,536
Federal Way #210 123,000 22,440
Fife #800 (KC portion) N/A 3,554
Highline #401 122,500 17,549
Issaquah #411 73,200 16,696
Kent #415 137,600 27,444
Lake Washington #414 153,500 23,937
Mercer Island 22,000 4,117
Northshore #417 72,000 19,818
Renton #403 95,500 14,024
Riverview #407 15,800 3,199
Seattle 564,200 45,968
Shoreline #412 66,000 9,168
Skykomish #404 600 66
Snoqualmie Valley #410 25,900 5,916
Tahoma #409 28,800 7,377
Tukwila #406 16,000 2,822
Vashon Island #402 10,100 1,553
Total 1,737,000 262,369
*(Latest data available by State and Federal government agencies
in October of 2009).
Source: 2008 King County Annual Growth Report
WA State Public School Building Count 2008-09
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-13
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Under the constitutional framework and laws of the State of Washington, the
governance structure for the state’s public common school system is comprised
of the following bodies: legislature, governor, superintendent of public instruction,
state board of education, educational service district boards of directors, and
local school district boards of directors (elected by voters). The respective policy
and administrative roles of each body are determined by the State Constitution
and statues. Local school districts are political subdivisions of the state16. The
primary source of funding for grades K-12 comes from the state. About one-
quarter of the State’s distribution of operating expenditures goes to K-12
education. School districts obtain additional revenues from the federal
government, local levies, Washington State Initiative 728 (education reform and
improved student learning funding), capital improvement bonds, fees for service,
local taxes, grants, school districts and other sources17. See Map 3-5: School
Districts.
Fire Protection Districts18
There are 27 fire protection districts (in addition to municipal fire departments)
whose role it is to eliminate fire hazards, protect life and property, and provide
fire suppression and emergency medical services. Table 3-12 reflects district
data only; municipal fire department data (i.e. population, service area) is located
in Table 3-10. A few municipalities contract with fire districts to provide fire
service.
Table 3-12: Fire Districts
Fire District Service
Population
Service Area
(sq. miles)
KCFD #2 -- Burien/Normandy Park 37,430 15.5
KCFD #4 -- Shoreline Fire Department 106,736 13.5
KCFD #10 -- Eastside Fire and Rescue
(merged with Issaquah Fire–district figures only) 173,485 200.0
KCFD #11 -- North Highline Fire District 33,400 6.2
KCFD #13 -- Vashon Island Fire and Rescue 12,000 40.0
KCFD #14 – Bellevue* ? 4.0
KCFD #16 -- Northshore Fire Department 65,630 11.0
KCFD #17 – Black Diamond*
(merged with Mountain View KCFD #44)
KCFD #20 – Skyway/Bryn Mawr/Lakeridge 15,000 5.0
KCFD #24 – Angel Lake* (City of Sea Tac) 30 1.0
KCFD #25 – Renton* 7,000 4.5
KCFD #26 – Des Moines
(merged with Federal Way Fire Department)
KCFD #27 – Fall City 7,100 24.0
KCFD #28 – Enumclaw 13,500 9.0
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-14
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
KCFD #31 – Auburn* 350 4.0
KCFD #34 – Redmond 20,900 30.0
KCFD #36 -- Woodinville Fire and Life Safety 52,000 36.0
KCFD #37 – Kent* 32,382 18.0
KCFD #38 – North Bend / Snoqualmie 11,900 24.0
KCFD #39 South King Fire & Rescue
(annexed Federal Way and Des Moines)
150,00 40.0
KCFD #40 – Spring Glen/Cascade/Fairwood 28,000 8.0
KCFD #41 – Kirkland* 30,000 20.0
KCFD #43 -- Maple Valley Fire and Life Safety 65,480 53.0
KCFD #44 -- Mountain View Fire and Rescue 23,456 59.8
KCFD #45 – Duvall 14,000 55.0
KCFD #47 – Kangley/Palmer 1,500 26.0
KCFD #49 – Snoqualmie Pass
(reorganized as KCFD #51)
KCFD #50 – Skykomish/Stevens Pass 1,000 140.0
KCFD #51 – Snoqualmie Pass 300-1,500 22.0
*Services provided by the city
Source: RHMP Participating agencies; 2009 WA Fire Service Directory
Each fire district is governed by a board of fire commissioners elected by the
voters living within the district. Fire Districts are primarily funded through property
taxes. Additional revenues are obtained through benefit charges, capital
improvement bonds, and grants.
See Map 3-6: Fire Districts & City Depts.
Public Hospital Districts18,19
There are three public hospital districts that own and operate hospitals and other
health care facilities in King County. Hospital districts are community supported
governmental entities charged with delivering health care to their communities.
They fulfill a vital role in King County because without them many people would
be unable to receive healthcare. The Washington State legislature granted local
communities the ability to create their own hospital districts in 1945. Nearly half
of all Washington’s 90 hospitals are part of a public hospital district. Districts are
authorized not only to operate a hospital, but to deliver any service to help people
stay healthy – physically, socially and mentally. Hospital districts are located in
areas considered to be rural in character. Public hospital districts within King
County include:
District #1 - Valley Medical Center
(Kent, Renton and two-thirds of Tukwila)
District #2 - Evergreen Healthcare
(Bothell, Redmond and Woodinville)
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-15
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
District #4 - Snoqualmie Valley
(Snoqualmie, North Bend, Carnation, Fall City, Preston and
Snoqualmie Pass)
Public hospitals are governed by hospital commissioners elected by the citizens
living within their district. Levy funds typically provide a small portion of the
hospital revenues. The majority of funding is obtained through inpatient and
outpatient services, and other services.
See Map 3-7: Hospitals & Hospital Districts.
Utility Districts18
There are 22 water districts in King County that are responsible for acquiring and
distributing water, construction and maintaining water storage and distribution
facilities and infrastructures, and managing water resources.
Covington Water District
Fall City Water District
Highline Water District
King County Water District #1 – Yarrow Point
King County Water District #19 – Vashon Island
King County Water District #20 – Burien/Riverton/McMicken Heights
King County Water District #42
King County Water District #45 – Seattle
King County Water District #49 – Burien
King County Water District #54 – Des Moines/Normandy Park/ Burien
King County Water District #83
King County Water District #86
King County Water District #87
King County Water District #90 – Renton
King County Water District #94
King County Water District #105
King County Water District #111 – Kent
King County Water District #117 – Bellevue
King County Water District #119 – Carnation/Duvall
King County Water District #123 – Present
King County Water District #125 – Riverton Heights
Shoreline Water District
Water Districts are typically funded from water sales and base charges, fees
such as water availability certificates, hydrant permits and street light fees.
Restricted funds include general facilities and local facilities charges paid when
customers hook-up to a system and G.O. bonds or revenue bonds.
See Map 3-8 Water Service Utilities.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-16
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
There are seven sewer districts that are responsible for managing wastewater
needs of the community. This includes construction, maintenance and operation
of sewer system facilities and infrastructures. Sewer districts obtain their funding
through fees and charges.
See Map 3-9: Wastewater Service Agencies.
Highlands Sewer District
Midway Sewer District
Ronald Wastewater
Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District
Southwest Suburban Sewer District
Stevens Pass Sewer District
Val Vue Sewer District
There are ten combination water/sewer utility districts in the County. They
include:
Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Water and Sewer District
Cedar River Water and Sewer District
Coal Creek Utility District
Lakehaven Utility District
Northeast Sammamish Sewer and Water District
Northshore Utility District
Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District
Skyway Water and Sewer District
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
Soos Creek Water and Sewer District
Utility districts are governed by elected commissioners.
King County Flood Control Zone District (new for 2009)
This section was rewritten by the Department of Natural Resources and Parks,
Water and Land Resources for the 2009 Plan update.
Flood control zone districts are authorized by Chapter 86.15 of the Revised Code
of Washington to undertake, operate, or maintain flood control or storm water
control projects that benefit the area contained within the district. King County
has nearly five hundred aging flood protection facilities, as well as vast areas of
land within the one hundred-year floodplain. In response to the need for an
integrated and coordinated approach to effectively and efficiently reduce flooding
risk on a countywide scale and to protect public safety, property, and the regional
economy, the King County Flood Control District (District) was formed by
Ordinance No. 15728 of the Metropolitan King County Council in April 2007. With
the formation of a new countywide district and pursuant to state statute, the King
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-17
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
County Council dissolved ten previously-existing flood control zone districts
spread across the County, only two of which were active at the time of the
creation of the King County Flood Control District.
The King County Flood Control District is an independent special purpose district
of the State of Washington. Under the authorizing ordinance and consistent with
RCW 86.15, the King County Council was granted the authority to govern the
District as its Board of Supervisors. Support is provided to the Board of
Supervisors by committees comprised of local elected officials and other key
stakeholders. The District also partners with numerous entities, from local tribes
and watershed planning groups to state and federal agencies.
An inter-local agreement (ILA) between the District and King County specifies
that the Water and Land Resources Division of King County’s Department of
Natural Resources and Parks provide floodplain management services to the
District. Under the terms of the ILA, the District directs King County to implement
the District’s work program, thus drawing upon the County’s long-standing
expertise in floodplain management. The 2006 King County Flood Hazard
Management Plan serves as the District’s Comprehensive Plan.
Drainage Districts9,20
2004 Data: There are six drainage and diking districts in King County. They
Include: #1 – Green River Valley, #2 – Military Road/Green River, #5, #6 – Enumclaw
South, #7 – Farmland joining Cherry Creek-Duvall, and #13 – Farm area north of
Enumclaw. Their funding comes from assessments for service (not a property
tax).
2009 Drainage District data from the King County Assessor’s Office,
September 2009
See 2009 Map – 3.9.5 – Drainage Districts
The names and addresses of commissioners for each district are listed below. A
map of the districts is provided.
Drainage District One: Morgan Llewellyn
P. O. Box 902
Kent, WA 98035
(253) 852-189
Drainage District Two: Thomas R. O’Connell
20449 Frager Road
Kent, WA 98032
253) 872-8687
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-18
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Drainage District Five: Allan Thomas
123 E. Roosevelt Avenue
Enumclaw, WA 98022
(253) 261-7874 (cell)
Drainage District Six: John Koopman
46029 276th SE
Enumclaw, WA 98022
(360) 825-7705
Drainage District Seven: Ruth Coy Bellamy
26808 NE Cherry Valley Rd.
Duvall, WA 98019
(425) 788-1130
Drainage District 13: John Millarich
39926 264th SE
Enumclaw, WA 98022
(360) 825-3615
Parks and Recreation Districts9,20
There are five parks and recreation districts that provide for leisure activities and
recreational facilities. They include: #076 Coalfield Park and Recreation, #555
Enumclaw Park and Recreation, #550 Northshore Park and Recreation, #548
Shoreline Park and Recreation, and #002 Vashon Park and Recreation. Park and
recreation districts are governed by commissioners elected by voters in the
district. Their funding is obtained through special levies.
King County Library System (Rural Library District)21
King County Library System (KCLS) is the third largest circulating library in the
United States. The system includes 42 libraries and a traveling library center that
serves over one million residents. The governance of the District is a Board of
Trustees appointed by the King County Executive and confirmed by the County
Council. Additional oversight is provided by library advisory boards in cities and
other library support groups throughout the district. Their primary funding is
obtained through levy taxes.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (King County Air Pollution Control)22
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Control enforces federal, state and local air
quality laws and regulations in King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
Their policies and programs are designed to meet and maintain air quality
standards, protect human health, prevent injury to plant and animal life and
protect Puget Sound’s panoramic views. They are governed by a board of
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-19
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
directors. Their funding is obtained from fees and from federal, state, county and
city governments.
Cemetery District #1
Cemetery District #1 is located on Vashon Island. It is governed by elected
district commissioners. They receive their funding from tax levies.
Economy1,2,4,6,7
Employment1,6,7
King County is a nationally important market, with the ninth largest number of
jobs among the nation’s 3,100 counties, and a year 2005 payroll of $65 billion,
ranking ninth in the nation.
Employment growth is a major driver of King County’s population and housing
growth. More than 1.1 million workers are employed within the borders of King
County, with over 59,000 business establishments. With more than 40 percent of
Washington State’s jobs and payroll, the County is the economic engine of
Washington and the Pacific Northwest. The County’s economy is larger than that
of several U.S. states.
In 2000, King County had 43 percent of Washington jobs, but only 29 percent of
the population and 30 percent of the housing units. During the 1990s, the number
of jobs grew faster than population and housing. Most of these workers live in
King County, but an increasing number commute in from Snohomish, Pierce and
other counties.
Although King County contains only three percent of the State’s land area, it is
large and diverse with many different job centers. Manufacturing and
warehousing dominate in South Seattle and South King County. High-tech
industries are located mostly in Seattle and the Eastside (Bellevue/Redmond/
Kirkland area) and services and retail are located throughout the County.
The economy of King County is diverse, though more heavily dependent on the
services and trade sectors than the state as a whole. The table below provides a
profile of employment in various economic segments in King County.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-20
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Table 3-13: Employment by Industry – 2007
Industry Number of
Workers %
Professional and Business Services 190,400 15.9
Government and Education 163,300 13.6
Manufacturing 113,100 9.4
Leisure and Hospitality 111,700 9.3
Financial Activities 77,100 6.4
Educational and Health Services 127,700 6.5
Information 75,700 6.2
Construction 74,800 5.4
Trade, Transportation & Utilities 224,200 18.6
Other Services 41,700 3.3
Natural Resource and Mining 700 .1
Total Services Industry 1,011,700 84.3
Total 1,200,400 100.0
Source: 2007 King County Annual Growth Report – Washington State Security
Employment Department 2007
Services producing industries, which include information technology, contribute
84.3% of non-agriculture employment in King County. Services have been the
fastest growing sector since 1970. While services may be traditionally thought of
as low-paying industries, some of the highest paid workers in the County are in
service industries, In fact, the bulk of job growth in recent years has been in the
higher paying jobs, primarily in the software industry and to a lesser extent
professional business services. The county is ranked fifth in the nation for
concentration of high-tech businesses.
About nine percent of the County’s employment base is in manufacturing.
Transportation equipment is the largest industry in this sector, with the bulk of
manufacturing employment (about 40%) in aerospace products and parts.
However, manufacturing is diversifying with advanced technology. Computer
and electronic products account for about eight percent of manufacturing trade,
most of which has occurred in the Interstate 5/Interstate 405 corridor. Non-
durable goods, which include the production of food products, account for about
24 percent of all manufacturing.
About 19 percent of the County’s jobs are in the transportation and public utilities
industry. More than half of the State’s jobs in this industry are in the County,
primarily due to activities at the Port of Seattle and SeaTac International Airport.
The County is also home to television media that serves most of western
Washington.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-21
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
As a regional finance and insurance hub, King County’s employment in the
finance, insurance, and real estate industry is larger than the rest of the State.
King County accounts for over half all statewide employees in this industry
sector. The state’s banking and insurance industries are primarily headquartered
in Seattle as are most security and commodity brokers, holding companies and
investment firms.
About 14 percent of the jobs in King County are in the public sector. There are
about 87,000 employees at the local government level, and primary employers
are K-12 school districts. King County Government employs approximately
12,000 people. Cities, including Seattle, are the largest municipal employers.
Seattle employs over 12,700 people. State Government provides another 41,000
jobs, with employment driven primarily by the University of Washington and
eleven community colleges. The federal government employs over 21,000
people; almost one-third of its employment is in the postal service.
Major businesses and employers in King County include:
• Amazon
• Bank of America
• Boeing Company
• Macy’s
• City of Seattle
• COSTCO
• Evergreen Healthcare
• Fred Meyer
• Group Health Co-Operative
• King County Government
• Microsoft Corporation
• Nordstrom
• Providence Health System
• QFC
• Qwest Communications
• Safeco
• Safeway Stores Inc.
• Seattle School District #1
• Swedish Hospital
• United States Postal Service
• University of Washington
• Weyerhaeuser
International Trade1,4,6,7
Washington State exceeded $54 billion in foreign exports in 2008. Nearly three-
quarters of Washington exports are coming from the central Puget Sound region.
Two-way trade through Seattle involves more than 100 countries and amounted
to over $150 billion in 2006. As a result, the economy is extremely dependent
upon foreign trade. International trade (directly and indirectly) supports 740,000
jobs annually. One in three jobs in Washington State is involved in foreign
exports. While the State represents about two percent of the nation’s population,
its ports handle seven percent of all U.S. exports and receives a six percent
share of the nation’s imports.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-22
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County has evolved from a resource-based economy centered principally in
forest products manufacturing, into an increasing diversified export base with
significant orientation in high-tech industry, services, and trade serving broad
national and worldwide markets. An increasing number of finished goods and
services originating in King County, such as commercial aircraft and computer
software, are exported overseas, particularly to Europe and the Far East. In
addition to the major employers, Boeing Aerospace and Microsoft, industries with
the best possibilities for growth include information technology, clean technology
(green jobs), logistics and international trade, and life sciences. King County has
14% of the global interactive media (video games) market. Other top exports
include industrial machinery, electric machinery, cereals, medical and surgical
equipment, grains/seeds/fruits, wood and wood products, paper products, fish
and mineral fuel.
The top imports into Washington include high technology products, forest
products, motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts, airplane engines, aircraft parts,
petroleum gases, toys and office machine parts.
The county’s top ten trading partners include Japan, South Korea, Singapore,
Germany, China, Taiwan, UK, France, Canada and Saudi Arabia.
Income and Wages1,6,7
King County is the strongest driver of the statewide average income due to its
large population and highly paid high-tech and aerospace industries. Seattle is
the county’s industrial and commercial hub; headquarter offices of a large
number of firms are located here and workers tend to have higher wages than
elsewhere in the state. Some of that difference reflects high-tech jobs on the
Eastside and high-wage manufacturing jobs in South King County. All of King
County’s economic sectors have higher salaries than that of the state, on
average 14 percent higher.
In 2007, the median household income was $85,828 the highest in the state and
well above national medians. The median, however, does not portray the breadth
of income distribution. More than one-third of King County households report an
income of more than $75,000, and almost one-third report an income under
$35,000. Every community and every ethnic group has households with high and
low incomes. However, there is still some income disparity by race.
Unemployment1,7
Unemployment was at historic lows (near three percent) for several years, but
the King County economy remains quite cyclical. Although unemployment has
increased to about 8.8 percent as of September 2009, many businesses continue
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-23
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
to suffer from a labor shortage. This current level is slightly lower than the
national unemployment rate of 9.7 and matches the State rate of 8.8 percent.
Poverty1,2,6,7
About 9.5 percent or 180,500 of the people in King County live in poverty,
considerably less than the 12.5 percent national rate, and the 12.6 percent rate in
Washington State. However, this percentage is substantially greater than the
reported 8.4% in 2000, and 8.0% in 1990. An additional 221,500 people reported
incomes below 200 percent of the official poverty thresholds. Approximately 9.4
percent of this group are children under the age of 18, and 7.4 percent are adults
over age 65. These numbers likely increased during the recent recession; a
recent U.S. Census survey estimated 9.5 percent now live below the poverty
level.
Table 3-14: Poverty Rates
% of Total Population Children under
18
Over age 65
9.5%* 9.4% 7.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau of Selected Economic Characteristics:
2007
*August 2009 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Future Trends1,7
King County’s economy remains strong despite severe shocks resulting from
recent key events. In February 2001, a 6.8 magnitude earthquake hit the Puget
Sound region, causing significant damage and related costs that are still being
borne by the region. The following month, Boeing announced they would be
moving their headquarters. As of mid-2002 Boeing laid off over 26,000
employees, many in the Puget Sound region. In early 2009, Microsoft
announced the permanent layoff of 5,000 employees over the course of an 18-
month period. This is the first major job cut since Microsoft’s founding in 1975.
Manufacturing remains strong despite the ups and downs of the aerospace
industry. Although the aerospace industry is well below its record employment
levels, they continue to provide high wages to local workers. The computer
services industry now employs almost as many as aerospace, although it too has
lost ground. The composition of the economy continues to shift from the
traditional manufacturing and resource bases to high-tech, services and trade,
both local and international.
Long range prospects are mixed. The move of the Boeing headquarters provides
some uncertainty in the aerospace industry. Sales tax and other government
revenues are declining at a time when public investment is needed.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-24
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Tourism4
King County is a domestic and international tourism destination, featuring scenic
beauty, temperate climate, both metropolitan and rural activities, and easy
access by air, land and water. Tourism is the state's fourth largest industry and
the Western Washington region accounts for over half of statewide tourism.
Over the years King County has gained a reputation for providing excellent
venues for conferences and conventions with several large convention centers
and approximately 80 hotels with conference or convention meeting space and
over 30,000 hotel rooms.
Throughout the county there are a multitude of cultural, recreational and
entertainment options including museums, theaters, historical landmarks,
restaurants, tours by air, land and sea, shopping centers, major cruise lines,
professional sports, community and countywide festivals, pleasure boating,
camping, and many other outdoor recreation activities.
Transportation4,12,23-46
The King County is a hub for transportation on land, on water, and in the air. The
extensive highway and railroad infrastructure supports the transport of people,
commodities, and valuable resources. The water hosts a major international
seaport, cruise ship facilities, and the largest ferry system in the world. Two
major international airports, supported by aviation facilities unique to our
geographical needs, play a key role in facilitating the economic vitality, tourism,
and domestic and international trade. Our unique geographic diversity inspires a
wide range of transportation alternatives for the everyday commuter, visitors and
those involved in the movement of products and goods.
Air Service
King County has two major international airports as well as several other mid-
size and small airports and airparks that accommodate different modes of air
travel and business, pleasure and personal needs.
Sea-Tac International Airport 4,12,23
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) serves as the regional air hub for
the Pacific Northwest, providing direct and regular service for passengers and
cargo to major U.S. and international destinations. The airport is ranked among
the five best U.S. airports by the International Airline Passengers Association and
is consistently one of the top 20 busiest cargo airports in the United States.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-25
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Sea-Tac airport operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and is run by the
Aviation Division of the Port of Seattle. Thirty airlines and six cargo-only carriers
fly out of Sea-Tac. There are scheduled direct flights to 19 international and 74
domestic destinations. There are 40 non-stop flights to Asia and ten non-stop
flights to London each day.
Sea-Tac is the 17th busiest U.S. airport in total annual passengers and the 24th
busiest airport for aircraft operations. An average of 88,200 passengers passes
through the airport each day with nearly 350,000 flights each year.
Sea-Tac Airport has a strong and steady air travel market base. Approximately
76 percent of the travelers using the airport are origin and destination
passengers, meaning they begin or end their trip at Sea-Tac Airport; the
remainder is on connecting flights. Airline service is diversified among many
carriers and the airport is not dominated by a single hub carrier.
The total number of passengers in 2008 was 32,196,528. The majority, 91
percent, were domestic passengers, while the remaining nine percent were
international passengers. A little over one-third of passenger travel is done for
business-related purposes; about ten percent of this group is local residents and
the rest come from other destinations. About two-thirds of all passenger air travel
is non-business related, with a fairly equal mix of resident and non-resident
passengers. Annual air passenger levels have steadily increased over the last 30
years from 4.7 million in 1972 to an all time high of 28.4 million in 2000. Since
2000 there has been a 6.4 percent decrease in air passenger travel.
About 290,500 total metric tons of cargo is transported at Sea-Tac Airport. Over
half, 56 percent, is domestic freight, 29 percent is international freight, and 15
percent is air mail. Air cargo levels have also increased in the last 30 years from
137,270 tons in 1972 to the all time high of 456,920 tons in 2000. However,
there’s been a dramatic 8.9 percent decrease in cargo levels between 2007 and
2008.
Sea-Tac is a significant employer. There are approximately 18,000 airport
employees and 42,000 airport-related jobs off-site. About $6.9 billion in business
revenue is generated by the airport, airlines and related businesses. Sea-Tac
and related businesses generate $209 million in state and local taxes.
The airport opened a third runway in November of 2008 and is making
substantial improvements to the airport facility, including south terminal
expansion, new central terminal, a LINK light rail station, underground satellite
transit system upgrade, improved parking garage lighting, and seismic
reinforcements.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-26
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County International Airport24
King County International Airport (KCIA), commonly known as Boeing Field, is
owned and operated by King County. It is one of the busiest general aviation
airports in the country – used by aircraft of all sizes and types, and filling a wide
range of commercial and recreational needs. KCIA receives no general tax
dollars and is financed by rents, fees and some Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) resources.
KCIA is located five miles south of downtown Seattle in the Duwamish corridor. It
serves multiple functions: a municipal airport, testing and delivery facility for the
Boeing Company, and as a major air freight center for the county’s industries.
KCIA averages 290,000 operations annually. Boeing Field economic impact
accounts for $3.2 billion in terms of local business sales supporting 12, 618 jobs,
and a as result $804 million in labor income is contributed within the county. The
airport is a base for about 150 businesses, including air cargo companies, flight
schools, charter operations, and helicopter services. The airport’s 150 tenants
also provide 4,900 jobs to the local economy. Other tenants include hundreds of
small aircraft owners who use planes for recreational and business purposes.
There are approximately 480 aircraft based at the airport. KCIA is a United
States airport of entry, with U.S. Customs, Immigration, and Public Health and
Agricultural Inspection facilities.
Renton Airport25,26
The Renton Municipal Airport, owned by the City of Renton, is a general aviation
airport that serves Renton and other nearby communities. The airport provides
regional aviation services for air charter, air taxi, corporate, business and
recreational flyers. It is also an FAA-designated "Reliever" airport, diverting
general aviation aircraft traffic from Sea-Tac International Airport.
The Airport is used predominately by single-engine piston aircraft, and ranks
among the top six airports in the State of Washington in terms of aircraft landings
and takeoffs. The Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, located adjacent to the
airport, manufactures Boeing 737 and 757 aircraft and uses the airport for their
initial flights.
Seaplane (or floatplane) operations from the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial
Seaplane Base, located at the north end of the airport along the shore of Lake
Washington, also comprise a significant level of activity (see “Seaplane Bases”
section).
There are approximately 319 aircraft based at Renton Municipal Airport; most are
single-engine airplanes. Aircraft operations average 262 a day. About 55 percent
of the activity is local general aviation, 44 percent is transient general aviation,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-27
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
one percent is air taxi services, and less than one percent is attributed to military
and commercial activity. The Renton Municipal Airport is a Landing Rights
Airport, with US Customs services available for both floatplane and wheeled
aircraft arriving by water or by land.
Auburn Municipal Airport26,27
Auburn Municipal Airport is owned by the City of Auburn and is also one of the
busiest general aviation airports in the state of Washington. There are
approximately 241 aircraft based at Auburn and about 164,250 operations
(takeoffs & landings) occur annually. The majority of aircraft located at the airport
are single-engine planes. About 60 percent of airport activity is attributed to
general transient aviation, 36 percent is local general aviation, four percent is air
traffic services, and less than one percent is military activity. The airport provides
hanger and tie-down rental, aircraft charter, aircraft rental, repair stations, and
pilot training.
Vashon Municipal Airport26
Vashon Municipal Airport located on Vashon Island is owned by King County
Airport District #1. There are 36 aircraft based on the field and aircraft operations
average 189 per week. The majority of traffic, about 75 percent, is transient and
25 percent is local general aviation.
Crest Airpark28
Crest Airpark is a small airport located near the City of Kent. It is private with 332
base aircraft, mostly single engine with some multi-engine and two helicopters.
Latest available data indicates the airpark has a total of over 98,000 annual
operations. The airport provides flight instruction, rentals and fuel services.
Skykomish State Airport26,29
Skykomish State Airport services Skykomish and King County and is owned by
Washington State Department of Transportation. Skykomish has a turf runway
and the airport caters to transient general aviation. Fly-ins and glider operations
are also common, and are frequently used by the Forest Service. Aircraft
operations average 25 per month.
Kenmore Air Harbor Seaplane Base26,30,31
Privately-owned Kenmore Air Harbor Seaplane Base serves Seattle and King
County. Today Kenmore Air is the largest purveyor and flyer of floatplanes in the
Unites States and for 57 years has been flying, building and selling a variety of
seaplanes from its headquarters in Kenmore and its terminal on Lake Union near
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-28
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
downtown Seattle. Last year, the airline division of the company flew 70,000
people north to the San Juan Islands, Vancouver Island and various points
beyond. They have two terminals, one at Lake Union and the other in Kenmore
on the north end of Lake Washington. At the Lake Union location, they average
97 aircraft operations per day, 72 percent in air taxi services, 21 percent in
general local aviation, and seven percent in general transient aviation. In
Kenmore they average 132 aircraft operations a day, with 83 percent in air taxi
services, 16 percent in local general aviation and two percent in general transient
aviation. Both seaplane terminals are open to the public.
Seattle Seaplanes Seaplane Base26
Seattle Seaplanes is located on Lake Union. They average 50 aircraft operations
a week; 96 percent in air taxi services, two percent in general transient aviation
and 2 percent in local general aviation. They have four aircraft based there. The
seaplane base is open to the general public.
Will Rogers Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base25,26
Seaplane (or floatplane) operations from the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial
Seaplane Base, located at the north end of the Renton Municipal Airport along
the shore of Lake Washington, also comprise a significant level of activity at the
airport. The seaplane facilities include a floating dock and launching ramp, which
make the Renton Municipal Airport one of the few airports in the Pacific
Northwest where aircraft can land on wheels, be equipped with floats and depart
from the water, or vice versa. Seaplane aircraft operations average 46 per week.
About 73 percent of seaplane activity is local general aviation and the remainder
is transient.
Heliports26
There are at least 45 heliports located throughout the King County. Heliports can
be situated in an array of environments and utilized by many different entities
including hospitals, major corporations, businesses, governmental agencies,
emergency services, and the news media. There are also several private
individuals who have their own heliport for personal use.
Railroads and Rail Service4
The BNSF Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company serve the
King County area. Both railroads have spur lines that span King County, making
it possible to deliver almost any type of load. International cargo and cargo
originating in Seattle travels quickly over these two rail networks to inland U.S.
markets, including the Midwest, South and East. These lines are also used by
other rail service providers, including Amtrak and Sound Transit.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-29
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
See Map 3-10: Railway Network.
BNSF Railroad32
The BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest railroad networks in
North America, with 33,000 route miles covering 28 states and two Canadian
provinces. This network covers the western two-thirds of the United States,
stretching from major Pacific Northwest and Southern California ports to the
Midwest, Southeast and Southwest, and from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada.
The railway moves more intermodal traffic than any other rail system in the world.
It is America's largest grain-hauling railroad and transports the mineral
components of many of the products we depend on daily, including enough coal
to generate more than 10 percent of the electricity produced in the United States.
Revenues are generated primarily from the transportation of coal, grain,
intermodal containers and trailers, chemicals, metals and minerals, forest
products, automobiles and consumer goods.
BNSF NW Division
The King County portion of the BNSF is located in their Northwest Division. Rail
lines extend north to south, paralleling Puget Sound and traversing the major
cities of Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, Seattle and Edmonds. Another line extends off
the main line and goes through Renton and north to Woodinville and Snohomish.
A main east-west line extends from Auburn to Stampede Pass heading towards
Ellensburg.
Union Pacific Railroad33
The Union Pacific Railroad serves Washington State with two north-south main
lines. In western Washington, the Union Pacific connects Portland with important
ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Kalama. Major commodities handled by the Union
Pacific Railroad include lumber, fruit, automobiles and trucks, manufactured
products, grain, chemicals and import-export consumer products on double-stack
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-30
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
trains from Seattle and Tacoma. The railroad also transports solid waste from
Seattle to a landfill in Oregon. Terminal facilities within King County are located in
Seattle.
Amtrak34
Amtrak passengers utilize service in more than 500 communities in 46 states
throughout a 22,000-mile route system. Amtrak’s “Pacific Northwest Rail
Corridor” extends from Eugene, Oregon through King County as far north as
Vancouver, British Columbia. Over 774,000 passengers rode Amtrak within the
corridor in 2008. Three daily round trips are provided between Seattle and
Portland with two of these trips extending south to Eugene. Amtrak also offers
two daily round trips between Seattle and Bellingham with both trains extending
north to Vancouver, B.C.
There are currently two Amtrak long-distance trains that serve Washington State,
both originating in Seattle – the Empire Builder offers daily round-trip service
between Seattle and Chicago while the Coast Starlight offers daily round-trip
between Seattle and Los Angeles.37
Sounder Commuter Rail35
Sound Transit currently offers commuter rail service between downtown Seattle
and Tacoma (South line), as well as Seattle and Everett (North Line). There are
nine rail stations, with four stops in King County (Auburn, Kent, Tukwila and
Seattle). The commuter rail currently serves about 9,979 passengers per day
with four round-trips each weekday on the North Line, and eight round-trips on
the South Line. Sounder also provides service for special events such as
Seahawks Football and Mariner Baseball games.
The trains run on freight tracks owned by BNSF. While Sound Transit owns the
stations and provides security and ambassadors, Sounder trains are operated by
Sound Transit in conjunction with BNSF and maintained by Amtrak.
Commuter rail service started in 2000. When track and signal work was
completed in 2005, commuter rail service between Tacoma and Seattle was
expanded to eight round trips daily. Due to voter-approved expansion of light rail
service in November 2008, Sound Transit plans to add four additional daily round
trips between Seattle and Tacoma. There are also plans to extend the rail line to
south Tacoma and Lakewood. Once in full operation, twelve daily roundtrips will
serve the Lakewood-Tacoma-Seattle segment, while the Everett-Seattle segment
will be served with four daily roundtrips. Sounder will eventually serve at least a
dozen stations. (See Public Transit, Sound Transit section, next page).
Ballard Terminal Railroad (BT)36
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-31
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
The Ballard Terminal (BT) railroad is a three-mile stretch of short line rail in the
Ballard area. The rail line transports consumer commodities and minerals.
Highway Infrastructure
The highway system in the county is comprised of interstate highways, state
highways and local arterials. The intersections of Interstate-90, Interstate-5 and
Interstate-405 provide critical links north-south and east-west, as well as access
between the Seattle metropolitan area and the eastside of Lake Washington,
including the communities of Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland and Redmond. Major
state highways terminating or providing critical linkages in the county include
state highways 99, 18, 509 and 520. Washington State Department of
Transportation, King County Department of Transportation and local
municipalities construct and maintain the highways, roads and bridges that make
up the county’s transportation system.
See Map 3-11: Roads by Classification Type.
Commuting Trends1,37,38,39
More than 900,000 King County residents commute to work. Two-thirds of these
commuters drive to work alone. Almost ten percent take public transportation.
Bus ridership has increased nearly 25 percent over the last decade.
Nevertheless, the majority of commuters opt to drive their own vehicles. The
majority of King County households have two or more vehicles, but 66,000
households (almost one-tenth) have no vehicle available.
A substantial number of people – more than 250,000 commute into King County
for work. The largest number comes from Snohomish County, about 132,500,
followed by Pierce County, 82,500, and Kitsap County, 12,500.
Figure 3.1, below, shows modes of transportation used by commuters. The
primary mode of transportation is driving alone. Metro Transit, the public bus
system in King County carried over 110 million riders in 2007, a new record40.
Vanpools carried another 2.3 million passengers in 2007. Sound Transit’s
Sounder commuter rail line carried an average of over 9900 daily in 2009. The
state ferry system carried 12.9 million passengers and 4.6 million vehicles
between Seattle, Vashon Island, Bainbridge Island, and Bremerton in 2002.
Figure 3.1: Commuting Patterns
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-32
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Source: City-Data.com, King County WA; 2008
Public Transit40,41
King County Metro Transit operates a fleet of about 1,300 vehicles, including
standard and articulated coaches, electric trolleys, diesel-electric hybrid buses,
and streetcars that serve an annual ridership of 100 million within a 2,134 square
mile area. Metro also serves riders who are disabled with accessible fixed route
service (all Metro buses have wheelchair lifts and all routes and trips are
accessible), as well as paratransit van service and a taxi scrip program.
Metro operates the largest publicly-owned vanpool program in the country with
more than 700 vans making more than 2.9 million trips per year. More than 5,000
people use those vans every day, eliminating a least 4,500 vehicles from area
roads.
See Map 3-12: Metro Transit Routes.
To help meet future needs and ease severe downtown traffic congestion, Metro
operates a 1.3-mile bus and light rail transit tunnel underneath downtown Seattle,
making stops at several locations within the downtown Seattle area.
King County’s Six-Year Plan for Public Transportation set forth objectives and
strategies for transit, paratransit, rideshare services, transportation demand
management and supporting facilities. The plan proposed that transit services
and facilities be focused in the urban areas of King County. The plan also
established a strong link between land use and transit actions in order to make
development, as well as transit services and facilities, more efficient. The
continued development and support of King County’s designated Urban Growth
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-33
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Area with higher levels of transit service is a central component of the county’s
growth strategy.
Sound Transit was formed in 1993 by King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
The agency oversees an express transit bus fleet throughout 53 cities within the
three counties, which are operated and funded by King County Metro, Pierce
Transit, and Community Transit. The Sounder Commuter Rail line between
Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma is operated by Sound Transit in conjunction with
BNSF, beginning service in 2000.
The voter approval of expanded light rail in 2008 set into motion an additional 36
miles of light rail through King and Snohomish counties, including a extension of
the Central Link north to Lynnwood via the University of Washington, an
additional two stations south of SeaTac into Federal Way, and an Eastern Link
into Bellevue and Overlake via Mercer Island. In July of 2009 Sound Transit
opened its Central Link light rail line connecting SeaTac with the downtown
Seattle transit tunnel via a 15.6 mile right of way. In 2016 an extension to the
Central Link to the University of Washington via Capitol Hill is planned to open.
Trucking Services42
Truck transportation is a major commercial function of the county, being the
nexus of the northwest highway system, as well as the location of the Port of
Seattle. Approximately 3,700 interstate truck companies operate in Washington,
most of which operate King County.
Water Transportation and Shipping43,44
Washington State Ferries
Washington State Ferries (WSF) is owned and operated
by the Washington State Department of Transportation.
WSF is the largest ferry system in the United States,
serving eight counties within Washington and the
Province of British Columbia in Canada. More than 24
million people rode the ferries and over 30,000 vehicles a
day were transported in 2007, making it the second
largest transit system in the state.
The ferry system is an essential part of western
Washington’s and King County’s highway network,
providing a critical link between the urban areas on the
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-34
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
east side of Puget Sound the growing communities to the West. For the King
County community of Vashon Island,
Washington State Ferries provides the only link for automobile travel with the
mainland. The State ferry system has 28 vessels, predominantly
passenger/vehicle types and several passenger-only ferries. In total there are 20
ports of call (terminals) and 10 routes; four of these routes and three terminals,
including Seattle, are located within King County. Routes in the County provide
service between Seattle-Bainbridge Island, Seattle-Bremerton, and Fauntleroy
(West Seattle)-Vashon Island-Southworth.
Commercial Freight Transportation45,46
Commercial freight transportation in and out of Puget Sound is dominated by the
Port of Seattle and Port of Tacoma. The Port of Seattle, the fifth largest
container port in the United States, is served by 25 regularly scheduled shipping
lines and provides services such as on-dock intermodal rail yard, five container
terminals, four breakbulk terminals, 25 cranes, on-dock freezer facilities and a
4.2 million bushel capacity grain terminal. Total tonnages handled average
14,000,000 metric tons annually, comprised of about 68 percent containers, 31
percent petroleum, grain and breakbulk, and 50-80,000 autos.46 Numerous
shipping and barge companies operate out of Seattle.
Emergency Service4,47-59,79
King County is the home to numerous local, regional and state professional
emergency service organizations. These services include fire service, law
enforcement, emergency medical services (EMS), emergency communications,
emergency management, search and rescue, public health, emergency health
care, and other critical resources. The operations and standards to which these
agencies perform are dictated by State and Federal Laws, national standards
and local agreements.
Fire Service47-,81
There are 36 public fire agencies in King County. These fire services are
organized into three zones. In general, fire Zone 1 consists of the area north of
Interstate-90 to the Snohomish County line; Zone 3 includes Vashon Island and
the area south of Interstate-90; and Zone 5 is the City of Seattle. See Map 3-13:
Emergency Response Zones.
Operationally, there are two different types of fire organizations: departments that
provide services as part of municipal governments and districts governed by their
own elected commissioners. There are 15 city fire departments and 28 fire
districts in King County. Fire agencies are responsible for providing essential
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-35
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
services such as emergency medical aid (basic life support), fire suppression and
disaster response. Many fire departments also specialize in prevention-related
activities including hazardous materials mitigation, fire prevention, code
enforcement, public education, fire inspection and fire investigation. The King
County Fire Marshal’s Office is responsible for some of the activities relating to
code enforcement and fire investigation in unincorporated areas of the County.
Many fire agencies within King County provide specialty services and have
firefighters who are trained technicians that serve their jurisdiction; some also
participate on countywide teams. Specialties can include hazardous materials,
trench rescue, confined space rescue, technical rope – low and high angle, swift
water rescue, surface water rescue, dive, and wildland firefighting. Many
jurisdictions have joined forces to develop countywide teams. Seattle, Zone 1
and Zone 3 all have “regional response teams” for hazardous materials. Other
specialty groups are in the process of developing regional response teams.
In King County, there are approximately 1,500 full-time firefighters and 700
volunteers (excluding Seattle). There are over 1,000 firefighters in Seattle,
making it the largest fire department in King County. Additional staff include
administrative support, civilian employees, community volunteer specialists and
fire explorers.
Washington State fire statistics indicate that the majority of all fire department
response, over 70 percent, is related to emergency medical service and rescue;
significantly smaller numbers of calls are due to fire-related incidents. These
percentages also reflect the activity occurring within the County. However, not all
fire departments report their incident data to the Office of the State Fire Marshal,
so a truly accurate measure is not available.
Table 3-15: 2008 Washington Fire Response
Response Type %
of Calls
Rescue and Emergency Medical Service 70.8%
Good Intent Calls 8.3%
Fire 4.1%
Service Calls 6.5%
Hazardous Conditions (no fire) 2.1%
False Alarm/False Call (including malicious) 7.0%
Other – overpressure, ruptures, explosion,
overheating; Sever weather and natural
disasters; and undetermined.
1.2%
Total 100%
Source: 2008 Washington State NFIRS 5.0 Data – Washington
State Patrol, Office of the State Fire Marshal
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-36
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
The fire services in Washington State and King County have long operated under
mutual aid agreements between agencies. These agreements provide for rapid
assistance from neighboring fire jurisdictions to meet the immediate need
requirements of an emergency situation. Rapid intervention by mutual aid
resources can secure control over an emergency incident that may otherwise
continue to escalate.
Added for 2009, The King County Fire Marshal Division, in the Department of
Development and Environmental Services (DDES), transferred the Fire
Investigation Unit (FIU) to the King County Sheriff’s Office on January 1, 2008
after a King County ordinance went into effect.
Washington State Fire Services Resources Mobilization Plan47
In response to major events, the Washington State Fire Services Resource
Mobilization Plan provides a process to quickly notify, assemble, and deploy fire
service personnel and equipment to any local fire jurisdiction in the state that has
depleted all local and mutual aid resources in attempting to manage, mitigate and
control an emergency incident or situation. This plan is typically utilized to
respond to major wildland fires, however it is also designed to address all
hazards and provide resources to any emergency situation required to protect life
and property. The main criterion for initiating fire mobilization is exhaustion of
local resources. Activation of the State Mobilization plan is coordinated through
the Washington State Patrol – Office of the Fire Marshal.
Other fire agencies include:
Fire Protection Bureau – Office of the State Fire Marshal48: The Bureau is an
integral agency supporting fire agencies in King County. The Bureau, located
within the Washington State Patrol, provides assistance to fire districts,
government agencies, and the general public. These services include fire
investigation, fire incident reporting and data collection, fire code review and
adoption, construction plan review for fire protection systems, and fire
inspections of high risk occupancies housing elderly and vulnerable populations.
In addition, the bureau regulates the fireworks and sprinkler industry through a
licensing program. They operate the State Fire Training Academy which provides
firefighter training certification program through a standards and accreditation
process, and on-going specialized training on terrorism, hazardous materials and
fire-related issues. The Bureau also coordinates Washington State fire service
resources for mobilization during natural or human-caused disasters.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)49: DNR protects and manages
valuable assets within the State of Washington, including more than five million
acres of land – forests, farms, commercial properties and underwater lands. Two
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-37
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
of their largest and most important responsibilities in resource protection are fire
prevention and suppression and regulating forest practices (or timber harvest).
They are responsible for wildfire protection on 12 million acres of private and
state forest land. They have the state’s largest on-call fire department with 1,200
temporary and permanent employees who fight fires on private and state-owned
forest lands. DNR offers local fire districts support with fire protection and safety
equipment requirements.
Boeing Fire Department (private)50: Boeing Fire provides vital emergency service
resources within the county. Company-wide, they provide fire service to more
than 59,000 employees and protect approximately 45 million square feet of floor
space that is a combination of manufacturing, hazardous operations, design,
flight test and aviation support. In King County, they operate three fire stations,
two located adjacent to airfields (Renton Municipal Airport and King County
Airport) and a structural/hazmat fire station in Auburn. Boeing Fire employs 135
personnel in Puget Sound, with 91 located in King County. Their fire department
structure is essentially the same as for public fire agencies with fire
suppression/EMS personnel and staff specializing in hazardous materials, code
enforcement, training and safety, fire protection, and firefighting operations
specific to aviation. Boeing also provides mutual aid to surrounding public
agencies and participates in regional hazardous materials response. Their
marine rescue unit in Renton is utilized by the Renton Fire Department. They
provide a special resource with their ability to mobilize large quantities of foam for
flammable liquid fires and their 5,000 gallon tenders are requested each summer
to assist with freeway brush fires. Boeing Fire Department’s training division is
utilized throughout the county and the world for their expertise in aircraft
firefighting, hazardous materials training (including drug labs and explosives) and
disaster preparedness.
Fire service trends51
For economic and operational reasons, the fire departments, fire districts and fire
zones in King County have continued to consolidate. Fire Zones 1 and 2
consolidated in 1997 to form Zone 1, and fire zones 3 and 4 consolidated in 2003
to form Zone 3. There are also examples of fire departments and fire districts
consolidating administrative and operational functions. It’s likely, given probable
future funding constraints, that there will be additional fire district mergers in an
effort to control costs.
Regional hazardous materials and special operations teams will be more
common in the future. The fire service is evaluating partnerships in emergency
medical services and will likely expand those roles as well. This may include an
increase in transporting patients from the emergency scene to the hospital and
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-38
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
perhaps more paramedics in the fire service. There has been increased
cooperation between fire districts with funding issues at recent elections.
The future will also likely see an increase in joint training, purchasing and a
sharing of other resources. The Zone 3 training officers are a good example of
what the future holds for the fire service. The training officers have joined
together to offer regional training classes, reducing the cost of providing quality
simulations for individual fire departments and districts. There will also be more
coalitions formed for public education and prevention in the future. Teaching our
senior citizens how to prevent falls and working with hospitals to provide low cost
and properly fitting bicycle helmets are examples of the partnership services
provided.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)52
The Medic One system is a critical part of our regional emergency medical
service system. It operates in a coordinated partnership between King County,
cities, fire districts, private ambulance companies, hospitals and others to provide
pre-hospital emergency medical care. The tiered response system assures that
patients receive effective medical care by the most appropriate health care
provider. Basic Life Support (BLS) services are provided by first response
firefighters trained as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). Advanced Life
Support (ALS) or paramedic services are provided by six paramedic agencies
that respond to patients with more serious life-threatening illnesses or injuries.
Paramedic providers in the Seattle-King County include Seattle Medic One,
Shoreline Medic One, Evergreen Medic One, Bellevue Medic One, King County
Medic One, and Vashon-Maury Medic One. These agencies operate a total of 23
paramedic units, with several variations in paramedic service. BLS services are
provided by 34 fire departments and fire districts.
The regional Medic One program employs over 250 paramedics and about 4,000
EMTs to provide emergency response to patients in the Seattle-King County
area. The EMS Medic One System in King County is managed by Public Health
– Seattle & King, a King County government Department Division. In 2007, the
Medic One program served over 172,000 patients, of which over 51,000 required
a paramedic level response.
Law Enforcement
There are 25 law enforcement agencies in King County: 23 departments
associated with cities, one with the University of Washington, and the King
County Sheriff’s Office. There are approximately 1,954 full-time law enforcement
officers in King County, and 1,352 volunteer personnel (600-700 of which are
search and rescue). Seattle has an additional 1,100 law enforcement officers.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-39
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Basic services provided by police departments include patrol services, crime
investigation, narcotics enforcement, public education, crime prevention, school
resource officers, animal control and parking enforcement. Most departments
have their own jail or holding facility; some have consolidated with other
jurisdictions. Many departments also have their own specialty teams. Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams are available through the King County
Sheriff’s Office, Seattle Police, Valley SWAT (multi-agency cooperative), and
Bellevue/Eastside Police. Bomb disposal units are provided by King County
Sheriff’s Office, Port of Seattle, Federal Way, Bellevue and the City of Seattle.
Seattle Police, Mercer Island Police Services, and King County Sheriff’s Office
maintain Marine Units. Several agencies use K-9 units and the King County
Sheriff’s Office has the only helicopter unit in service. Both Seattle Police and the
King County Sheriff’s Office Special Operations Units provide dignitary protection
for significant government officials.
The following table identifies the overall crime statistics for all of King County as
reported by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police to the Washington
Office of Financial Management. This data is based on information collected only
from reporting agencies.
Table 3-16: Reported Index Crimes – 2007
Crime 2007 %
Theft 53,643 59.2%
Motor Vehicle Theft 13,979 15.4%
Burglary 15,565 17.2%
Aggravated Assault 3,560 3.9%
Robbery 2,738 3.0%
Arson 583 .6%
Forcible Rape 556 .6%
Murder 59 .0%
Total 90,683 100.0%
Source: Washington State Office of Financial
Management – Washington Association of Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs
Until recently, police agencies did not have an operational mechanism similar to
the mutual aid concept used by the fire service. Efforts to draft a law enforcement
mobilization plan at the state level are being developed. Typically, police mutual
aid has been informally conducted by small units in what is called automatic aid.
King County Sheriff’s Office53,54
The King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) directly serves over 575,000 people in
unincorporated areas and thirteen cities for which they provide contract police
services including Beaux Arts Village, Burien, Carnation, Covington, Kenmore,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-40
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Maple Valley, Newcastle, North Bend, Sammamish, SeaTac, Shoreline,
Skykomish and Woodinville, with one proposed, City of Fairwood, to make 14
cities. They also serve as the Metro Transit Police and the King County
International Airport Police.
KCSO operates from nearly 25 locations across the county: four police precincts,
five stations or substations, and eighteen storefront locations. Over 640
commissioned deputies and 350 civilian employees serve the community in
various capacities. In addition to the general services they provide such as traffic
enforcement, accident investigation, criminal investigation, emergency
communications (911), and community and crime prevention they also offer an
array of specialty services including major accident response and reconstruction
(M.A.R.R.), air support (Guardian One), automated fingerprint identification
(A.F.I.S), fraud and computer forensics, bomb disposal, hostage negotiations, K-
9, search and rescue (SAR), Tactical Team 30 (SWAT), marine unit, Metro
Transit Police, Child Find Unit, community service officers, vice control, drug
enforcement, and court security.
According to state law, the Sheriff’s Office has jurisdiction throughout the County;
this obliges them to be ready to provide service to other cities in the County if
they request it. Sometimes the cities that use the service are asked to pay a fee.
Other services are provided countywide, so there is no fee involved.
Table 3-17: King County Crime Summary – 2008
Part 1 Offenses 2008 Crime Rate
Larceny, over $250 4,462 7.75
Larceny, under $250 3,713 6.45
Vehicle Theft 1,843 3.20
Burglary, Residential 3,354 5.82
Burglary, Commercial 790 1.37
Aggravated Assault 511 0.89
Arson 182 0.32
Robbery 425 0.74
Forcible Rape (incl. Attempts) 194 0.34
Criminal Homicide 17 0.03
Part 1 Offenses – Total 15,491 26.90
Part 2 Offenses – Total* 20,332 35.30
Source: King County Sheriff’s Office – 2008 Annual Report.
Includes data for unincorporated King County and contracted
cities. The crime rate is calculated on the basis of 1,000 people
(i.e., number of crimes per 1,000 people), based on a population
of 575,970.
*Summary total of all Part II offenses - crimes committed to a
lesser degree than Part 1 Offenses.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-41
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Table 3-18 indicates the majority of activity in 2008 was calls for service, followed
by traffic enforcement. Data indicates there is a decrease in activity in all areas,
other than the change in gang-related incidents which saw a 40.3 percent increase
from 2007.
Table 3-18: King County Police Activity Summary – 2008
Category Number of
Incidents
% Change
from 2007
Dispatched calls for service 102,360 -12.7%
Adult charges/arrests 11,215 -10.1%
Juvenile charges/arrests 1,661 -13.2%
Officers assaulted 41 -18.0%
Gang related incidents 1,341 40.3%
Domestic violence* 3,484 -6.7%
Hate crimes/malicious harassment 17 -43.3%
Source: King County Sheriff’s Office – 2008 Annual Report. Includes data
for unincorporated King County and contracted cities.
Washington State Patrol55
The Washington State Patrol is divided into seven Bureaus that administer the
activities of nearly 1,000 commissioned officers and more than 1,000 non-
commissioned personnel. They include: Field Operations, Fire Protection,
Forensic Laboratory Services, Investigative Services, Management Services,
Technical Services, and Office of the Chief.
The Fields Operations bureau is primarily responsible for enforcing traffic laws,
investigating collisions, and assisting motorists on 17,524 miles of the State’s
highways. The state is divided into eight districts. District #2, serving King County
and northern Pierce County, operates six detachments, with offices located
Bellevue (headquarters), North Bend, North Seattle, South Seattle and
Enumclaw. The Special Operations Division within the bureau also operates an
Aviation Section and Vessel and Terminal Security (VATS). The Aviation Section
provides aerial traffic enforcement, traffic congestion management, aerial
surveillance, assistance to other agencies, transport of donor organs and blood
supplies in medical emergencies, and other governmental services. The Vessel
and Terminal Security provides traffic control and law enforcement services on
Washington State ferry routes. The Explosives Unit (or bomb squad) provides
assistance to agencies and individuals in the rendering safe of identified
explosives or suspected explosive devices and materials.
The Investigative Services Bureau (ISB) consists of five divisions that provide
various public services, including weighing and inspection of commercial vehicles
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-42
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
and school buses; narcotics investigation and dismantling of clandestine labs;
fatality, criminal and missing children investigations; computer forensics;
organized crime intelligence; and public records and records retention.
The Technical Services Bureau provides many diverse services to the entire
department, other law enforcement and government agencies, and members of
the general public. These services include information technology, employee
training and development, emergency communications, and criminal history.
The Office of the State Fire Marshal – Fire Protection Bureau, is highlighted in
the “Fire Service” section of the Emergency Services profile.
Emergency Communications
9-1-156
There are 12 Public Safety Answer Points (PSAPs) or emergency dispatch
centers in King County. The largest of these include Bellevue Eastside
Communications, the King County Sheriff’s Office Communications, Northeast
King County Regional Public Safety Agency, Seattle Police Department
Communications, Valley Communications, and Washington State Patrol
Communications.
The King County Sheriff’s Office, Seattle Police Department and Washington
State Patrol dispatch centers answer 911 calls and dispatch for police service
only. Northeast King County Regional Public Safety Agency and Valley
Communications answer 911 calls for multiple jurisdictions and provide police,
fire and emergency medical services dispatch. Many smaller 911 centers answer
calls and dispatch for single jurisdictions. The PSAPs offer 24-hour coverage for
emergencies and dissemination of Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages.
The County-wide enhanced 911 system consists of the dedicated 911 network,
redundant selective routers, and public safety answering points. The 911 trunks
between each telephone company central office and the selective routers is
maintained at double the number of trunks (lines) needed to ensure that no more
than one caller out of 100 will get a busy signal. The 911 trunks between the
selective routers and the five largest dispatch centers are on a self-healing
network service to minimize the chance of a service outage. Redundant selective
routers ensure that if one router is disabled and unable to provide service, the E-
911 system would continue to function at half capacity.
Each dispatch center has a back-up system established where 911 calls can be
answered if they are unable to provide service. All back-up systems are located
at other communication centers within the King County Enhanced 911 system.
Each PSAP is required to have an emergency power source that is capable of
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-43
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
supplying power to meet their basic operational needs. Additionally, each PSAP
has implemented security procedures to limit access to their facilities.
Funding for the Enhanced 911 system is provided through dedicated 911 excise
taxes on wireline and wireless phones. A portion of these funds are distributed to
the PSAPs to assist in funding and operational costs of answering 911 calls. The
majority of funding for the PSAPs is provided by local jurisdiction general funds
or user agency fees.
Only once was the King County Sheriff’s Office 911 center directly impacted by
an event; as a result of the Nisqually earthquake there was a temporary
relocation of the Sheriff’s dispatch operations to Precinct Based Emergency
Communications (PBECs). During the World Trade Organization meetings held
in Seattle there was some impairment of operations for staff coming and going to
their work locations.
There is the potential that funding constraints will continue to motivate the
consolidation of PSAPs into fewer operations.
Emergency Management
State Law requires every political jurisdiction in Washington State to have a
designated emergency manager and a plan on file with the Washington State
Emergency Management Division. In many cases, the fire chief or police chief
has the added duties of emergency manager. In some cases, the emergency
manager is the public works director (Federal Way). Larger cities (Seattle,
Bellevue, Redmond, Mercer Island, and Kent) have full-time emergency
management professionals and more cities are following suit. In 2007, a
consolidated Emergency Planner was assigned to work for four autonomous
jurisdictions; the Cities of Sea Tac, Normandy Park, Burien, and Des Moines.
Very few cities have dedicated locations for the coordination and management of
emergency operations. Most convert existing space and existing resources for
emergency uses.
King County Office of Emergency Management
The King County Office of Emergency Management has its roots in civil defenses
as an office in the King County Sheriff’s Department. In 1991, the office became
a civilian organization with a broader, all-hazards mission. The initial staff
consisted of a manager, two professional staff and administrative staff with
offices co-located with the Sheriff’s Communications Center in the King County
Courthouse.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-44
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Organizationally, the office is now part of the Department of Executive Services.
The current 2009 staff includes a director, assistant director, eight full-time
professional staff, three AmeriCorps VISTA Volunteers, one accountant, one
administrative staff, and two term-limited employees. Program assignments
include operations of the King County Emergency Coordination Center (KC
RCECC), regional planning, logistics, exercises, training, public education, Green
River flood planning, and homeland security. Since 1991, the office has provided
support to first responders and citizens of King County during ten presidentially-
declared disasters and numerous other local emergencies.
All municipalities in Washington State are required to have an emergency
management program as defined in the Revised Code of Washington 38.52.
King County Emergency Management has an obligation to the citizens and
responders of unincorporated King County. The office also supports the cities of
King County and coordinates resources between jurisdictions during
emergencies. Increasingly, the office works toward regional solutions to disaster,
pre-disaster mitigation, preparedness, and response and recovery issues.
Some small cities have formed cooperative arrangements for Emergency
Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA) – cooperative employment of emergency
management support for seven cities on both sides of the King
County/Snohomish County borders.
The vision for the King County Office of Emergency Management is to produce
“disaster resistant communities.”
King County Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) Support Team 56.1
(new for 2009)
The King County Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) Support Team was
formed in 1995 to provide support services to the King County Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) during disasters and emergency events. The
ECC Support Team is a non-profit, all volunteer, community service organization
that exists under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 118-04 guidelines
of the Emergency Worker Program. Membership is open to individuals with an
interest in providing vital emergency operations support to the community during
a disaster or emergency situation. Members must be registered as State
Emergency Workers and submit to a criminal history and driving record
background checks before participation. Currently, KC OEM has approximately
25 ECC Support Team members, and continues to recruit qualified new
members via an application on their website.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-45
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
ECC Support Team Profile
The ECC Support Team is made-up of professionals who volunteer their time to
support the ECC during activations and other activities. Support Team members
come from a variety of sectors, including local businesses such as Microsoft and
Boeing, the health care field, fire departments and communication centers. Some
members are retired and simply wish to share their skills during disasters. All
members bring special talents to the ECC and participate in a broad spectrum of
activities to:
• Work closely with ECC Program and Operation Managers.
• Fill leadership and support roles during ECC activations.
• Participate in ECC projects, programs and activities.
• Support "Communications Room" activities and communication
capabilities.
• Assist in training, curriculum development and instruction.
• Develop recruitment strategies and promote ECC Support Team
growth.
• Coordinate the application, review and approval process for
volunteers.
• Provide a mentoring program for new ECC Support Team new
members.
• Maintain membership data and training records.
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Program (new in 2009) 56.2
In response to direction by Congress to develop "all-hazard regional catastrophic
event plans and preparedness," FEMA and the Department of Homeland
Security have established the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant
Program (RCPGP), and released grants to the ten largest urban areas in the
country. To implement this Program, the City of Seattle Office of Emergency
Management has stepped into a new leadership role with the larger Puget Sound
region that surrounds and is partner to the City of Seattle.
The Puget Sound Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Planning Program
(RCPPP) is intended to enhance regional catastrophic preparedness and
continuity of operations efforts, with the aim of strengthening the region against
risks associated with catastrophic events. As a county, planners will work to:
• Fix shortcomings in existing plans;
• Build regional planning processes and planning communities;
• Link operational and capabilities-based planning to resource allocation.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-46
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
To accomplish these tasks, a collection of local, state, federal and tribal
government agencies, private sector partners, subject matter experts and others
within the Puget Sound region must work collaboratively and innovatively.
As the name of the grant implies, the main principle of this planning grant is that
the scenarios being planned for are catastrophic in nature: truly debilitating
disaster events. Given this, the assumption is that local and state resources will
be overwhelmed and that outside assistance via Emergency Management
Assistance Compacts and the federal government will be both necessary and
critical.
King County Emergency Management is on the planning team as a primary
representative. Regional planners at the local, state and federal levels,
alongside private sector and associated response communities, will work
together to develop integrated plans to coordinate, respond to and recover from
catastrophic events.
The Puget Sound Region, defined for the purposes of this RCPG, is the Seattle
Urban Area (UA)/Combined Statistical Area (CSA), and includes the seven Puget
Sound counties and select major cities located therein. The region is home to a
population of approximately 3.3 million. The governmental jurisdictions involved
with the Puget Sound RCPPP Region are shown on the map below.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-47
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Local Emergency Planning Committee
WAC 118-40 requires every county to have a Local Emergency Planning
Committee for hazardous materials release planning.
Washington State Emergency Management Division57
Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) coordinates
emergency management programs and activities with local governments, public
agencies, private organizations, businesses and communities. EMD is a division
of the Washington State Military Department that includes the Washington Army
and Air National Guard. In addition to the Emergency Management Division’s
Director’s Office, there are four units within the division: Enhanced 911;
Mitigation, Analysis and Planning; Response and Recovery; and Policy,
Programs and Training.
Emergency Management Trends
Emergency Management has experienced radical shifts in priorities over the last
decade. Following the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began an era of emphasis on natural
disasters. This was followed by a period of particular emphasis on disaster
mitigation. Both King County and neighboring Pierce County joined forces to do
regional mitigation projects under the Project Impact umbrella that was the focus
of FEMA's efforts at pre-disaster mitigation programs.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 emergency managers experienced
a radical shift in priorities. FEMA is no longer the lead for counter terrorism
efforts and has been replaced by the Office of Domestic Programs which controls
the Homeland Security funding for state and local jurisdictions. Tens of millions
of dollars in Homeland Security funding has been allocated to programs in King
County. There are a limited number of personnel in emergency management
organizations. Given this significant distribution of funding, it compelled
emergency management programs to focus almost entirely on Homeland
Security issues for a number of years. The forecast is for this trend to continue as
long as funding remains plentiful and natural disaster events do not eclipse the
hazard of terrorism. Towards the end of this decade, the funding is gradually
being reduced and natural disaster planning is again a priority given the
emerging man made and natural disaster risks in King County in 2009, and State
of Washington overall.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-48
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Search and Rescue79
King County Search and Rescue (SAR)
Under state law, the King County Sheriff’s Office is the agency designated with
Search and Rescue (SAR) responsibilities. In King County, the SAR unit is
managed by one full-time uniformed deputy and 18 deputies for whom SAR is an
ancillary duty, but is largely supported by 9 volunteer units. Over 760 volunteers
participate in search and rescue activities. Groups include 4 x 4, trackers, search
dogs, and the Ski Patrol and Rescue Team (SPART). Members of several SAR
units have participated in numerous evidence searches, including the Green
River killer investigation. In 2002, they conducted 132 searches for missing
skiers, aircraft, persons, and injured or lost hikers. Volunteers operating on SAR
missions are registered emergency workers (per WAC 118-04).
The King County Sheriff’s Office provides search and rescue services throughout
the entire County, including incorporated areas. They also provide mutual aid to
adjacent counties in the State. While the County funds a full-time sheriff deputy
to oversee SAR volunteer units and operations, much of the funding for this
programs comes from private donations.
Washington State Urban Search and Rescue (USAR)
The Washington State Urban Search and Rescue Taskforce #1 is comprised of
fire, police, emergency medical services (EMS) and hospital professionals from
the City of Seattle, King County and Pierce County. The taskforce has three
platoons that are available for deployment at anytime. They respond to major
incidents that require extensive search and rescue operations. The Washington
State Task Force has been deployed to the Atlanta bombing, Salt Lake City
Olympics, Northridge Earthquake, World Trade Center, Oklahoma City bombing
and hurricanes impacting the Gulf States. The group maintains a supply of
materials and equipment to support self-sufficient operations anywhere in the
world. It is able to organize its members and load and depart within 72 hours of
notification. The local USAR Task Force gets its funding from FEMA and from
local contributions.
Public Health
Public Health – Seattle & King County (PHSKC) is a jointly operated agency
covering cities and unincorporated areas of King County. A wide range of
services are provided to citizens of King County, from food service inspections
and health clinics including Jail Health Services in King County, environmental
services, to epidemiological and medical examiner’s office responsibilities. Medic
One (Advanced Life Support – ALS) and the Medical Examiner’s Office are both
operated under the health department.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-49
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
The top official in the PHSKC is empowered by state law as the lead authority for
health-related emergencies that extend from water supply issues and outbreaks
of the flu to immunization and biological terrorist agents.
PHSKC has greatly increased its commitment to emergency operations relating
to public health emergencies with the addition of the Preparedness Section within
the Office of the Director for emergency management and planning personnel.
Grants and priorities are commonly being directed at planning for response to
health emergencies and protecting the public’s confidence in the health care
system. A continuation of this trend is expected for the near future with the swine
flu epidemic and planning for vaccination and dispensing protocols, and possible
use of Medical Shelter that could be used under a number of potential hazards.
Hospitals – Emergency Care4
As a healthcare center for Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Washington, King County
offers a comprehensive selection of high quality healthcare facilities, services
and personnel. The region’s medical and nursing services feature sixteen special
centers for Children’s diseases, drug abuse and alcoholism, burns, cancer, pain
and other traumas, kidney ailments and transplants, psychiatry and disability
rehabilitation.
The Puget Sound region has 45 general acute hospitals with 9,400 beds, staffed
by over 38,000 employees. Sixteen special purpose centers serve the area. Over
15,000 medical personnel staff these facilities. The University of Washington’s
medical facilities together handle more than 450,000 patient visits each year.
There are 22 licensed hospitals in King County. Of these, three are public
hospitals and the others are private or nonprofit institutions. Of the 22 hospitals,
Harborview is listed as a Level 1 Trauma Care facility, three are listed as Level 3
Trauma Care Facilities and four are listed as Level 4 Trauma Care Facilities.
Local hospitals have their own system for managing hospital resources during
emergencies. For local emergencies, Harborview, operated by the University of
Washington, acts as central “hospital control” for the distribution of patients
during a mass casualty incident or health emergency. Hospital Control monitors
unusual numbers of symptomatic patients, bed counts (occupancy), and the
distribution of patients transported by aid units. The region has a mass casualty
plan (MCI). Evergreen Hospital, Overlake Hospital and Harborview Hospital have
advanced life support (ALS) programs.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-50
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Other Emergency Services-Related Organizations
Private Ambulance
Private ambulance companies provide transport services of non-critical care
patients to hospitals and other health care providers. This essential service
allows emergency service workers to get back into service more quickly. Private
ambulance companies are also a critical resource during major incidents. They
provide many other services including hospital-to-hospital transport and transport
of private non-emergency related patients. There are two major ambulance
companies serving the King County area – American Med Tech and Tri-med.
Airlift Northwest58
Seattle-based Airlift Northwest provides rapid emergency air-transport service to
critically ill or injured patients throughout Washington, Alaska, Montana, Idaho
and Western Canada. When responding to emergencies in the Western
Washington area, Airlift Northwest uses one of four fully-dedicated Agusta
A109/Mark II helicopters based in Seattle, Bellingham, Arlington and Puyallup.
Flight teams consist of two registered nurses with extensive critical care trauma
experience. The Seattle, Arlington and Puyallup flight teams include one
neonatal/pediatric critical care specialist.
Civil Air Patrol59
Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a nonprofit organization that has long been associated
with search and rescue missions. They have over 64,000 members nationally
and cover eight geographic regions, including all 50 states. Its work also includes
disaster relief and communications, as well as counter-drug and homeland
security missions. CAP members fly 95 percent of all federal inland search and
rescue missions, as directed by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center at
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. On the average they help save 100 lives a
year. CAP also provides air and ground support for disaster relief, flying officials
to remote locations, transporting blood or live tissue to critical care sites and
performing aerial damage assessment. King County is in the CAP “Pacific
Region” and is served by the “Washington Wing.”
Education1,2,4,6,60,62-3
Education in King County is a major factor in the county’s economic success.
The educated labor force capability spans traditional skills from basic
manufacturing to new technologies, including software and biotechnology
research. The ability of the workforce to develop and adapt to changing business,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-51
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
public and commercial needs is supported in large part by the educational
infrastructure and systems based in the county.
King County is a highly educated community in which more than 90 percent of
the adult population has graduated from high school and 40 percent, or 475,000
people, have a college education with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. In the
United States as a whole, just 80 percent have high school diplomas, and 24
percent of adults have college degrees. In the County, of those adults who do not
have a college degree, at least 280,000 have some level of college experience.
Child Care and Early Learning4
There are 643 licensed child care centers in King County, or 30 percent of the
state’s total. Total capacity for child care centers equals 39,874 children, or 33
percent of the State’s total capacity. These facilities have an average of 62
children per licensed facility.
Public preschool programs provided by school districts enroll approximately
2,503 students, about 25 percent of the State’s public preschool total. Preschool
enrollment in private schools is much larger; 3,883 students are enrolled,
representing nearly half (48 percent) of the state’s private pre-school enrollment.
Public Primary and Secondary Education1,60
About 26 percent of all children attending school in Washington State live in King
County. King County has 20 school districts serving over 250,000 students in
grades K through 12. The County’s largest school districts include Seattle, Kent,
and Lake Washington. The Seattle school district enrolls 45,968 students; Kent
has 27,444 and Lake Washington has 23,937 students.
The majority, about 56 percent, of public school students in the County are in
elementary grades. Younger students, pre-school and kindergarten age, make
up approximately 17 percent of the total public school student population.
Table 3-19: School Enrollment – Pre-school through High School
Pre-school Kindergarten Elementary High School Total
31,153 21,552 178,889 87,382 259,269*
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000
*2008 AGR
According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, as of 2005 the
graduation rate for King County was 76.5 percent.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-52
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Across the county there are nearly 500 buildings that comprise physical
educational facilities. The majority of structures house elementary grade
students.
Table 3-20: Types of Educational Buildings
School Level Number of
Buildings
Alternative School 68
Complete School 2
Elementary School 271
High School 56
Institutional 6
Junior High School 28
Middle School 41
Special Education 24
Vocational School 1
Total 497
Source: WA State Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction – WA State Public School Building
Count by County and District, 2002-2003
Private Education1,60
Private schools in the county are numerous, accounting for approximately 38,500
students or 46 percent of the state’s private school population. Data is not readily
available for the types and age of private school structures.
Home Schooling1,4,60
There are 3,697 registered home-school students in King County, representing
19 percent of the state’s total. These students are typically home-schooled in a
family education setting. There are 2,178 such home schools, which averages
1.7 students per school environment.
Post - Secondary Education62-3
King County offers an extensive network of schools for post-secondary
education, including the University of Washington, eight private colleges and
universities, eight community colleges and two technical colleges.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-53
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Table 3-21: Post-Secondary School Enrollment
Type of School Enrollment %
University of Washington 44,812* 29.1
Private Colleges and Universities 17,799 11.5
Community Colleges 62,030 40.1
Technical Colleges 30,066 19.3
Total 154,707 100.0%
Source: Economic Development Council of Seattle & King County
*December 2007, includes Bothell and Tacoma campuses
The University of Washington (UW) is a recognized leader in aerospace
engineering, fisheries, oceanography, forestry, nuclear engineering, medical
technology and bioengineering. The UW Medical School is a world-class facility
serving the western states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Washington. There are
nearly 45,000 students enrolled at the UW; the majority, over 40,000 is located at
the main Seattle campus and about 1,870 are located at the campus in Bothell
and 2,700 at the campus in Tacoma. The university owns and/or leases a
significant amount of property, numbering over 400 buildings.
Private colleges and universities account for about 12 percent of the total post-
secondary school enrollment in King County. The four major private universities,
along with other private institutes, enroll 17,799 students. Major private colleges
and universities include:
Antioch University – Seattle
City University – Renton, Bellevue
Seattle Pacific University – Seattle
Seattle University – Seattle
Nearly one-third of the state’s community and technical colleges are based in
King County. They account for the majority of post-secondary school enrollment.
These schools play a pivotal role in providing alternative post-secondary
education opportunities to individuals who wish to either transition to a university
via community college, or pursue specialized training or trades. These types of
colleges have become increasingly important due to the influx of people involved
in retraining or changing career paths. Technical colleges in King County account
for about 35 percent of the state’s total enrollment in this type of post-secondary
school. Community and technical colleges in King County include:
Bellevue Community College - Bellevue
Cascadia Community College – Bothell
Green River Community College – Auburn
Highline Community College – Des Moines
Lake Washington Technical College – Kirkland
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-54
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
North Seattle Community College – Seattle
Renton Technical College – Renton
Seattle Central Community College – Seattle
Seattle Vocational Institute – Seattle
Shoreline Community College – Seattle
South Seattle Community College – Seattle
Resources4,64,66,67,71
Water64
County citizens receive potable water from a
variety of sources. These sources are classified as
either private or public water systems. Private
water systems serve only a single connection and
usually consist of a well used for a single home.
There are approximately 12,000 private water
systems in King County.
Public water systems contain more than one
connection. The majority of public systems are managed by municipalities and
utility districts; homeowners, private nonprofit organizations, and private for-profit
companies manage the rest, about five percent.
Public water systems are further classified by size. A public water system is
classified as a Group B system if, in general, it serves from two to 214
connections. About 1,700 Group B public water systems currently operate in King
County. In general, Group A systems serve 15 or more connections. There are
217 Group A public water systems in the County.
Seattle Public Utilities (City of Seattle) provides the majority (about 90 percent) of
potable water for County residents, about 1,300,000 people, either through direct
service or the sale of water to 27 other water utilities.65 The remaining King
County population, about 400,000, obtains water from approximately 14,000
other public and private systems.
Water and combination utility districts provide about one-third of water service to
the county residents. They own and operate the infrastructure that stores and
distributes water for both consumption and fire suppression activities. Similar to
the emergency services sector, utility departments also operate under mutual aid
agreements.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-55
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Municipalities other than Seattle provide water service for their communities.
They also own and operate utility infrastructures. Some municipalities contract for
water services through other agencies.
About 60-70 percent of the County’s water comes from the Tolt Reservoir and
20-30 percent comes from the Cedar River Drainage Basin. Pierce
County/Tacoma receives 90 percent of its water from the Palmer facility located
in South King County65.
Our supply of potable water is dependent on the area’s watersheds. The
watersheds located within King County are: Central Puget Sound Watershed,
Sammamish Watershed, Snoqualmie – Skykomish River Watershed, Cedar
River – Lake Washington Watershed, Green River Watershed and White River
Watershed.
The rain, rivers, lakes, wetlands and even our drinking water are all parts of an
intricate cycle. Everything that washes into a storm drain ends up in a stream,
lake or wetland. Conversely, activities occurring within our watersheds can
impact this valuable natural resource. Watershed boundaries are determined by
the land and not city limits, so watersheds in one community can extend into
neighboring jurisdictions, making this a regional priority
A watershed in King County is the land area draining to a
nearby river or lake, or directly into Puget Sound. 2009
map.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-56
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
In general, most of the time the region has plenty of water available. During the
summer, however, water use increases from 50 to 250 percent because of
irrigation of lawns, golf courses, and parks. Accommodating this peak demand
can impact human water needs and migrating salmon in the fall. Managing
summer peak demand and in-stream flows during the early fall period are issues
driving current multi-county discussions.
Waste Water Treatment66
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks – Wastewater
Treatment Division provides wholesale wastewater treatment to 17 cities and
17 sewer districts (including Vashon Island Sewer District) in the central Puget
Sound region. The King County system serves approximately 1.5 million people,
including most urban areas of King County and parts of south Snohomish County
and North Pierce County. The service area is 420 square miles (including 250
acres on Vashon Island). The County has four treatment plants located in
Seattle, Renton, the city of Carnation, and on Vashon Island. This system is
connected by 350 miles of conveyance lines (pipes) with 42 pump stations and
19 regulator stations.
In 2011, a fifth plant (Brightwater) serving north King and south Snohomish
Counties will open. There are six other wastewater utilities in King County that do
not participate in the regional system.
Solid Waste67
King County is responsible for planning, transfer and disposal of solid waste from
its unincorporated area, and through interlocal agreements for 37 of its cities, not
including Seattle and Milton. The King County system provides service to about
1.3 million residents over a service area of approximately 2,050 square miles.
Washington State Law prohibits King County from providing collection services.
Seattle operates an independent system and Milton is part of the Pierce County
solid waste system. Seattle Public Utilities provides waste collection and disposal
services for more than 500,000 customers. Enumclaw and Skykomish also
provide their own solid waste collection services, delivering solid waste to King
County facilities.
There are eight King County Solid Waste Transfer and Recycling stations and
two Drop Box stations, where hauling companies, businesses and King County
residents can dispose of solid waste. These facilities accept solid waste and
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-57
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
consolidate it into fewer, larger loads which are transported to the Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill. Some of these facilities have the ability to accept separated
recyclable materials and yard waste for processing by the private sector. Cedar
Hills occupies 920 acres with approximately 400 acres available for landfill and
support functions.
The County is currently developing a Solid Waste Comprehensive Management
Plan, and is considering alternatives that would extend the life of the Cedar Hills
Regional landfill from three to approximately thirteen years beyond its current
estimated closure date of 2018. Once Cedar Hills has reached capacity, the
County will need to examine other alternatives for solid waste disposal. Seattle
ships their solid waste, via rail, to eastern Washington and Oregon.
Electricity
Two major electric utilities serve King County customers: Puget Sound Energy
and Seattle City Light.
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is the largest combination natural gas and electric
utility in the Pacific Northwest. Serving more than 1 million electric customers
and 750 natural gas customers in 11 Washington State counties, its 6,000
square mile service territory covers the largest metropolitan region north of San
Francisco and west of Chicago. PSE purchases 65 percent of its electricity
primarily from plants on the mid-Columbia River; Bonneville Power is one of its
major power providers. The remainder is produced at their own generating
facilities located in Washington and Montana, including the Baker River Hydro
Project, White River Hydro Project, and Snoqualmie Falls Hydro Plant. Almost
half, about 47 percent, of electrical energy consumption is residential; 37 percent
is commercial; and 17 percent is used by the industrial and transportation
sectors69.
Seattle City Light is the seventh largest public power system in the United States.
It transmits and distributes electricity to more than 348,000 residential customers
and more than 39,000 non-residential customers. At 82 percent of its generation,
City Light has the highest percentage of hydropower in the region. It obtains most
of the remaining power from the Bonneville Power Administration70.
Natural Gas4,71
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is the sole distributor of natural gas to consumers in
King County. PSE purchases gas from Canada and the Western United States.
About 61 percent of its gas supply comes from Alberta and British Columbia.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-58
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Washington State is served by major transmission pipelines from Wyoming,
Colorado and Utah. About 39 percent of our natural gas comes from the western
United States. About half the natural gas consumed is for residential purposes;
27 percent is for commercial uses; and 25 percent is used by the industrial and
transportation sectors.
Fuel Transmission Systems
Williams produces and delivers about 12 percent of the natural gas consumed in
the United States. It has three interstate pipelines that serve major markets
around the country, including the Seattle and Portland areas. The Williams’
Northwest Pipeline system transmission system is a primary artery for the
transmission of natural gas to the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain region.
The 4,000-mile bi-directional transmission system crosses the states of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. It also provides
access to British Columbia, Alberta, Rock Mountain, and San Juan Basin gas
supplies. Within King County, the pipeline parallels the Interstate-5 corridor71.
The Olympic Pipe Line Company, operated by BP Pipelines, North America, is a
400-mile interstate pipeline system that runs along a 299-mile corridor from
Blaine, Washington to Portland, Oregon. The system transports gasoline, diesel,
and jet fuel. This fuel originates at four Puget Sound refineries, two in Whatcom
County and two in Skagit County, and is delivered to Seattle's Harbor Island,
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Olympia and Vancouver, Washington, and
Portland, Oregon. BP Pipelines (North America) is the second largest liquids
pipeline company in the U.S., transporting over 450 million barrel-miles of oil,
refined products, natural gas liquids, carbon dioxide, and chemicals daily - about
nine percent of the U.S. liquids pipeline market73.
Telecommunications4
King County's telecommunications sector is one of the fastest-growing service
industries. In addition to regular telephone or cable copper, telecommunications
encompasses fiber optics, wireless (cellular and satellite) technology, and now
laser/microwave transmission in urban parts of the region. High-tech companies,
such as data centers, “e-tailers,” Internet service providers, and even
industrial/distribution companies are in a rush to gain access to fiber optic nodes
(or “pipes”) to transmit necessary data at quick and uninterrupted speed. Virtually
all metropolitan, suburban and many rural areas in King County are served by
digital switching technology to ensure unencumbered access to quick data
transmission.
The backbone of this advanced telecommunications system is fiber optic cable,
which allows improved data transmission. More than 1,000 route miles of fiber
optic cable allow lightwave transmission throughout King County's busiest
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-59
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
exchanges. Virtually all metropolitan areas in the Northwest are served by digital
switching technology ensuring faster data transmission, increased capacity and
maximum clarity.
In King County, consumers have access to modern cellular/wireless networks
that are ahead of many parts of the country. The major carriers have widespread
coverage throughout the state of Washington and are connected to national
networks.
Land Use, Development and Growth1,74,75,76,77
This section was reviewed and updated by DDES for the 2009 update.
In 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act
(GMA). For the first time in the State’s history, all urban counties and cities were
required to develop and adopt comprehensive plans designed for a 20-year
growth period, and regulations to implement the plans. To achieve an inter-
jurisdictional coordinated countywide plan, GMA further required that King
County and its 39 cities first develop framework policies – the King County
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
Designated Urban Growth Areas
Designated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) originated as a result of the Washington
State Growth Management Act which encourages a greater share of growth in
urban areas and limits growth in rural and resource areas. King County’s Urban
Growth Area covers 460 square miles of the County’s total land area of 2,134
square miles; the unincorporated portion of the UGA is now about 60 square
miles. Within King County, the designated Rural Area and Resource Lands are
unincorporated; there are six urban-designated cities within the rural areas:
Duvall, Carnation, Snoqualmie, North Bend, Enumclaw and Skykomish.
Urban centers in King County are areas with concentrated housing and
employment, supported by high capacity transportation systems and retail,
recreational, public facilities, parks and open space. Much of the growth in
employment, and a significant share of new housing, is occurring in urban
centers. The Urban Centers are linked by the high-capacity transit system, with
transit stations located within walking distance. Each center has its own unique
character, and they are designed for livability and pedestrian orientation. Smaller
concentrations of businesses are distributed throughout the urban area and focus
on providing goods and services to surrounding residential areas. They are
linked to Urban Centers by an effective local transit system.
The King County Urban Growth Area contains nearly 22,000 acres of vacant or
potential redevelopable residential land. The largest acreages of land supply are
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-60
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
in unincorporated South King County (3500 acres) and in the county’s 39 cities
themselves (17,250 acres).
Vacant land accounts for 35 percent of the land supply in urban King County
while 65 percent of the land supply is potentially redevelopable. More than 80
percent of the land supply is in single family zones, but more than two-thirds of
the capacity on residential land is in mixed-use and multi-family zones. Today,
there is ample room for new development within the Urban Area.
See Map 3-15: Urban Growth Boundaries and see Map 3-16: Land Use.
Annexations
Since 2004 36,000 residents have annexed into cities. In 2008 residents of the
Benson Hill Communities, Lea Hill and Auburn West Hill potential annexation
areas annexed to the cities of Renton and Auburn. Residents of the North
Highline and Panther Lake annexation areas will annex to Burien and Kent in
2010; residents of Juanita, Finn Hill and Kingsgate annexation area will annex to
Kirkland in 2011. The 2010 and 2011 annexations will affect approximately
72,100 residents. All annexations noted above represent over 16,000 acres
moving from unincorporated to incorporated status.
Rural and Natural Resource Lands
The rural areas first formally identified in 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan
and again designated under the Growth Management Act in 1994 remain
preserved on a long-term basis with a clear boundary between rural and urban
areas.
King County’s rural area, including communities such as Hobart Plateau, Vashon
Island, Snoqualmie Valley and Enumclaw Plateau, contains predominantly low-
density residential development with a wide variety of homes found in rural cities,
small historic towns, and scattered on lots in a broad range of sizes. Rural
resource areas are characterized by extensive forests, small-scale farms, free-
flowing rivers and streams that provide high-quality habitat for fish and wildlife,
and watersheds crucial for both fisheries and flood control. Large-scale
commercial forestry and mining have been traditional land uses in the eastern
half of the County where soils are thick and rocky, while farming continues in
primate soils found in river valleys. Many rural residential communities are
focused on scenic resources such as lakes, rivers and territorial views, or lifestyle
activities such as keeping horses. There are numerous historical sites,
archaeological sites and regionally important recreation areas.
The glacial soils and terrain in the rural resource areas also create significant
environmentally sensitive areas such as steep, erodible slopes, wetlands and
ground water recharge areas. Maintenance of tree cover, natural vegetation and
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-61
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
wetlands are critical to prevention of erosion, flooding, property and habitat
damage, the continued function of the ecosystem and preservation of rural
character.
Land Use Trends and Growth Targets
An additional 200,000 people will live in King County by the year 2020 bringing
the total population to just over 2,100,0007. King County is continuing to develop
land primarily in urban areas. The County is nearing its goal of 25 percent growth
occurring in urban centers and the percent of rural development has stabilized at
around four percent. There is adequate land supply and capacity to meet both
housing and job targets through 2022 and beyond. The County has an inventory
of regional parks and trails, and 25,000 acres of open space.
Policies, Regulations, and Codes
There are numerous policies, regulations and codes that govern our environment
and way of life in King County. Some are federal requirements and others are
directed by the state, regional and local agencies. Components of these
documents can relate to or impact hazard mitigation activities. Examples include
building and construction codes, fire codes, growth management plans, land use
plans, flood management, shoreline regulations, environmental regulations,
endangered species legislation, waste and land management, and disaster
response plans. A complete listing of policies, regulations and codes, along with
specific references applicable to hazard mitigation, are identified in Annex F:
Policy and Program Analysis and in the Capabilities Table (Section 6).
Regional Profile Endnotes:
1 2008 King County Annual Growth Report
2 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan – Regional 6 Profile, Sept 2003 Draft
3 King County Website – http://www.kingcounty.gov
4 enterpriseSeattle –
http://www.enterpriseSeattle.org
5 Western Regional Climate Center – http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/
6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2008 Census Data - www.census.gov
2008 Census estimates - http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53033.html
7 Washington State Office of Financial Management, April 2009 King County Report -
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/localdata/king.asp
8 One Night Count of Homeless People, June 2000; and Data on Homeless Youth in King
County, Oct 2001, City of Seattle Human Services - www.cityofseattle.net/humanservices
9 King County Taxing District Summary 2008 Property Taxes, King County Assessor’s Office.
10 King County Website, Ron Sims Background Information, and Operation of the Council,
About King County Government - http://your.kingcounty.gov/exec/about.aspx,
http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/mkccresp.htm, http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/newabout.htm
11 King County Executive Proposed 2008 Budget – Economic and Revenue Forecast.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-62
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
12 Port of Seattle website – www.portseattle.org
13 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe website – www.muckleshoot.nsn.us
14 Washington State Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, Muckleshoot Tribe website –
http://www.goia.wa.gov/Tribal-Information/Tribes/muckleshoot.htm
15 Washington State Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, Snoqualmie Tribe website –
http://www.goia.wa.gov/Tribal-Information/Tribes/snoqualmie.htm
16 Changing School District Boundaries – Washington State Board of Education and Office of Public
instruction. http://www.k12.wa.us/DataAdmin/
17 K-12 Funding: Where does it come from? (2000-01 project based on 1999-2000 school year data
from Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction), League of Education Voters,
www.educationvoters.org , http://www.k12.wa.us/DataAdmin/
18 King County Local Governments, Municipal Research and Services of Washington –
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/governance/spd/county/SPDking.aspx
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/spd/SPD-WatSew.aspx#King
19 Association of Washington Public Hospital Districts – http://www.awphd.org/default.aspx
20 Municipal Research & Services Center of WA – www.mrsc.org
21 King County Library System website – www.kcls.org
22 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency website – www.pscleanair.org
23 Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Activity Report 2008
24 King County International Airport website –
http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/Airport.aspx
25 City of Renton – Renton Municipal Airport – http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=212
26 Air Nav.com – www.airnav.com
27 City of Auburn – www.ci.auburn.wa.us
28 Crest Air Park – www.crestairpark.com
29 On Line Highways – www.ohwy.com
30 Kenmore Air – www.kenmoreair.com
31 Biz Journals – www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/02/17/smallb1.html
32 BNSF – www.bnsf.com
33 Union Pacific Railroad – www.uprr.com,
Up in Washington, U.S. Guide to the Union Pacific Railroad.
34 Amtrak – www.amtrak.com
35 Sounder Transit – http://www.soundtransit.org/Riding-Sound-Transit.xml
36 Trainweb - www.trainweb.org/rosters/BDTL.html
37 City-Data, King County, Washington; http://www.city-data.com/county/King_County-WA.html
38 Traffic Statistics Riger Segment Report, 2008, Washington State Ferries;
http://www.seattlechannel.org/doc/2008_Annual_Report.pdf
39 Summary of Public Transportation 2007, Washington State Department of Transportation
40 Metro Transit – http://transit.metrokc.gov/
41 Sound Transit, http://www.soundtransit.org/
42 Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County, Trucking Services –
http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/bred/business/partnerships/EDC.htm
43 Washington State Department of Transportation – Key Facts, A summary of Transportation
Information for Washington State 2008 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/keyfacts/
44 Washington State Ferries – www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries
45 Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County, Commercial Freight Transportation –
http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/bred/business/partnerships/EDC.htm
46Port of Seattle – http://www.portseattle.org/seaport/statistics/
47 Washington State Fire Services Resources Mobilization Plan, Revised May 2008
48 Washington State Fire Marshal’s Office - http://www.wsp.wa.gov/fire/firemars.htm
49 Washington State Department of Natural Resources - www.dnr.wa.gov
50 Dave Cook, Boeing Fire Department
51 Jerry Thorson, Federal Way Fire Department
52 Seattle-King County Public Health – www.metrokc.gov/health/ems
53 Captain Bruce Booker, Retired, King County Sheriff’s Office
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-63
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
54 King County Sheriff’s Office - www.metrokc.gov/sheriff
55 Washington State Patrol - www.wsp.wa.gov
56 King County E-911, Marlys Davis
56.1 King County Emergency Management website, ECC Support Team
56.2 Seattle Emergency Management, Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Program, Seattle website
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/regional/
57 Washington State Emergency Management - http://emd.wa.gov/
58 Airlift Northwest – www.airliftnw.org
59 Civil Air Patrol – http://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/html/index.htm ; Western Region, Washington
Patrol http://wawg.cap.gov/
60 Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction – www.k12.wa.us
61 Laura Schrager, Department of Social and Health Services
62 A Smart Investment – Washington Community and Technical Colleges, State Board for Community
and Technical Colleges
63 University of Washington - www.washington.edu
64 King County Department of Natural Resources – http://www.pugetsoundfresh.org/ ;
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment.aspx
65 Robin Friedman, Seattle Public Utilities
66 King County Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Treatment –
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/wtdfacts.htm
67 King County Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste –
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/index.asp
68 King County Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste Division, September 2003 Annual
Report, King County 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
69 Puget Sound Energy – http://www.pse.com/Pages/default.aspx
70 Seattle City Light – www.cityofseattle.net/light/, Seattle City Light Company Profile –
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/54/54272.html
71 Puget Sound Energy-
http://www.pse.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/brochure2774dated200504.pdf ;
72 Williams – http://www.1line.williams.com/
73 Olympic Pipe Line Company – www.olympicpipeline.com/aboutus.html
74 2002 King County Comprehensive Plan
75 King County Countywide Planning Policies
76 King County 2002 and 2003 Annual Benchmark Reports
77 Puget Sound Regional Council – http://www.psrc.org/projects/trans2040/index.htm
78 King County Health Services -- http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ems.aspx
79 King County Search and Rescue -- http://kcsara.org/
80 University of Washington Factbook -- http://www.washington.edu/admin/factbook/table-a1.pdf
81 King County Land Use, March 2008
http://your.kingcounty.gov/budget/benchmrk/bench08/landuse/Ind37.pdf
81 Seattle Fire Department Profile - http://www.seattle.gov/fire/deptInfo/deptProfile.htm
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Profile Page 3-64
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Section 3 Maps
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Population Density
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\population_density_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 63
Miles
Persons Per Acre by2000 Census Block Groups
0.002 - 5.98
5.99 - 13.15
13.16 - 27.02
27.03 - 53.39
53.4 - 137.2
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Algona
Auburn
BeauxArts
BlackDiamond
Bellevue
Bothell
Burien
Carnation
Covington
DesMoines
Duvall
Enumclaw
FederalWay
HuntsPoint
Issaquah
Kent
Kirkland
KenmoreLakeForestPark
Medina
MercerIsland
Milton
Maple Valley
NorthBend
Newcastle
NormandyPark
Pacific
Redmond
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
Skykomish
Sammamish
Snoqualmie
SeaTac
Tukwila
Woodinville
YarrowPoint
ClydeHill
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Incorporated Cities& Towns
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\IncorporatedAreas_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 105
Miles
Incorporated Areas
Freeways
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Auburn BlackDiamond
Bellevue
Burien
Kent Maple Valley
Renton
Seattle
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Port of Seattle Properties
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\PortofSeattle_Properties_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 42
Miles
Port of Seattle Properties
Incorporated Areas
Arterials
Freeways
Attachment A
16715
Auburn Black Diamond
Enumclaw
Kent Maple Valley
Renton
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation PlanMuckleshootIndian Reservation
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\MuckleshootRes_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 42
Miles
Muckleshoot Tribal Lands
Incorporated Areas
Arterials
Freeways
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Seattle
Sammamish
Kirkland
Bellevue
Issaquah
Duvall
Carnation
Snoqualmie
Renton
Kent
Covington
Burien
Auburn
Enumclaw
Black
Diamond
Seattle1
FederalWay210
Enumclaw216
MercerIsland400
Highline401VashonIsland402
Renton403
Skykomish404
Bellevue405
Tukwila406
Riverview407
Auburn408
Tahoma409
SnoqualmieValley410Issaquah411
Shoreline412
LakeWashington414
Kent415
Northshore417
Fife888
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
School Districts
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\SchoolDistricts_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 105
Miles
School Districts in King County
Incorporated Areas
District Name / NumberSeattle1
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
10
Seattle
Kirkland
Redmond
Sammamish
Bellevue
Renton
Kent
Black
Diamond
Enumclaw
38
10
North HighlineFire District
VashonIslandFireandRescue
14
16
2
20
24
25
27
28
31
34
Woodinville Fire& Life SafetyDistrict
37
38
South KingFire andRescue
ShorelineFireDepartment
40
41
43
44
45
47
50
SnoqualmiePass FireDepartment
Valley RegionalFire Authority
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Fire Districts & City Depts.
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\FireDistricts_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 105
Miles
Fire Protection Districts
Incorporated Areas
District Name / Number44
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Seattle
Kirkland
Redmond
Sammamish
Bellevue
Renton
Kent
Black
Diamond
Enumclaw
Woodinville
Snoqualmie
Federal Way
Auburn
Burien
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Hospitals &Hospital Districts
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\HospitalDistricts_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 105
Miles
Hospital District Boundary
Incorporated Areas
Hospitals
Public Hospital District No. 2
Public Hospital District No. 4
Public HospitalDistrict No. 1
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Bothell
Snoqualmie
Shoreline
WD Northshore
Utility
District
Woodinville
Water
District King County
Water
District 119
Lake Margaret
Community
Purposes Club
Lake Forest
Park WD
Duvall
RedmondKirkland
Union
Hill WA
Nestle Regional
Training Center
Sammamish
Plateau WSDSeattle
Ames
Lake
WA Carnation
Bellevue
Northeast
Sammamish
SWD
KCWD
1
Mercer
Island
Beaux
Arts
Coal Creek
UD Issaquah
Spring Glen
KCWD
117 Overdale
WAEdgehill
WA
Renton
North
Bend
KCWD
123
KCWD
45
Fall City
WD
Heights
WS
Bryn Mawr
WSD
Upper Preston
WA
Tukwila
Sallal Water
Association
Westside
WA
KCWD
20
KCWD
49
Mirrormont
Services
Highline
WD Cedar River
Water and Sewer
District
River Bend
KCWD
19 Soos Creek
WSD
KCWD
90
Four
Lakes Wilderness Rim
Kent
KCWD
54
Maury
Mutual WC
Covington Water District
KCWD
111
Gold Beach
WCDockton
WA
Lakehaven
Utility
District
Auburn Black
Diamond
Tacoma
Algona
Pacific Muckleshoot
TribeMilton
Enumclaw
KCWD
125
Burton
WC
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Water Service Utilities
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\WaterServiceUtilities_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 63
Miles
Water Service Utilities
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
ALGONA
PUBLIC
WORKS
AUBURN UTILITY
SERVICES
BELLEVUE
UTILITY
SERVICES
BLACK
DIAMOND
PUBLIC WORKS
BOTHELL
PUBLIC
WORKS
CARNATION
PUBLIC
WORKS
CEDAR RIVER
WATER &
SEWER DISTRICT
COAL
CREEK UTILITY
DISTRICT
DUVALL
PUBLIC
WORKS
ENUMCLAW
PUBLIC
WORKS
HIGHLANDS
SEWER
DISTRICT
ISSAQUAH
PUBLIC WORKS
KENT
PUBLIC
WORKS
KIRKLAND
PUBLIC
WORKS
LAKE
FOREST
PARK
PW
LAKEHAVEN
UTILITY
DISTRICT
MERCER
ISLAND
MAINTENANCE
MIDWAY
SEWER
DISTRICT
MUCKLESHOOT
INDIAN
TRIBE
NE SAMMAMISH
SEWER &
WATER DISTRICT
NORTH BEND
PUBLIC
WORKS
NORTHSHORE
UTILITY
DISTRICT
PACIFIC
PUBLIC
UTILITIES
REDMOND
PUBLIC
WORKS
RENTON
PUBLIC
WORKS
RONALD
WASTEWATER
DISTRICT
SAMMAMISH
PLATEAU WATER
& SEWER DISTRICT
SEATTLE
PUBLIC
UTILITIES
SKYWAY WATER
& SEWER
DISTRICT
SNOQUALMIE
PUBLIC WORKSSW
SUBURBAN
SEWER
DISTRICT
TUKWILA
PUBLIC
WORKS
VAL
VUE
SD
VASHON ISLAND
SEWER DISTRICT
WOODINVILLE
WATER
DISTRICT
SOOS CREEK
WATER &
SEWER DISTRICT
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Wastewater Service Agencies
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\WasteWaterServiceAgencies_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 63
Miles
Wastewater Service Agencies
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A 16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Seattle
Redmond
Bellevue
Snoqualmie
Sammamish
Renton
Kent
SeaTac
Auburn
Maple
Valley
Federal
Way
Skykomish
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Railway Network
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\RailwayNetwork_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 105
Miles
Incorporated Areas
Railways
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Roads By Classification Type
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\RoadClassification_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 105
Miles
Incorporated Areas
Road Class
Freeway
Primary Streets
Collectors
Minor Streets
Local Streets
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Metro Transit Routes
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\MetroTransit_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 73.5
Miles
Incorporated Areas
Metro Transit Revenue Service Routes
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Seattle
Kirkland Redmond
Sammamish
Bellevue
Renton
Kent
Black
Diamond
Enumclaw
Shoreline
Lake
Forest
Park
Kenmore Bothell Woodinville
Duvall
Carnation
Medina
IssaquahNew Castle
Mercer
Island
SeaTac
TukwilaBurien
Des
Moines
Normandy
Park
Covington Maple
Valley
Federal
Way Auburn
Snoqualmie
North
Bend
5 1
3 1
1
Skykomish
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Emergency Response Zones
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\EmergencyRespZone_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 105
Miles
Incorporated Areas
District Boundary
5 District Number
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Seattle
Kirkland
Redmond
Sammamish
Bellevue
Renton
Kent
Black
Diamond
Enumclaw
Shoreline
Lake
Forest
Park
Kenmore Bothell Woodinville
Duvall
Carnation
Medina
IssaquahNew Castle
Mercer
Island
SeaTac
TukwilaBurien
Des
Moines
Normandy
Park
Covington Maple
Valley
Federal
Way Auburn
Snoqualmie
North
Bend
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Urban Growth Boundaries
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\UrbanGrowth_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 63
Miles
Incorporated Areas
2009 Urban Growth Boundary
Attachment A
16715
Lake Washington
L
a
k
e
Sammamish
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
2009 King County RegionalHazard Mitigation Plan
Land Use
The information included on this map has been compiled byKing County staff from a variety of sources and is subject tochange without notice.King County makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, orrights to the use of such information. This document is notintended for use as a survey product. King County shall not beliable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequentialdamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profitsresulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County.File Name: \\gisnas1\projects\client_services\EOC\09146_MitigationUpdate\projects\LandUse_2009_Port.mxd TC October, 2009
0 105
Miles
Agriculture
Parks / Open Space
Forest
Commercial
Industrial
Mining
Government
Residential
Land Use Classification
Incorporated Areas
Attachment A
16715
Section 4: Participating King County Government
and Jurisdiction Profiles
Planning for the 2009 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) update
is occurring in two phases. Phase 1 is a King County Plan – Base Plan, and Phase 2
will incorporate and include other participating jurisdictions from within the County.
Jurisdictions can include cities, fire districts, utility districts, school districts, special
purpose districts, and others. Any jurisdiction can request to be incorporated into this
Plan in a prescribed way as defined in Section 2, Plan Maintenance and Plan
Management, Guidelines for Adding a Jurisdiction to the King County Regional
Hazards Mitigation Plan. The following represents participating agencies and
jurisdictions.
King County Participating Agencies and Jurisdictions 1,2,3
Table 4-1 King County Government Departments / Agencies and
Cities
2004 2009
King County Government *
(See new 2009 Table 4.1.1 below)
x x
City of Auburn x pending
City of Bellevue x x
City of Bothell x x
City of Burien x x
City of Des Moines x
City of Duvall x
City of Federal Way x x
City of Issaquah x x
City of Kirkland x
City of Medina x x
City of Newcastle x
City of Normandy Park x
City of North Bend x
City of Pacific x
City of Redmond x
City of SeaTac x
City of Tukwila pending
City of Woodinville x
Source: RHMP Participating departments /agencies; 2008 King County Annual
Growth Report documentation in the detailed sections below.
*King County internal government department / agency participation is listed in
Phase 1 Planning, below, Table 4-1.1.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Phase 1 - Planning
King County Government* Departments / Agencies 1,2,3
In the 2004 Plan, the King County internal departments / agencies were named
as demonstrated in the list below, and were included in a separate Annex B:
King County Government Departments. For the 2009 update, the Annex B
portion containing the King County internal departments /agencies has been
updated and incorporated into the main body of the Plan in this Section 4, and
referred to by updated names as shown in Table 4-1.1, below. The updated
2009 information is also used in Section 2, Plan Development.
2004 List
King County Facilities Management
King County Department of Transportation
King County Executive Services, Information and Telecommunications
Services
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King County Sheriff's Office
The following illustrates the 2004 and 2009 planning partners for King County
Government. These participating King County departments will be further
detailed in Section 7 Regional Mitigation Strategies, in this 2009 Plan update.
Table 4-1.1: King County Government Departments
(new Table in 2009)
2004 2009
The departments below submitted either a
Strategy and/or an Initiative in 2004
Status:
Updated in
2009
Dept. of Development and Environmental
Services (DDES); Fire Marshal’s Office
x No update
Dept. of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP)
Four divisions below:
Water and Land Resources Division x x
Wastewater Treatment Division x
Solid Waste Division x x
Parks Division x
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Road Services Division x
Metro King County Transit x x
Facilities Management Division (FMD) x x
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) x x
Office of Information Resources Management
(OIRM)
x x
Public Health – Seattle & King County
(PHSKC) (Note: new name since 2004) x x
Source: RHMP Participating agencies; 2004 Plan
Note: The department names in Table 4-1.1 are shown as known in 2009
Phase 2 – Planning (new in 2009)
Phase 2 will incorporate and include additional jurisdictions from within the County.
Jurisdictions can include cities, fire districts, utility districts, school districts, special
purpose districts, and others. Any jurisdiction can request to be incorporated into this
Plan in a prescribed way as defined in Section 2, Plan Maintenance and Plan
Management, Guidelines for Adding a Jurisdiction to the King County Regional
Hazards Mitigation Plan.
Under Phase 2 of this planning process, the Base Plan will be reformatted to better
support hazard mitigation efforts on a regional basis. While Phase 1 of this process
established the foundation of the regional plan, Phase 2 will focus on reassembling
the regional components of the Plan. The jurisdictions listed in tables 2-2 through 2-4
below, as well as other local governments within the planning area who have not
been previous planning partners will be invited to join the King County Regional
Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) as a regional planning partner.
Key planning steps will be re-engaged to assure all planning partners are adequately
addressed and supported by plan content and policy direction. Phase 2 will include,
but are not limited to the following components:
• Organize Resources: the first task under Phase 2 will be to organize all eligible
local governments within the planning area will be invited to link to the RHMP.
• Revise the Risk Assessment: The risk assessment of the Base Plan will be
comprehensively revised to better support the ranking of risk associated with
the hazards of concern for each participating jurisdiction.
• Re-engage the public: A comprehensive outreach strategy will be deployed
that will provide the constituents of all planning partners an opportunity to
comment on the Plan and its policies.
• Re-assemble the Plan: Once all planning phases of Phase 2 are complete, the
regional plan will be reassembled into a format that clearly addresses each
planning partner, and clearly illustrates compliance with section 201.644CFR
for each planning partner. A key component of this step will be to clearly
define a Plan maintenance strategy that will assure the Plan and its policies
remain viable throughout the performance period for the Plan.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-3
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
• Plan Review and adoption: Since the scope of the RHMP Base Plan will be
enhanced under Phase 2, all planning partners linking to the Base Plan will be
required to formally adopt the RHMP as their hazard mitigation plan of record.
Additionally, this reformatted Plan will be sent to the State and FEMA for their
review and approval.
The following represents the profiles of eligible local governments within the planning
area that may become part of the Regional Plan.
Cities1,2,3
City of Auburn
The City of Auburn is located in King County in the southern Puget Sound area of
western Washington between Seattle and Tacoma. It lies at the south end of
Highway 18, in the Green River Valley. Settled in 1855, the town was plotted in
1886. The community was incorporated in 1891. Auburn has a total land area of
28.20 square miles. The City’s population numbers 60,400 according to the 2008
King County Growth Report. This is a significant growth over the 2000 US
Census population of 40,314, and the trend is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future.
The community economy includes The Boeing Company’s Auburn plant, a Super
Mall, Emerald Downs Race track, the Muckleshoot Casino, a U.S. Government
Agency warehouse, and light industrial companies.
The City maintains its own fire and police departments, and coordinates with the
King County Office of Emergency Management for emergency management
services.
A Mayor and seven council members serve the City of Auburn, and this body is
responsible for setting City policies as well as reviewing and approving Auburn’s
Mitigation Plan.
City of Bellevue
The City of Bellevue, encompassing 33.30 square miles, incorporated on March
31, 1953. The current population sits at 119,200. The City operates under the
City Council/City Manager form of government. A city council comprised of seven
elected members governs the City of Bellevue. The mayor and deputy mayor are
both council members, elected by the others to serve four-year terms. The City
Manager is the chief executive of the city.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-4
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Bellevue provides essential services to a number of nearby communities:
Fire Services:
Provided to the City of Medina and communities of Beaux Arts, Clyde
Hill, Hunts Point, Newcastle, and Yarrow Point.
Sewer Services:
Provided to Beaux Arts, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Issaquah, King County,
Medina, Redmond, Yarrow Point.
Water Services:
Provided to the city of Medina and communities of Clyde Hill, Hunts
Point, Yarrow Point, Cor-Sun Ranch in Kirkland, Greenwood Point &
South Cove in Issaquah, and several areas of unincorporated King
County south of I-90 (including Eastgate).
Bellevue has an unusually diverse and comparatively affluent population.
Languages other than English are spoken in 26.9% of its 46,000 households and
only 5.7% of Bellevue citizens are below the poverty line.
The British Petroleum Pipeline/Olympic Pipeline Company manage two fuel
pipelines that traverse a right of way through the city from north to south. No
pump stations or terminals are located in Bellevue.
City of Bothell
The City of Bothell was incorporated in 1909 and consists of 5.67 square miles
with a population of 17,130 within in King County. Bothell’s economy consists of
small and moderate size retail and services businesses as well as multiple
business parks which consist of many large businesses and corporations.
Bothell is located on I-405, 12 miles north of Seattle, Washington. A residential
community that has been able to expand its business park areas to offer great
incentives to outside businesses. Although it is limited in space, the downtown
area is home of the Bothell City Hall, Bothell Police Department, and Bothell
Downtown Fire Station.
The Bothell City Council, a seven-member elected board, is responsible for
adopting the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
will assist the City departments in the development and implementation of the
Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-5
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
City of Burien
The City of Burien was incorporated in 1993. It consists of 7.43 square miles with
a population of 31,540. Largely a residential community, the City of Burien
economy consists of small and moderate sized retail and service businesses.
City of Des Moines
The city of Des Moines was incorporated in 1959. Today is covers an area of
6.54 square miles and has an estimated 29,180 residents. Des Moines is
located on the east shore of the Puget Sound approximately halfway between
Seattle to the north, and Tacoma to the South. Its location on the shoreline of
the lake situates Des Moines as an ideal location for boat launching and
moorage.
City of Federal Way
Situated 25 miles south of Seattle and eight miles north of Tacoma, the City of
Federal Way occupies 22.54 square miles on a plateau between the Puget
Sound and the Green River. The name “Federal Way” was first used in 1929 to
identify a school district and was officially adopted in the early 1950s by the
Chamber of Commerce. Incorporated in 1990, Federal Way is a rapidly growing
community of 88,040 people, which includes a diverse population. The economy
of Federal Way includes major employers like the Weyerhaeuser Company,
World Vision, and other companies with headquarters in Federal Way. The
largest US Mail bulk sorting facility in Washington State and the King County
Aquatic Center are also located in Federal Way.
The Federal Way Fire Department and the Federal Way Public School District
serve Federal Way. Federal Way has its own police department.
City of Issaquah
The City of Issaquah is located at the Southern end of Lake Sammamish fifteen
miles East of Seattle. Occupying 11.36 square miles and bisected by Interstate
90; Issaquah covers portions of three mountains, two valleys and a plateau, and
includes four major stream systems. Incorporated in 1892 with a coal mining
history, Issaquah has become a diverse, rapidly growing community of 26,360.
A significant amount of Issaquah’s residential community resides on Squak
Mountain and Cougar Mountain, which is subject to coalmine subsidence and
slide hazards. The streamside residential and commercial areas in Issaquah and
Tibbetts Creek Valleys are subject to flooding, and the areas adjacent to
Interstate-90 and SR-900 are vulnerable to hazardous materials spills.
Issaquah’s mountainous terrain and heavy tree cover make it particularly
susceptible to winter storms. The economy of Issaquah includes a mix of retail,
office, commercial and some light industry with a number of major employers like
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-6
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Microsoft and Costco Corporate Headquarters. The City of Issaquah is a full
service city with a seven-member council and elected mayor. Issaquah has its
own police department and water, sewer and storm water utilities. Eastside Fire
and Rescue provide fire and medical services.
City of Medina
The City of Medina was incorporated in 1955. This 1.41 square mile residential
community is located approximately two miles west of Interstate 405 along State
Route 520 and north of Interstate 90, on the east side of and bordering Lake
Washington. Medina’s 2,955 residents consist of professionals, many of whom
are high profile. The city has its own police department who also serves the Town
of Hunts Point. Medina contracts with the City of Bellevue for water, sewer and
fire protection services. Puget Sound Energy is the provider of gas and electric
services. The seven-member, elected Medina City Council is responsible for
adopting the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
City of New Castle
Located between Bellevue, Renton, and the Cougar Mountain area of Issaquah,
Newcastle is a new city since 1994 with a rich history. In the 1800’s, Newcastle
had a larger population than Seattle. It was the richness of Newcastle’s coal
mining industry that played an important role in transforming Seattle into a major
port. Newcastle was incorporated in September 1994. It is a residential
community of 4.46 square miles and a population of 9,720. The city includes only
one major industrial site within the corporate limits. The City does have a
significant amount of home occupation business, as well as a retail core
providing neighborhood-type commercial activity. A major golf course resides in
the City with incredible views of downtown Seattle and surrounds, on a clear day.
City of Pacific
The City of Pacific is located in both King and Pierce counties, with the King
county portion home to 6,210 over an area of 1.83 square miles. The City was
official incorporated in 1909. Pacific is located on the lower White River,
downstream of the Mud Mountain reservoir.
City of Tukwila
Located on the Duwamish River, Tukwila was built around the former site of Fort
Dent. Tukwila’s proximity to Seattle to the north and Renton to the east situated
Tukwila as a prime thoroughfare for goods and people, first with the opening of
the Interurban Railroad and later with Washington’s first paved road. Shortly
thereafter, Tukwila was incorporated as a city in 1908. Today, Tukwila occupies
an area of 9.17 square miles with a population of 18,080. Tukwila is the home to
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-7
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
the Pacific Northwest’s largest shopping center, Westfield Southcenter, just
southeast on the junction of Interstates 5 and 405.
Fire Districts1
Table 4-2: Fire Districts
2004 2009
KCFD #2 -- Burien/Normandy Park x
KCFD #11 -- North Highline Fire District x
KCFD #20 – Skyway/Bryn Mawr/Lakeridge x
KCFD #36 -- Woodinville Fire and Life Safety x
KCFD #39 South King Fire & Rescue
(annexed Federal Way and Des Moines)
x x
KCFD #40 – Spring Glen/Cascade/Fairwood x
KCFD #43 -- Maple Valley Fire and Life Safety x x
KCFD #44 -- Mountain View Fire and Rescue x
KCFD #45 – Duvall x
Source: RHMP Participating agencies; 2009 WA Fire Service Directory
King County Fire District #20 – Skyway, Byrn Mawr, Lakeridge
Located in Unincorporated King County, King County Fire District #20 consists of
the neighborhoods of Skyway, Bryn Mawr, Lakeridge, Campbell Hill, Earlington,
Hill Top, Panorama View, and Skycrest. Geographically the District in situated
between Seattle to the North, Tukwila to the west, Renton to the east and south,
and Lake Washington directly to the east. The district serves 15,000 people over
an area of 5 square miles.
King County Fire District #39 - Federal Way Fire Department / South King
County Fire and Rescue
Federal Way Fire Department is a fire district serving the greater Federal Way
area within Fire Zone 3. Formed in 1949, the district covers 34 square miles and
serves 125,000 people. A board of commissioners governs it as a junior taxing
district. The district is proud of its fire prevention, public education, and mitigation
efforts. Other services provided include fire suppression, hazardous materials
response, and basic life support – medical services.
Maple Valley Fire and Life Safety District #43
Maple Valley Fire and Life Safety (King County Fire District #43) was established
as a fire district in 1953 and consists of 55 square miles and a population of
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-8
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
45,000 according to 2002 District projections. Maple Valley Fire and Life Safety
has a three member Board of Commissioners that are elected by registered
voters of the district for 6 year terms. The economy for the district is primarily
small to moderate retail sales and service businesses. Geographically, the
district is located in southeast King County where SR 516 and SR 169 intersect.
State Route 18 also travels through portion of the district. Highway 18 is
considered a major transportation route for commercial traffic. The City of Maple
Valley is located within the boundaries for the Fire District. The Board of
Commissioners for the Fire District are responsible for adoption of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan, when completed.
Utility Districts1
Table 4-3: Utility Districts
2004 2009
Cedar River Water and Sewer District x
Coal Creek Utility District – Newcastle x
Covington Water District x x
Highline Water District x
KC Water District #19 – Vashon Island x x
KC Water District #20 – Burien/ Riverton/
McMicken Heights x
KC Water District #90 – Renton x x
KC Water District #111 x x
Midway Sewer District, Kent/Des Moines x x
Northshore Utility District x
Ronald Waste Water District x
Sammamish Water and Sewer District x
Shoreline Water District x
Soos Creek Water and Sewer x x
Southwest Suburban Sewer District x pending
Val Vue Sewer District x
Woodinville Water District x
Source: RHMP Participating agencies
Covington Water District
The Covington Water District was formed in southeast King County in 1960 with
less than 100 customers. Over the years, a number of small districts merged into
the Covington Water District and more customers were added as development
occurred. Currently the Covington Water District serves a population of
approximately 33,000 with 13,000 connections in a 53 square mile area that
borders the city of Kent to the west and the Green River to the south. The District
encompasses portions of the cities of Covington, Maple Valley and Black
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-9
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Diamond as well as unincorporated King County. The District’s service area
contains residential, commercial and institutional/educational development. The
Covington Water District is governed by a five member Board of Commissioners
who will adopt the plan by resolution.
Highline Water District
Formerly known as King County Water District #75 upon incorporation in 1946,
Highline Water District reorganized in 1991. Covering an area of 18 square
miles, the district serves mostly Des Moines and Normandy Park, but also
portions of Burien, Kent, Federal Way, Sea Tac, and Tukwila, as well as area
within unincorporated King County. Today the District serves a population of
68,500 people through 18,050 connections, averaging 6.3 million gallons daily.
The District operates as a Special Purpose District, governed by five elected
commissioners.
King County Water District #19 – Vashon Island
Water District 19 was established in 1925 and consists of 3945 acres with a
population of approximately 3100 according to the estimates projected from the
2000 Census. The District is governed by a three member Board that are elected
by the registered voters of the District for 6-year terms. The Board sets policy and
hires a General Manager to run the day-to-day operations of the District. The
District service area is composed of a mix of retail sales and services,
restaurants, financial and real estate companies, building suppliers, professional
offices, medical clinics, entertainment and civic functions, social services, multi
and single-family residences. Geographically, the District is located in south west
King County, Washington west of Seattle on Vashon Island in Puget Sound and
contained in the east central portion of the island. Vashon Highway (a.k.a. 99th
Ave SW) runs north and south through the east center of the island and of the
District. The District is served by Vashon Island Fire Protection District (King
County Fire District #13), King County Wastewater Treatment Division for sewer
service, Puget Sound Energy for electricity, and lies wholly within the Vashon
School District.
King County Water District #90 – Renton
King County Water District #90 is a district formed in 1952. It serves 5,569
households and businesses near Renton with their water needs. The district is
governed by a board of commissioners.
King County Water District #111
King County Water District #111 (KCWD111) originally formed in 1962 to bring
water service to the Lake Meridian area. KCWD111 provides water service to a
population of approximately 19,000, covering approximately 7 square miles.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-10
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
KCWD111 serves primarily residential customers within the City of Kent, a
portion of the City of Covington and unincorporated King County. Other water
purveyors bound KCWD111’s service area including, the City of Kent, Covington
Water District, Soos Creek Water & Sewer District, and the City of Auburn. A
three-member Board of Commissioners governs the District and is responsible
for adopting the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Midway Sewer District, Kent, and Des Moines
Midway Sewer District is located near the border between Kent and Des Moines
and was formed in 1946. It serves 7,500 households and businesses within a 13
square mile area and is governed by a board of commissioners.
Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District
Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer Distinct is located east of Lake
Sammamish, just north of the City of Issaquah, serving areas of the cities of
Sammamish, Issaquah, and areas of unincorporated King County. The District
encompasses a base of 15,700 waters customers, 9,300 sewer customers with a
population base of 50,000.
Soos Creek Water and Sewer District
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District was formed in 1939 and serves 35 square
miles with an approximate population of 80,000. The District provides both
water and sewer services generally in South King County. Specifically, the
District's corporate boundary generally lies directly east of and adjacent to the
City of Kent and south of, and adjacent to, the City of Renton. The District
extends east to Maple Valley and south to Black Diamond and Auburn. In
addition to serving these areas in whole or in part, the District serves the entire
area of the City of Covington and portions of unincorporated King County. The
District is governed by a Board of Commissioners.
Southwest Suburban Sewer District
The Southwestern Suburban Sewer District provides wastewater services to
23,198 customers from unincorporated King County, the Cities of Burien,
Normandy Park, SeaTac Seattle and Des Moines. The coverage area includes
13.15 square miles. The district was formed in 1945 and is governed by a board
of commissioners.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-11
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
School District1
Table 4-4: School Districts
2004 2009
Federal Way School District pending
Lake Washington School District x
Vashon Island School District x
Source: RHMP Participating agencies
Federal Way School District
The 36 Federal Way Public Schools are home to 22,462 students, including
2,780 disabled students; a 74% minority population speaking 78 different
languages; 220 pre-school special needs students and 3,983 full or part time
staff. With heavy dependence on roadways, 9,680 students are transported daily
to and from school on 145 radio-equipped busses traveling 1,371,021 miles
annually. The School District encompasses 35 square miles, is bordered by 8
miles of Puget Sound and is intersected by 9 miles of Interstate 5. The District’s
northern boundary is 3 ½ miles south of SeaTac International Airport and
approximately one third of the District’s buildings are in the flight path. The
District’s Central Kitchen prepares about 13,000 lunches daily. The District’s
boundaries include all or part of 4 municipal and 4 public utility jurisdictions, with
all energy services supplied by Puget Sound Energy. Founded in 1929, a five
member elected Board of Directors governs the District. The District is a
participant in the Greater Federal Way Emergency Operations Center.
Participating Agency Profile Endnotes:
1 2008 King County Annual Growth Report
2 Washington State Office of Financial Management, April 2009 King County Report -
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/localdata/king.asp
3 Agency Websites
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Participating Agency Profiles Page 4-12
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Section 5: Hazard Identification and
Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA)
2009 Plan Review Crosswalk, Sections 5-7
This introduction section has been significantly enhanced in 2009. All Section 5
elements of the 2004 Plan have retained its integrity in the 2009 Plan. Updates
to documented FEMA declarations, other significant hazard incidents and
hazard history have been updated and included from years 2004 – September
2009. All footnotes have been reviewed and updated as needed or possible.
Section 5 identifies and profiles hazards with assessment of vulnerability in
terms of probability and potential hazard vulnerability, or impact in King County.
When King County is referenced it also includes King County Government, its
unincorporated areas, and all of its jurisdictions and special purpose districts
which are part of this Plan.
Hazard Identification
The first step toward a mitigation program is the identification of the hazards a
community may face. First hand information can be obtained from interviews of
businesses, local employees, first responders, and residents; or gathered from
newspaper archives, National Weather Service, FEMA documents, state and
local government records, and the Internet. Largely, local hazards can be
categorized as either natural or technological/manmade events. While the local
climate changes rather slowly, our manmade environment can change rapidly,
especially in terms of the local economic base.
Profiles of Hazards (Update for 2009)
To make the hazard analysis more helpful, adjective descriptors (high,
moderate, and low) are established for each hazard’s probability of occurrence
and the county’s vulnerability, or impact, in the event of a hazard. The risk
rating is assigned on the probability of a hazard occurring at intervals, as
mentioned above. A final risk rating is assigned based on a subjective estimate
of their combination, and the risk rating will ultimately help focus the emergency
management and hazard mitigation programs on the incidents with the greatest
potential risk.
Some hazard incidents occur on an almost annual basis while others may not
happen once within our lifetime. Additionally, not every hazardous incident or
event occurs with notable damage or loss of life. For this reason, hazards are
assessed by comparing the experienced frequency and probability of the event
and the potential vulnerability / impact that may result.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Probability and Hazard Impact
The 2004 Plan wording: probability vs. hazard impact, has been changed
to: probability and hazard impact, in the 2009 Plan.
Planning begins with events that are expected to occur often and have
potentially high impacts on life and property followed by those with more
moderate or low probabilities or moderate or low impacts. Jurisdictional
strategies are dependant on the philosophy and experiences of local officials.
Largely, the priorities addressed in the HIVA identified hazard development.
Updates or expansions are a reflection of this assessment and local
philosophical priorities.
For the purpose of this document, the criteria for high, moderate, and low
probability are:
High Probability: once a year
Moderate Probability: once every two to ten years
Low Probability: once every ten to fifty years
Events occurring once every 50 to 1,000 years will are treated as “low
probability” for the purpose of this document.
Cause and Impact Effect
Disaster incidents can be categorized as the cause of an impact or the
effect/impact itself, or caused by a secondary hazard contributing to the disaster
incident. Winter storms bring heavy rains, high winds, snow, and cold
temperatures (causes) that may result in property damage, local flooding,
power outages, injuries and deaths (effects). Earthquakes can also bring
landslides (lahars), fire hazards, hazardous materials spills or releases. Despite
flooding being an effect of severe weather conditions, it can also be considered
to be an event with its own unique effects to roadways, structures, building
sites, hazardous materials spills and releases, and bridges. Power outages can
be associated with a variety of natural or manmade events. Power interruptions
are addressed as effects of both natural and technological (man-made)
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
incidents in the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP).
Washington State Emergency Management has included nine FEMA identified
natural hazards in the 2008 State Hazard Mitigation Plan. The King County
RHMP will follow that model for the 2009 Plan update to include eight out of
nine natural hazards, and include additional natural and technological, or
manmade, hazards.
Understanding Risk Ratings, Terminology Defined (new for 2009)
High Risk Rating: warrants major program effort to prepare for, respond
to, recover from, and mitigate against the hazard. A high risk rating for a
hazard means that the hazard has a high probability of occurrence and
possibly a significant and larger portion of the population is vulnerable to
the hazard.
Moderate Risk Rating: warrants moderate program effort to prepare for,
respond to recover from, and mitigate against the hazard. A moderate risk
rating for a hazard means that a hazard has a moderate probability of
occurrence, and only a part of the population is vulnerable to the hazard.
Low Risk Rating: warrants more modest program effort to prepare for,
respond to, recover from, or mitigate against the hazard beyond general
awareness, training, and exercises. A low risk rating means that for a
hazard means that the hazard has a low probability of occurrence, and a
smaller segment of the population is vulnerable to the hazard.
Probability of Occurrence: An adjective (high, medium, low) of a hazard
impacting King County within the next year, two to ten years, or every ten to
50 years, respectively. Probability is based on a limited objective appraisal
of a hazard’s frequency using information provided by relevant sources
observations and trends.
High Probability: there is a great likelihood that a hazardous event will
occur within the next year.
Moderate Probability: there is a moderate likelihood that a hazardous
event will occur within the next two to ten years.
Low Probability: there is a lower likelihood that a hazardous event will
occur within the next ten to fifty years.
Vulnerability / Impact : An adjective description (high, moderate, low) of
the potential impact a hazard could have on King County. It is the ratio of
population, property, commerce, infrastructure and services at risk, relative
to the entire city. Vulnerability is an estimate generally based on a hazard’s
characteristics.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-3
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-4
11/12/09
Summary of Results (new for 2009)
The following table is a summary of the results for all the hazards that are
evaluated in this document, as indicated.
Recap in 2009 of Summary of Results Table of RHMP 2004
Hazard Hazard Risk
Severity + Location
Frequency/Probability
Vulnerability
Assessment Risk
Natural +
Manmade
Impact
Total Risk
Hazard
Probability+
Vulnerability
Impact
(not captured in
2004)
Severe
Weather
High Moderate
Avalanche Low Moderate
Flooding High Moderate
Landslide Moderate High
Earthquake Moderate High
Civil Disorder Moderate High
Terrorism Moderate High
Drought Moderate Moderate
Fire Hazards Moderate Low
Hazards
Materials/
Release
High Moderate
Transportation Low High
Tsunami &
Seiches
Low Moderate
Cyberterrorism Moderate Moderate
2009 Summary of Results Table (new in 2009)
**BOLD HIGH: Indicates Vulnerability Risk update from 2004 RHMP
Hazard
(In new 2009
ranked order
of Total Risk)
Hazard Risk Profile
Severity + Location
Frequency/Probability
Vulnerability Risk
Natural +
Manmade
Impact
Total Risk
Hazard
Probability+
Vulnerability
Impact
(new in 2009)
**Severe
Weather
High Moderate High
Flooding High **HIGH High
Earthquake Moderate High High
Attachment A
16715
**Landslide Moderate High High
**Hazards
Materials/
Release
High Moderate Moderate
**Fire Hazards Moderate Low Moderate
**Transportation
System
Low High Moderate
Drought Moderate Moderate Moderate
Terrorism Moderate High Moderate
Civil Disorder Moderate High Moderate
Avalanche Low Moderate Moderate
Tsunami &
Seiches
Low Moderate Moderate
Cyberterrorism Moderate Moderate Moderate
NEW in 2009
Dams / Dam
Safety
Moderate High High
**Note: The 2009 Flooding hazard vulnerability, or impact, has been
upgraded to high/high, from high/moderate in 2004 because of the
increased Green River Valley risk of potential flooding in the next three to
five year period starting 2009 and beyond. **If severe weather contributes
to a flooding incident(s), these additional hazard rankings may be
suddenly upgraded because flooding impacts increases the risk of
possible increased frequency of secondary hazards such as landslide,
hazardous material spills or releases, fire hazards, and transportation
system impacts.
Five Year Plan Cycle
Hazard mitigation planning is based on a five year planning cycle. Research
and planning for all the hazards a community may be vulnerable to is a time-
consuming process. For this reason, the 2004 RHMP contained only certain
identified hazards and other additional identified hazards are included in the
2009 RHMP. This five year time period also includes a process to continually
review HIVA documents in order to maintain current hazard information and to
accurately evaluate vulnerabilities and planning priorities.
The Pacific Northwest has experienced specific notable natural hazards listed
below for thousands of years. These hazards were included in the 2004
RHMP. The topics listed below were identified as a higher priority based on
past hazard history, frequency and likelihood of occurrences, and potential
catastrophic losses. On the strength of recent national and local incidents and
other concurrent planning processes, it seemed logical to add terrorism and
civil disorder (unrest) to the first RHMP 2004 and HIVA focus.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-5
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
The following hazards were addressed as priority as part of the first 2004
RHMP planning cycle:
Severe Weather
Avalanche
Flooding
Landslide
Earthquake
Civil Disorder (unrest)
Terrorism
The 2004 RHMP also included expansion and further development of other
identified hazard topics including:
Drought
Fire Hazards
Hazardous Materials
Transportation
Tsunami / Seiche
Cyberterrorism
Any new data regarding these hazards has been incorporated into their
respective sections for this 2009 update, especially flooding hazards, which has
a higher risk rating in vulnerability and total risk. Flooding hazard is the priority
for 2009 and beyond due to the Howard Hanson Dam situational awareness
and potential Green River Valley flooding increased risk. The 2009 RHMP will
include pertinent updates to the above mentioned hazards as they apply and
incident dates will be added to the respective tables from 2004 onward.
Development of an important identified emerging hazard topic for 2009 RHMP
is based on a change of priority of hazard probability and potential impact, new
current situational awareness and the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance.
The identified technological hazard that addresses new and emerging
conditions is:
Dam / Dam Safety
The 2004 RHMP initially identified very specific separate hazards that were
either subsets of other identified hazards or too narrow in focus to be developed
towards incorporation into the current 2009 RHMP. Examples from 2004 are
industrial, erosion, urban economy, agricultural economy, air and water quality,
and food contamination. These topics will not be included as a separate title in
the 2009 RHMP. They may, however, be mentioned and referenced in the
documentation of the other listed hazards if impacted by those elements.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-6
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Future hazard topics are identified for the next RHMP planning iteration to be
incorporated into the Plan, two natural and two technological, or manmade, are:
Pandemics (Epidemics)
Volcanoes / Volcanic activities
Extreme Heat
Pipeline (Utility Energy Shortage)
Sources of Data
Information supporting the hazard identification and vulnerability assessment
update for the 2009 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) was obtained
from a variety of sources (this is an expanded list from 2004):
• King County Office of Emergency Management - Duty Officer
Log Activations 1996 to present
• Presidential Disaster Declarations 1990 to present
• Review of past incidents and declared disasters
• Media, Newspapers and Internet Website searches
• Jurisdiction and agency experience and documentation
• Special reports, papers, or new projects
• King County Geographic Information System (GIS)
• King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP)
• King County’s Flood Control Center and Flood Control District data
• University of Washington Seismology Department
• Seattle King County Public Health (PHSKC)
• Review of the State HMP and other State Plans
• WA Department of Natural Resources, WA Geological Survey
• National Weather Service (NWS)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website
• FEMA Risk Analysis HAZUS HM runs completed for Howard Hanson Dam
• U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reports
• Other local or county department plans
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-7
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Severe Weather
Several substantive changes made for 2009
Introduction
With a substantial marine influence, the climate of King County is well known for
its moderation. Despite this, severe weather in King County can happen at any
time of year but usually occurs between October and April but can occur in
summer months. Severe weather can include unseasonable rain, snow, ice,
extreme cold, and high winds. (Wind speed itself does not predict damage due
to different tempering effects of variable landscapes; 45 mph tends to be the
threshold at which damages occur.)
The effects of severe weather in the County can include flooding, power
outages, land and mudslides, and road, rail and airport closures. There is little
snow removal equipment or budget associated for such service in King County.
Vehicles and drivers are often poorly equipped to travel roadways under such
conditions. For this reason, impacts from unusually heavy snowfalls and severe
winter tend to be dramatic though short-lived, and typically occurs annually.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Severe Weather Probability and Severe Weather Impacts
Hazard Identification
Precipitation
The geographical location of northwestern Washington subjects it to several
climatic controls: the effects of terrain, the Pacific Ocean, and semi-permanent
high and low pressure regions located over the North Pacific Ocean combine to
produce significantly different weather conditions within short distances.1
Accordingly, rainfall in King County varies widely from city to city and area to
area. The City of Seattle has an average of 37 inches annually;2,3 while
Enumclaw has an annual average of 55 inches4,5 and Snoqualmie/North Bend
has 61 inches6,7 of precipitation. The majority of this precipitation occurs as rain
in the lowlands between October and early May with substantial snow packs in
the Cascades during the same time frames.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-8
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Snow accumulations in King County at elevations below 2,000 feet are
uncommon. On average, Seattle will have one or two snow storms during a
winter season with appreciable accumulations. Snow accumulation rarely
remains two days after such a storm. Heavy local snows and associated cold
conditions have resulted in power outages, transportation restrictions, and
adverse impacts to the regional economy.
Table 5-1: Precipitation in Inches by Month8,9
(Snow and Rain for Seattle)
Month Average
Snowfall8
Average
Snow Pack8
Average
Rainfall8
Average
Precipitation
07-08 / 06-099
July 0 0 .76 0.77
August 0 0 1.10 0.87
September 0 0 1.72 0.78
October 0 0 3.44 2.17
November 0.9 0 6.10 6.52
December 1.8 0 5.86 4.10
January 12.0 0 5.76 5.40
February 1.7 0 3.97 1.47
March 1.4 0 3.73 4.16
April 0.1 0 2.51 3.36
May 0 0 1.69 3.61
June 0 0 1.45 0.18
Wind
High wind events in King County are fairly common and are usually
experienced as part of a winter weather pattern.
Tornado – (new in 2009)
Though rare, King County and the sound region does experience tornado
activity. Tornados have reached F3 designation within the region, but the
slower F0 and F1 class tornados are more common. In September of 2009 the
Enumclaw area experienced a class F1 tornado. Though wind speeds of up to
110 mph were estimated, the most substantive damage recorded was the
uprooting of trees and damage to roofs, much of which could be attributed to
the preceding storm13. Tornados are a result of strong weather systems and
often times accompany serve wind, rain, and hail.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-9
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Ice and Extreme Cold
King County’s marine climate results in very few extreme cold/ice events.
Typically, the area experiences below freezing temperatures for 10-14
consecutive days in January or February.
Flooding
Severe weather is often accompanied by heavy rains and flooding conditions,
See “Flooding” section.
Power Outages
Power outages are commonly experienced in association with high winds, rain
and flooding conditions.
History of Events
The table below represents damages to public property from severe weather
events since 1972. Damages occurred to roadway, school roofs, reservoirs,
vehicles (from falling trees), and public buildings were caused directly or
indirectly by wind, rain, snow load, or flying debris.
Table 5-2: Severe Weather History
FEMA
No. Dates KC Public Damages
(FEMA Approved)
328 1972 – Flooding Prior to FEMA
492 1975 - Flooding Prior to FEMA
545 1977 – Flooding, landslide Prior to FEMA
612 1979 – Flooding Figures not available
757 1986 – Flooding, landslide Figures not available
784 1986 – Flooding Figures not available
852 1990, Jan – Flooding $5,246,411
883 1990, Nov – Flooding $3,694,824
896 1990, Dec – Flooding $ 477,737
981 1993, Jan – Inaugural
Day Wind Storm
$1,927,837
1079 1996, Jan – Winter Storm $3,031,519
1100 1996, Feb - Flooding $4,226,719
1159 1997, Jan – Winter Storm $3,576,309
1172 1997, April – Flooding $1,266,446
1499 2003, Nov – Flooding $4,400,000*
1671 2006, Nov – Flooding $16,000,000*
1682 2006, Dec – Wind Storm $29,000,000*
1734 2007, Dec -- Winter Storm $72,500,000*
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-10
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
1817 2009, Jan – Winter Storm $17,000,000*
1825 2009, Mar – Winter Storm $5,500,000*
*estimate
2009 Total $167,847,802
Hazard Impacts
Precipitation
Heavy local snows and associated cold conditions have resulted in power
outages, transportation restrictions, and adverse impacts to the regional
economy.
Wind
Winds in excess of 45 miles per hour can cause road closures, significant
damages to public and private property, and injuries to public safety, utility
workers and private citizens. One of the best known of these was the Inaugural
Day Windstorm on January 19, 1993.10 Winds began mid-morning, lasted five
hours and reached over 90 miles per hour in downtown Seattle. The Hanukkah
Eve Windstorm of December 15, 2006 heavily damaged the Seattle area power
grid, affecting hundreds of thousands in the subsequent weeks.12 Widespread
power outages resulted from downed trees and many suburban and rural roads
were made impassible. Usually, these winds are from the south.
Ice and Extreme Cold
Extended temperatures of less than 20 degrees can burst residential water
pipes. The population is vulnerable to the effects of extreme cold and
associated power outages. In some cases, shelters are opened for the
homeless, senior citizens and people without heat/power.
Power Outages
Downed trees caused by high winds and rain saturated soils damaged
transmission lines and cause power outages in local areas for hours to days
when multiple occurrences are experienced. Utility crews from Puget Sound
Energy, Bonneville Power and Seattle City Light work around the clock to
restore services. The Inaugural Day Windstorm left 750,000 customers without
power.11 The Hanukkah Eve Windstorm winds and subsequent heavy rains cut
electricity to more than 1.8 million customers, hundreds of thousand remained
without power for days. 12 Downed power lines pose an electrocution hazard to
motorist, pedestrians and any unsuspecting by-standers.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-11
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Transportation Impacts
High winds sometimes result in the closure of the floating bridges (Highway 520
and Interstate 90) over Lake Washington, although rare. Wind-driven waves
often break over the roadway under those conditions.
Trees uprooted by wind regularly sever power lines and/or block vehicular
access. Together, these conditions make roadways impassable.
Past Mitigation Efforts
One of the most common impacts from severe weather is the loss of
commercial power. Since many other services rely on power for critical
functions, providing contingency backup power capabilities has long been a
favored strategy for mitigating damages from winter storms. Many more police
precincts, fire stations, emergency operations centers, hospitals, information
technology data centers, service providers and major employers have already
introduced this capability.
Severe Weather Endnotes:
1 Climate of Washington. Western Regional Climate Center. Sept. 2009
www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/WASHINGTON.htm
2 In Town, Out-of-Doors facts. Seattle’s Convention and Visitors Bureau. Sept. 2009
http://www.visitseattle.org/
3 Seattle Visitor Information – Weather. 26 Jul. 2003. GoNorthwest Travel Guide. Sept. 2009
www.gonorthwest.com/Washington/seattle/weather.htm
4 Enumclaw – Climate & Weather. Key to the City. Sept. 2009
http://www.usacitiesonline.com/wacountyenumclaw.htm
5 Enumclaw Area Chamber of Commerce. Sept. 2009
http://www.enumclawchamber.com/chamber.htm
6 Snoqualmie Falls, Washington – Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Western Regional
Climate Center. Sept. 2009 www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wasnoq
7 Weather. Snoqualmie Valley Chamber of Commerce. Sept. 2009
www.snovalley.org/vn_weather.html
8 Western Regional Climate Center - Seattle Urban Site, Washington – Period of Record Monthly
Climate Summary. Western Regional Climate Center. 31 Dec. 2008 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa7473
9 Seattle Climate Data Monthly Summary. Beautiful Seattle. Sept . 2009
www.beautifulseattle.com/clisumm.htm
10 “400,000 Lose Power – But Storm Not as Bad as Had Been Feared.” Seattle Times 13 Dec. 1995:
A.1.
11 “Storms Leave 4 Dead, 1M Without Power.” KIROtv.com 15 Dec, 2006
http://www.kirotv.com/weather/10544585/detail.html?rss=sea&psp=eastsidenews
12“Storm death toll reaches 8 as 200,000 still without power.” KOMONews.com 16 Dec, 2006
http://www.komonews.com/news/4935976.html
13 “Barn-Buster Windstorm Really Was a Tornado.” Seattle Times 8 Sept, 2009: A.1.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-12
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Avalanche
Several substantive additions made for 2009
Introduction
Avalanche hazards in the Northwest are associated with winter storms in the
Cascade and Olympic Mountain ranges. Avalanches occur when a snow pack
loses its grip on a slope and slides downhill. Typically, slopes of between 20 to
30 degrees and snow packs of 34 inches or more may produce avalanches.1
There are two kinds of avalanches, loose and slab. Loose avalanches occur
when light-grained snow exceeds its angle of repose, collapses a snow drift or
bank and fans out as it slides downhill. A slab avalanche occurs when heavy or
melting snow resting on top of looser snow breaks away from the slope and
moves in a mass. The latter often occurs when rains soak the top layer of snow
on moderately sloped terrain.
The factors that cause avalanches are numerous and complex. Scott Kruse lists
twelve common factors: old snow depth, old snow surface, new snow depth,
new snow type, snow density, snow fall intensity, precipitation intensity,
settlement, wind direction and wind speed, temperature, subsurface snow
crystal structure, and tidal effect.2 Research done at Snoqualmie Pass indicates
that most natural avalanches occur within one hour after the onset of rain over a
weakened snow pack.3
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Avalanche Probability and Avalanche Impact
A variety of mitigation efforts have significantly reduced the potential impact on
humans and property. See Past Mitigation Efforts of this hazard.
Hazard Identification
Avalanche danger is highest during severe winter weather. It is also true that
most natural avalanches occur in back country little used by humans during
such weather conditions. This tends to minimize exposure to avalanche
impacts. Most at risk are travelers and winter recreation enthusiasts using
Steven’s Pass in northern King County, Snoqualmie Pass in central King
County, and Crystal Mountain Ski Area near Chinook Pass in southern King
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-13
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
County. Recreational areas that support snowshoeing, alpine and cross-country
skiing, snowmobile areas, and winter hikers and campers are most at risk from
avalanche events. Typically, injuries to recreational hikers, skiers, snow
boarders, and climbers occur outside managed areas.
Several stretches of Interstate 90 and Highway 2 in King County are vulnerable
to avalanches between November and May each year, depending on snow
packs and weather conditions.
Both Snoqualmie and Steven’s Pass are significant commercial routes. Cargos
are carried between the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, and eastern Washington.
When Stevens and Snoqualmie Passes are closed, air travel is the only
practical way to travel between Spokane and Seattle.
History of Events
The most significant avalanche event in Washington State occurred in 1910
near Steven’s Pass. A train carrying passengers was hit by an avalanche killing
96 people.4 In early 2008, heavy rain associated with snowfall has accounted
for the closure of Interstate 90 at Snoqualmie Pass, resulting in delays of over
24 hours. 9 The table below represents recent and significant avalanche
events in King County.
Table 5-3: Avalanche History
Year Location Impact
1910 Steven’s Pass5 96 killed
1962 Steven’s Pass 2 buried
1966 Snoqualmie Pass 1 buried
1971 Snoqualmie Pass 1 killed
1993 Snoqualmie Pass 5 injured
1994 Steven’s Pass 11 injured
1996 Snoqualmie Pass 2 buried
1996 Alpental (Snoqualmie Pass) 2 dead
1996-97 Snoqualmie Pass, I-90 Repeated closure of Pass,
stranding travelers several
days
2001 Steven’s Pass 2 killed
2002 Snoqualmie I-90 road closures lasting
multiple days
2002 Steven’s Pass 3 injured
2003 Alpental 1 killed
2003 Snoqualmie Pass 1killed, 1 injured
2005 Alpental 1 killed
2007 Snoqualmie 2 killed, 1 injured
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-14
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Source: Washington State Emergency Management Division, Hazard
Identification and Vulnerability Analysis, Sept. 2009.
http://www.nwac.us/accidents.htm
Periodically each winter season, Snoqualmie and Stevens Passes both close
for several hours for avalanche control measures. During the 2002-03 winter
season, there were 30 deaths from avalanches in Washington State. Un-
inhabited alpine areas in the Cascades north and south of Interstate-90
experience hundreds of avalanches annually.6
Hazard Impacts
Impacts on King County from avalanche closures of Snoqualmie Pass include
economic impacts to the Port of Seattle, ski areas, and the cities of Snoqualmie,
North Bend, Skykomish, and Issaquah. Motorists and truckers are often re-
routed through Interstate 84 in Portland.7 Stranded motorists occupied shelters
and hotel space in Snoqualmie, North Bend, Issaquah and Bellevue. During the
winter of 1996-97, I-90 was closed for 276 hours. The later closures cost the
State of Washington an estimated 144 million dollars (2002).8
Avalanches pose a hazard for ski resorts in the eastern edge of King County
within the Cascade Range. Warm temperatures and severe snowstorms
account for trapped or buried skiers in particular the Snoqualmie area where
activity is the highest. In the winter of 2007 there were two recorded incidences
of skiers trapped or killed by avalanches, following similar trends from the
previous winters of 2003-04 and 2005. 10
In late January of 2008, severe winter storms and warm temperatures caused
the closure of I-90 due to avalanches. For nearly 4 days WSDOT crews worked
non-stop to clear a series of avalanches on Snoqualmie Pass following a
declared State of Emergency by Governor Gregoire. 11
Past Mitigation Efforts
Avalanche research began in the mid-1940s. By 1952 Stevens Pass was one of
three research stations in the United States. The use of artillery for avalanche
control was one of the developments of that research. Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for avalanche control.
The WS DOT snow and ice removal budget was $20,000,000 in 1996, the most
recent available data provided.8 This money has been used to control
avalanche hazards along major roadways. The roadway covering along I-90
near Snoqualmie and the 7.8 mile tunnel at Stevens Pass was constructed to
protect rail lines from avalanches in 1929.3 The National Weather Service
Avalanche Center provides reports on avalanche conditions and issues
advisories.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-15
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Avalanche Endnotes
1 Washington State Department of Transportation, Prediction of Snow and Avalanches in
Maritime Climates: Final Report, WA-RD 203.1, December 1989, p.3.
2 Avalanche Evaluation Check List by Scott M. Kruse in the Avalanche Review vol. 8, No 4,
February 1990
3 Washington State Department of Transportation, Prediction of Snow and Avalanches in
Maritime Climates: Final Report, WA-RD 203.1, December 1989, p.1.
4 Description of the Wellington (Stevens Pass) avalanche, http://www.cisackson.com/Skykomish/
5 ”In mountains, experience sometimes isn’t enough” by Joe Nabbefeld, Seattle Times, December
27, 1996, p. B1
6 “Cold Snap May Help Situation in Passes” by Richard Seven, Seattle Times, February 11, 1990,
p. A1
7 Washington State Emergency Management Division, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Analysis, draft, May 2003
8 Washington State Emergency Management Division, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Analysis, June 1996, P. A2
9 “I-90 at Snoqualmie Pass closed until Friday” King/King5.com, 31 Jan, 2008
http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_013108WXB_avalanche_snoqualmie_LJ.7728aace.html
10Recent Accident Summaries, Avalanche Accident Data
http://www.nwac.us/accidents.htm
11-Storm-Related Closures of I-5 and I-90: Freight Transportation, Economic Impact Assessment
Report, Winter 2007-08, Sept. 2008
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8FCFF2CF-4ACC-461A-96A6-
AA310CCF6050/0/WSDOT_I5_90ClosuresFinalReport.pdf
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-16
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Flooding
Substantive additions made for 2009
Introduction
Typically, snow accumulation melting runoff waterflow is towards Eastern
Washington rivers and tributaries, not western Washington. Flooding in King
County occurs primarily when large wet and warm weather systems, usually
known as a “Pineapple Express”, occur in the Cascade Mountains and after
large snow packs have accumulated. The combination of warmer
temperatures, quickly melting snow runoff and added precipitation can fill rivers
within hours but usually build over one to three days. For this reason most
flooding occurs in the winter months.
Rainfall in geographic King County varies widely from city to city and area to
area. The City of Seattle has an average of 37 inches annually,1,2 while
Enumclaw has an annual average of 55 inches3,4 and Snoqualmie/North Bend
has 62 inches5,6 of precipitation. The majority of this precipitation occurs as rain
in the lowlands between October and early May with substantial snow packs in
the Cascades during the same time frames.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Flooding Probability and Flooding Impacts
Note: The 2009 hazard vulnerability, or impact, for the next 3 -5 years has
been changed to high/high, from high/moderate in 2004. This is because of the
Green River Valley risk of potential flooding in the next three to five year period
due to the Howard Hanson Dam situational awareness.
Hazard Identification
These first three paragraphs were added for the 2009 Plan update by the King
County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land
Resources Division.
Major flood events along King County’s rivers result in two primary types of
flood hazards: inundation and channel migration. Inundation is defined as
floodwater and debris flowing through an area that is not normally under water.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-17
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Such events can cause minor to severe damage, depending on the velocity and
depth of flows, the duration of the flood event, the quantity of logs and other
debris carried by flows, and the amount and type of development and personal
property in the floodwater’s path.
Channel migration results from erosion, which is the wearing away of a
riverbank by flowing water. Ongoing erosion of one riverbank coupled with
sediment deposition along the opposite bank results in the lateral movement, or
migration, of a channel across its 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.
King County identifies areas that are at risk from flooding and channel migration
using a variety of mapping, analytic, and property tracking approaches.
Flooding due to channel migration has been mapped in four areas of the major
King County rivers and tributaries, covering a total of 49 river miles. Major flood
events in King County have resulted in significant property damage. King
County has been declared a federal disaster eleven times since 1990 with
damages well over $350 million. The most severe recent flood event was the
January 2009 flood.
In 2004, King County had identified several low-lying areas that are susceptible
to flooding on an annual basis to varying degrees. Neal Road, Southeast Reinig
Road and Northeast Walker Road may flood at Phase II on the Snoqualmie
River while at Flood Phase III water covers the lower Mill Creek basin
roadways. Cities that have experienced significant river flood impacts include
Auburn, Bothell, Carnation, Duvall, Issaquah, Kent, North Bend, Renton,
Snoqualmie, and Tukwila.
Flood Level Phases and Precipitation
Flooding incidents in King County are described in Flood Phases for individual
river systems.8
Flood Phase I: Rivers running bank full
Flood Phase II: Some minor flooding and water over roadways
Flood Phase III: Some homes inaccessible, roadways
overtopped, water velocities may be dangerous
with some debris
Flood Phase IV: Homes in low-lying areas flooding with
significant damage and threat to life and safety
Table 5-4 shows there is am annual buildup of snow pack in December through
March with a rapid melt-off of that snow pack while spring rains continue. Heavy
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-18
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
rains in November and December, when accompanied by fluctuating
temperatures, can trigger events similar to spring melts. Thanksgiving weekend
has often been noted as the beginning of flood season in King County.
Table 5-4: Precipitation in Inches
Month Average
Snowfall7
Average
Snow Pack7
Average
Rainfall5,6
January 109.04 70 8.50
February 73.78 91 6.14
March 71.42 96 6.09
April 25.87 76 4.44
May 3.47 32 3.45
June Nil 2 3.01
July Nil 0 1.43
August Nil 0 1.54
September Nil 0 3.01
October 5.30 0 5.56
November 51.08 10 8.84
December 96.93 37 9.09
Note: Measurements for snow was taken at Snoqualmie Pass and
rain taken at the City of Snoqualmie Falls.
Major Rivers that are susceptible to flooding inhabited communities and
roadways are (in cubic feet per second – cfs).8
Table 5-5: Flood Phase Levels
Used By King County Flood Warning Center
River System Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV
Snoqualmie River –
Sum of the Forks
6,000 cfs 12,000 cfs 20,000 cfs 38,000 cfs
Cedar River 1,000 cfs 2,800 cfs 3,500 cfs 4,200 cfs
Tolt River 1,500 cfs 2,500 cfs 4,500 cfs 7,000 cfs
Green River 5,000 cfs 7,000 cfs 9,000 cfs 12,000 cfs
White River 5,000 cfs 8,000 cfs 10,000 cfs 12,000 cfs
Issaquah Creek 6.5 ft 7.5 ft 8.5 ft 9.0 ft
For the 2009 Plan update, the King County Department of Natural Resources
and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division has provided a very detailed
analysis of the 6 major King County river basins. The analysis is located Section
6 of the Plan, after Table 6.1, titled King County Major River Basins. This
documentation includes land use, structures, estimating potential losses,
development trends, and repetitive loss properties.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-19
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Table 5-5A: Major King County River
Basins, detailed in Section 6,
a new table in 2009
South Fork Skykomish River
Snoqualmie River
Sammamish River
Cedar River
Green River
White River
Flood Forecasting (new in 2009)
For the 2009 Plan update, the King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks, Water and Land Resources Division (DNRP) has provided this following
information about flood forecasting: 11.5
King County’s current ability to provide flood flow forecasts is limited. Flow
measurements taken in the upstream portions of a watershed are used by flow
forecasters to generate short-term predictions for downstream areas. By comparing
the relationships between conditions at the upstream and downstream locations
during previous flood events, the travel time of a flood peak can be roughly
estimated. However, because both the weather and the river systems are dynamic,
each flood is different. Weather variations include the timing and intensity of
precipitation, the temperature and snow level, the wind speed and direction, and the
storm cell’s location, speed, and direction of travel. River system variations include
local factors such as log jams, bank erosion, landslide and gravel bar formation, as
well as upstream flow control factors, such as dam operations. Antecedent
conditions, which include previous rain and snow pack conditions, also affect the
amount and timing of storm runoff. Because these dynamic variations influence the
relationships between flood conditions at different locations, any predictive use of
those relationships will always include a degree of uncertainty.
The National Weather Service’s River Forecasting Center in Portland, Oregon
issues short-term predictions of flows on rivers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
western Montana. These short-term flow predictions are based on two computer
models: the National Weather Service River Forecast System and the Streamflow
Simulation and Reservoir Regulation. Each of these models simulates soil, snow,
stream channel and reservoir conditions in order to estimate resulting river flow
conditions. Daily forecasts are made using observations of temperature and
precipitation. Forecast of meteorological parameters are included in the river
forecast model. These National Weather Service predictions are issued for several
forecast points in King County, including Middle Fork Snoqualmie River near
Tanner, North Fork Snoqualmie near Snoqualmie Falls, South Fork Snoqualmie
River near Garcia, Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie Falls and at Carnation, Tolt
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-20
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
River near Carnation, Cedar River at Landsburg and Renton, Green River at
Auburn, White River near Buckley and Issaquah Creek near Issaquah.
The Seattle office of the National Weather Service provides additional forecast
detail when flooding is likely, and throughout flood events, with flood watch and
flood warning statements. While the National Weather Service forecast information
is valuable and widely used, an additional independent model would be beneficial.
A model designed specifically for King County and adjacent watersheds would
improve the ability of Flood Warning Center staff to interpret incoming gage and
National Weather Service data, and to give meaningful forecasts to others. 11.5
History of Events
This is a new Table 5-5B in 2009, this section has been updated from the 2004
Plan, history of events list, to provide more complete information.
Table 5-5B: Gage Information Data from Past Floods 14
Date Feet Flows 100-Year Flow or
Regulated Flows
Skykomish River Near Gold Bar Gage (1)
11/06/2006 24.51 ft 129,999 cfs 119,300 cfs
11/24/1990 22.49 ft 102,000 cfs 119,300 cfs
12/26/1980 21.34 ft 90,100 cfs 119,300 cfs
North Fork Snoqualmie River Near Snoqualmie Falls Gage (2)
1/07/2009 13.42 ft 17,100 cfs 18,000 cfs
2/26/1932 17.50 ft 15,800 cfs 18,000 cfs
11/29/1995 12.82 ft 14,500 cfs 18,000 cfs
Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Near Tanner Gage (3)
11/06/2006 15.32 ft 31,700 cfs 37,100 cfs
1/07/2009 15.22 ft 31,200 cfs 37,100 cfs
12/02/1977 14.93 ft 30,200 cfs 37,100 cfs
South Fork Snoqualmie River Above Alice Creek Near Garcia Gage (4)
11/06/2006 18.68 ft 8,910 cfs 11,000 cfs
11/23/1986 8.33 8,450 cfs 11,000 cfs
11/24/1990 18.26 ft 8,000 cfs 11,000 cfs
Snoqualmie River Near Snoqualmie Gage (5)
11/24/1990 21.55 ft 78,800 cfs 79,100 cfs
11/23/1959 19.78 ft 61,000 cfs 79,100 cfs
1/07/2009 20.97 ft 60,700 cfs 79,100 cfs
Snoqualmie River Near Carnation Gage (6)
1/08/1990 62.65 ft 83,400 cfs 91,800 cfs
11/07/2006 61.28 ft 71,800 cfs 91,800 cfs
11/24/1990 60.70 ft 65,200 cfs 91,800 cfs
Snoqualmie River at Duvall Gage (7)
1/08/2009 45.18 ft See note 7 See note 7
11/30/1995 44.36 ft See note 7 See note 7
11/08/2006 42.89 ft See note 7 See note 7
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-21
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Raging River Near Fall City Gage (8)
11/24/1990 6.56 ft 6,220 cfs 6,970 cfs
11/23/1986 6.27 ft 5,330 cfs 6,970 cfs
1/9/1990 6.02 ft 4,640 cfs 6,970 cfs
Tolt River Near Carnation Gage (9)
1/08/2009 12.58 ft 17,900 cfs 18,800 cfs
Before the dam 12/15/1959 13.04 ft 17,400 cfs 18,800 cfs
Before the dam 2/09/1951 12.92 ft 16,800 cfs 18,800 cfs
Cedar River Near Landsburg Gage (10)
11/19/1911 Unknown 14,200 cfs 10,300 cfs
11/15/2006 Unknown 12,400 cfs 10,300 cfs
11/24/1990 10.38 ft 10,800 cfs 10,300 cfs
Cedar River at Renton Gage (11)
11/24/1990 17.13 ft 10,600 cfs 12,000 cfs
1/08/2009 16.27 ft 9,400 cfs 12,000 cfs
12/04/1975 14.14 ft 8,800 cfs 12,000 cfs
Green River Below Howard Hanson Dam Gage (12)
Before the dam 2/21/1961 14.40 ft 12,200 cfs
1/05/1984 14.22 ft 11,100 cfs 12,000 cfs regulated
2/17/1981 13.89 ft 10,800 cfs 12,000 cfs regulated
Green River Near Auburn Gage (13)
Before the dam 11/23/1959 69.75 28,100 cfs
Before the dam 12/11/1946 68.16 ft 22,000 cfs
Before the dam 12/12/1955 67.73 ft 20,300 cfs
White river Near Buckley Gage (14)
Before the dam 12/02/1933 Unavailable 28,000 cfs
Before the dam 2/26/1932 Unavailable 17,000 cfs
Before the dam 11/30/1995 Unavailable 16,500 cfs
11/24/1986 Unavailable 15,200 cfs 12,000 cfs regulated
White River Near Auburn (15)
2/10/1996 83.15 ft 15,000 cfs 15,500 cfs
11/09/2006 85.79 ft 14,700 cfs 15,500 cfs
1/09/1990 82.07 ft 14,500 cfs 15,500 cfs
(1) USGS Station 12134500 located at RM 43.0, roughly 6.6 miles below South Fork & North Fork
confluence
(2) USGS Station 12142000 located at RM 9.2 roughly 0.6 miles above Calligan Creek
(3) USGS Station 12141300 located at RM 55.6 roughly 0.7 miles below Granite Creek
(4) USGS Station 12143400 located at RM 17.3 roughly 0.4 miles above Alice Creek
(5) USGS Station 12144500 located at RM 40.0 near the base of Snoqualmie Falls
(6) USGS Station 12149000 located at RM 23.0 beside the Carnation Farms Road Bridge
(7) USGS Station 12150400 located South of Woodinville-Duvall Bridge in Duvall. Because of
hydraulic conditions, this gage records only flood states without flow estimates.
(8) USGS Station 12145500 located at RM 2.75 near the old concrete arch bridge (68th Street)
(9) USGS Station 12148500 located at RM 8.7 roughly 0.4 miles above Stossel Creek
(10) USGS Station 12117500 located at RM 23.4 roughly 1.8 miles above the water supply intake
(11) USGS Station 12119000 located at RM 1.6 near the Mill Avenue Bridge
(12) USGS Station 12105900 located at RM 63.8 roughly 0.7 miles below the dam
(13) USGS Station 12113000 located at RM 32.0 near the base of Lea Hill
(14) USGS Station 12098500 located at RM 27.9 roughly 1.7 miles downstream of Mud Mountain
Dam
(15) USGS Station 12100496 located at RM 6.30 near A Street Bridge
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-22
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Not all flooding incidents are eligible to receive federal assistance for public
agencies. For this reason alone, mitigation efforts to minimize the impacts of
flooding in King County can save a considerable amount of public monies
needed to repair damages from modest-sized events. The following list of
presidential disaster declarations were associated with listed King County
flooding events listed above.
Often, Small Business Administration (SBA) loans are available to individuals
and businesses that qualify without a presidential declaration of disaster.
Table 5-6: FEMA Flooding Disasters in King County
Identified in 2004 Plan
No. Dates KC Public Damages
(FEMA Approved)
185 December 1964 Figures not available
328 February 1972 Figures not available
492 December 1975 Figures not available
545 December 1977 Figures not available
612 December 1979 Figures not available
757 January 1986 Figures not available
784 November 1986 Figures not available
The following were provided in 2009 from the King County Flood Control District for
the 2009 Plan Update. 11.5
Table 5.7 2009 Update to FEMA Flooding Disasters in King County
Date of Flood Declaration # Type of Damage Estimated Damages
January 1990 #852 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Channel
avulsion.
$17.8 million
November 1990 #883 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Stream bank
erosion.
$57 million
December 1990 #896 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Levee
damage.
$5.1 million
November 1995 #1079 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Levee
damage.
$45.9 million
February 1996 #1100 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Stream bank
erosion. Levee damage.
$113 million
December 1996 #1159 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Channel
avulsion.
$83 million
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-23
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-24
11/12/09
Date of Flood Declaration # Type of Damage Estimated Damages
March 1997 #1172 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Channel
avulsion.
$6.5 million
November 2003 #1499 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property.
$30 million
December 2006 #1671 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Channel
avulsion
Information not available
December 2007 #1734 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Channel
avulsion. Levee damage.
Information not available
January 2009 #1817 Overbank flooding causing damage to both
public and private property. Channel
avulsion. Levee damage.
Information not available
Hazard Impacts
Flooding impacts to the community include injuries to citizens and public safety
officials, damage to property, lost revenue and economic damages, an
increased demand on public safety and infrastructure related services. The King
County Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) activates for flooding events of
Phase III level or greater to coordinate resources, information, and response
activities.
Response activities include unanticipated overtime for ECC activations and first
responders, evacuations, sheltering of displaced people, rerouting traffic
destined for impassible roads, bridge and road damage repairs, and rescue or
medical missions related to motorists and isolated families. The Cities of
Carnation, Duvall, and Pacific have been isolated as an entire community.
Private property damages to homes and vehicles as well as land erosion, river
channel changes, agricultural damages and livestock losses result in significant
rural economic impacts to local residents and businesses.
The economic impacts as a result of flooding events are a significant hazard to
regional commerce. The areas prone to flooding, the lower-lying banks and
valleys near rivers, are densely developed with industrial and commercial
activity. Though only 2% (32,000) of King County’s residents are directly
impacted, the employment of area citizens is greatly affected. Since the
floodplain vicinities employ nearly 6% (65,000) of King County, the economy of
the area at large is impacted far beyond the zones of flood risk. Of the
industries specifically at higher risk, 30% of King County’s manufacturing
employment and 30% of its aerospace industry are located in floodplains.
Nearly 7% of King County’s total annual wages and salary income is created
from businesses within flood zones. The consequences of a single day of
economic shut-down within the floodplains would result in $46 million loss of
county wide revenue. An estimated $3 million reduction of economic output
would result from the areas of King County outside the flooded areas. 10.5
Attachment A
16715
Past / Present Mitigation Efforts
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (new for 2009)
King County is nationally known for its work on flooding mitigation. In 1978
unincorporated King County entered the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). 9 The most recent review of King County’s participation in the NFIP was
conducted on January 15, 2009. The review, called a Community Assistance
Visit, identified amendments needed to King County’s flood regulations and
through a field investigation found approximately 20 properties that had
outstanding code violations for construction within the floodplain. The King
County Council has approved an ordinance making the changes in the flood
regulations and King County has made significant progress in resolving the
code violations as of the date of this Plan update.
The Community Rating System (CRS), administered by the Insurance Services
Office, enables residents in participating communities to purchase discounted
flood insurance. The amount of discount each community receives is contingent
upon its Community Rating System (CRS) rating corresponding to the extent of
its floodplain management efforts.10 For its extensive services in this respect –
the implementation of programs such as buyouts for properties experiencing
repeated flooding, maintenance of levees along pertinent rivers, and annual
public meetings with affected communities, the County has earned a Class 2
rating, making it the highest rated community of any county in the nation. The
result of this has been a 40 percent annual savings to flood insurance policy
holders in unincorporated King County.11
King County Flood Warning Center 11.5 (new for 2009)
The purpose of King County's Flood Warning System is to warn residents and
agencies of impending floodwaters on major rivers so they can take action and
prepare themselves before serious flooding occurs. The Flood Warning Center
is operated and staffed by King County through an interlocal agreement
between King County and the King County Flood Control District for the County
to provide the services to the District. The County monitors conditions in its six
major river systems and their major tributaries 24 hours a day. When floods are
imminent, King County activates its Flood Warning Center. King County
personnel staff the operation, issuing warnings directly to police, fire
departments, schools, cities, first response agencies, and citizen phone trees.
Personnel at the Center are available to answer questions and help interpret
gage readings during a flood event. There is also an automated voice message
system that provides real time river flow information and other flood information.
King County has developed and started testing a system that automatically
sends out e-mail and pager alerts when real-time gage data exceeds flood
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-25
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
phase thresholds. This service is expected to be available to the public in time
for the 2009-20010 flood season.
The County works closely with the National Weather Service to obtain forecast
information used to make flood predictions. Close coordination occurs with the
Office of Emergency Management, Roads Division, and other agencies in order
to obtain up-to-date information about major flood problems, road closures,
evacuations, and other emergency services. Coordination also occurs with the
US Army Corps of Engineers and Seattle Water Department regarding dam
operations.
Operation of the Flood Warning Center is based on a four-phased warning
system, issued independently for each river. The thresholds for each phase are
based on river gages, which measure the flood flow and stage (depth) of the
major rivers in various locations. At Phase III or greater, flood patrol crews are
sent out in the field to monitor flood protection facilities and respond to flood
emergencies and reported problems around the clock. Significant information
about flood conditions in the field, such as road and flood protection facility
damages or overtopping, are reported back to the Flood Warning Center, to be
shared with the public and emergency responders. The Flood Warning Center
maintains communication with the King County Emergency Coordination Center
(KC ECC) to coordinate emergency response and recovery. 11.5
Green River Valley Potential Flooding (new for 2009)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has discovered damage to a
portion of the Howard Hanson Dam right abutment in early 2009. This dam has
controlled flooding in the Green River Valley since 1962. However the dam will
only operate at 30% capacity this winter, 2009, and possibly for an additional 3-
5 years. Therefore, there is a much greater risk of significant flooding during
periods of heavy rain throughout the lower Green River Valley, affecting the
cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and south Seattle and surrounding
infrastructure. 13
The USACE is actively testing and investigating the source of the problems and
trying to identify solutions. The USACE has significantly reduced the water
storage levels at the Dam and is taking a number of steps to try and minimize
the flood risk. However, the USACE does not anticipate a full solution to the
problems with the Dam by this flood season. 13
The Army Corps of Engineers is constructing a grout curtain within the
abutment of the dam to reduce seepage through a critical area of concern, as
well as performing drainage improvement work to route water into the drainage
tunnel. Work is expected to be done by Nov. 1, 2009.12
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-26
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
In September 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) announced
that it will purchase and pre-position flood fighting supplies and materials for the
Green River Valley in preparation of the upcoming flood season.12
More information is detailed in the 2009 Dam / Dam Safety hazard identified in
Section 5 about the Howard Hanson Dam and potential impacts to the Green
River Valley for 2009, and for possibly 3-5 more years until the repairs or
solution(s) can be in place.
Flooding Endnotes:
1 GoNorthwest Travel Guide, www.gonorthwest.com
2 Seattle’s Convention and Visitors Bureau, www.seeseattle.org
3 Key to the City, www.usacitiesonline.com/
4 Enumclaw Area Chamber of Commerce, http://www.enumclawchamber.com/chamber.htm
5 Western Region Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu
6 Sno valley Chamber of Commerce, http://www.snovalley.org/index.html
7 Snoqualmie Pass Monthly and Seasonal Totals and Averages 2007-08,
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/7C5D5B02-0237-46DD-8AD2-
3F3C0226485D/51434/111008HistoricalSnowfallthrough0708season.pdf
8 King County Dept of Natural Resources and Parks, brochure - Flood Warning
Information, http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/flooding/flood-control-zone-
district.aspx
9 FEMA Federal Insurance Administration, http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/
10FEMA – Flood Insurance, http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3323
10.5 Economic Connections Between the King County Floodplains and the Greater County Economy,
King County Water and Land Resources Division, ECONorthwest, Oct 2007
11KC Department of Development and Environmental Services - News Release,
http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/permits.aspx
11.5 King Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, River
and Floodplain Management, September 2009
12USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers), Press Release, September 22, 2009
13 Public Health Seattle & King County (PHSKC) September 3, 2009, Bulletin
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/preparedness/greenriverbasin.aspx
14 2009-2010 Flood Warning Instruction Book, October 2009, King County Department Of Natural
Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-27
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Auburn
Bellevue
FederalWay
Kent
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
SkykomishRedmond
Snoqualmie
NorthBend
Duvall
Enumclaw
MapleValley
SeaTac
Covington
BlackDiamond
IssaquahNewcastle
Burien
DesMoines
MercerIsland
Sammamish
Woodinville
Carnation
Flood Hazard Areas
0 10 205
Miles
0 10 205
Kilometers .
October 2009
Tetra Tech, Inc.
King County GISUS Geological SurveyWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources The information included on this map has been compiled for
King County from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County
shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost
revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse
of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or
information on this map is prohibited except by written
permission of King County.
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
Attachment A
16715
Landslide
Substantive additions made for 2009
Introduction
Landslides are a common problem within King County. Landslide events in King
County are most often associated with either unusually heavy seasonal rains or
local earthquake activity. Urban areas of western King County have been
developed for residential structures in many places. The vistas provided by the
Olympic Mountains and Puget Sound are breathtaking backdrops to the Seattle
skyline. Despite the possibility of landslide events, property values continue to
rise disproportionately and development of available properties continues.
View homes and property values can reach and even exceed $500,000 in some
landslide areas, making even the loss of only a few homes significantly costly.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Landslide Probability and Landslide Impacts
Hazard Identification
The slopes of Magnolia, West Seattle, Burien, Des Moines, Vashon Island,
Newcastle, Federal Way and many areas of Bellevue have long been
developed for their magnificent views of Mount Rainier, the Cascade and
Olympic Mountains, and Puget Sound. Three major factors that contribute to
landslide activity and possible impacts to structures include soil type, slope
angle, and precipitation levels.
Soil conditions vary widely in King County. In geological terms, King County’s
landscape is very young. As recently as 14,000 years ago, the region was
covered by up to 3,000 feet of ice. The Vashon Glacier, which extended from
Canada to south of Olympia carved valleys as it expanded and left soil deposits
and rock as it retreated. Evidence of this activity is still observed in the “U”
shaped valleys and stony soils common to Puget Sound. Seas rose 300 feet
worldwide from the global melting following that ice age, creating Puget Sound
as we know it today.1
The top layer of soil in King County is referred to as Vashon till, a stable mixture
of rocks, dirt, clay, and sand that reaches depths of up to 30 feet. The next
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-28
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
layer, Esperance sand, is a permeable mixture of sand and gravel. This layer
sits upon an impermeable layer of Lawton clay, made up of fine sediments and
large boulders. Often, slides occur at this boundary interface when water runs
laterally on top of this boundary.2
In some ways, landslide areas are similar to avalanche terrain. Characteristics
of landslide hazard areas include:3
1. A slope greater than 15 percent
2. Landslide activity or movement in the last 10,000 years
3. Steam or wave action with erosion or bank undercutting
4. The presence or potential for snow avalanches
5. The presence of an alluvial fan that indicates vulnerability to the flow of
debris or sediments
6. The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, which are mixed
with granular soils such as sand and gravel
History of Events
Landslides have been a significant problem in the Puget lowland areas for
many years, and several landslides occur every year during the rainy season.
Storms have triggered significant numbers of landslides in 1972, 1986, 1990,
1996, 1997, early 2006, 2007, and 2009. Comparison of the locations of (more)
recent landslides with those mapped by “Tubbs” reveals that many of the 1997
landslides are in the same general areas as the 1972 landslides.9
Very heavy rains in King County resulted in significant slides and associated
damages in 1972.6 Seventy percent of the slides occurred during the two
following days.7
The most widespread landslide activity was secondary to the severe winter
storm events that hit the Puget Sound region during December 1996 through
March 1997. Unusually heavy snow and rain in King County resulted in slides
that damaged or destroyed 8,000 homes. Over 100 slides were recorded in
King County over a two-month period. Particularly hard hit areas were slopes
on Magnolia Hill (Seattle), areas along Interstate-5, and Vashon Island.2,4
A January 15, 1997 slide at Woodward in southern Snohomish County derailed
five cars of a freight train. Passenger and cargo rail traffic was interrupted for
nine days. Cargo traffic resumed first. Amtrak remained concerned for
passenger safety and did not travel on this section of track for several weeks.5
Two weather events in November and December of 1998 caused a number of
small slides in King County. Landslides along Interstate-5 near SeaTac Airport
briefly closed portions of that northbound roadway.8
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-29
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Heavy rains are not the only cause of landslides. The Nisqually earthquake
caused a secondary hazard in February 2001, a landslide/mudslide causing a
portion of hillside near Jones Road to slide into the riverbed of the Cedar River.
The flow of the river was partially blocked for many hours resulting in several
homes along the river being damaged by the dammed waters.
Evidence of slide activity can still be seen along the eastern side of Interstate-5
from King County Airport all the way to the Interstate-90 interchange where
portions of hillside collapsed carrying trees and debris downhill, but just short of
impacting Interestate-5.
In 2009, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Geology and Earth Resources, identified recent landslide numbers as provided
in the Table 5-7, below. A landslide map distribution for years 2007 and 2009 is
included at the end of Section 5. See Map 5.1 Landslide locations for Jan.
2009 and Dec. 2007 Storms. 13.5
Table 5-7: Landslide History
Event Date(s) & FEMA Event Area KC Public Damages
1972 Severe Weather King County $1.8 million
1996-97 Severe Weather
(#1100, #1159, #1172)
King County $9.0 million
2001 Nisqually Earthquake13
(#1361)
Maple Valley/Cedar
River
$1.71 million
2006 Winter, heavy rains for a
month in January/February
Mercer Island 34 slides or more
documented by
Maintenance Director;
$ unknown
2007 December Storm 13.5 King County 5 recorded
$ unknown
2009 January Storm Landslides
13.5 King County 51 recorded,
preliminary data,
$ unknown
Source: FEMA Disaster Declaration, USGS13
Source: WA Department of Natural Resources; for both of the 2007 and 2009 events, the
precipitation was fairy low compared to other parts of western Washington,13.5. Map 5.1
was created showing the distribution of the landslide locations and is located in the back
of Section 5.
Hazard Impacts
Slides have resulted in direct damages to structures, roadways, rail lines,
bridges, severed lifelines, and the blockage of the Cedar River (see “History of
Landslide Events”). Indirect impacts included the isolation of small communities
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-30
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
or areas on Mercer Island, Vashon Island and Magnolia Hill, cost of debris
clearance, personal injuries, and economic loses from rail and roadway
closures, and debris clean up. The main impacts are disruption and economic.
Past / Future Mitigation Efforts
Efforts to reduce landslide-related losses have been ongoing for at least 20
years. Relative-slope-stability maps at several scales were developed in the
1970s for many of the urbanized areas surrounding Puget Sound (Miller, 1973;
Artim, 1976; Smith, 1976; and Laprade, 1989). Most cities and many counties in
the area regulate development of steep hillsides (Laprade, 1989). Despite these
efforts, losses continue to mount because (1) economic growth continues to
exert pressure to develop in or near landslide-prone areas; (2) increased
erosion and consequent downcutting caused by urban runoff has locally
reduced slope stability (Booth, 1989); and (3) new or previously unidentified
landslides damage structures that were built in unstable areas before
regulations existed.10
King County Surface Water Management maintains a response program related
to landslides. The Emergency and Rapid Response Program funds efforts to
prevent and recover from such events.11
In addition to the efforts at zoning and land use regulations initiated by the
government, local citizen groups sometimes work to set aside environmentally
sensitive or unstable areas as urban buffers. Such an action is being
undertaken by the Denny Creek Neighborhood Alliance toward the purchase of
property in the Juanita area near northern Lake Washington.12 The area is well
timbered and is being considered as an environmental buffer to prevent
landslides.
An extensive list of codes related to land use and building restrictions for King
County has been developed over many decades. For a complete list of codes
governing building in King County, go to
http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/permits/info/PermitTypes.aspx
In 2009, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Geology and Earth Resources, is in the process of creating a statewide
landslide forecasting system, similar to the urban model in Seattle created by
USGS, which will eventually have warnings issued from NOAA/NWS. 13.5
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-31
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Land Slide Endnotes:
1Crozier, Michael J., Landslides: Causes, Consequences, and Environment, Croom Helm, Australia,
1986, p 195.
2Carter, Don and Scott Maier, “Slide-Wise, Danger Remains Real as Soggy Slopes are still
unstable”, Seattle Times, January 17, 1997, p A8.
3King County Planning and Community Development Division, “Landslide Hazard Areas”, Sensitive
Areas: Map Polio, Seattle Washington, 1990, p1.
4 “It’s Been a Winter of Mudslides on Area’s Slopes’, Seattle Times, January 20, 1997, p A2
5Washington State HIVA Draft May 2003
6McDoanld, Terrance J., “Landslides”, Seattle: A Hazard Vulnerability Analysis, Master’s Thesis,
Cornell University, 1995, p 147
7Tubbs, Donald W., “Landslides in Seattle”, Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Information Circular No 52, 1974, p4
8REex L. Baum and Aln F. Chleborad, Landslides triggered by Pacific Northwest Storms, November
and December 1998, http://landslides.usgs.gov/recent/archives/pnw/table.php , January 14, 1999
9Rex L. Baum and Alan F. Chleborad, Geosettings and Landslides, Landslides triggered by the
Winter 1997-1998 Storms in Puget Lowland, Washington,
http://landslides.usgs.gov/docs/faq/significantls_508.pdf , Jul 13, 1998
10ibid
11Donald Althaueser, Emergency and Rapid Response, King County Department of
Natural Resources and Parks, Surface Water Management Division,
http://directory.metrokc.gov/ServiceDetail.asp?ServiceID=6659, July 2002
12Tony Dondero, Group Seeks to Buy Woodlands, Eastside Journal, July
13 An Account of preliminary Landslide Damages and Losses Resulting from the February 28, 2001,
Nisqually, Washington, Earthquake; Lynn M. Highland, USGS 2003;
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-211/ofr-03-211.pdf
13.5 Isabelle Y. Sarikhan, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology
and Earth Resources, Washington Geological Survey, Hazards Geologist & GIS Analyst, September
2009.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-32
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Auburn
Bellevue
FederalWay
Kent
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
SkykomishRedmond
Snoqualmie
NorthBend
Duvall
Enumclaw
MapleValley
SeaTac
Covington
BlackDiamond
IssaquahNewcastle
Burien
DesMoines
MercerIsland
Sammamish
Woodinville
Carnation
0 10 205
Miles
0 10 205
Kilometers .
October 2009
Tetra Tech, Inc.
King County GISUS Geological SurveyWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources The information included on this map has been compiled for
King County from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County
shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost
revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse
of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or
information on this map is prohibited except by written
permission of King County.
Landslide Hazard Areas
King County Landslide Hazard Areas
DNR Landslide Hazard Areas
King County Landslide Hazard Areas are
areas subject to severe landslide risk identified in
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
The Department of Natural Resources, Geology and
Earth Resources Division (DGER) Landslide dataset is
a compilation of landslide data previously mapped by a
variety of sources at all scales, and is assessed for
reliability by the DGER.
Attachment A
16715
Earthquake
Several additions made for 2009
Introduction
Earthquakes can be the most destructive hazard King County can face if we
have a moderate event on the Seattle Fault Zone. Earthquakes are described
as the sudden release of energy occurring from the collision of crustal plates on
the earth’s surface or from the fracture of stressed rock formations in that crust.
Though it can be said that there are many technical differences in the rocking,
rolling, jarring and jolting felt during an earthquake, they can be devastatingly
damaging and seriously unnerving.
King County is geographically located in an area known as the Pacific Ring of
Fire. The same geological events that result in volcanic activity also generate
notable earthquakes. Washington State is framed by the Pacific, North
American, and Juan de Fuca plates, segments of the earth’s crust. A significant
number of active fault lines or cracks in that crust have been identified in the
central Puget Sound area including Seattle and King County. On an annual
basis, thousands of minor earthquake events occur in the greater Puget Sound
Region.1
King County has a long history of documented earthquake activity. The most
recent significant activity was the Nisqually Earthquake of February 28, 2001.
This earthquake, 10 miles northeast of Olympia in Thurston County (over 40
miles from Seattle), resulted in statewide losses exceeding $1 billion and
injured 700 people, many in King County.2
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Earthquake Probability and Earthquake Impacts
Hazard Identification
Most earthquakes go unnoticed by the residents of King County; significant
numbers of ‘dish rattlers’ occur on a regular basis to remind people of their
vulnerability. Over a thousand earthquakes occur in Washington State every
year, most below magnitude 3.0. Some people and animals are more sensitive
to these minor events than others. Usually, it requires a magnitude of 2.5-3.0 for
a local shaker to be noticed. These happen on a fairly frequent basis (see
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-33
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
“History of Events”). Direct impacts from earthquakes may include damages to
structures like buildings, pipelines, roadways, and bridges. Secondary impacts
from earthquakes are common, and are known as secondary hazards. These
can include tsunamis, seiches, and landslides. A slide in King County generated
from the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake partially blocked the Cedar River – flooding
several homes. Evidence of tsunami/seiche activity and major landslides has
been identified from a 7.0 earthquake in Puget Sound around 900 A.D.
There are at least five active fault lines (crustal cracks) in the Puget Sound
lowlands, any of which may impact King County. These are the Tacoma fault,
Seattle fault, Darrington-Devil’s Mountain fault, Utsalady Point fault, and
southern Whidbey Island fault.3 Many of these faults run east-west and extend
for over 20 miles in length.
There are three technically distinct types of earthquakes: interplate or benioff
zone earthquakes, subduction or interplate zone, and shallow crustal
earthquakes. Each can generate powerful damaging motion in the greater
Puget Sound area.4
Interplate or Benioff Zone Events2
These earthquakes occur at depths of 15 to 60 miles from the subducting Juan
de Fuca plate. Examples of this type of damaging event include the Olympia
earthquake in 1949, 1965 Seattle/Tacoma earthquake, 1999 Satsop earthquake
and 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Depending on your location shaking could be
felt for 15-50 seconds.
Subduction Zone Events2
Subduction zone events occur along the interface between tectonic plates. The
energy generated from the collision of the Juan de Fuca, Pacific, and North
American plates is considerable. These great magnitude events can reach 8.0
to 9.0 on the Richter scale, and the shaking could last for up to six minutes.
Shallow Crustal Earthquakes2
Shallow earthquake events occur within 20 miles of the earth’s surface. These
are fairly common events with typical magnitudes of up to 5.5, though there is
some evidence that a number of shallow events have exceeded this figure.
History of Events
The State of Washington has experienced 20 damaging earthquake events in
the last 125 years. Most of these have been in western Washington5. The 1965
Seattle-Tacoma earthquake and the 2001 recent Nisqually earthquake type of
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-34
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
events seem to reoccur about every 30 to 35 years, while a 1949 Olympia type
event occurs about once every 110 years.
Subduction earthquakes do not recur based on anticipated time frames; events
can be spaced anywhere from 100 to 1,100 years apart. The latest recorded
subduction earthquake event in Washington State occurred in 1700.6
Table 5-8: Earthquake Events Felt or Impacting King County7
Date Magnitude Location
April 1945 5.7 12.5 km SSE of North Bend
February 1949 7.1 12.3 km ENE of Olympia
April 1965 6.5 18.3 km N of Tacoma
January 1995 5.0 17.5 km NNE Tacoma
July 1996 5.4 8.5 km ENE of Duvall
November 1996 2.9 Puget Sound
February 1997 3.0 SE of Seattle
April 1997 4.9 Puget Sound off Vashon Island
June 1997 2.7 Puget Sound
July 1997 3.1 Duvall
February 1998 2.9 NE of Seattle
March 1998 3.1 Pierce County
June 2000 3.4 Friday Harbor, San Juan Islands
February 2001 6.8 Nisqually – Olympia
March 2001 3.4 Tacoma
May 2002 4.2 Friday Harbor, San Juan Islands
July 2002 3.1 North Bend
January 2009 4.5 Bremerton
Several small earthquakes over 4.0 were added to list in 2009
because of the proximity to Seattle.
Olympia Earthquake – April 19498
The 7.1 magnitude earthquake was centered along the southern edge of Puget
Sound. Eight people were killed and property damage in Olympia-Tacoma-
Seattle amounted to about $25 Million in 1949 dollars. In Seattle, a sixty-inch
water main ruptured, a radio tower collapsed, power lines and gas lines were
broken in over 100 places. Three damaged schools needed to be demolished
and one rebuilt.
Seattle-Tacoma Earthquake – April 19652
At magnitude 6.5, the earthquake killed seven people and caused $12.5 Million
in damage (1965 dollars). Severe shaking was felt in Seattle and as far east as
Issaquah and beyond. Most damage was in the Pioneer Square area and
waterfront. Older masonry buildings were most impacted. Damage patterns
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-35
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
experienced in 1949 were repeated. Eight schools were closed for inspections
and repairs; two were severely damaged. Areas along the Duwamish River
experienced severe settling. Three water mains failed in Seattle.
Nisqually Earthquake – February 20019,10
The 6.8 magnitude earthquake was centered under Anderson Island in south
Puget Sound. Soil geology resulted in the most extensive damage occurring
along the Interstate-5 corridor, not around the epicenter. This pattern was the
result of soft river bottom sediments (heavier damage) and improvements in
building standards (lesser damage). Some damage was experienced in
300,000 households, many from settling foundations. Buildings built prior to
1950 located in the south downtown area and Pioneer Square in Seattle were
the most impacted; structural damage to chimneys, walls, foundations and non-
structural elements accounted for two-thirds of all damage reported.
Damages to airport runways and towers were significant and there were
temporary closures of the SeaTac International and King County Airports as a
result for several days for inspection and repairs. The Alaskan Way viaduct and
Magnolia bridges were both closed until inspection and repairs were done. Of
the 290 dams inspected by state engineers, only five had earthquake-related
damage. A hillside collapse blocked the flow of the Cedar River; this resulted in
flooding that impacted several homes along the river that were otherwise
untouched by the earthquake shaking.
Hazard Impacts
The impacts to a community from earthquake events include injuries to citizens
and public safety officials, damage to property, lost revenue and economic
damages, increased demand on public safety and infrastructure related
services. Added to the list for 2009 are critical infrastructure interruption, lifeline
failures, building collapse, landslides, fires, tsunami / seiche (a large oscillation
in an enclosed body of water). Utilizing a May 2005 HAZUS run, damage
projections for a 6.7 magnitude earthquake centered in King County might
damage more than 58,000 structures, displace 55,000 households, and result in
up to 2,400 deaths and 800 injuries. These damages and impacts to the
economy could reach $36 Billion.11 Washington State ranks second only to
California among states susceptible to earthquake damages.12 Nationally,
Seattle might incur the seventh largest potential dollar damages/losses.2
Populations and Economy at Risk
According to the 2000 US Census, King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap
Counties are home to more than 60 percent of the state’s population and much
of its economic base.13 Most vulnerable of these are non-English speaking
individuals, people with disabilities, senior citizens, and people living in poverty,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-36
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
and school-age children. Older brick homes and unreinforced masonry
buildings without retrofitting are also at greater risk of incurring damage from an
earthquake.
Table 5-9: Vulnerable Population Groups
Jurisdiction
Non-
English
Speaking
Disabled Over
Age 65 Poverty K-12
Students
Homes
Over 40
Years Old
King County 5.4% 16.1% 10.7% 6.4% 16.6% 33.5%
Washington
State
14.0% 17.7% 11.2% 10.6% 19.1% 29.4%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000, and Profile of
Housing Characteristics: 2000.(Washington State figures)
2007 Census Bureau
2008 King County Annual Growth Report
The King County Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) becomes activated for
earthquake events to coordinate damage assessment, information, response
activities, and to insure continuity of government operations. Response
activities include unanticipated overtime for ECC activations, evacuations,
sheltering of displaced people, rerouting traffic destined for impassible roads,
bridge and road damage repairs, and rescue or medical missions.
Not all earthquake events are eligible for federal assistance to public agencies.
For this reason alone, mitigation efforts to minimize the impacts of earthquakes
in King County can save a considerable amount of public monies needed to
repair damage from modest-sized events. The following list of presidential
disaster declarations were associated with listed King County earthquake
events above.
Table 5-10: FEMA Earthquake Disasters in King County
FEMA
No. Dates King County Public Damage
(FEMA or Congress Approved)
* April 1949 $25 Million (1949 dollars)
* April 1965 $12.5 Million (1965 dollars)
1361 February 2001,
Nisqually
$155.9 Million FEMA
$84.3 Million SBA
$93.8 Million US DOT
*FEMA was established in 1978
Often, Small Business Administration (SBA) loans are available to individuals
and businesses that qualify without a presidential declaration of disaster.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-37
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Past Mitigation Efforts
The United States has been a world front-runner in mitigation efforts related to
natural disasters. The advent of United States building codes, zoning codes,
research on liquefaction areas and ground shaking, building retrofitting, non-
structural mitigation/tie-downs, public education, drop-cover-and-hold exercises,
and public television specials have dramatically reduced the impact to property,
injuries and economic damage. When the United States is compared to
countries that do not have these codes and standards (e.g., Turkey, Iran,
China, and Pakistan) the earthquake disaster results are dramatically different.
Earthquake Endnotes:
1 Washington State 2001 Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment, Washington State
Military Department, Emergency Management Division, April 2001.
2 Ibid.
3 Late Holocene displacement on the Southern Whidbey Island fault zone, northern Puget lowland,
Washington. 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2 Oct. 2003
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/external/reports/00HQGR0067.pdf
4 Earthquake Hazards in Washington and Oregon – Three Source Zones. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2 Oct. 2003
http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/CascadiaEQs.pdf.
5 Earthquakes in Washington. 13 Jul. 2001. Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Division of Geology and Earth Resources. 5 Oct. 2003
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/GeologyEarthSciences/Pages/Home.aspx
6 Earthquake Hazards in Washington and Oregon – Three Source Zones. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2 Oct. 2003
http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/CascadiaEQs.pdf.
7 Map and List of selected significant quakes in WA and OR. 27 Mar. 2003. The Pacific Northwest
Seismograph Network, University of Washington Department of Earth and Space Sciences. 5 Oct.
2003 http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/INFO_GENERAL/hist.html.
8 Earthquake History of Washington. 5 Aug. 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey. 5 Oct. 2003 http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/washington/washington_history.html.
9 Hazard Mitigation Survey Team Report, Nisqually Earthquake, February 28, 2001, DR-1361-WA,
Federal Emergency Management Agency and Washington Military Department, Emergency
Management Division
10 The Nisqually Earthquake of 28 February 2001, Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Nisqually
Earthquake Clearinghouse Group, University of Washington, March 2001.
11 Preliminary Estimates of Damages and Loss from a run of HAZUS 99-SR2 by Kircher Associates
Consulting Engineers for the Seattle Fault Scenario project funded in part by the EERI Foundation,
May 2003. The figures developed from a Level 1 analysis of HAZUS default data adjusted for the
year 2005 for a five county region – King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston Counties.
12HAZUS 99 Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. Feb. 2001. Federal
Emergency Management Agency. 5 Oct. 2003
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:zaAkt9vt_A8J:www.fema.gov/library/file%3Bjsessionid%3D5
25D76909AFEB6B3BE783797F93F38E6.WorkerLibrary%3Ftype%3DpublishedFile%26file%3Dfema
_366.pdf%26fileid%3D4a624f30-2162-11db-85a2-
000bdba87d5b+HAZUS+99+Estimated+Annualized+Earthquake+Losses+for+the+United+States&c
d=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
13 2000 Census P.L. 94-171 Restricting Data. Aug. 2001. Puget Sound Regional Council. 5 Oct.
2003
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-38
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Auburn
Bellevue
FederalWay
Kent
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
SkykomishRedmond
Snoqualmie
NorthBend
Duvall
Enumclaw
MapleValley
SeaTac
Covington
BlackDiamond
IssaquahNewcastle
Burien
DesMoines
MercerIsland
Sammamish
Woodinville
Carnation
0 10 205
Miles
0 10 205
Kilometers .
October 2009
Tetra Tech, Inc.
King County GISUS Geological SurveyWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth ResourcesHAZUS-MH MR3 The information included on this map has been compiled for
King County from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County
shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost
revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse
of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or
information on this map is prohibited except by written
permission of King County.
EarthquakePeak Ground Acceleration100-year Probabilistic Scenario
Mercalli Scale - Potential Damage
VI - None to Slight
VII - Slight to Moderate
Attachment A
16715
Auburn
Bellevue
FederalWay
Kent
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
SkykomishRedmond
Snoqualmie
NorthBend
Duvall
Enumclaw
MapleValley
SeaTac
Covington
BlackDiamond
IssaquahNewcastle
Burien
DesMoines
MercerIsland
Sammamish
Woodinville
Carnation
South Whidbey FaultPeak Ground Acceleration7.4 Magnitude Scenario Shakemap
0 10 205
Miles
0 10 205
Kilometers .
October 2009
Tetra Tech, Inc.
King County GISUSGS April 2009 South Whidbey Fault Planning ScenarioWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources The information included on this map has been compiled for
King County from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County
shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost
revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse
of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or
information on this map is prohibited except by written
permission of King County.
Mercalli Scale, Potential Damage
IV, None
V, Very Light
VI, None to Slight
VII, Slight to Moderate
VIII, Moderate to Extensive
IX, Extensive to Complete
Magnitude: 7.4
Depth: 0.0km
Epicenter: N48.05 W122.47
Appx. 2mi NE of Langley, WA
The South Whidbey Fault extends from Victoria BC
southeast towards south Whidbey Island. It crosses through
Mukilteo and north Woodinville, and possibly extends
into eastern Washington.
Attachment A
16715
Auburn
Bellevue
FederalWay
Kent
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
SkykomishRedmond
Snoqualmie
NorthBend
Duvall
Enumclaw
MapleValley
SeaTac
Covington
BlackDiamond
IssaquahNewcastle
Burien
DesMoines
MercerIsland
Sammamish
Woodinville
Carnation
0 10 205
Miles
0 10 205
Kilometers .
October 2009
Tetra Tech, Inc.
King County GISUSGS January 2000 Seattle Fault Planning ScenarioWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources The information included on this map has been compiled for
King County from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County
shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost
revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse
of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or
information on this map is prohibited except by written
permission of King County.
Seattle FaultPeak Ground Acceleration6.8 Magnitude Scenario Shakemap
Magnitude: 6.8
Depth: 10.0km
Epicenter: N47.60 W122.57
Appx. 10mi W of Seattle, WA
The Seattle fault is a zone of thrust or reverse
faults that strikes through downtown Seattle in
the densely populated Puget Lowland of western
Washington. Analysis of seismic profiles extending
50 km across the Puget Lowland from Lake
Washington to Hood Canal indicates that the
west-trending Seattle fault comprises a broad
(4-6 km) zone of three or more south-dipping
reverse faults.
Mercalli Scale - Potential Damage
IV - None
V - Very Light
VI - None to Slight
VII - Slight to Moderate
VIII - Moderate to Extensive
IX - Extensive to Complete
Attachment A
16715
Auburn
Bellevue
FederalWay
Kent
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
SkykomishRedmond
Snoqualmie
NorthBend
Duvall
Enumclaw
MapleValley
SeaTac
Covington
BlackDiamond
IssaquahNewcastle
Burien
DesMoines
MercerIsland
Sammamish
Woodinville
Carnation
0 10 205
Miles
0 10 205
Kilometers .
October 2009
Tetra Tech, Inc.
King County GISUS Geological SurveyWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources The information included on this map has been compiled for
King County from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County
shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost
revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse
of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or
information on this map is prohibited except by written
permission of King County.
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)Soil Site Classes
Site Class F - Requires site-specific investigation
Site Class E - Soft Soil
Site Class D - Stiff Soil
Site Class C - Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock
Site Class B - Rock
Water
Ice
Attachment A
16715
Auburn
Bellevue
FederalWay
Kent
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
SkykomishRedmond
Snoqualmie
NorthBend
Duvall
Enumclaw
MapleValley
SeaTac
Covington
BlackDiamond
IssaquahNewcastle
Burien
DesMoines
MercerIsland
Sammamish
Woodinville
Carnation
0 10 205
Miles
0 10 205
Kilometers .
October 2009
Tetra Tech, Inc.
King County GISUS Geological SurveyWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources The information included on this map has been compiled for
King County from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County
shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost
revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse
of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or
information on this map is prohibited except by written
permission of King County.
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Bedrock
Peat
Water
Ice
High
Moderate to High
Moderate
Low to Moderate
Low
Very Low to Low
Very Low
Liquefaction
Susceptibility
Not Susceptible
to Liquefaction
Attachment A
16715
Civil Disorder
One substantive addition for 2009
Introduction
Our country’s history has many examples of civil disorder (unrest) associated
with demands for political reform. The modern civil disturbance has become
increasingly associated with sports events and issues unrelated to political
positions. Civil disorders have become a part of the urban environment in
Washington State. “Riots” can now generally be classified as either being
politically motivated or spontaneously erupting around another event. The most
important characteristic of civil disorders is an association with property damage
and clashes with law enforcement and authorities.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Civil Disorder Probability and Civil Disorder Impacts
Hazard Identification
In the 1960’s civil unrest was focused on civil rights. The Watts riots in Los
Angeles left 34 people dead. Similar events occurred in Newark New Jersey
with similar results.
In recent years, civil disorder typically begins as nonviolent gatherings. Injuries
are usually restricted to police and individuals observed to be breaking the law.
Crowds throwing bottles, rocks, and other projectiles are usually responsible for
the majority of law enforcement injuries. Injuries to protestors, demonstrators, or
law breakers are often the result of efforts to resist arrest, exposure to tear gas
or mace, attempts to strike a police officer or from other civilians and law
breakers.
Political demonstrations that become civil disorders or riots have specific
targets for their attention. Examples would be protests outside a national
embassy, city hall, or federal building. These incidents are typically marked by
efforts by organizers to obtain permits to demonstrate and are nonviolent in
nature. Occasionally, these demonstrations become violent when triggered by
some other event. Often, out-of-town agitators are the catalyst for these violent
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-39
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
outbreaks. In the Pacific Northwest, groups with such notoriety are the
Skinheads, White Supremacists, and Anarchists.
Celebrations resulting from outcomes of sporting events and annual holiday
celebrations occasionally evolve into violence. The central characteristic of
these “riots” have been related to substance abuse and consumption of alcohol.
Incidents of this type are common in other parts of the world following soccer
matches. In the United States, civil disturbances have come to be anticipated
following basketball championships (Chicago Bulls, 1991 and 1992; Detroit
Pistons, 1990; and recently the LA Lakers, 2001).
Police continue to use variations of riot tactics common for over a hundred
years: horse-mounted police and officers on foot with riot shields and batons.
Arrests are made of key violent individuals. The 1960s saw the advent of the
use of tear gas, also known as CS. There has been an evolution of tactics used
by demonstrators and agitators that has resulted in an increasingly complex
confrontation/interface between local officials and civilians.
Sophisticated communications capabilities are now available for retail purchase.
Radios and “police scanners” have made it possible for demonstrators to
organize their efforts and counter law enforcement tactics. This was seen
during the World Trade Organization (WTO) disturbances in Seattle, 1999.
Members of one group intercepted police tactical communications and
broadcast the information over the Internet. One group transmitted over an
illegal FM station. The result has been an increase in the integration of efforts
between federal agency officials from the Federal Communications Commission
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation with local law enforcement.
History of Events
Rodney King Verdict
Following the 1992 Rodney King verdict in California, some local disturbances
occurred in Seattle. The night of the verdict, small groups of people roamed the
downtown streets smashing windows, lighting dumpsters on fire, and
overturning cars. The next day, there was a rally at the Jackson Federal
Building in Seattle. Many people feared violence and avoided the downtown
area. After the rally broke up, small groups moved around downtown, eventually
attacking the Seattle West Precinct on Capitol Hill. Another protest occurred in
the University District of Seattle. This event, though peaceful, shut down
Interstate-5 to traffic for some time.
WTO and N30, and other World Summits
The best known civil disturbance in King County occurred in conjunction with
the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) meeting in Seattle during November of
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-40
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
1999. The week-long event found Seattle as the meeting place for world
economic leaders and political figures. The world stage event provided an
opportunity for activists to gain media attention for their multiple causes ranging
from labor reform to environmental exploitation concerns. Similar WTO
meetings have occurred in other places around the world with demonstrations
that sometimes became violent. Preparations made by local officials proved
inadequate to contend with the civil unrest that followed. This event was marked
by the presence of many Oregon-based antagonist groups, most notably the
“Anarchists.”
“N30” was the first anniversary of the WTO riots. Some protestors did appear,
but improvements in intelligence, police staffing and staging, use of secure
radio frequencies, and briefing of elected officials resulted in a considerably
more subdued event.
World summits such as G-8 or APEC have been recognized as world stage
international events that can bring in large numbers of protesters.
Mardi Gras Melee1,2
This annual Mardi Gras celebration event in Seattle’s Pioneer Square has
become problematic over the years. In 2001, Mardi Gras celebrations became
violent with one man being beaten to death during a violent confrontation
involving intoxicated young people in the Pioneer Square area of Seattle. There
was some indication the beating may have been racially motivated and gang-
related. There were 43 arrest, seven officers injured, and thousands of dollars
of damage done to six businesses. There was considerable news coverage of
the event and subsequent legal proceedings. Following the incident however,
the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that people could not be found guilty of
murder having not intended to kill an individual they’ve assaulted. The ruling
left over 300 suspects in the 2001 riots free from murder convictions, including
Jerell Thomas whom was convicted of killing Kristopher Kime during the unrest.
7
For the 2009 Mardi Gras event, Seattle’s police department employed the
usage of wireless live video feed to monitor several public locations, in hopes of
more timely response and more efficient utilization of police personal. 8
Additional Interstate-5 Closures
The closure of Interstate-5 to traffic by illegal protest marchers has become
somewhat of a traditional expression by individuals opposing social or political
events. In April 2002, a King County Deputy shot a suspect. That month
protestors caused temporary closure of Interstate-5.3 Again on September 30,
2002, street marchers mingled peacefully with sports enthusiasts in downtown
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-41
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Seattle. At the outbreak of hostilities regarding the war in Iraq in February 2003,
this same disruption of I-5 transportation and commerce was repeated.
University of Washington Violence
In 2003, a recent outburst by drunken youths in the University of Washington
fraternity district resulted in overturned burning vehicles and injured people.
While only one person was arrested, non-college outside agitators were
suspected of instigating the incident.
Hazard Impacts
The economic impact to urban areas during civil unrest and following such
events can be profound. Direct impacts include looting and smashed windows
as well as endangering shop owners and customers. Indirect economic impacts
result from the loss of business when potential customers do not approach
businesses for extended periods of time. Customer impressions and habits can
change from the experience of a single threatening event. In Seattle, WTO
resulted in the closure of several small businesses in the downtown core,
resulting in a cry from shop owners to visibly increase protection of their
properties. Largely, Mayor Paul Schell lost his re-election bid because of the
City’s handling of the event.
Thousands of political demonstrations occur each year nationally without major
incidents, injuries, property damage or arrests. The right to protest peacefully is
a hallmark of our nation’s liberties handed down to us from the 18th century.
Table 5-11: Civil Disorder Costs
Event Date(s) Area King County
Damage Dollars
Rodney King Verdict3 Seattle/King County 150 arrests
5 major fires
Looting, property damage
WTO-N30 Nov 1999,
20004
Downtown Seattle &
Capital Hill
$1.5 M police costs, $7 M
in lost retail sales
250+ arrests
120+ injuries
Mardi Gras- February 28,
20021
Pioneer Square – Seattle 1 person killed
6 police injured, 69
people
43 arrests
A20 Event – April 20025 Capitol Hill, Westlake
Mall, Seattle Central
Community College
19 arrests
Nominal property damage
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-42
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
I-5 closures – protest
marches6
University of Washington
to Downtown – Seattle
Nominal damage
University of Washington
Campus 10/03
University of Washington
Campus Fraternities
Police cruisers and
civilian vehicles damaged
and burned
Mardi Gras events
annually 2003 - 2006
Pioneer Square – Seattle 2002, 2009 Legislation
imposed because of
annual events 7,8
Past Mitigation Efforts
Law enforcement surveillance and counter intelligence units are becoming
common place in major cities around the United States. Intelligence sharing
efforts between national agencies and local officials is improving. The
controversial Patriot Act and civil rights issues have become part of the
landscape of police efforts to minimize exposure to violent civil disturbances.
Police in urban areas continue to explore training opportunities and consider
tactical changes in their planning for such expected and unscheduled events.
Local merchants have installed monitoring cameras in the Pioneer Square area
to reduce the attraction to anonymous violence and illegal activity.
Civil Disorder (Unrest) Endnotes:
1 Tracey Johnson, “Police charges won’t be filed against teen arrested in melee”, Seattle Post
Intelligencer, May 26th, 2001, www.Seattle PI.NWsource.com/specials/mardigras
2 Candy Hatcher, “Thousand of dollars claimed by 6 Businesses”, Seattle Post Intelligencer,
February 28th, 2001
3 Vanessa Ho and Hector Castro, “10 years after Rodney King, the issues very much with us”,
Seattle Post Intelligencer, April 29th, 2002
4 Murakami, Kerry. “Seattle Saddled with Millions in WTO Bills.” Seattle PI, NW Source (200)
October 14, 2003
5 Mike Roarke & Lewis Kamb, “Police Arrests as hundreds march on downtown streets”, Seattle Post
Intelligencer, April 20th, 2002
6 Jeffrey Barker, “Thomas Rally intrigues some, puzzles others”, Seattle Post Intelligencer,
September 30, 2002
7 Tracy Johnson, “10 years for 2001 Mardi Gras riot killing”, Seattle Post Intelligencer,
Feb 28, 2009 http://www.seattlepi.com/local/261101_thomas28.html
8 “Seattle Police Department Monitors Mardi Gras Festivities With Wireless Video Surveillance”
Reuters, March 24, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS140618+24-Mar-
2009+PRN20090324
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-43
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Terrorism
No substantive changes made for 2009
Introduction
Terrorism has been defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as “the
unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or
coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment of it in furtherance
of political or social objectives.” More importantly, it is necessary to understand
that the objective of terrorism is not destruction or death – it is the psychological
impact to the targeted population and world opinion. Disruption to public
services, economies, and social patterns or a feeling of insecurity is the desired
goal.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Terrorism Probability and Terrorism Impacts
Hazard Identification
Terrorism can be categorized as either domestic or international. Domestic
terrorism incidents are acts conceived of and carried out by U.S. citizens within
the U.S. borders. Examples of domestic terrorism include environmental groups
like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), groups opposing abortion, animal rights
groups opposing the fur trade, or the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah
Building.1 Each year King County Police receives calls related to hundreds of
bomb threats. International terrorism originates from groups based outside the
U.S.A. and may be perpetrated against U.S. interests abroad or within the
territorial boundaries of the U.S.A. Examples would be Al Quada and
sympathizer groups.
Terrorist targets tend to be located in urban areas. Seats of government,
stadiums and public meeting places are high-value targets that produce
substantial news coverage. Contrary to this, there is some evidence that
terrorist organizations prefer rural safe houses from which to operate. The rural
environment offers an environment that is more difficult to observe.
On a worldwide basis, explosive and small arms remain the primary method of
aggression. Domestically, this theme was evident in the shoe bomber incident
(Richard Reid),2 Washington, D.C. shootings,3 Twin Trade Towers, University of
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-44
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Washington School of Horticulture bombing, Atlanta Olympics bombing,4 and
Atlanta abortion clinic bombing. Officials are increasingly concerned about the
use of weapons of mass destruction on U.S. soil. Concern for this possibility
began to grow with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. At that time the Soviet
military acknowledged it could not account for many “suitcase” or portable
nuclear devices.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) can be categorized as belonging to one
or more of the following groups: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or
explosive. Incendiary devices and cyber terrorism can also be added to this list.
Title 18, U.S.C. 2332a, includes the accepted definition for weapons of mass
destruction in the United States:
“(1) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title
[which reads] any explosive, incendiary, or bomb, grenade, rocket
having a propellant charge of more than one quarter ounce, mine
or device similar to the above; (2) poison gas; (3) any weapon
involving a disease organism; or (4) any weapon that is designed
to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human
life.”
The concept of using chemical weapons is based on the field of toxicology. As
such, chemical weapons are comprised of a fairly large, growing and creative
list of materials that can kill humans or pollute the environment. While listed as
a weapon of mass destruction, typical chemical weapons do not destroy
property – rather, they deny the use of the area of distribution or scatter through
persistence of a difficult to clean up chemical. In this way, chemical, radiological
and biological terrorist weapons are similar. Military chemical weapons are
designed to be used in battlefield conditions against combatants. Their
persistence or impact is of short duration (hours or days) to allow occupation of
some strategic area by friendly forces.
In many ways the common components used to make chemical weapons are
similar to those used for industrial, commercial and agricultural purposes,
although with a destructive intent and outcome involved. Chemical weapons
began as industrial materials with military applications. They have been used in
organized military programs since the Germans used chlorine and arsine in
World War I. The list expanded to the use of nerve agents like sarin and tabin
when it was realized that insecticides could effectively be used against human
targets.
Radiological materials are very similar to chemical materials. They usually do
not kill humans outright. Exposure to such a dose would require very large
amounts of radioactive material at fairly close range. While the time required for
a material to decay and render itself inert varies widely, many materials can
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-45
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
persist in the environment for years to centuries at levels that can impact
humans and the environment.
The usefulness of radioactive materials to the terrorist is derived from long-term
exposures to moderate amounts of radiation and the difficulty in cleanup of the
impacted area. Like chemical and biological agents, radioactive materials can
not be observed by a civilian. For this reason they instill a significant
psychological impact to the public.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines biological agents as micro
organisms or their toxins. The U.S. Code Title 18, Section 178 also provides a
broad definition to biological agents. This definition would include viruses,
bacteria, spores, and toxic materials given off by these organisms. Commonly,
these include the plague, anthrax, smallpox, and other disease organisms.
Natural materials with toxicity to humans are also being used for terrorist
activities. Ricin, a toxin derived from Castor beans, has been used as a direct
contact poison for assassinations. Another known natural poison is curare.
Used for hundreds of years by South American tribes, this material (in smaller
doses) has taken a beneficial roll in medicine. The medical profession has a
fairly substantial list of these natural occurring materials.
Explosives have been defined by a variety of sources ranging from the fire
service to the United States Code. Commonly, these definitions focus on
chemical reactions that produce a shock wave and heat. This definition allows
the inclusion of nuclear fission devices. These and incendiary devices are truly
weapons of mass destruction, their purpose being to cause damage to property
as well as injury to people. Definitions of explosives include black powder, pellet
powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord,
igniter cord, and igniters. Incendiary devices include chemicals that may
accelerate or initiate fire.
Any individual or combination of the WMD classes listed can be used as booby
traps, mines and bombs and can be directly or remotely detonated or initiated.
Increasingly, experts are putting efforts into countermeasures related to cyber
terrorism. The global economy’s reliance on transactions and communications
presents an inviting target to terrorists that can operate in almost any corner of
the globe. Terrorists are also likely to use cyber attacks as a force multiplier in
a physical incident to impede first responders, spread misinformation, and
promote panic in the general populations.
Presidential Decision Directive #39 designates the Federal Bureau of
Investigation as the lead agency responsible for terrorism investigations within
the borders of the United States and its territories. This lead designation has
required a new partnership and increased cooperation between local law
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-46
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
enforcement, federal officials and hazardous materials teams in Washington
State.
History of Events and Hazard Impacts
The U.S. population has largely been spared the impacts of international
terrorism until recently. The devastation which occurred at the World Trade
Center in New York and the Alfred Murray building in Oklahoma City illustrates
the need to plan for potential threats within our own communities. Domestically,
the distribution of anthrax spores using the United States Postal System as a
delivery mechanism caused concern nationwide for several weeks. The bomb
detonated at the Atlanta Olympics in (1996) resulted in an
investigation/manhunt that lasted years. The Richard Reid (a.k.a. the Shoe
Bomber) disrupted air travel and changed security measures in airports; he was
sentenced to life in prison.
Washington State and King County locations have witnessed multiple examples
of terrorist activity over the last decade. One East Coast incident involved a
Tacoma gun shop connection. See the table below for a list of events over the
past decade:
Table 5-12: Recent Washington Terrorism-related Events
Type
Event Date Group City/
Location
No. of
Incidents
Damage or
Injuries
Explosive 1993 Skinheads6 Tacoma 2 Figures not
available
Chemical-
Explosive 1995 Unknown7 Burien District
Court 1 No damage
reported
Explosive Dec 14,
1999 Ahmed Ressam8 Port Angeles 1 none
Incendiary May
2001 ALF University of
Washington 2 $5 M
Biological
White
Powder
Jan 2000
to
Dec 2002
Miscellaneous
individuals9
Seattle, Federal
Way, Tukwila,
Port of Seattle,
other cities
208
Overtime and
service
disruption
Fire Arms Oct 2002
John Allen
Muhammad
&
John Lee Malvo3
Washington, DC
& Tacoma 13 10 killed, 3
wounded
Past Mitigation Efforts
While some legislation and operational countermeasures have existed for some
time, the events of September 11, 2001 have accelerated terrorism mitigation
efforts. Broadly, grants have been awarded to local first responders since 1998
for the purchase of important response equipment; national and local exercises
of plans a procedures conducted; powers given or broadened for law
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-47
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
enforcement regarding surveillance; and the consolidation of several agencies
into the U.S. Department of Homeland Security have been completed.
Capabilities related to bioterrrorism have received increasing attention.
Equipment grants for decontamination, detection, and protective gear for first
responders have been available to local first responders since 1998. These
grants and supplemental grants have provided millions of dollars in increased
capabilities. As these capabilities have improved, the definition of first
responder has been broadened from fire and police to now include hospital
personnel and facilities, public works and emergency medical responders.
In 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice and Office of Domestic Preparedness
began a national exercise program to integrate federal, state, and local
terrorism response capabilities and elected official preparedness for such
events. The TOPOFF (top officials) series began with an exercise involving
Portsmouth, New Hampshire and Denver, Colorado. In 2002, this exercise
opportunity presented itself to Seattle, King County, and Washington State as
well as Chicago, Illinois. Cities and counties in Washington State continue to
pursue opportunities to improve response capabilities by conducting additional
local exercises and training. It is worth noting that TOPOFF 2 included a multi-
jurisdiction cyber exercise involving King County, the City of Seattle, and
Washington state business leaders and senior technologists. This forum
provided an excellent learning opportunity and helped underscore how
dependent business operations are on technology and some of the key
vulnerabilities jurisdictions typically face with their technology infrastructure and
cyber incident response capabilities.
Beginning in 2002, grants became available from several federal agencies for
local jurisdictions to initiate and continue planning, training, equipment
purchase, and exercise efforts. Federal funding agencies include Department of
Justice, Office of Domestic Preparedness, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Transit
Administration and others.
An important step in the efforts to counter terrorism in the U.S. was made with
the issue of Presidential Decision Directive #3910 on June 21, 1995. This
directive identified the FBI as the lead agency for terrorism investigation.
Subsequent to the events of September 11th, 2001 the U.S. Congress
consolidated elements of the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Coast Guard,
U.S. Immigration, and other agencies into the Department of Homeland
Security. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act was passed by
Congress on November 19, 2001 giving responsibility for items like airport
security to the Transportation Safety Administration.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-48
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
The USA PATRIOT Act 11,12 contains provisions appreciably expanding
government investigative authority, especially with respect to the Internet. The
USA PATRIOT Act introduced sweeping changes to U.S. law, including
amendments to:
• Wiretap Statute
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act
• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
• Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
• Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute
• Money Laundering Control Act
• Bank Secrecy Act
• Right to Financial Privacy Act
• Fair Credit Reporting Act
Other important federal acts and directives include:
• Homeland Security Presidential Directives 1-5
1. Organization and Operation of the Homeland Security Council
2. Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies
3. Homeland Security Advisory System
4. National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction
5. Management of Domestic Incidents (NIMS-National Incident
Management System)
• Presidential Directive #62, Protection against Unconventional Threats to
Homeland and Americans Overseas.
• Title 18, USC Section 2332a Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Title 18, USC, Sections 175-178, Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act
• H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002
Federal, State, and local cooperation continues to improve relationships,
capabilities and innovative methods to mitigate terrorism in the U.S. and impacts
to its interests.
Some details of grants, exercises, plans and procedures are not subject to
Freedom of Information Act release due to their sensitive or national/domestic
security protection.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-49
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Terrorism Endnotes:
1 CNN News, “Oklahoma City Bombing” April 19th, 1995, www.cnn.com/us/okc/bombing.html
2 BBC News, “Shoebomber Jailed for Life”, January 30th, 2003
3 CNN.com, “Ballistics match rifle to sniper attacks”,
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/24/sniper.shootings/
4 CNN.com, “Atlanta Olympic Bombing Suspect Arrested”, May 31st, 2003
5 Presidential Decision Directive #39, June 21, 1995, http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm
6 Washington State Emergency Management Hazard Vulnerability Analysis, 1996
7 King County Emergency Management, Duty Officer Log, May 1995
8 Sam Skolink & Paul Shukovsky, “Ressam- Seattle no Target”, Seattle PI, May 31st, 2001
9 Washington State Joint Committee on Terrorism figures, 2003
10 Presidential Decision Directive #39, http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm
11 “Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools to intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001”, aka the Patriot Act (HR 3162),
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
12 Electronic Privacy Information Center, the US Patriot Act (Summary/Brief & Commentary),
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-50
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-51
11/12/09
Drought
2005 History Updated for 2009
Introduction
Western Washington is typically associated with rain, green trees, and healthy
environments, making the idea of drought in King County a far-fetched notion.
There is a possibility for drought conditions in our area, as exemplified most recently
in 2001. As a result, King County residents and employers need to be aware of the
hazards presented by drought to our area.
Drought can be a result of multiple causes including “global weather patterns that
produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along the West Coast with
warm, dry air resulting in less precipitation.”1 Drought may be defined as a
prolonged period of dryness severe enough to reduce soil moisture, water and snow
levels below the minimum necessary for sustaining plant, animal, and economic
systems.2 While drought isn’t typically thought of as a King County hazard, the
historical record demonstrates that it is important to consider drought conditions as
a potential impact to the region.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Drought Probability and Drought Impacts
Hazard Identification
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) defines drought as
less than 60% normal precipitation over a prolonged period of time.3 However, in
Washington State, the statutory criteria for drought is a water supply below 75% of
normal and a shortage expected to create undue hardship for some water users.4
1 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
2 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
3 Pierce County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/HIVA/DROUGHT.pdf
4 Washington State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Annex Z2, Drought Contingency
Plan, http://www.drought.unl.edu/plan/state%20plans/WAplan.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-52
11/12/09
Assessing the probability of drought conditions in King County can be challenging,
due to the temperate weather nature of our region. As a result, current long-range
forecasts of drought have limited reliability. Meteorologists do not believe that
reliable forecasts are attainable any more than a season in advance.5 If historic
patterns repeat themselves, dry conditions occur approximately every decade.
Probability of Drought conditions is Moderate – the potential Impact from Drought
conditions is Moderate. See table 5 – 13.
Drought conditions can be described in the following four ways:
Meteorological: a measure of departure of precipitation from normal. Due to climate
differences what is considered a drought in one location may not be a drought in
another.
Agricultural: refers to a situation when the amount of moisture in the soil no longer
meets the needs of a particular crop.
Hydrological: occurs when surface and subsurface water supplies are below
normal.
Socioeconomic: refers to the situation that occurs when physical water shortage
begins to impact people’s jobs, incomes, recreational capabilities and other such
factors.
The severity of drought is measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index in a
range of 4 (extremely wet) to –4 (extremely dry), and incorporates temperature,
precipitation, evaporation and transpiration, runoff and soil moisture when
designating the degree of drought.6
Table 5-13: Palmer Drought Severity
Index Classifications
4.0 or more Extremely Wet
3.0 to 3.99 Very Wet
2.0 to 2.99 Moderately Wet
1.0 to1.99 Slightly Wet
0.5 to 0.99 Incipient Wet Spell
0.49 to -0.49 Near Normal
-0.5 to 0.99 Incipient Dry Spell
-1.0 to –1.99 Mild Drought
-2.0 to –2.99 Moderate Drought
-3.0 to –3.99 Severe Drought
-4.0 or less Extreme Drought
Source: Pierce County Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment
2002
5 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
6 Governor’s Ad Hoc Executive Water Emergency Committee Staff, “History of Drought in
Washington State”, State of Washington, December 1977, p 7.
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-53
11/12/09
In 1989, the Washington State Legislature gave permanent drought relief authority
to the Department of Ecology and enabled them to issue orders declaring drought
emergencies. (RCW 43.83B.400-430 and Chapter 173-166 WAC).7
In comparison to other natural disasters that may occur in Western Washington,
drought doesn’t usually result in property damage or loss of life, although it can
have substantial negative impact on the environment and economy.
History of Events
Every few years in Washington State, drought conditions are present with an
inherent impact of moderate on the Palmer Drought Severity Index. In the last
century in Washington State, there have been a number of drought episodes,
including several that have lasted for more that a single season, including dry
periods occurring between 1928-1932 and 1992-1994.
However, King County experiences drought conditions of at least moderate severity
in classification from 5 to 10 percent of the time, evidenced most prominently during
our most recent severe drought periods in 1977 and 2001. The 1977 event set
records for low precipitation, snow-pack, and stream flow totals that still stand
today, while the 2001 event was the second-worst drought year in state recorded
history.8
1977 Drought: King County experienced severe or extreme drought conditions
between 10-20 percent of the time.
2001 Drought: At the height of this event in March 2001, King County experienced
moderate to severe drought conditions.9
Rainfall for Western Washington during the 2001 water year was approximately
30% below normal. On March 14, 2001, after several months of record low
precipitation, Governor Gary Locke authorized the Department of Ecology to
declare a statewide drought emergency. Washington was the first Northwest state
to make a drought declaration. Due to above-average precipitation during the final
two months of the year, the drought emergency formally expired on December 31,
7 Skagit County Natural Hazards Identification Plan,
http://www.skagitcounty.net/EmergencyManagement/Documents/2003HazMitFinal/Section%20II%20
Final%20Documents/3%20HIVA%20Skagit%20Drought.pdf
8 Skagit County Natural Hazards Identification Plan,
http://www.skagitcounty.net/EmergencyManagement/Documents/2003HazMitFinal/Section%20II%20
Final%20Documents/3%20HIVA%20Skagit%20Drought.pdf
9 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-54
11/12/09
2001. The National Weather Service reported that the winter of 2000-01 was the
driest since 1976-1977, and was one of the top five driest in the past 100 years.10
Table 5-14: Drought History
Year Conditions Causes
2005 Water Shortage, March
March 21, County Executive
News Release; KC Drought
Response Plan Activated
Record Low Precipitation,
low snowpack, low river
levels
2001 Moderate to Severe Drought,
Statewide
Low precipitation
1988 Water Shortage;
Water Shortage
Level of Chester Morse
Lake fell below outlet;
Tolt Pipeline broke during
peak usage
1987 Water Shortage;
Water Shortage
Tolt Pipeline broke
Hot, dry summer weather
increased water demands
beyond limits
1977 Severe to Extreme Drought Low precipitation
1967 Water Shortage Dry summer
1965-66 Water Shortage Dry throughout state
1952-53 Water Shortage Lack of winter precipitation
1928-30 Statewide Drought Rainfall was 20% of
normal
1919 Water Shortage Dry summer
Source: City of Seattle Emergency Management Disaster History
Hazard Impacts
Drought conditions occurring in King County can have an impact on the economic
viability of agriculture and power-related industries as well as water and snow-
related recreational activities. Drought conditions would impact the amount of water
available for crops grown for commercial and domestic use, and could also reduce
the snow pack available in our local mountain passes, which could have a negative
result on area winter sports tourism.
Additionally, due to the prevalence of hydroelectric dams in King County, drought
conditions could also have a negative impact on the availability and cost of electric
power for local businesses and industries. When water levels drop, electric
10 Skagit County Natural Hazards Identification Plan,
http://www.skagitcounty.net/EmergencyManagement/Documents/2003HazMitFinal/Section%20II%20
Final%20Documents/3%20HIVA%20Skagit%20Drought.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-55
11/12/09
companies cannot produce enough power to meet demand and are forced to buy
electricity from other sources.11
Additional impacts to King County industry may include a negative impact on the
capabilities of firefighters in the area, as water shortages may result in reduced
water flow and pressure available to combat wild land and structural fires that may
take place in our region.
Past Mitigation Efforts
Efforts to mitigate the effects of drought conditions in our area include consistent
vigilance of forecasted conditions like the prevalence of rainfall, or the amount of
snow pack present in the mountain passes.
Additional efforts include King County's Regional Wastewater Services Plan, a 30-
year operating plan for our wastewater system that calls for expanding the
production and use of reclaimed water as a valuable resource. Reclaimed water is
wastewater that gets treated to such a high level that it can be used safely and
effectively for non-drinking water purposes such as landscape and agricultural
irrigation, heating and cooling, and industrial processing. Reclaimed water has
been used successfully and safely in other areas of the country and world for
decades, and is a viable tool to utilize when combating drought in King County.12
Other mitigation efforts include sustainable landscaping, a low maintenance method
of outdoor design featuring native plants that promotes healthy soil, minimizes water
use, and doesn’t need excessive fertilizer or pesticides.13
11 King County Office of Emergency Management Drought Resource Section,
http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/prepare/residents_business/Hazards_Disasters/Droughts.aspx
12 King County Water Reuse Program,
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/ReclaimedWater.aspx
13 King County Solid Waste Division, Sustainable Landscaping,
http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/sustainable-landscaping/index.asp
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-56
11/12/09
Fire Hazards
One substantive addition made for 2009
Introduction
Fires don’t generally call for region wide attention unless the fire migrates to
adjoining buildings, homes, or property or is determined to have the potential to do
so. Fast-spreading structure fires can quickly threaten a large amount of people, as
well as tax the resources of local fire-fighting jurisdictions
King County is at risk for three types of fire threats: structure, wildland, and
wildland-urban interface fires. These threats are typically defined as:
Structure Fire: a fire of natural or human-caused origin that results in the
uncontrolled destruction of homes, businesses, and other structures in populated,
urban or suburban areas.
Wildland Fire: a fire of natural or human-caused origin that results in the
uncontrolled destruction of forests, field crops and grasslands.14
Wildland-Urban Interface: a fire of natural or human-caused origin that occurs in or
near forest or grassland areas where isolated homes, subdivisions, and small
communities are also located. 15
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Fire Hazards Probability and Fire Hazards Impacts
The Washington Department of Natural Resources and its federal and local
partners found that 181 communities were at high risk for fire threats, including
some communities housed within the jurisdiction of King County. Communities
were evaluated based on fire behavior potential, fire protection capability, and risk
to social, cultural and community resources. Assigned risk factors included area fire
history, type and density of vegetative fuels, extreme weather conditions,
14 Sinnett, George M, Meteorologist, Fire Weather Summary, 1983-1991, Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Fire Control, Washington State, 1992.
15 Skagit County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
http://www.skagitcounty.net/EmergencyManagement/Documents/2003HazMitFinal/Section%20II%20
Final%20Documents/5%20HIVA%20Skagit%20Fire.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-57
11/12/09
topography, number and density of structures and their distance from fuels, location
of municipal watershed, and likely loss of housing or business. The evaluation used
the criteria in the wildfire hazard severity analysis of the National Fire Protection
Association’s NFPA 299 Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire,
1997 Edition.16
As a result, fire hazards are a very real risk for King County residents and
businesses and must be vigilantly prepared for and mitigated against in efforts to
keep our region and surrounding counties and communities safer.
Hazard Identification
A fire needs three elements in the right combination to ignite and grow – a heat
source, fuel, and oxygen. How a fire behaves primarily depends on the
characteristics of available fuel, weather conditions, and terrain. Fuels can include
ignition sources like poor wiring or unattended candles, lighter fuels like grasses
and leaves, heavier fuels like tree branches and logs, and hazard trees that may be
diseased or dying.17
Weather also plays a role in the forms of wind, low precipitation, and lightening. As
a result, strong, dry east winds in late summer and early fall can produce extreme
fire conditions west of the Cascades. Drought, snow pack, and local weather
conditions can also expand the length of the fire season.18 Additionally, according
to data from 1992-2001, lightening ignited 135 wildland fires annually and burned
more state-protected acreage than any other cause, an average of about 10,866
acres annually.19
Terrain is an additional factor, as the topography of a region or local area influences
the amount and moisture of available fuel. Other elements like barriers and land
elevation also need to be taken into account as highways and lakes can affect
spread of fire, as can an uphill/downhill orientation, as fire spreads more easily as it
moves uphill. 20
In addition to natural conditions for fire viability, humans also play a role. From
1992 to 2001, people, on average, caused more than 500 wildland fires each year
16 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment on
Wildland Fire, http://emd.wa.gov/3-map/mit/mit-pubs-forms/hazmit-
plan/Tab%207.1.9%20Wildland%20Fire%20final.pdf
17 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment on
Wildland Fire, http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_7_Risk_Assessment_Introduction.pdf
18 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
19 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
20 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment on
Wildland Fire, http://emd.wa.gov/3-map/mit/mit-pubs-forms/hazmit-
plan/Tab%207.1.9%20Wildland%20Fire%20final.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-58
11/12/09
on state protected lands. Human caused fires burn an average of 4,404 state-
protected acres each year.21
Hazard Impacts
Most wildland fires are usually extinguished in their initial stages being less than
one acre in area.22 In fact, Western Washington is less prone to the danger of large
or catastrophic wildland fires than the Eastern half of the state. The Western slopes
have a shorter fire season, receive more rainfall, have wetter and cooler spring
seasons, and are more urbanized.23 However, these conditions don’t make
wildland fires any less dangerous, as statistics show that on an annual basis, an
average of 905 wildland fires burn 6,488 acres resulting in a resource loss of
$2,103,884 in Washington State. 24
Depending upon temperature, wind, topography, and other factors, wildland fires
can spread rapidly and may require thousands of firefighters working several weeks
to extinguish.25 Wildland fires can create their own winds and weather, and
generating hurricane force winds of up to 120 miles per hour. Fires can also heat
fuels in their path, drying them out, and making them easier to ignite and burn.26
With the increasing urbanization of King County, the threat of wildland/urban
interface fire grows, due to a rise in the building of vacation homes and the
prevalence of more comprehensive transportation systems. King County residents
can live outside of crowded city centers while commuting or telecommuting to work.
As a result, wildfires can encroach onto residential properties and structure fires can
invade wooded areas. These fires are also quite difficult to fight, as the remote
locations of residential properties in wooded areas make fire-fighting response
times to those areas take longer than normal residential responses. In addition,
most fire fighters are trained to fight either wildfires or structure fires, and with only
21 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
22 Skagit County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
http://www.skagitcounty.net/EmergencyManagement/Documents/2003HazMitFinal/Section%20II%20
Final%20Documents/5%20HIVA%20Skagit%20Fire.pdf
23 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
24 Skagit County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
http://www.skagitcounty.net/EmergencyManagement/Documents/2003HazMitFinal/Section%20II%20
Final%20Documents/5%20HIVA%20Skagit%20Fire.pdf
25 Skagit County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
http://www.skagitcounty.net/EmergencyManagement/Documents/2003HazMitFinal/Section%20II%20
Final%20Documents/5%20HIVA%20Skagit%20Fire.pdf
26 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment on
Wildland Fire, http://emd.wa.gov/3-map/mit/mit-pubs-forms/hazmit-
plan/Tab%207.1.9%20Wildland%20Fire%20final.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-59
11/12/09
the personal protective equipment (PPEs) for structure fires; and interface fires
require both skills, making it difficult to balance the two. 27
Structure Fires: In addition to typical methods of occurrence, structure fires are a
potential secondary hazard of earthquakes and riots. One study estimated that 80-
100 fires would occur from a large earthquake in the Seattle area.28 Building codes
requiring fire detectors and sprinkler systems are in effect for most large structures,
therefore reducing some vulnerability. However, injuries and causalities to structure
occupants are the primary concern. These events can also cause the release of
hazardous materials as well as disconnect utility lines.
Wildland/Urban Interface Fires: King County is becoming more vulnerable to the
effects of wildland/urban interface fires due to increased building, living and
recreating in forested areas. The effects of interface fires can be the combined
affects of both structure and wildland fires.
History of Events
The largest fire in King County history remains the 1889 Seattle fire, which was
estimated to have consumed 60 acres of the downtown area.29 Also notable was
the Blackstock lumberyard fire in 1989 which took the life of one fire fighter and the
Mary Pang warehouse fire in 1995 which killed four fire fighters.
In contrast, wildland fires historically, were not considered a hazard, as fire is a
normal part of most forest and range ecosystems in the temperate regions of the
world, including King County. Fires historically burn on a fairly regular cycle,
recycling carbon and nutrients stored in the ecosystem, and strongly affecting the
species within the ecosystem. The burning cycle in western Washington is every
100 – 150 years.30 Controlled burns have also been conducted because the fire
cycle is an important aspect of management for many ecosystems. These are not
considered hazards unless they were to get out of control. 31
None of Washington State’s most significant wildland fires have occurred in King
County, although smaller wildland fires have occurred in the region. All but the
Snoqualmie Pass area of King County is part of the South Puget Sound fire
protection region of the Washington Department of Natural Resources. During
27 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
28 McDonald, Terrence J, “Conflagration and Other Large Urban Fires”, Seattle: A Hazard
Identification and Vulnerability Analysis, Masters Thesis, Cornell University, 1995, p 82.
29 McDonald, Terrence J, “Conflagration and Other Large Urban Fires”, Seattle: A Hazard
Identification and Vulnerability Analysis, Masters Thesis, Cornell University, 1995, p 82.
30 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment Urban/Wildland Interface Fires Section,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/NaturalHaz.htm
31 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-60
11/12/09
1992-2001, the South Puget Sound region averaged 182 fires a year that burned an
average of 81 acres of state-protected lands.32
Past Mitigation Efforts
The Blackstock lumberyard fire fatality resulted in the development of an
accountability system called the passport system. This system works with the
Incident Command System for tracking the assignments and locations of fire
fighters during a response. The system worked so well, that it has been adopted on
a national basis for safety improvement on the fire ground. Similarly, the fatalities at
the Mary Pang fire have reinforced the continuing need for accountability and safety
at a fire scene.
Public education programs are key elements of educating King County residents on
indoor and outdoor fire safety, including the importance of fire alarms, extinguishers,
fire insurance, and knowledge and understanding of building codes. In efforts to
avoid injury or death, residents must plan how to safely exit their home and
workplace in the event of a structure fire.
Additionally, effective early fire detection programs and emergency communications
systems are essential. Wildland fire prevention education and enforcement
programs can reduce the number of wildland fires Washington State faces each
year. As a result, the importance of immediately reporting any wildland fire must be
impressed upon local residents and visitors utilizing wooded areas. An effective
warning system is crucial when needing to notify local residents and visitors in the
fire risk area, as well as an evacuation plan detailing primary and alternate escape
routes. 33
The prevention of wildland/urban interface fires, fire-safe development planning
requires coordination between county building and transportation planners, to
ensure adequate fire escape routes for new sections of development in forested
areas. Road closures may also be increased during peak fire periods to reduce
access to fire-prone areas. 34 Land use, building codes, mandated sprinkler system
installation, vegetation management, survivable materials used in construction of
homes, highly trained and equipped fire services and accessibility are all methods
used to assist in mitigating urban/wildland fire risk.35
32 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
33 King County Office of Emergency Management Fire Resource Section,
http://www.metrokc.gov/prepare/preparerespond/hazardsdisasters/firehazards.aspx
34 King County Office of Emergency Management Fire Resource Section,
http://www.metrokc.gov/prepare/preparerespond/hazardsdisasters/firehazards.aspx
35 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment Urban/Wildland Interface Fires Section,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/NaturalHaz.htm
Attachment A
16715
Auburn
Bellevue
FederalWay
Kent
Renton
Seattle
Shoreline
SkykomishRedmond
Snoqualmie
NorthBend
Duvall
Enumclaw
MapleValley
SeaTac
Covington
BlackDiamond
IssaquahNewcastle
Burien
DesMoines
MercerIsland
Sammamish
Woodinville
Carnation
DNR Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)Wildfire High Risk Communities
0 10 205
Miles
0 10 205
Kilometers .
October 2009
Tetra Tech, Inc.
King County GISUS Geological SurveyWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources The information included on this map has been compiled for
King County from a variety of sources and is subject to change
without notice. King County makes no representations or
warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County
shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost
revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse
of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or
information on this map is prohibited except by written
permission of King County.
Wildland Urban Interface Areas (WUIs) are shown
as defined by the Washington State DNR. Published
September 2004, this theme 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.
Wildfire Hazard -
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
High Risk Communities
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-61
11/12/09
Hazardous Materials
Two substantive additions made for 2009
Introduction
Hazardous chemicals are prevalent throughout our society. While industry is the
primary user and maintainer of hazardous chemicals, we also have them in our
homes, in our cars, at our places of work and recreation. Hazardous materials move
through our region on highways, rail lines, pipelines, and by ship and barge through
Puget Sound. These major transportation routes are utilized by our trucking
industry to transport chemicals not only to local manufacturing plants, but also to
businesses and retail outlets. 36
The geographic and economic characteristics of King County make it likely that
hazardous materials releases will occur. Our diverse industrial facilities and
transportation routes share space with numerous bodies of waters, wetlands,
environmentally sensitive areas, and a multitude of densely populated centers,
creating areas of great potential risk for a hazardous materials release.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Hazardous Materials Probability and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Hazard Identification
King County hosts a variety of unique transportation and geographic conditions,
including one of the largest deepwater seaports on the west coast, an International
Airport in SeaTac that handles cargo from all over the world, as well as fuel
pipelines running south from Whatcom County through King County and down into
Portland carrying jet fuels, diesel, gasoline, etc. Additionally, local highways like
Intertate-5, Interstate-90, US Highway 2, State Route (SR) 18, SR 516, SR 167, US
Highway 99 and others transport hazardous materials throughout the region.
In the City of Seattle, there are over 3000 facilities with hazardous materials
regulated under the fire code. Other areas with high concentrations of hazardous
materials usage include Harbor Island, the Duwamish Corridor, Redmond and the
36 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment, Technological Hazards Section: Hazardous Materials,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/HIVA/hazmat.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-62
11/12/09
Kent Valley. Business types that commonly use hazardous materials locally
include: hospitals, schools, metal plating and finishing, the aircraft industry, public
utilities, cold storage companies, the fuel industries, the communication industry,
chemical distributors, research, and high technology firms. Each of these facilities
is required to maintain plans for warning, notification, evacuation and site security
under various regulations. The majority of releases that occur during the course of
regular commerce happen at fixed facilities.
While the majority of incidents tend to involve petroleum products, a significant
number involve extremely hazardous materials. Approximately 200 local facilities
with extremely hazardous materials report their inventories to the county under
SARA Title III provisions. Efforts continue to increase the compliance rate and
education level of local facilities. In excess of 300 hazardous materials events
require response in King County annually; however, many events are not reported
or go undetected.
Hazardous materials may also be released as a secondary result of a natural
disaster like earthquakes or floods. In either case, buildings or vehicles can release
their hazardous materials inventories when structurally compromised or involved in
traffic accidents. Pipelines can be exposed or ruptured from collapsed
embankments, road washouts, bridge collapses, and fractures in roadways, and as
nearly every neighborhood in urban King county includes a natural gas pipeline, this
is a very possible risk. Examples of areas at risk for a secondary incident are
Harbor Island, a western Washington facility with a large fuel storage area.
Earthquake damage to Harbor Island could result in subsequent fuel spills that may
impact the Duwamish River and Elliot Bay. These potential spills may occur from
above ground storage, pipelines or fuel transfers from tankers. Events resulting
from a spill would produce severe fire hazards and enormous environmental
damages to fish, wildlife and commerce.
Additional potential causes of hazardous materials releases may include terrorist
incidents and illegal drug labs or dumping. Illegal drug labs present a special
concern due to the fact that each must be treated as a chemical hazard site and
decontaminated before the property can be used again. Illegal drug labs can be set
up in homes, apartments, vacant buildings, shacks in the forest or even in a van
parked on the street.37 Exposure of King County’s sizable population to a
hazardous materials release presents a complex problem to responders, since it is
difficult to find a home, school, hospital or place of business in our modern society
that isn’t vulnerable to the possibility.
The chemical, physical and biological properties of hazardous materials pose a
potential risk to life, health, the environment, and property when not properly
contained. Hazardous materials may be explosive, flammable, combustible,
37 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment, Technological Hazards Section: Hazardous Materials,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/HIVA/hazmat.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-63
11/12/09
corrosive, reactive, poisonous, biological or radioactive, as well as solid, liquid or
gaseous. Hazardous materials incidents may be either generated from a fixed site
or the result of a transportation-related accident or release.38 Hazardous
substances are subject to regulation by a variety of state and federal agencies
through an assortment of labor, environmental and transportation laws.39
The types of materials that can cause a hazardous materials release are wide
ranging in nature and may include chlorine, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid,
radioactive isotopes, anhydrous ammonia, gasoline and other hydrocarbons, as well
as medical/biological waste from hospitals or clinics. Hazardous materials subject
to reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) or Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) include these four groups:
Extremely Hazardous Substances: These are materials with acutely toxic properties
that may do irreversible damage or cause death to people or harm the environment
when released or used outside their intended use. Examples include: ammonia,
chlorine, and sulfuric acid. Includes 366 US EPA listed chemicals.
Hazardous Substances: These are any materials posing a threat to human health
and/or the environment, or any substance designated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to be reported if a designated quantity of the substance is
spilled into the waters of the United States or is otherwise released into the
environment.40 Includes 720 chemicals listed by the US EPA.
Hazardous Chemicals: If present at a chemical facility in certain amounts, these
substances require a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) under the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard. Such
substances are capable of producing fires and explosions or adverse health effects
such as cancer, burns, or dermatitis.41
Toxic Chemicals: Chemicals or chemical categories that appear on the list because
of their chronic or long-term toxicity. Includes 325 chemicals. 42
38 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment, Technological Hazards Section: Hazardous Materials,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/HIVA/hazmat.pdf
39 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment: Hazardous Materials Section, http://www.snodem.org/HIVA.pdf
40 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment: Hazardous Materials Section, http://www.snodem.org/HIVA.pdf
41 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment: Hazardous Materials Section, http://www.snodem.org/HIVA.pdf
42 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment, Technological Hazards Section: Hazardous Materials,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/HIVA/hazmat.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-64
11/12/09
Other hazardous materials include hazardous wastes, by-products of society that
can pose a substantial or potential hazard to human health or the environment
when improperly managed, and possess at least one of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appear on special EPA lists.43
Hazardous Materials Impacts
The industrial and geographic characteristics of our region continue to place King
County at risk for probably hazardous materials releases. Many factors determine
the impact of a potential incident including quick and solid decision-making by
emergency officials, location and type of release, evacuation and shelter-in-place
needs, public health concerns, and relevant economic considerations. Additionally,
while most incidents are generally brief, the resulting recovery and cleanup may
take time to exact.
If evacuation is necessary due to a chemical emergency road closures and traffic
jams may result. If a large-scale evacuation is deemed necessary, it can pose
serious long term economic consequences to the involved population area. 44 A
delay in the resumption of industry commerce may cause economic losses for both
business owners and employees. In addition, an evacuation ordered on short-
notice could cause serious problems for businesses requiring time to shut down
specialized equipment.45 There is also the monetary impact borne by responding
public or private emergency response organizations. These agencies may be
challenged by the expenses dictated by a hazardous materials release, and may
need to wait an uncomfortable length of time for the responsible party to reimburse
any outstanding costs, further straining the economic resources of the region.
A major incident involving significant injuries may severely tax regional medical
services, as medical facilities aren’t generally designed to handle mass amounts of
victims on short notice. Consequently, in the event of a major incident, hospitals
and other medical facilities must still be able to provide their customary level of
service to all patients, regardless of whether they were incident victims or not.
If severe weather contributes to a flooding incident(s), as example along the Green
River Valley and/or due to the Howard Hanson Dam situational awareness for 2009
43 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment: Hazardous Materials Section,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Emergency_Management/cemp_4-17-
07_draft.pdf
44 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment: Hazardous Materials Section,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Emergency_Management/cemp_4-17-
07_draft.pdf
45 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment: Hazardous Materials Section,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Emergency_Management/cemp_4-17-
07_draft.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-65
11/12/09
and beyond, the hazard rankings in the introduction may be suddenly upgraded.
Flooding impacts increases the risk of possible increased frequency of secondary
hazards such as landslide, hazardous material spills or releases, fire hazards, and
transportation system impacts.
History of Events
Hazardous materials emergencies have emerged as a public concern only within
the past 30 years, as older records mixed hazardous materials emergencies with
fire emergencies. As a result constructing a detailed history is difficult. This section
highlights major incidents.46
A Washington State Department of Health study examined incidents occurring in
1992. According to the report there were 118 events in King County, about 10.2%
involving transportation and 89.8% occurring at fixed facilities. Twenty-six incidents
caused a total of 66 injuries, most commonly involving acids and volatile organic
compounds. Additionally, 29 incidents resulted in the evacuation of nearly 1400
people. The report indicates that 44 incidents in King County occurred within one-
quarter mile of residential areas, indicating some risk to people not directly involved
with the released chemicals.47
A recent Washington State Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis cited an
average of 960 emergency spills occurring annually in King County. Significant
events in King County detailed by the study include: the release of 2500 gallons of
fuel from Olympic Pipeline at their Renton pumping station, the release of
hydrofluoric and nitric acids from Boeing’s Auburn plant, numerous drug lab events,
metal finishing company fires at Boeing and Universal Manufacturing, a spill at UPS
in Redmond, numerous releases of ammonia from cold storage facilities and the
release of a small amount of chorine from a public water company. Response
teams have narrowly averted some potentially large releases.
Hazardous materials may also be released during transport. For example, a 1994
King County study shows that the most common material transported along I-5 is
gasoline. In addition, the most commonly released chemicals in transportation
accidents included volatile organic compounds, acids, herbicides, and insecticides.
Consequently, the Washington State Department of Transportation reported that
almost 60,000 transportation incidents resulting in the accidental release of
hazardous materials occurred between 1987 and 1989. Case in point of a typical
problem posed by chemical transport involves a crash in 1975 where a gasoline
tanker traveling north on the Alaska Way Viaduct lost control, bounced sideways,
and crashed against the guardrail, where the tank ruptured. Gasoline flowed down
the side of the Viaduct where it was ignited by flares set coincidentally by a railroad
46 City of Seattle Emergency Management, Human-Caused Disasters: Hazardous Materials
Resource Section, http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/hazardousMaterials.htm
47 City of Seattle Emergency Management, Human-Caused Disasters: Hazardous Materials
Resource Section, http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/hazardousMaterials.htm
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-66
11/12/09
crew. The resulting fire damaged several buildings, but there were no casualties. 48
As for railroad incidents however, King County has not had any significant events in
recent years, although rail lines do run throughout downtown Seattle and populous
areas of King County.
King County also has numerous abandoned hazardous waste sites that are being
cleaned up under the Superfund program. In 2004, at least five sites in Kent and
one very large site in South Seattle were identified. In 2009, twenty three sites are
listed on the EPA website for small and large problems under the general category
of Cleanup Sites, and three are Superfund sites, 2 located in Seattle, one in Renton.
48.5
Past Mitigation Efforts 49
In 2004, there were sixteen hazardous materials response teams in King County.
These were split evenly between public fire jurisdictions and the Boeing Company.
It has changed somewhat for this 2009 update. Response capabilities are shared
between 3 King County Zones (1, 3, and 5); with Boeing and the Port of Seattle
having additional full response teams. Private response contractors working with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a unit of the Washington State
Department of Ecology supplement the hazardous materials teams in King County.
An Area Contingency Plan was developed by the State Department of Ecology in
cooperation with Federal, State and Local agencies. The purpose of the plan is “to
provide orderly implementation of response actions to protect the people and
natural resources of the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho from the impacts
of oil or hazardous substances spills.” The plan accounts for potential problems
from vessels, offshore facilities, onshore facilities or other sources. The EPA has
responsibility for all spills in inland waters. The United States Coast Guard has
responsibility for all spills in coastal waters.
Other mitigation efforts include the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program,
a regional consortium of local governments working together to protect public health
and environmental quality by helping citizens, businesses and government reduce
the threat posed by the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials.
Prompted by citizen demand, this program was developed when Washington State
directed local governments to create plans to ensure proper management of
hazardous wastes produced by households, businesses, and other organizations.
In 1991 local governments and agencies within King County established a
partnership to manage these wastes regionally by developing the Local Hazardous
48 City of Seattle Emergency Management, Human-Caused Disasters: Hazardous Materials
Resource Section, http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/hazardousMaterials.htm
48.5 EPA Clean Up sites list for King County, WA
49 Vulnerability Analysis prepared for the Local Emergency Planning Committee by Rich
Tokarzewski, King County Office of Emergency Management
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-67
11/12/09
Waste Management Program.50 This program offers information and services to
help King County residents, businesses, and other groups reduce toxic and
hazardous materials, safely use and store hazardous materials, and properly
dispose of hazardous wastes.51
With 1.9 million (updated 2009) people living in King County and more than 60,000
businesses and other institutions operating therein, the amount of hazardous waste
generated adds up. 51.5 When improperly used, stored or disposed of, these
chemicals threaten human health and the environment. Moreover, exposure to
some household products and business materials presents a risk to health and
environmental quality even when used and disposed of properly. Program efforts
focus on helping local residents, business owners and operators, and other
institutions (such as schools, hospitals and government agencies): use fewer and/or
less toxic materials (and generate less hazardous waste), properly use and store
hazardous materials, and properly dispose of hazardous wastes. 52
As demonstrated by the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program’s efforts,
public education is a key component to reducing the risks associated with a
hazardous materials release. Educating the public on the fundamentals of shelter-
in-place is also a key component. Citizens must know when, where, and how to
shelter-in-place effectively, as this response mechanism is key to saving lives in a
chemical emergency. Being aware and attentive of emergency officials and their
public safety directives during a hazardous materials release will help ensure the
protection of vulnerable populations and may lessen the economic impact of a
release to the business and industrial community.
50 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County: Working Together to Reduce
Hazardous Waste, http://www.govlink.org/hazwaste/about/
51 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, http://www.govlink.org/hazwaste/
51.5 2009 Office of Financial Management Washington, April 2009
52 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County: Working Together to Reduce
Hazardous Waste, http://www.govlink.org/hazwaste/about/
Attachment A
16715
Transportation
Substantive additions made for 2009
Introduction
Transportation systems available in King County include air, rail, water and road.
All of these systems and supporting transportation resources provide services on a
national, regional and local basis and are critical to local, regional, national and
international commerce. While highway traffic accidents are a daily occurrence,
transportation accidents with impacts to local commerce or resulting in
transportation diversions are fairly rare.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Transportation Probability and Transportation Impacts
Hazard Identification
King County is a transportation hub in the northwest. Major highways, air
transportation, railroad operations and a deep water marine port all exist in King
county.
Highways: Privately owned vehicles and local bus services traveling on area
freeways, highways and roads provide the primary means of transportation for
individuals in King County. The principal north-south arterials are Interstate 5 and
Interstate 405. Interstate 90, which connects Seattle with Spokane and points east,
is the most heavily traveled east-west corridor. US Highway 2 crosses the Cascade
Mountains in northeast King County at Steven’s Pass. The two Floating Bridges
over Lake Washington link Seattle to the eastern portion of the county as well as
eastern Washington, Idaho, Montana and other states.
Air Transportation: The largest airport in King County, for both passenger and cargo
traffic, is the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, where domestic and international
service is provided by several major airlines. Sea-Tac is the largest airport in
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-68
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-69
11/12/09
Washington and was ranked 17th in the United States for passenger carriage in
2008.53 (Updated 2009)
Sea-Tac generates substantial economic impacts to the region, as shown by the
total combined direct output of on-airport tenants and general aviation and air
carrier visitors, which was approximately $13.1 billion. Additionally, these
expenditures were responsible for approximately 89,902 jobs, generating $2.15
billion in wages. Sea-Tac also provides numerous secondary impacts to the King
County area through visiting passengers and airport-dependant firms, accounting
for 35,584 jobs and posting wages of $1.9 billion. The total employment impact of
Sea-Tac stands at approximately 138,370 earning $4.5 billion, while the sum total
impact of economic activity was $17.6 billion.54
Rail Transportation: Rail Carriers in this area include Burlington Northern – Santa
Fe and the Union Pacific for freight traffic, and Amtrak for passenger travel. North-
South railways travel along the coastline though much of King County. East-West
rail traffic primarily uses Steven’s Pass, traveling a 7-mile tunnel through the
Cascade Mountains. Sounder commuter rail service initially provided one-way
service during peak hours between Tacoma and Seattle on weekdays, while service
recently expanded to operate along the entire 82-mile track between Everett and
Lakewood.55 (Updated 2009)
Marine Transportation: As with other modes of transportation, there are both
passengers and cargo transported in King County. The Washington State Ferry
System provides the primary means of marine passenger transport in our region
with four ferry terminals located in the County jurisdiction. In 1995, 1256 different
ships made 3,619 calls to Puget Sound ports either through the Straits of Juan de
Fuca or the Straits of Georgia.56
Washington State Ferries is the largest ferry transit system in the United States and
one of the busiest, carrying over 24 million riders in 2008, and is the largest transit
system in Washington State, second only to King County Metro. Commuters make
up about 50% of the annual ridership, as exemplified by the busiest commuter
route, Bainbridge to Seattle, where 18,000 people are carried in an average day.57
(Updated 2009 ).
53 Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division Report on the Economic Impacts
of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2829F10B-E191-
4A7A-ABB0-E51D728E533E/0/NWR_SeaTac.pdf
54 Port of Seattle- SeaTac http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/2007activity.pdf ,
http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/business/EconomicImpact_20091.pdf
55 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment, Technological Hazards: Transportation Accidents,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/dem/techaz.htm
56 Washington State Office of Marine Safety, Vessel Entries and Transits for Washington Waters,
1995, p B2.
57 Washington State Ferries: An Introduction to the Largest Ferry System in the Nation,
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/pdf/WSFLargest.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-70
11/12/09
Additional water transport systems exist with the Port of Seattle and numerous
private marine facilities located on Puget Sound, Lake Union and Lake Washington,
which provide services and docking facilities for marine cargo and tanker traffic.
Transportation Impacts
The Puget Sound region is vulnerable to all types of transportation emergencies.
Growth in this region will continue to increase the risk of transportation accidents.
Highways: King County is likely to experience an increase of accidents along our
highways as congestion increases. Many accidents involve rain, high speeds, and
heavy traffic. These conditions are certainly not unique, as rain and fog are
common, especially during the winter months, while heavy traffic and high speeds
are common throughout the year. The bridges in King County play an important role
in commerce and in the daily commute. Thanksgiving Day weekend in 1990, a span
of the I-90 floating bridge over Lake Washington sank. While the span was replaced
and a second bridge built, traffic patterns were disrupted for two years.
Air Transportation: The Puget Sound region is vulnerable to two types of major air
transportation accidents. One is a crash involving a large passenger aircraft, while
the other is an airplane crash causing casualties on the ground. Despite the large
number of planes flying over heavily populated areas, the number of crashes killing
or injuring non-passengers is quite small. In general, crashes are most likely to
occur within five miles of an airport, typically along flight paths. The area within a
five mile radius of airports in the Puget Sound region are heavily populated and
therefore could result in a mass casualty event if a plane crashed in these areas,
even if the plane itself was not a passenger aircraft. Weather is a significant factor
in these air transportation accidents. Down bursts, thunderstorms, and ice are the
primary weather-related events that increase risk.
Sea-Tac Airport is becoming as congested as some of the nation’s major airports
including Chicago’s O’Hare and New York City’s Kennedy airports. Currently, King
County International Airport averages 400,000 flights per year while Sea-Tac is
reaching its design capacity with 347,046 (updated 2009) flights per year. 58 The
proximity of King County International Airport’s flight path also increases the risk.
The flight paths for these two airports overlap, increasing the risk of mid-air
collisions. With the completion of a third runway, congestion will be reduced, but
the total volume of flights over Seattle will probably increase, offsetting some of the
benefits of the reduced congestion.
58 City of Seattle Emergency Management, Human Caused Disasters: Aircraft Accidents Resource
Section July 2009 update,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/library/Haz%20Mit%20Plan%20Feb%2004.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-71
11/12/09
Rail Transportation: An accident involving an Amtrak train traveling through
Washington State could result in a mass casualty incident. However, the greatest
risk associated with freight trains is a spill of hazardous materials.59 Nevertheless,
with the development of Sound Transit, King County’s railway vulnerability will
increase, as new hazards may present themselves with the continued growth of this
light rail service.
Marine Transportation: In addition to the Puget Sound itself, the region contains
many smaller bodies of water. These areas are vulnerable to shipping and boating
accidents, as well as those involving ferries. Ferry accidents could result in a mass
casualty incident that may be difficult to address, though the United States Coast
Guard has the primary responsibility for safety and rescue on the open waterways.
Major emergencies associated with freight vessels though, are more likely to result
from spills or collisions with passenger vessels.
History of Events
Highway Accidents: King County has slowly increased in traffic related deaths
between 1998 and 2007, by about 2.5%.60 Over the course of 2007 170 traffic
deaths were reported. Past history also shows the potential for major incidents, like
a 42 car pileup that occurred in 1996, closing southbound Interstate 5 for four hours,
and was responsible for 23 injuries and one death.
Marine Accidents: It is fortunate that the Puget Sound region has not experienced a
major incident involving a Washington State Ferry, but with an examination of the
history of near misses or hard landings into docks, one can see that potential for a
fatal accident does exist. For example, two incidents in 1994 involved a ferry
running aground off Orcas Island, as well as a ferry colliding with a pleasure craft
while attempting to dock.61 Additionally, in the case of freight vessels, a Canadian
Study that examined past collisions, accidents, and groundings in the Straits of
Juan de Fuca, found that 56% involved bulk carriers, 12% involved container
vessels, 12% involved passenger vessels and 18% involved tankers. Tankers are
currently the most heavily regulated, as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska caused
Washington State to pass strict regulations on their usage.
Air Accidents: The last accident occurred on September 29, 2005 when a medical
helicopter crashed into the Puget Sound near Edmonds, killing three. Though
infrequent, accidents in other parts of the country allow us to examine the potential
vulnerabilities we face in this area. 58 In 1995 there were 175 deaths associated
59 Transportation accidents involving hazardous materials releases and spills are discussed in a
separate HIVA section.
60 Washington Traffic Safety Commission: Fatalities by County,
http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/research/data/data09/county_state_datatables98_07.pdf
61 Taken from 1997 King County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/news/2008/08123102.aspx
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-72
11/12/09
with large scheduled airline traffic and 732 deaths associated with general aviation
flights. King County is at risk for these threats, as the region experiences extensive
air traffic of both these types. SeaTac airport handles most of the scheduled airline
traffic while King County International Airport/Boeing Field handles most of the
general aviation traffic. A relatively minor commercial air traffic accident occurred
when a Dash 8 commuter plane lost control after landing at SeaTac International
Airport. It crashed into the terminal building causing some damage but no deaths or
service disruptions.
Rail Accidents: The Puget Sound region has not experienced a major rail accident
in recent history, however recent examples point to the potential for this hazard to
occur in King County. For example, a massive landslide in nearby Snohomish
County pushed five freight cars into Puget Sound, knocking out 100 yards of track.
Railroad-related fatalities, on the other hand, are generally the result of people
walking on or near railroad tracks. A 1994 statistic gathered that almost 75% of
railroad-related deaths were attributed to such a situation.62
Past Mitigation Efforts
The source and location of transportation accidents can vary widely but the
response is typically the same. Response is focused on determining the presence
or absence of hazardous materials and then assisting the injured. Local emergency
managers should work with transportation planners to mitigate current risks
associated with major transportation corridors. Additionally these agencies should
work together when planning new infrastructure such as the Regional Transit
Authority or a third runway at SeaTac Airport to minimize associated risks.
For any type of transportation accident, mitigation involves first and foremost, the
following of safety guidelines as well as using caution in unusual conditions or
situations. Inspections required on a regular basis on carriers, as well as
infrastructure like highways, airports, railroad, or marine systems must be carried
through as required by the regulations in place in order to prevent transportation
incidents. In addition, as new technology comes into being or new information is
gathered as to the cause of transportation accidents, regulations on safety and
maintenance need to be updated. 63
Additionally, local media outlets, as well as King County Department of
Transportation take care to keep the public updated of transportation-related
emergencies and resulting highway, airport, rail, or ferry delays and closures. The
Regional Public Information Network (RPIN) also provides the public with a central
source for breaking news by providing links to information being released by a
62 Taken from 1997 King County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment.
63 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment, Technological Hazards: Transportation Accidents,
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/dem/techaz.htm
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-73
11/12/09
variety of agencies and organizations in central Puget Sound, including those
incidents involving transportation accidents.64 Citizens can subscribe to RPIN to
stay abreast of breaking transportation news and other regional alerts.
64 Regional Public Information Network (RPIN), http://www.govlink.org/rpin/
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-74
11/12/09
Tsunami and Seiches
No substantive changes made in 2009
Introduction
Tsunami (soo-NAH-mee): a Japanese word that means harbor wave; a sea wave of
local or distant origin that results from large-scale seafloor displacements
associated with large earthquakes, major submarine slides, or exploding volcanic
islands. 65
Tsunamis, often incorrectly described as tidal waves, are sea waves usually caused
by displacement of the ocean floor. Typically generated by seismic or volcanic
activity or by underwater landslides, a tsunami consists of a series of high-energy
waves that radiate outward like pond ripples from the area in which the generating
event occurred. The arrival of tsunami waves is usually typified by a sudden and
unexpected recession of water; the first wave will be followed by additional waves a
few minutes or even a few hours later. Wave size typically increases over time, and
coastal flooding may often precede the largest waves.
Seiche (saysh): a series of standing waves (sloshing action) of an enclosed body or
partially enclosed body of water caused by earthquake shaking. Seiche action can
affect harbors, bays, lakes, rivers, and canals. 66
Tsunami and Seiche events occur only very infrequently in Puget Sound.
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Tsunami / Seiche Probability and Tsunami / Seiche Impacts
Hazard Identification
Normally caused by earthquake activity, tsunamis and seiches can affect harbors,
bays, lakes, rivers, and canals. In the majority of instances, earthquake-induced
65 Skagit County Natural Hazards Identification Plan,
http://www.skagitcounty.net/emergencymanagement/documents/2008hazplandraft/section%20ii%20f
inal%20documents/9%20hiva%20skagit%20tsunami%20and%20seichei.pdf
66 Skagit County Natural Hazards Identification Plan,
http://www.skagitcounty.net/emergencymanagement/documents/2008hazplandraft/section%20ii%20f
inal%20documents/9%20hiva%20skagit%20tsunami%20and%20seichei.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-75
11/12/09
events do not occur close to the epicenter of an earthquake, but hundreds of miles
away. Earthquake shock waves close to the epicenter consist of high frequency
vibrations, while those at much greater distances are of lower frequency. It is the
low frequency vibrations that move bodies of water. The biggest tsunamis and
seiches develop when the period of ground movement matches the frequency of
oscillation in the body of water.67
Not all earthquakes produce tsunamis. To generate a tsunami, an earthquake must
occur underneath or near the ocean, be very large (approximately Richter
magnitude 7 or greater), and create vertical movement of the sea floor. All oceanic
regions of the world can experience tsunamis, but in the Pacific Ocean there is a
much more frequent occurrence of large, destructive tsunamis because of the many
large earthquakes along the boundaries of the Pacific Ocean’s "Ring of Fire." 68
Tsunamis can be intensely powerful, as large Pacific Ocean tsunamis typically have
wave crest to wave crest distances of 60 miles and can travel about 600 miles per
hour in the open ocean, navigating the entire 12,000 to 14,000 miles of the Pacific
Ocean in just 24 hours. In deep ocean waters, the length from wave crest to wave
crest may be a hundred miles or more but only reaches a wave height of less than a
few feet. As a result, tsunamis cannot be felt aboard ships nor can they be seen
from the air in the open ocean. 69
Tsunamis and seiches can be generated by a number of sources:
1. Distant earthquakes along the Pacific Rim.
2. Local earthquakes, such as those generated by local surface faults, those
originating in the Benioff zone, or those that occur in the Cascadia
Subduction Zone off the coast.
3. Large landslides into bodies of water, such as Puget Sound or area lakes.
4. Submarine landslides in bodies of water like Puget Sound.70
67 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Emergency_Management/cemp_4-17-
07_draft.pdf
68 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Emergency_Management/cemp_4-17-
07_draft.pdf
69 Skagit County Natural Hazards Identification Plan,
http://www.skagitcounty.net/emergencymanagement/documents/2008hazplandraft/section%20ii%20f
inal%20documents/9%20hiva%20skagit%20tsunami%20and%20seichei.pdf
70 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-76
11/12/09
Either a large subduction zone quake off the coast or along the Seattle fault could
produce a tsunami, however, while a tsunami generated by a distant or Cascadia
subduction earthquake could result in much damage to the coast, it wouldn’t create
as great of an impact in King County. For in the case of a subduction zone quake, a
tsunami would travel from the coast through the Straight of Juan de Fuca into Puget
Sound, and then south to Seattle. Because of the shielding effects of the Olympic
Peninsula and the islands in Puget Sound, the tsunami expected from a magnitude
8.5 quake would be less then 2 feet high when it arrived at Seattle's shores, having
lost much of its’ velocity.71 As a result, primary concerns lie with a tsunami or
seiche generated by a land movement originating on the Seattle fault, which runs off
the northern end of West Seattle through Elliott Bay towards the Kingdome (which
was demolished on October 6, 2006 and replaced by the Safeco Field area) and
across toward Bellevue. 72
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s Center for
Tsunami Inundation Mapping Efforts developed a tsunami inundation model for
Seattle's Elliott Bay using a magnitude 7.3 Seattle Fault earthquake as an initiating
event (this model simulates the earthquake event 1,000 years ago, considered by
NOAA to be the credible worst-case scenario.) The area modeled includes
communities within one kilometer of the Puget Sound coast, such as portions of
Seattle, Riverton-Boulevard Park and White Center, and projects a potential at-risk
population of 11,056.73
For example, in addition to Lake Washington, Lakes Sammamish and Union have
many watercrafts, houseboats, docks, piers, houses and buildings located on or
close to their waterfronts. Our area floating bridges may also be at risk for seiche
damage. Additional vulnerabilities to seiche in King County include water storage
tanks and containers of liquid hazardous materials, which could be affected by the
rhythmic motion of a “sloshing” seiche.
Note: At the time of this 2009 Update, the Seattle Hazard Mitigation Plan is pending FEMA approval and is
not available for current citation references.
71 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
72 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
73 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
Attachment A
16715
Source: Peninsula Emergency Preparedness Committee, Pacific Northwest
Tsunamis Resource Section, http://www.pep-c.org/pacificnorthwesttsunamis/
Source: National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) 2007,
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/dart_buoys/ring_of_fire.html
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-77
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-78
11/12/09
Hazard Impact
Several factors could influence the size, shape, volume, and potential
destructiveness of a tsunami generated by the Seattle Fault. First, since Elliott Bay
and Puget Sound are shallow, there is less water to displace; therefore, a resulting
tsunami would be slower and have less volume than those generated in the deep
ocean. Second, Puget Sound's steeply sloping seabed tends to increase the
chance that a tsunami will break on the shore, thus potentially enhancing a
tsunami's destructiveness. Finally, the shape of Elliott Bay could increase damage
by funneling waves together, increasing wave height. The net result is unclear, as
the depth versus shape relationship of Elliot Bay is relatively unknown.74
Estimated recurrence rate of an earthquake on the Seattle fault of the size
necessary to generate a tsunami or seiche is estimated at once every 1,100 years.
Great earthquakes in the North Pacific or along the Pacific coast of South America
that generate tsunamis that sweep through the entire Pacific basin occur at a rate of
about six every 100 years.75
With regards to seiche threats, both Puget Sound and Lake Washington could
experience a seiche as they did in 1891, 1949 and 1964. In those years, there was
not as much development near the waterfront as there is now. As a result, since the
tsunami and seiche threats were not recognized until recently, most of the
structures located near the water were probably not engineered to withstand
them.76
The potential impact to bridges is expected to be minimal, since the Washington
State Department of Transportation anticipates that storm-generated wave forces
would exceed the force created by a small to moderate-sized tsunami. As to the
possibility of earthquake-induced liquefaction impacting bridge support, bridge
design assumes seismic effects to govern.77
Additional impacts from a tsunami include floating debris with the potential to batter
and damage inland structures. The sheer impact of the waves could even cause
breakwaters and piers to collapse. Ships moored in harbors would also be at risk,
as they could be swamped, sunk or left battered and stranded high on the shore. In
addition, railroad yards and oil tanks situated near the waterfront would also be
particularly vulnerable, as resulting oil fires are often spread by waves.
74 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
75 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf
76 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
77 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-79
11/12/09
Moreover, port facilities, fishing fleets, and public utilities are frequently the
backbone of the economy of the affected areas, and these are the very resources
that generally receive the most severe damage. Until debris can be cleared,
wharves and piers rebuilt, utilities restored, and the 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. For example, Port of Seattle
facilities and the Burlington Northern Railway tracks are likely to suffer damage
because of their proximity to the shore.78
A seiche could affect a larger area because of King County’s extensive shoreline,
and could also affect the floating bridges across Lake Washington. While, the
bridges have withstood waves up to eight feet, waves from a seiche could be much
larger. A seiche's rapid onset could also hamper the ability of motorists to exit the
bridge before it began.79 Additionally, the “sloshing” effect of a seiche could cause
damage to moored boats, piers and facilities close to the water. Secondary
problems, including landslides and floods, are related to accelerated water
movements and elevated water levels. Many landslide prone bluff areas are in
residential settings, so risk could be quite high in the event of a secondary seiche
threat.
History of Events
On average, the west coast of the United States experiences a damaging tsunami
every 18 years. Geologic evidence shows that the Cascadia Subduction Zone has
generated great earthquakes in the past, the most recent about 300 years ago. Any
large earthquake has the capability to generate a tsunami or severe seiche action.
Recent studies regarding the potential for a great Subduction zone earthquake off
the Washington, Oregon, and Northern California coastlines indicate that local
tsunami waves may reach nearby coastal communities within minutes of the
earthquake thereby giving little or no time to issue warnings.80
Local studies of the Seattle Fault indicate a potential for tsunamis. Scientists
interpret the evidence of irregular sand sheets in the Northern Puget Sound area
found at the West Point Sewer Treatment Plant, Alki, and Restoration Point on
Bainbridge as the result of a tsunami generated by an earthquake on the Seattle
fault about 1,000 years ago.81
78 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
79 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
80 Skagit County Natural Hazards Identification Plan,
http://www.skagitcounty.net/emergencymanagement/documents/2008hazplandraft/section%20ii%20f
inal%20documents/9%20hiva%20skagit%20tsunami%20and%20seichei.pdf
81 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-80
11/12/09
Similar evidence in Lake Washington sediments suggests a recurrence interval of
300 to 400 years. Several areas of the Seattle Fault show evidence of episodic
fault rupture of about 6 feet that could produce a tsunami. Continued studies of
Seattle Fault traces suggest that the fault may have ruptured in different segments
and at different times.82
Table 5-15: History of Tsunami and Seiche in King County
Year Conditions
A.D. 900-
930
A magnitude 7 or greater earthquake on the Seattle fault
created uplift on the floor of Puget Sound. The uplift
generated a tsunami that deposited a sand sheet at West
Point and the Duwamish Delta in Seattle. Computer
simulations showed the tsunami reached heights of 10
feet or more on the Seattle waterfront.
1891 Water in Lake Washington and Puget Sound surged onto
beaches two feet above the high water mark from two
earthquake shocks and submarine landslides. This
earthquake near Port Angeles also caused an eight-foot
seiche in Lake Washington.
1949 Both Lake Union and Lake Washington experienced
seiches during the 1949 earthquake (M7.1), but they did
no damage.
1964 The tsunami generated by the magnitude 9.2 Alaska
earthquake raised the water level 0.1 feet in Elliott Bay,
Seattle. Seiches damaged houseboats, buckled
moorings, and broke water and sewer lines in Lake
Union. However, the tsunami's effect was negligible in
Seattle because the complicated shoreline in Puget
Sound acted as a baffle for incoming ocean waves.
1965 Due to a local earthquake event (M6.5), sloshing action
was observed in area lakes.
2002 Seiches damaged houseboats, buckled moorings, and
broke water and sewer lines in Lake Union following an
Alaskan earthquake (Denali, M7.9).
Sources: Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 6,
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/Tab_4_Planning_Process.pdf;
City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche
Section, http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
82 City of Seattle Emergency Management Natural Hazards, Tsunami and Seiche Section,
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/tsunamiseiches.htm
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-81
11/12/09
Past Mitigation Efforts
Since it is known that the speed of tsunamis varies with water depth, the prediction
of tsunami arrival times at coastal locations is possible once the epicenter has been
determined. But it is not yet possible to predict the wave height at a specific coastal
location. Another indeterminable feature of a tsunami is how many successive
waves there will be in the series, although there is rarely only one. However, efforts
and programs exist to help mitigate the damage wrought by tsunamis and seiches,
especially by providing warnings to vulnerable areas.
The Tsunami Warning System (TWS) in the Pacific, comprised of 26 participating
international member states, monitors seismological and tidal stations throughout
the Pacific Basin. The System evaluates potentially tsunami-generating
earthquakes and disseminates tsunami warning information. The Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center (PTWC) is the operational center of the Pacific TWS. 83
The PTWC was instituted in 1948 following the extensive damage and loss of life in
Hawaii caused by a tsunami generated by the great Aleutian Islands earthquake of
1946. 84 The PTWC is comprised of member nations and states that seek to
coordinate tsunami detection and warning efforts within the area. The PTWC is
responsible for providing warnings to international authorities, Hawaii, and U.S.
territories within the Pacific basin.
Another mitigation program is the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center
(WC/ATWC), responsible for tsunami warnings for California, Oregon, Washington,
British Columbia, and Alaska. 85 The devastation associated with the 1964 Alaskan
earthquake and tsunami, led to the institution of the WC/ATWC in 1967. It serves
as the regional warning center for Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon
and California. This system is intended to detect, locate and calculate the
magnitude of earthquakes in the region as quickly as possible and issue warnings
to communities close to the epicenter.
The PTWC and WC/ATWC may issue the following bulletins:
WARNING: A tsunami was or may have been generated, which could cause
damage; therefore, people in the warned area are strongly advised to evacuate.
83 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Emergency_Management/cemp_4-17-
07_draft.pdf
84 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Emergency_Management/cemp_4-17-
07_draft.pdf
85 Peninsula Emergency Preparedness Committee, Tsunami Warning Resource Section,
http://www.pep-c.org/pacificnorthwesttsunamis/
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-82
11/12/09
This notification also gives time of arrival estimations to the vulnerable areas in
question.
WATCH: A tsunami was or may have been generated, but is at least two hours
travel time to the area in watch status. Local officials should prepare for possible
evacuation if their area is upgraded to a warning.
ADVISORY: An earthquake has occurred in the Pacific basin, which might generate
a tsunami. WC/ATWC and PTWC will issue hourly bulletins advising of the situation.
INFORMATION: A message with information about an earthquake that is not
expected to generate a tsunami. Usually only one bulletin is issued.86
Recent revelations about the potential for a great subduction zone earthquake off
the Washington, Oregon, and Northern California coastlines have led to several
studies about the effect of a local tsunami generated in this source area. FEMA
estimates that a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake-generated tsunami could
cost $25-125 billion in damages to the region. If one assumes that the tsunami
would cause 5% of these losses, then the tsunami losses would total between $1.25
and 6.25 billion. More significantly, the population directly at risk from a Cascadia
tsunami is significant. About 300,000 people live or work in coastal regions that
could be affected and at least as many tourists travel through these areas each
year. Some tourism and financial corporations already plan for and educate
employees about tsunamis. Others are interested but do not know where to begin
and are unaware of the potential losses in terms of lives, operations, and clients.87
Early warning, coupled with education of the affected populations, proper zoning,
and suitable structural design can aid in reducing the disastrous effect of this natural
hazard. If warning is received early enough (2 to 5 hours), which is possible for
tsunamis generated at a distance, hasty preventive action can be taken: people can
be evacuated, ships can clear harbors or seek safer anchorage, planes and rolling
stock can be moved, buildings can be closed, shuttered, and sandbagged. For
tsunamis generated by local events, however, the time from initiation of a tsunami to
its arrival at shore can be as little as a couple of minutes. Residents in areas
susceptible to tsunamis should be made aware of the need to seek high ground if
they feel strong ground shaking. Coastal communities should identify evacuation
routes even if they do not have good information about potential inundation areas.
86 American Red Cross Tsunami Resource Section,
http://www2.redcross.org/news/in/tsunamis/faq.asp
87 Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Emergency_Management/cemp_4-17-
07_draft.pdf
Attachment A
16715
Seiches that occur in King County also have the potential to cause property damage
and casualties. Although much work has been done on disaster preparedness for
the public, local governments, emergency planners and the citizenry need to
recognize the dangers and effects of seiches as an important component of the
earthquake/tsunami hazard.
Because King County is most vulnerable to tsunamis and seiches produced by a
local quake, comprehensive educational programs that keep the public informed of
the dangers and steps to be taken for personal protection are especially important.
In these instances, there may not be enough time between the triggering event and
the arrival of the first wave for effective warning.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-83
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Cyberterrorism
No substantive changes made in 2009
Introduction
Cyberterrorism presents a hazardous threat to our increasingly digital world. The
possibility of a major cyberterrorism attack in the United States would threaten
infrastructure, financial systems, and everyday computing across the nation and
here in Western Washington. Even more limited cyber infringement actions can
disrupt the lifestyle of Central Puget Region residents and the daily activities of
public, private, and nonprofit sector business and organizations, leading to
potentially costly outcomes.
Far from the generally understood Internet irritations like “spam” (unwanted email)
or “phishing” (email attempts to get the user to divulge private information like
account numbers), cyberterrorism is much more sinister enterprise – a convergence
of terrorism and cyberspace. By definition, it is generally understood to mean
unlawful attacks and threats of attack against computers, networks, and the
information stored therein when done to intimidate or coerce a government or its
people in furtherance of political or social objectives. 1 Examples include attacks
that lead to death or bodily injury, explosions, plane crashes, water contamination,
or severe economic loss.2
Cyberterror can take a variety of different forms including:
Internet worms or viruses: these internet “viruses” or “worms” can be used to shut
down programs, or even entire systems by hijacking email lists and address books.
Worms or viruses may also be used to target communication devices like cellular
phones or personal data assistants.
Phlooding: this new exploit targets businesses’ central authentication servers with
the goal of overloading them and causing a denial−of−service attack. These
simultaneous but geographically distributed attacks have targeted but are not
restricted to wireless access points with login requests using multiple password
combinations in what are known as dictionary attacks. The multiple requests create
a flood of authentication requests to the company’s authentication server, which
could slow down logins and potentially interfere with broader network operations,
since many different users and applications often validate themselves against the
same identity management system. Phlooding could effectively block broadband
VPN or firewall connections making it temporarily impossible for employees to
access their corporate network.3
System Threats: threats to various systems, new and antiquated, that power our
everyday operations. An example of a new threat would be one to the security of
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-84
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Voice-Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) processes, whose similarity to traditional data
systems may become attractive to attackers, impacting the public’s ability to utilize
emergency services, or limit the ability of public safety organizations to act quickly in
an emergency.4
Force Multiplier effects: Acts of cyberterror may also be used to multiply the impact
of a physical attack when executed in concert. For example, terrorists might try to
block emergency communications or cut off electricity or water in the wake of a
conventional bombing or a biological, chemical, or radiation attack would impact the
potential response capability for the initial attack. Many experts say that this kind of
coordinated attack might be the most effective use of cyberterrorism. 5 Also, with
much of the world becoming more web-savvy, terrorists are doing the same –
experts are warning against terrorists researching hacker tactics in efforts to use the
technology for their aims.6
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Cyberterrorism Probability and Cyberterrorism Impact
To understand the potential threat of cyberterrorism, two factors must be
considered: first, whether there are targets that are vulnerable to attack that could
lead to violence or severe harm, and second, whether there are actors with the
capability and motivation to carry them out.7
Although many of the weaknesses in computerized systems can be corrected, it is
effectively impossible to eliminate all of them. Even if the technology itself offers
good security, it is frequently configured or used in ways that make it open to attack.
In addition, there is always the possibility of insiders, acting alone or in concert with
other terrorists, misusing their access capabilities. 8 With American society
increasingly interconnected and ever more dependent on information technology,
terrorism experts worry that cyberterrorist attacks could cause as much devastation
as more familiar forms of terrorism.9
Cyberterrorism could involve destroying the actual machinery of the information
infrastructure; remotely disrupting the information technology underlying the
Internet, government computer networks, or critical civilian systems such as
financial networks or mass media. Cyberterror could also include using computer
networks to take over machines that control traffic lights, power plants, or dams in
order to wreak havoc on unsuspecting populations. 10
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-85
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Hazard Identification
While some people use the term “cyberterrorism” to refer to any major computer-
based attack on the U.S. government or economy, many terrorism experts would
not consider cyberattacks by glory-seeking individuals, organizations with criminal
motives, or hostile governments engaging in information warfare to be
cyberterrorism. Like other terrorist acts, cyberterror attacks are typically
premeditated, politically motivated, perpetrated by small groups rather than
governments, and designed to call attention to a cause, spread fear, or otherwise
influence the public and decision-makers. Terrorists try to leverage limited
resources to instill fear and shape public opinion, and dramatic attacks on computer
networks could provide a means to do this with only small teams and minimal funds.
“Virtual” attacks over the Internet or other networks allow attackers to be far away,
making borders, X-ray machines, and other physical barriers irrelevant.11
Acts of cyberterror can be used to disrupt our society and exploit our increasing
reliance on computers and telecommunication networks, threatening the electronic
infrastructure that supports computer networks tasked to regulate the flow of power,
water, financial services, medical care, telecommunication networks, and
transportation systems. The public and private sectors' unprecedented dependence
on information and communications systems, computers, and networks, must
recognize that networks are vulnerable to attack from any source. Also, the ability
to distinguish a singular hacker-type incident from a cyberterrorist attack may not be
readily evident, as tools for conducting cyberterrorism are widely available, broadly
advertised, and easily used. Potential attackers only require access to a computer
and a telecommunications network. 12
As assessed by the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Irregular Warfare at the
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, cyberterror capability can be
described as:
Simple-Unstructured: The capability to conduct basic hacks against individual
systems using tools created by someone else. The organization possesses little
target analysis, command and control, or learning capability.13
Advanced-Structured: The capability to conduct more sophisticated attacks against
multiple systems or networks and possibly, to modify or create basic hacking tools.
The organization possesses an elementary target analysis, command and control,
and learning capability. 14
Complex-Coordinated: The capability for coordinated attacks capable of causing
mass-disruption against integrated, heterogeneous defenses (including
cryptography). Ability to create sophisticated hacking tools. Highly capable target
analysis, command and control, and organization learning capability. 15
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-86
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Hazard Impacts
Cyber-attacks against computer systems could potentially shut down radio,
telephone, and computer networks used to control and manage city or regional
services, potentially resulting in loss of those services or the inability to properly
dispatch public safety and other personnel to the scenes of crimes or physical
terrorist attacks.16
Attacks on physical components of our information infrastructure could resemble
other conventional attacks: for example, a bomb could be used to destroy a
government computer bank, key components of web-based infrastructure, or even
telephone switching equipment. Attacks could also involve remotely hijacking
control systems in efforts to breach dams, impact air traffic, or shut down the power
grid.17
Attacks launched in cyberspace could involve diverse methods of exploiting
vulnerabilities in computer security: viruses, stolen passwords, insider assistance,
software with secret “back doors” that intruders can penetrate undetected, and
organized electronic traffic used to overwhelm computers – known as “denial of
service” attacks are known to have occurred. Attacks could also involve stealing
classified files, altering the content of Web pages, disseminating false information,
sabotaging operations, erasing data, or threatening to divulge confidential
information or system weaknesses unless a payment or political concession is
made. If terrorists managed to disrupt financial markets or media broadcasts, an
attack could undermine confidence or instill public panic. 18
History of Events
Like other governments and businesses across the nation, the Central Puget Sound
Region relies heavily on computers and networks to conduct its normal business.
Some local examples include an attack of the SQL Slammer worm on January 25,
2003, which rendered the police computer-aided dispatch system of a Seattle
suburb inoperable for several hours and stopped some bank ATM networks
nationwide. Also, in August 2003, the MSBlaster and Nachi worms compromised
Windows computers worldwide, including many within the City of Seattle
government. 19
Some attacks are conducted to further political and social objectives, as the
following events illustrate:
• In 1996, a computer hacker allegedly associated with the White Supremacist
movement temporarily disabled a Massachusetts ISP and damaged part of
the ISP's record keeping system. The ISP had attempted to stop the hacker
from sending out worldwide racist messages under the ISP's name. The
hacker signed off with the threat, "you have yet to see true electronic
terrorism. This is a promise." 20
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-87
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
• In 1998, Spanish protestors bombarded the Institute for Global
Communications (IGC) with thousands of bogus e-mail messages. E-mail
was tied up and undeliverable to the ISP's users, and support lines were tied
up with people who couldn't get their mail. Protestors spammed IGC staff
and member accounts, clogged their Web page with bogus credit card
orders, and threatened to employ the same tactics against organizations
using IGC services. They demanded that IGC stop hosting the Web site for
the Euskal Herria Journal, a New York-based publication supporting Basque
independence. Protestors said IGC supported terrorism because a section
on the Web pages contained materials on the terrorist group ETA, which
claimed responsibility for assassinations of Spanish political and security
officials, and attacks on military installations. IGC finally relented and pulled
the site. 21
• In 1998, ethnic Tamil guerrillas swamped Sri Lankan embassies with 800 e-
mails a day over a two-week period. The messages read "We are the
Internet Black Tigers and we're doing this to disrupt your communications."
Intelligence authorities characterized it as the first known attack by terrorists
against a country's computer systems. 22
• During the Kosovo conflict in 1999, NATO computers were blasted with e-
mail bombs and hit with denial-of-service attacks by hacktivists protesting the
NATO bombings. In addition, according to reports, businesses, public
organizations, and academic institutes received highly politicized virus-laden
e-mails from a range of Eastern European countries. Web defacements
were also common. Also, after the Chinese Embassy was accidentally
bombed in Belgrade, Chinese hacktivists posted messages such as "We
won't stop attacking until the war stops!" on U.S. government Web sites. 23
• Since December 1997, the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT) has been
conducting Web sit-ins against various sites in support of the Mexican
Zapatistas. At a designated time, thousands of protestors point their
browsers to a target site using software that floods the target with rapid and
repeated download requests. EDT's software has also been used by animal
rights groups against organizations said to abuse animals. Electrohippies,
another group of hacktivists, conducted Web sit-ins against the WTO when
they met in Seattle in late 1999. These sit-ins all require mass participation
to have much effect, and thus are more suited to use by activists than by
terrorists. 24
While the above incidents were motivated by political and social reasons, whether
they were sufficiently harmful or frightening to be classified as cyberterrorism is
unknown as no attack thus far has led to violence or injury to persons, although
some may have wreaked intimidation or inconvenience.25
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-88
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-89
11/12/09
Past Mitigation Efforts
Mitigation efforts against the threat of cyberterrorism are being addressed in
trainings, workshops, and exercises taking place in the Central Puget Region and in
national and global forums. Locally, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region
(PNWR) is convening scenario training on cyberterror for public and private entities.
Exercises like “Blue Cascades” strive to harden infrastructure against potential
attacks by examining vulnerabilities to our electrical, water, financial, and other
computerized systems.26 Per the recommendations of this exercise, a Cyber
Security Council was formed to help lend advice on the direction of cyber security
efforts in the region.27
Further efforts against cyberterror include the dedication and collaboration of public
and private organizations in achieving cohesive and updated internet and network
security applications. Like any mitigation effort against terrorism, organizations
guarding against cyber attacks must remain vigilant and informed.
1 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
2 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
3 “New Wireless “Zero-Day” Attack Discovered” by IT Observer Staff, IT Observer, http://www.it-
observer.com/new-wireless-zero-day-attack-discovered.html
4 VoIP security chief warns of increased security threats, Networking Pipeline,
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleI D=160700231
5 Terrorism Questions and Answers, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/terrorism/cyberterrorism.html
6 “Terrorists copying hacker tactics”, TechWeb, http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/167100173#_
7 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
8 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
9 Terrorism Questions and Answers, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/terrorism/cyberterrorism.html
10 Terrorism Questions and Answers, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/terrorism/cyberterrorism.html
11 Terrorism Questions and Answers, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/terrorism/cyberterrorism.html
12 http://emd.wa.gov/3-map/a-p/hiva/25-hiva-th-terrorism.htm
13 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
14 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-90
11/12/09
15 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
16 City of Seattle Office of Emergency Management, Terrorism;
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/terrorism.htm
17 Terrorism Questions and Answers, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/terrorism/cyberterrorism.html
18 City of Seattle Office of Emergency Management, Terrorism;
http://www.seattle.gov/emergency/hazards/terrorism.htm
19“Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/inosec/cyberterror.html
20 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
21 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
22 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
23“Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
24 “Cyberterrorism” by Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University; Testimony before the Special
Oversight Panel on Terrorism Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives, May
23, 2000, http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
25 “Dozens of Experts Take on Cyberterror”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/190473_cyberterror13.html
26 Puget Sound Partnership Update, http://www.psp.wa.gov/
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-91
11/12/09
Dam / Dam Safety
New section in 2009
Introduction
As of the writing of this portion of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (early
October 2009), the data contained in this section was current. It should be
understood, however, that the Howard Hanson Dam issue was evolving as this
document was created. As such, information was changing daily, and the data
contained in this section may no longer be correct or valid. Individuals should
not rely on this data, but should view it as a demonstration of a summary of
potential impacts. Anyone seeking current information should check with the
Army Corps of Engineers directly.
In Washington State, dam safety concerns were part of the normal water-rights
duties in the state departments of Conservation and Development of Water
Resources. In 1970, dam safety regulations were transferred to newly-created
State Department of Ecology. In the early 1980s, a separate Dam Safety
Program was formed to concentrate on dam issues, primarily in response to the
National Dam Safety Act in 1977. In 1980, Ecology’s Dam Safety Office was
reorganized and initiated its first long-range planning for improving dam security
in Washington. To reasonably secure the safety of human life and property,
Ecology also conducts inspections of existing dams to assure proper operation
and maintenance for 994 of the 1121 dams inventoried across the state. 1
The King County Flood Control District was formed by King County Ordinance
15728 in April 2007. 2 More information on this is located in Section 3,
Regional Profile, of this Plan, under Flood Control District and Flood Warning
Center, and their association and relationship.
For the 2009 Plan update, the King County Flood Control District has provided
a very detailed assessment and risk analysis of six major river basins in King
County and is located in Section 6 of this Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. This
detailed documentation includes land use, structures, estimating potential
losses, development trends, and repetitive loss properties, as available. 2, 2.5
The Howard Hanson Dam and subsequent increased risk of Green River
flooding impacts downstream will be the main focus of this plan section.
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-92
11/12/09
High Probability
Low Impact
High Probability
Moderate Impact
High Probability
High Impact
Moderate Probability
Low Impact
Moderate Probability
Moderate Impact
Moderate Probability
High Impact
Low Probability
Low Impact
Low Probability
Moderate Impact
Low Probability
High Impact
Dam / Dam Safety Probability and Dam / Dam Safety Impacts
Hazard Identification
There are 122 dams in King County, or 10.90% of the 1121 dams in the state.
Not all of the dams have oversight from the State Department of Ecology such
as the United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) managed Howard A.
Hanson Dam exempted from Washington State regulation by WAC173-175-
020. 1
Howard A. Hanson Dam is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control dam
located near the headwaters of the Green River in King County. Its primary
purpose is flood control in the winter and fish enhancement in the summer.
Because the dam is located in a closed watershed, public access is not permitted. 3
The Howard Hanson Dam has been categorized in the July 2009 State Ecology’s
“Inventory of Dams” publication as 1A – High Risk, for downstream hazard class IF
the dam were to fail and release the reservoir. 1 The dam is not in immediate
danger of failing, but there is an increased risk to the downstream
communities. 3
The 2009 Green River flooding hazard is addressed with more likelihood of
occurring or presents a significant impact if it does. Serious flooding may occur
in some areas of King County this 2009 winter, and for the next three to five
years until the Howard Hanson repairs are made. Homes, farms and
businesses in the Green River Valley are particularly at risk. 3
King County has four major dams that would cause a countywide emergency IF
they should fail. These dams are located on the Tolt, Cedar, White, and Green
rivers. Certain areas of King County would also be adversely affected by
failures of the White River Project located in Pierce County or the Jackson
Project located in Snohomish County. Additionally, localized problems could
occur if one of the minor dams in the county failed. 5
Many of the County’s levees were constructed by farmers more than 40 years
ago to protect their fields. Now these facilities protect homes, businesses, and
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-93
11/12/09
critical public infrastructure such as utilities and transportation corridors that
support the region’s economic prosperity. 6
History of Events
An in-depth write up on the King County Flood Control District can be located in
Section 3, and the associated Flood Warning Center detailed information is
included in Section 5, Flooding, Past / Present Mitigation.
Howard A. Hanson Dam
The Howard A. Hanson Dam is the primary focus of this dam hazard section at this
writing in September 2009.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has discovered damage to a
portion of the Howard Hanson Dam in early 2009. This dam has controlled
flooding in the Green River Valley since 1962, for nearly 50 years. However the
dam will only operate at 30% capacity this winter, 2009, and possibly for an
additional 3-5 years. Therefore, there is a much greater risk of significant
flooding during periods of heavy rain throughout the lower Green River Valley,
affecting the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and south Seattle and
surrounding infrastructure. 5.5
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of evaluating two
depressions and seepage issues -- discovered following the January 2009
floods -- on the right abutment adjacent to the Corps' Howard Hanson Dam,
which provides flood risk reduction and water storage on the Green River.
Until investigations and cumulative assessments can be completed, the Corps
of Engineers determined it would be prudent to lower the maximum pool level
for flood storage from a reservoir elevation of 1,206 feet above sea level to a
lower level. Howard Hanson Dam presents no immediate danger of
catastrophic failure to people and property below the dam. However, risk of
flooding for those living in the Green River Valley is higher until operational
capacity can be raised. 3
USACE is actively testing and investigating the source of the problems and
trying to identify solutions. The USACE has significantly reduced the water
storage levels at the Dam and is taking a number of steps to try and minimize
the flood risk. However, the USACE does not anticipate a full solution to the
problems with the Dam by this flood season. 5.5
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-94
11/12/09
An established Green River Flood Control Zone District, which is separate from
King County Government, a King County Flood Warning System, and the King
County Flood Warning Center all working towards the upcoming flood season.
The cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, Seattle, King County government
agencies, and many others are also working closely with the USACE to prepare
for the 2009 flood season. 5.5
The USACE has advised King County and cities in the Green River Valley that
the dam cannot operate at full capacity and to prepare for possible flooding if
water into the Howard Hanson Dam exceeds 12,000 cubic feet per second.
Flows in the river reached above that level 15 times between 1932 and 1962
when the dam started operating. Calculations estimate flows would have
exceeded that level 17-20 times since 1962 without the dam. 7
The USACE has placed restrictions on the pool (water) elevation and will
continuously reassess the pool restrictions as conditions change. While the
dam is not in immediate danger of failing, there is an increased risk to the
downstream communities. 3
Should a major flood event occur with the temporary restrictions on the pool
level for flood storage, it is possible that levees in the lower valley could be
overtopped. The Corps will continuously reassess the pool restriction as
conditions change and may raise or change the restriction on pool elevation
after careful deliberation. 3
Hazard Impacts
Higher risk to the Howard Hanson Dam is due to water seeping more rapidly
through an earthen bank next to the dam after record high water last winter,
January 2009. Until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) can make
repairs, it must limit the amount of flood water it stores behind the dam. 4
If heavy and prolonged rain occurs this flood season (roughly October through
March 2009 - 2010), many homes and businesses in the valley that don't
typically see flood water--including parts of Auburn, Kent, Renton, South Seattle
and Tukwila--could be flooded. 4
Since January, the Corps’ Seattle District has been working in partnership with
King County and the cities in the Green River Valley to warn residents and
businesses of the increased risk for downstream flooding due to decreased
water holding capacity at Howard Hanson Dam. Residents, businesses and
farms below the Howard Hanson Dam in the Green River Valley are being
asked to prepare now for a higher risk of flooding. 4
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-95
11/12/09
Evacuations in some communities are possible and preparedness planning is
on-going. Key transportation routes and transit service could be disrupted,
vehicles and buses could be damaged, and power outages and sewage back-
ups are possible even outside the immediate flood zone. 6
Major flood disasters can also destroy critical communications and public safety
infrastructure and strain police, fire, and medical services throughout the entire
region. 6
Economic Impacts
The economic impacts to urban areas during a potential Green River Valley
flooding are high. 6,7
According to the independent analysis, prepared by ECONorthwest, Inc., the
Pacific Northwest’s largest economics consulting firm, one third of the county’s
aerospace employment is located in the floodplains. Overall, one fifth of King
County’s total manufacturing employment lies within floodplains, primarily in
and around the cities of Auburn, Kent and Renton. 6,7
The study also noted that while only 2 percent of King County’s population lives
in the floodplain, roughly 6 percent of the county’s jobs are located within
floodplains, or 65,000 jobs with wage and salary income of $3.7 billion. Property
in King County’s floodplains is valued at more than $7 billion. 6,7
Expert economists are predicting that a shutdown of economic activity in King
County’s floodplains would cost the region $46 million or more every day, and
could curtail everything from aircraft manufacturing to bustling warehouse
distribution centers. 8
The $46 million figure does not include the loss of economic output from
businesses that are located outside the floodplains that rely on goods and
services produced by businesses inside floodplain areas, or the value of
damaged or destroyed property or equipment. The $46 million in lost economic
output for every day of flooding is a conservative estimate. 6,7
While it is estimated the Green River Valley generates almost $46 million of
economic activity per day, and a major flood could cause up to $3 billion in
damages. Approximately 26,000 residents and 3000 businesses would have to
be evacuated from the lower Valley and several hundred more who live in the
unincorporated upper Green River Valley if a flood is anticipated. 6,7
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-96
11/12/09
Past / Present Mitigation Efforts
King County created a King County Flood Control District (Ordinance No. 15728)
in April 2007. The Flood Control District has an association with the Flood
Warning Center, and is referenced in the Plan as stated above. 8
Howard A. Hanson Dam, specific mitigation efforts in 2009
The Flood Control District completed repairs to 9,300 linear feet of Green
River levees at five high-priority points in 2008. In partnership with the Army
Corps, it is currently completing repairs to 2,200 linear feet of levees in Kent
and two low spots near Auburn. The District is preparing to replace 18,000
linear feet of levees at 14 sites along the Green River in 2010. 7
The King County Executive has requested in mid-September 2009
$8.4 million to temporarily increase the height of Green River levees and for
other items to increase flood fighting capabilities. 7
Additionally, in mid-September 2009, the King County Executive has
requested more than $32 million to plan and provide for continuity of regional
services such as Superior Court, elections, animal control, wastewater
treatment and public health. This amount will also help protect county facilities
such as the Maleng Regional Justice Center, the South Wastewater Treatment
Plant in Renton and the Black River Pump Station. 7
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced by Press Release on
September 22, 2009 that it will purchase and pre-position flood fighting
supplies and materials for the Green River Valley in preparation of the
upcoming flood season. 4
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is constructing a grout curtain within the
abutment of the dam to reduce seepage through a critical area of concern, as
well as performing drainage improvement work to route water into the
drainage tunnel. Work is expected to be done by Nov. 1, 2009. 4
The USACE, Seattle District, will continue to evaluate reservoir operations at
Howard Hanson Dam to reduce downstream flows as interim risk reduction
work is completed and tested. 4
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will support and augment state and local
efforts to include: 4
o Purchase approximately 400,000 sand bags and 45,000 lineal
feet of expedient flood barrier products.
o Pre-position flood fighting materials within the Seattle District
and make them available for loan to protect river levees and
ensure that these materials are available if further flooding
occurs, well in advance of flood conditions.
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-97
11/12/09
o Continue to provide technical assistance to the state and local
agencies, including continuous review of flood risk,
identification of additional actions based on changing field
conditions, and advice and/or recommendations for the
proposed secondary protection measures.
o Work with U.S. Geological Survey and the National Weather
Service to investigate immediate improvements of early flood
warning systems. 4
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will continue to work with the State of
Washington, King County and their Congressional Delegation to look at
additional options to assist Green River Valley. “The Corps is committed to
ensuring safety of the Green River Valley residents.” 4
The USACE has placed restrictions on the pool (water) elevation and will
continuously reassess the pool restrictions as conditions change. The dam
is not in immediate danger of failing, there is an increased risk to the down
stream communities. 3
Should a major flood event occur with the temporary restrictions on the pool
level for flood storage, it is possible that levees in the lower valley could be
overtopped. The Corps will continuously reassess the pool restriction as
conditions change and may raise or change the restriction on pool elevation
after careful deliberation. 3
Dam / Dam Safety Endnotes:
1 State Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, Dam Safety Section, Inventory of
Dams in the State of Washington, July 2009, Publication #94-16,
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/94016.pdf
2 2.5 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan, King Department of Natural Resources and
Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Final, January 2007,
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/flooding/documents/flood-hazard-
management-plan.aspx
3 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USACE website, 909, http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/
4 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Seattle District Press Release, Casondra Brewster,
Public Affairs Specialist, September 22, 2009, http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/
5 King County Office of Emergency Management, Hazards and Disasters, website
http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/prepare/residents_business/Hazards_Disasters/DamFailur
es.aspx
5.5 Public Health Seattle & King County (PHSKC) September 3, 2009, Bulletin
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/preparedness/greenriverbasin.aspx
6 Economic Connections Between the King County Floodplains and the Greater King County
Economy, Prepared for King County Water and Land Resources Division, ECONorthwest, October
2007,
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: HIVA Page 5-98
11/12/09
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/dnrp/newsroom/newsreleases/2007/october/1024Floodplain
s.aspx
7 King County website, King County Executive News, September 17, 2009
http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/news/release/2009/September/14GovFloodEvent.aspx
8 King County website, King County Natural Resources and Parks, October 24, 2007
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/dnrp/newsroom/newsreleases/2007/october/1024Fl
oodplains.aspx
Lots more information is available on the USACE, King County, KC Flood Control District websites
and others listed above about Howard Hanson Dam and the Green River Valley potential flooding.
Attachment A
16715
Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment, Risk Analysis
and Capabilities
New Sections Included for 2009; Crosswalk Section #8
Critical Facilities
Public Disclosure
This section of the RHMP seeks to describe facilities critical to the continued
function and service delivery of cities, utilities, school districts, fire agencies, and
King County Government. Many of the critical facilities referenced in this section
may be considered as potential terrorist targets. For this reason, the List of specific
critical facilities described in “Annex G - Critical Facilities” is not subject to public
disclosure under the Federal Privacy Act.
Planning Methodology
All public and private facilities are vulnerable to the natural hazards common to the
Northwest - high winds, earthquakes, power outages, and flooding. An increased
risk of flooding is possible to a great extent from January 2009 and beyond for up to
three to five years due to the Howard Hanson Dam situational awareness and
potential flooding impacts to the Green River Valley until the Dam repairs are made.
Additionally, there are many critical facilities and infrastructures that can also be
vulnerable to civil disturbances and terrorism.
For this planning period, the RHMP participants focused their priority on identifying
those facilities and infrastructures necessary for their organization to provide critical
community services during and after hazard events. They also identified facilities
they depend on outside of their organization, as well as those they need to support.
It became immediately apparent that there was significant crossover among the
disciplines in identifying common critical facilities they operate and/or rely on.
Agencies utilized the six major goals and objectives in Section 1 of this Plan as a
method to help to identify and prioritize critical facilities.
Because the focus is limited to a small number of 2009 participating agencies, there
is significant amount of work to be done in the future to build upon this foundation.
In order to develop a comprehensive assessment of all regional critical facilities,
infrastructures, and interrelationships it will be necessary to gain more widespread
involvement in the planning process. This is one of the objectives tied to Goals Five
and Six of the Plan.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Critical Facilities Inventory – Cities in King County
The publicly-owned infrastructure identified as critical to the functioning of a
community are described as those with the potential for human casualties or
substantial monetary impact from catastrophic loss.
Cities are the most complex of the jurisdiction types participating in this regional
hazard mitigation planning effort. Each city is different; some contract for police
services, and/or fire services, and/or public works functions, while others do not.
In some cases, special purpose districts or cities own their own water treatment and
distribution and/or sewer treatment facilities.
Whether owned or leased, all cities identified their city hall locations as critical
facilities. Of near equal importance, jurisdictions included police, fire and medical
facilities in their essential/critical facilities inventory. Community centers and senior
centers were also included.
Certain cities chose to identify facilities critical to the community but outside their
direct control. In the later category were schools, hospitals, important transportation
intersections or bridges, and both water and sewer utilities. A few cities recognized
the importance of communications facilities within their boundaries.
Critical Facilities Inventory – Fire Districts in King County
Fire jurisdictions have a fairly focused mission - fire suppression and basic life-
support response. Fire personnel may be called upon to direct evacuations, perform
rescue operations as well, and provide hazardous materials response.
All fire jurisdictions acknowledge the importance of their fire stations and major
apparatus as critical to their ability to maintain their life safety missions. A few fire
agencies recognized the importance of particular transportation intersections and
bridges to evacuation routes. Medical facilities, public education facilities, and major
hazardous materials facilities or pipelines in a jurisdiction were also identified as
critical. Most fire jurisdictions included public education as an integral part of their
agency services.
Critical Facilities – Utilities in King County
Utilities in the King County region identified the infrastructure owned by their own
various utility districts based on the criticality of those facilities on their own direct
operations. The impact of a disaster to safety and utility property could have an
impact to other public safety agencies.
These special-purpose districts provide the essential service of water and sewer to
the communities served throughout the region. There is a strong association and
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
mandate that the water districts provide the essential fire protection service to the
fire districts. This is evermore a challenge during a major hazardous event.
Both water and sewer districts identified their service lines, and pump and lift
stations in their critical facilities inventory. For some cities, such as Mercer Island,
and water districts in particular interlink to the larger Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) as
their main water, and sometimes only, resource is important. The interlinking of the
water system through districts has proven to be essential in providing uninterrupted
services throughout the region. A few of the districts noted the essential nature of
the office and maintenance buildings. Far more critical were the telemetry and data
relays providing operational status for the whole of each system. With power failure
it becomes quite a challenge to determine the operational working of the system.
Critical Facilities – King County Government
King County Government has a wide range of facility types that are critical to public
health and safety. These include facilities that directly or indirectly support police
services, health care, road maintenance, and adult and juvenile detention. The
County includes district and superior court service locations as well as a wide range
of administrative and licensing service facilities in its list of critical facilities.
Critical Facilities – 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
(new in 2009, pages 6-3 to 6-22)
For the 2009 Plan update, critical facilities have been identified by the King County
Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division
for the six major river basins in King County. Documentation is located in Annex G,
and this information is not subject to public disclosure under the Federal Privacy
Act.
Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
The following section discusses the risk and vulnerability of the flood hazard within
the King county planning area. This is a detailed perspective of this hazard that
looks at risk in two components:
• Exposure
• Vulnerability
It should be noted that this level of detailed risk assessment has only been
completed for the flood hazard. This is due to the availability of data for the flood
hazard, which was not available for the other hazards of concern addressed by this
Plan. The tool utilized to perform this risk assessment was FEMA’s HAZUS-MH
(version MR-3). The other hazards of concern will be updated is similar format to
the following flood risk assessment under Phase 2 of the planning process
described in Section 2, and Section 4, of this Plan.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-3
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in
response to the rising cost of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and
the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally
backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in
communities participating in the program. To participate in the NFIP, communities
are required to adopt flood damage prevention ordinances that equal or exceed
standards specified under section 60.3, Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Participating communities are required to maintain compliance under
the NFIP by enforcing their codes and regulations as written, and ensuring that all
development that occurs within a FEMA designated floodplain is permitted.
King County has been participating in the NFIP since September 28, 1978. King
County has maintained its status in the NFIP since 1978 by implementing one of the
strongest floodplain management programs in the County. As the nation’s second
highest rated CRS community, and its highest rated County, King County has
shown a commitment to sound floodplain management policy. Two agencies within
King County government assume the responsibility for implementing the County’s
floodplain management program:
• Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES)
• Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources
Division (WLRD)
DDES monitors and maintains the regulatory component of the NFIP, while the
WLRD monitors both the structural and non-structural floodplain management
components for the County. Both of these agencies are fully committed to
maintaining the County’s compliance and good standing under the NFIP, and well
as their CRS class 2 rating by assuring their floodplain regulations continue to
exceed the minimum NFIP standards and that development that occurs in the
floodplain is consistent with the adopted regulations. King County is also a
Cooperating Technical Partner with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
prepare and update flood insurance rate maps using the best available floodplain
data. King County’s active flood mitigation program purchases or elevates
structures located within the floodplain to reduce or permanently eliminate flood
damages with a particular focus on properties that are identified as repetitive loss
properties under the NFIP. King County also receives CRS credit for the wide range
of public outreach activities to floodplain property owners about the danger of living
in a floodplain and how they can prepare, respond and recover from flooding.
Finally, the 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan is King County’s
CRS plan of record and is maintained in accordance with the CRS planning
guidelines.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-4
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-5
11/12/09
NFIP Repetitive Loss Properties
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) defines repetitive loss properties as
properties that have had two or more flood insurance claims of at least $1000 each
in any 10-year period since 1978. In 2004, King County had 68 repetitive loss
properties of which 55 were unmitigated. In 2009 King County has 87 repetitive
loss properties of which 58 are unmitigated. Of the 58 unmitigated repetitive loss, 13
are considered severe repetitive loss properties which means they have had had
four or more claims of more then $5,000 or two or three claims that cumulatively
exceed the buildings value.
For 2009, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and
Land Resources Division included repetitive loss information in the following section
for the six major river basins in King County.1
Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Analysis for Flood Hazards
The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land
Resources Division provided a hazard identification and vulnerability analysis for the
for the six major river basins for the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2009 Plan update. Section 5 of this Plan identified flood hazards and this Section 6
evaluates the exposure and impact to the economy from flooding using the HAZUS-
MH MR3 risk assessment tool. Section 6 also identifies land use, development
trends, and repetitive loss properties for each of the six major King County river
basins listed in Table 6.1.
Note: The 2004 Table 6-1 has been deleted in 2009 in its entirety and replaced in
2009 with Table 6.1: Six Major King County River Basins, September, 2009. 1
Table 6-1: Six Major King County River
Basins 1
South Fork Skykomish River
Snoqualmie River
Sammamish River
Cedar River
Green River
White River
1
Attachment A
16715
SOUTH FORK SKYKOMISH RIVER BASIN
Flood Hazard Profile on the South Fork Skykomish River
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.
There is currently no functioning U.S. Geological Survey river gage along the South
Fork Skykomish in King County or the Town of Skykomish, although the U.S.
Geological Survey has had several river gages in the King County portion of the
Skykomish River basin in the past. A gage on the South Fork Skykomish near
Index (USGS #12133000) recorded data from 1897 to 1982. The flow frequencies
listed for the South Fork Skykomish near Index are based on this period of record.
The closest available flow measurements are taken downstream in Snohomish
County at the Skykomish River near Gold Bar gage (USGS #12134500). Although
a U.S. Geological Survey gage on the mainstem of the Skykomish River exists
(USGS #12134500), the flows reflect the flow estimates derived from a hydrologic
study of the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers.
South Fork Skykomish River Flows
Discharge (cubic feet per second) Recurrence
Interval (years) South Fork Skykomish near Indexa Skykomish River at Gold Barb
10 44,300 75,300
50 65,200 106,100
100 74,700 119,300
500 98,500 149,900
FEMA 2005.
Flow estimates based on hydrologic analysis for the Lower Snoqualmie and Skykomish
River Revised Flood Insurance Study (Draft, 2005).
Flood Characteristics of the South Fork Skykomish River Basin
The tables below summarize observed flooding characteristics typical for this basin.
Understanding the potential flood conditions for a specific area enables the County
to identify mitigation alternatives appropriate for the level of risk for that stream or
reach. None of the flood events so far have surpassed the 100-year flood flow at
the Goldbar gage. Observed flooding depths for this basin vary from less than 1
foot to 6 feet. King County considers the South Fork Skykomish River to have
channel migration potential, and regulates this region under the channel migration
zone provisions of the King County Critical Areas Ordinance.
King County provides no flood warning on the South Fork Skykomish River System.
The only available flow data is collected near the City of Goldbar in Snohomish
County, which is significantly downstream from hazard areas in King County. The
available data is not useful for providing flood warning to residents in these areas.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-6
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
South Fork Skykomish River Basin Flow Characteristics
Gage
Location
USGS Station
Number
River
Mile
Drainage Area
(square miles)
100-Year Flow
(cfs)
Flood of Record,
Date & Peak Flow (cfs)
Index 12133000 43.0 535 74,700 Recent Data Not Available
Land Use, Structures and Estimating Potential Losses
The predominant land use in the South Fork Skykomish basin is forest use. Fifty
percent of the basin is protected wilderness; 43 percent is zoned for forest
production; 6 percent is in rural residential use; and approximately 1 percent is in
urban use. Development in the basin has been limited, but much of it has occurred
in the floodplain. There are several developments in the Town of Skykomish, the
unincorporated communities of Grotto and Baring and scattered residential
subdivisions.
South Fork Skykomish Basin Flood Exposure
EXPOSURE
Reach GBS Value – Structures
Exposed to 100-Year
Event
GBS Value –
Contents Exposed
to 100-Year Event
GBS Value –
(Structures and
Contents)
Exposed to 100-
Year Flood
% of GBS
South Fork $25,236,600 $13,654,860 $38,891,460 31.97%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3
South Fork Skykomish Basin Economic Impact
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Reach 100-Year
Flood
Displaced
Population
100-Year
Flood
People
Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter
GBS Value
Total
Structure
Damaged by
a 100-Year
Flood
GBS Value
Total
Contents
Damaged
by a 100-
Year Flood
100-Year
Flood Total
GBS Value
(Structures
and
Contents)
Damaged
% of
Exposed
GBS Value
South
Fork
203 133 $5,304,000 $4,191,000 $9,495,000 7.8%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3
Development Trends
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
area. Future land use is projected to be similar to current land use conditions. Only
a small increase in households is projected for the 2001 through 2022 planning
period.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-7
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Repetitive Loss Properties
There are ten FEMA repetitive loss properties in the South Fork Skykomish basin,
three of which have been mitigated. The unmitigated properties are located mostly
near Baring and Skykomish with one located near Gold Bar. All of these parcels
are single-family residences located in the floodway, and it is concluded that the
cause of repetitive flooding for all of them is overbank riverine flooding, as reflected
by the mapping for the basin.
SNOQUALMIE RIVER BASIN
Flood Hazard Profile on the Upper Snoqualmie River
There are no significant dams on the upper Snoqualmie River to regulated 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 make for areas of widespread flood risk from inundation
and channel migration during winter throughout the three forks area. Rain-on-snow
events can have a significant effect in this unregulated system with headwaters in
the high elevations of the Cascades.
King County flood response efforts do not key to any one river gage, but instead
collectively consider flows as the sum of the three forks. The Snoqualmie River
near Snoqualmie gage (USGS #12144500) is located at the base of Snoqualmie
Falls. U.S. Geological Survey gages are located on the Middle, North and South
Forks of the Snoqualmie River. The table below summarizes flow data from these
gages.
Upper Snoqualmie River Flows
Discharge (cubic feet per second)
Recurrence
Interval
(years)
Snoqualmie River
near
Snoqualmiea
Middle Fork
Snoqualmieb
North Fork
Snoqualmieb
South Fork
Snoqualmieb
10 51,700 28,000 18,600 9,000
50 71,100 38,300 24,600 13,000
100 79,100 43,800 27,200 15,000
500 95,200 55,800 32,800 19,200
Flow estimates based on hydrologic analysis for the Lower Snoqualmie and Skykomish River
Revised Flood Insurance Study (Draft, 2005).
FEMA 2005.
Flood Hazard Profile on the Lower Snoqualmie River
With headwaters and much of the eastern basin highlands in the Cascades and a
drainage area of about 600 square miles at Carnation, the lower Snoqualmie basin
typically responds to winter rains with flood levels that rise and fall slowly and
steadily. With such high elevations and unregulated drainages, rain-on-snow events
can be significant. None of the dams and modifications in the basin significantly
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-8
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
alters the flood flows that these mountain conditions produce on the lower mainstem
Snoqualmie River. 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.
Lower Snoqualmie River Flows
Dischargea (cubic feet per second)
Recurrence Interval
(years) Snoqualmie River at Carnation
Snoqualmie River at Duvall
10 58,200 53,400
50 82,400 75,800
100 91,800 84,600
500 113,300 99,700
Flow estimates based on hydrologic analysis for the Lower Snoqualmie and Skykomish River
Revised Flood Insurance Study (Draft, 2005).
The period of record of gage data used to derive values in this table may differ from the period of
record currently available.
Flood Hazard Profile on the Tolt River
With its steep upper basin, the Tolt basin has a relatively fast runoff response. The
high elevations of the basin can produce rain-on-snow events, which can increase
downstream flood magnitude and extent. A typical Tolt River flood reaches its
maximum peak 10 to 12 hours before the larger Snoqualmie River. Although the
South Fork Tolt River dam is not intended for flood control purposes, dam
operations are such that peak flows on the mainstem Tolt have been diminished by
about 30 percent relative to pre-dam flows.
The primary gage referenced for Tolt River floods is the Tolt River near Carnation
gage (USGS #12148500), which is located on the Tolt River mainstem at River Mile
8.7, with an 82-square-mile drainage area. Flow magnitudes and recurrence
intervals are calculated by a standard flood frequency analysis based on flows
measured at the USGS #12128500 gage throughout the period of record, which is
1928 to 1931 and 1937 to the present. There is no gage at the Tolt River mouth at
River Mile 0.0; flow magnitudes there are calculated based on the relation between
the drainage areas at the mouth and at the USGS #12148500 gage. The table
below summarizes flow data for the Tolt River.
Tolt River Flows
Discharge (cubic feet per second)a Recurrence
Interval (years) Tolt River at Carnation Tolt River at Mouth
10 11,900 13,900
50 16,700 19,500
100 18,800 22,000
500 23,800 27,800
FEMA 2005.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-9
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Flood Hazard Profile on the Raging River
Most Raging River floods occur from during the rainy season in November through
February. Raging River flows are unregulated, as there are no major dams in the
basin. This relatively steep and short river basin produces floods that are quick to
rise to a peak, have high velocity and erosive flows along the steep channel and
confined floodplain, and are quick to subside. The upper basin receives some
snowfall, so rain-on-snow events can affect flood flows.
The gage used by King County and other agencies for flood monitoring on the
Raging River is USGS gage #12145500 near Fall City, which records runoff from
approximately 93 percent of the watershed. Flow magnitudes and recurrence
intervals were calculated for the FEMA Flood Insurance Study based on flows
measured at this gage for the period of record from 1946 to 1992. There is no gage
at the Raging River mouth at River Mile 0.0; flow magnitudes there are calculated
based on the relationship between the drainage areas at the mouth and USGS
gage #12145500. The table below summarizes flow data for the Raging River.
Raging River Flows
Discharge (cubic feet per second) Recurrence
Interval (years) Raging River near Fall City Raging River at Mouth
10 3,790 4,031
50 5,910 6,286
100 6,970 7,413
500 9,840 10,465
FEMA 2005
Flood Characteristics of the Snoqualmie River Basin
The table below summarizes observed flooding characteristics typical for the
Snoqualmie River basin. This table reflects the range of flood conditions by
identifiable reach or stream for planning purposes only. Understanding the potential
flood conditions for a specific area enables the County to identify mitigation
alternatives appropriate for the level of risk for that stream or reach. Flood depths in
this basin can vary from less than 1 foot to 6 feet, with significant velocities
depending on extent and location within the basin.
Snoqualmie River Basin Flow Characteristics
Gage Location
USGS
Station
Number
River
Mile
Drainage Area
(square miles)
100-Year
Flow
(cfs)
Flood of Record, Date
& Peak Flow (cfs)
North Fork 12142000 9.2 64.0 27,200 a 02/26/1932; 15,800 cfs
Middle Fork 12141300 55.6 154.0 43,000 a 12/02/1977; 30,200 cfs
South Fork 12143400 17.3 41.6 15,000 a 11/23/1986; 8,450 cfs
Snoqualmie @
Snoqualmie.
- 40.0 375 79,100 b 11/24/1990; 78,800 cfs
Snoqualmie @ Carnation - 23 603.0 91,800 b 11/24/1990; 65,200 cfs
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-10
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-11
11/12/09
Gage Location
USGS
Station
Number
River
Mile
Drainage Area
(square miles)
100-Year
Flow
(cfs)
Flood of Record, Date
& Peak Flow (cfs)
Raging @ Fall City 12145500 2.75 30.6 6,970 11/24/1990; 6,220 cfs
North Fork Tolt 12147500 11.7 39.9 10,300 12/15/1959; 9,560 cfs
South Fork Tolt 12148000 6.8 19.7 9,160 23/15/1959; 6,500 cfs
Tolt @ Carnation 12148500 8.7 81.4 18,800 12/15/1959; 17,400 cfs
FEMA 2005. Period of record of USGS gage data used to derive values in table may differ from period
of record currently available.
Flow estimates based on hydrologic analysis for the Lower Snoqualmie and Skykomish River Revised
Flood Insurance Study (Draft 2005).
Land Use, Structures and Estimating Potential Losses
The major portion of the Snoqualmie River basin floodplain is in unincorporated
King County, with small but significant portions in the cities of North Bend,
Snoqualmie, Duvall and Carnation. Development throughout the incorporated
portions of the Snoqualmie River floodplain is mainly commercial and residential.
Agricultural and residential development predominates in unincorporated King
County along the lower and upper portions of the river.
Snoqualmie Basin Flood Exposure
EXPOSURE
Reach GBS Value
Structures
Exposed to 100-
Year Event
GBS Value
Contents Exposed
to 100-Year Event
GBS Value (Structures
and Contents) Exposed
to 100-Year Flood
% of GBS
Upper Basin $157,803,400 $86,883,140 $244,686,540 15.32%
Lower Basin $124,937,400 $70,004,940 $194,942,340 3.86%
Basin Total $282,740,800 $156,888,080 $439,628,880
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3 3
Snoqualmie Basin Economic Impact
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Reach 100-Year
Flood
Displaced
Population
100-Year
Flood
People
Requiring
Short-
Term
Shelter
GBS Value
Total
Structure
Damage by a
100-Year
flood
GBS Value
Total
Contents
Damage by a
100-Year
flood
100-Year
Flood Total
GBS Value
(Structures
and Contents)
Damaged
% of
Exposed
GBS
Value
Upper
Basin
1814 1497 $37,386,000 $25,161,000 $62,547,000 3.9%
Lower
Basin
1987 1269 $56,283,000 $43,041,000 $99,324,000 2.0%
Basin
Total
3,801 2,766 $93,669,000 $68,202,000 $161,871,000
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3 3
Attachment A
16715
Development Trends
Much of the urbanization of the watershed has been contained in high density
incorporated areas. While urban areas constitute only about 3 percent of the total
watershed area, they make up a significant portion of some subwatersheds
including Coal Creek (50 percent), mainstem 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.
Repetitive Loss Properties
The upper Snoqualmie River basin has 31 repetitive loss properties, 16 of which
have been mitigated. Of the 15 unmitigated repetitive loss properties, 10 are
classified as severe repetitive loss properties. These repetitive loss properties tend
to be clustered around the cities of Snoqualmie and North Bend. Of the 13
unmitigated repetitive loss properties, all are single-family residential. All but two
property lies within a mapped 100-year floodplain, so it is concluded that the main
cause of repetitive flooding for this basin is overbank riverine flooding reflected by
the mapping for the basin. The two properties outside the 100-year floodplain are
located in a closed depression that are impacted by the outflow from Brewster Lake.
The lower Snoqualmie River basin has 19 repetitive loss properties of which two
have been mitigated. Of the 17 unmitigated repetitive loss properties, 2 are
classified as severe repetitive loss properties Of these 17 unmitigated properties, all
but one are single-family residential and with one being a golf course club house.
All lies within a mapped 100-year floodplain, so it is concluded that the main cause
of repetitive flooding for this basin is overbank riverine flooding reflected by the
mapping for the basin.
SAMMAMISH RIVER BASIN
Flood Hazard Profile on the Sammamish River
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 result of the project has been significantly reduced the
frequency and severity of flooding risks around the lake and adjacent to the river.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-12
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Flows in the river are recorded at the USGS gage #12125200, currently operated by
King County, located at NE 116th Street in Redmond. Lake Sammamish surface
water levels are also recorded near Vasa Park at USGS gage #12122000. The
table below summarizes flow data used for current floodplain mapping. These flows
are considerably out of date. The hydraulic model and topographic maps used to
establish flows and create the maps were developed in 1966, based on conditions
at the time. Recent hydrologic studies have updated some of the flow estimates,
and the hydraulic model has been updated for a limited selection of parameters and
locations along the river. King County is in the process of updating these maps to
reflect changes in topography and hydrology over the last 40 years.
Lake Sammamish Levels and Sammamish River Flows
Surface Elevation
(NGVD 1929)a Discharge (cubic feet per second)a Recurrence
Interval
(years) Lake Sammamish Redmond downstream of Bear Creek
Sammamish River at
Mouth
10 29.0 1,740 2,300
50 31.3 2,480 3,300
100 32.5 2,830 4,300
500 34.0 3,820 5,600
FEMA 2005.
The period of record of USGS gage data used to derive values in table may differ from the period of
record currently available.
The FEMA Flood Insurance Study for the Sammamish River indicates that Lake Washington is regulated
to between 13.2 and 15.0 feet NGVD 1929 (FEMA, 2005).
Flood Characteristics of the Sammamish River Basin
The table below summarizes observed flooding characteristics typical for this basin.
The table shows events that reached above Phase III at the Hobart gage for
Issaquah Creek unless otherwise indicated. Warning time estimates were not
available for the Sammamish River basin. King County collects gage information
only on Issaquah Creek.
Sammamish River Basin Flow Characteristics
Gage Location
USGS
Station
Number
River
Mile
Drainage
Area
(square
miles)
100-Year
Flow (cfs) a,b
Flood of Record, Date &
Peak Flow (cfs)
Sammamish River @
Mouth
12122000 5.6 99.6 4,300 -
Issaquah Creek @
Mouth
12121600 1.2 55.6 3,960 01/09/1990; 3,200 cfs
FEMA 2005.
Period of record of USGS gage data used to derive values in table may differ from period of record
currently available.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-13
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Land Use, Structures and Estimating Potential Losses
In recent decades, substantial development has occurred in the Sammamish River
basin. Extensive commercial and residential developments have been constructed
throughout the floodplain. There are also several parks and other recreational
facilities. Land uses in the upper 10 miles are mainly recreational and agricultural
as well as urban commercial, specifically in the Cities of Redmond and Woodinville.
The lower 5 miles include significant residential and commercial developments as
well as some open space areas.
Sammamish Basin Flood Exposure
EXPOSURE
Reach GBS Value – Structures
Exposed to 100-Year
Event
GBS Value –
Contents Exposed
to 100-Year Event
GBS Value –
(Structures and
Contents)
Exposed to
100-Year Flood
% of GBS
Basin Total $89,551,200 $58,018,120 $147,569,320 1.17%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 1 HAZUS – MR3 3
Sammamish Basin Economic Impact
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Reach 100-Year
Flood
Displaced
Population
100-Year
Flood
People
Requiring
Short-
Term
Shelter
GBS Value
Total
Structure
Damaged by
a 100-Year
Flood
GBS Value
Total
Contents
Damaged by a
100-Year
Flood
100-Year
Flood Total
GBS Value
(Structures
and
Contents)
Damaged
% of
Exposed
GBS
Value
Basin Total 586 239 $8,289,000 $22,868,000 $31,157,000 0.2%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 1 HAZUS – MR3 3
Development Trends
The Sammamish River basin has been urbanizing rapidly since the 1950s. Future
development is expected to continue throughout the Sammamish basin. Bellevue,
Issaquah, Kirkland and Redmond have designated potential annexation areas,
some of which are within the floodplain.
Repetitive Loss Properties
There only one repetitive loss properties in the Sammamish River basin and it has
not been mitigated. This property is located outside the 100-year floodplain which
means that the flooding was likely due to storm water drainage problems.
Issaquah Creek has two unmitigated repetitive loss properties which are not
clustered together. One is a single-family residential property and the other is a
mobile home. Both lie within a mapped 100-year floodplain, so it is concluded that
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-14
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
the cause of repetitive flooding for this basin is overbank riverine flooding reflected
by the mapping for the basin.
CEDAR RIVER BASIN
Flood Hazard Profile on the Cedar River
The hydrology and hydraulics of the Cedar River basin have been substantially
altered from the natural conditions. The lowest mile of the river was rerouted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1914. 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 Masonry Dam, the reconstructed Crib Dam or Overflow Dike, and the
Landsburg Diversion.
The first dam on the Cedar River was the rock-fill, timber-structured Crib Dam,
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. Eleven miles
farther downstream is the Landsburg Diversion constructed in 1899, which diverts
municipal and industrial water supply for the City of Seattle. The Masonry Dam was
not designed or built to serve as a flood control dam; however, in addition to its
hydropower generation and water supply functions, it has the capacity to store up to
15,000 acre-feet of flood water. However existing flood-prone areas downstream
remain vulnerable to severe flood risks.
The two primary gages used for monitoring flood flows along the Cedar River are
the Cedar River at Renton (USGS #12119000) and the Cedar River at Landsburg
(USGS #12117500). The table below summarizes flow data.
Cedar River Flows
Discharge (cubic feet per second)a Recurrence Interval
(years) Cedar River at Renton Cedar River at Landsburg
10 5,940 4,880
50 9,860 8,340
100 12,000 10,300
500 18,400 16,100
Final Flood Frequency Analysis Curve for Year 2000 Floodplain Mapping on the Lower Cedar
River, March 2000; included with King County’s submittal to FEMA for a revised Flood
Insurance Study for the Cedar River.
Flood Characteristics of the Cedar River Basin
The table below summarizes observed flooding characteristics typical for this basin.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-15
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Cedar River Basin Flow Characteristics
Gage
Location
USGS
Station
Number
River
Mile
Drainage
Area (square
miles) 100-Year Flow (cfs) a
Flood of Record, Date &
Peak Flow (cfs)
Cedar Falls 12116500 33.2 84.2 8,930 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
Final Flood Frequency Analysis Curve For Year 2000 Floodplain Mapping on the Lower Cedar River march
2000 include with King county’s submittal to FEMA for a revised Flood Insurance Study for the Cedar River.
Period of record of USGS gage data used to derive values in table may differ from period of record currently
available.
Land Use, Structures and Estimating Potential Losses
Land use in the Cedar River basin is dominated by forest uses (60.6 percent). The
other main uses are residential; 21.3 percent can be classified as low-density
development, 7.7 percent as medium and 0.9 percent as high density development.
High-density development is located primarily in the Cities of Renton and Maple
Valley.
Cedar River Basin Flood Exposure
EXPOSURE
Reach GBS Value – Structures
Exposed to 100-Year
Event
GBS Value –
Contents Exposed
to 100-Year Event
GBS Value –
(Structures and
Contents)
Exposed to 100-
Year Flood
% of GBS
Basin Total $61,561,700 $30,394,070 $91,955,770 0.78%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3 3
Cedar River Basin Economic Impact
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Reach 100-Year
Flood
Displaced
Population
100-Year
Flood
People
Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter
GBS Value
Total
Structure
Damaged
by a 100-
Year Flood
GBS Value
Total
Contents
Damaged
by a 100-
Year Flood
100-Year
Flood Total
GBS Value
(Structures
and
Contents)
Damaged
% of
Exposed
GBS Value
Basin
Total
1,168 905 $11,659,000 $7,846,000 $19,505,000 0.2%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3 3
Development Trends
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 unincorporated King
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-16
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
County along the upper floodplain, which is likely due to its proximity to Renton.
There is expected to be a significant amount of growth in Renton during the 2001 to
2022 planning period.
Repetitive Loss Properties
There are 17 repetitive loss properties in the Cedar River basin, seven of which are
mitigated. The 10 unmitigated properties are located in no consistent location in the
basin and all are single-family residential properties. They all lie within a mapped
100-year floodplain, so it is concluded that the cause of repetitive flooding for this
basin is overbank riverine flooding reflected by the mapping for the basin.
GREEN RIVER BASIN
Flood Hazard Profile on the Green River
The primary control on flooding characteristics is Howard Hanson Dam, at
approximately River Mile 64. Howard Hanson Dam was completed in 1962 and is
operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with a primary purpose of flood
control and secondary purpose of water conservation and municipal water supply.
During the summer, low flows are augmented through release of waters stored in a
conservation pool in the reservoir behind Howard Hanson Dam. Additional flows
are stored and released to supply summer withdrawal needs at the Tacoma Public
Utilities water supply diversion structure downstream.
The target flood control parameter for Howard Hanson Dam is a Congressionally
authorized flow of 12,000 cubic feet per second at the Green River near Auburn
gage (USGS #12113000), at about River Mile 31 in Auburn. Operations at Howard
Hanson Dam that target flows at Auburn must also consider the magnitude and
timing of local inflows from tributaries such as Soos and Newaukum Creeks.
Placing a cap of 12,000 cubic feet per second on Green River flood flows at Auburn
has reduced all larger flood events to what would be the pre-dam equivalent of a 2-
year event at Auburn. Howard Hanson Dam is capable of storing floods up to and
including a 500-year reservoir inflow event and converting them to a discharge at
Auburn of the historical 2-year flood, with such flows extending over a much longer
duration than they would under natural conditions. However, damage to the
Howard Hanson Dam in the January 2009 flood event will impact the ability of the
dam to operate at the design capacity. Dam operations in combination with the
lower Green levees contain most flood events from Auburn downstream to the
mouth when the dam is operating at its design capacity. The table below
summarizes flow data.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-17
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Green River Flows
Recurrence
Interval (years)
Discharge at Auburn Gagea, b
(cubic feet per second)
10 12,000
50 12,000
100 12,000
500 12,000
FEMA 2005
Affected by regulation at Howard Hanson Dam.
Flood Characteristics of the Green River Basin
The table below summarizes observed flooding characteristics typical for this basin.
Green River Basin Flow Characteristics
Gage
Location
USGS
Station
Number
River
Mile
Drainage Area
(square miles)100-Year Flow (cfs)a,b
Flood of Record, Date
& Peak Flow (cfs)
Howard
Hanson
Dam
12105900 63.8 221.0 Maximum flow release to meet
target of 12,000 cfs at Auburn
12/21/1960; 12,200
(pre-dam)
Auburn 12113000 32.0 399.0 12,000 (as regulated by Howard
Hanson Dam)
11/23/1959; 28,100
(pre-dam)
Tukwila 12113350 NA 440.0 12,400 01/31/1965; 12,100
FEMA (2005)
Affected by regulation at the Howard Hanson Dam
Land Use, Structures and Estimating Potential Losses
Land use in the Green River basin varies significantly among the lower, middle and
upper portions. The land in the Upper Green River is primarily forestland. The
Middle Green River is primarily farmland and a mix of urban and rural residential.
The major land uses are residential (50 percent), forestry (27 percent) and
agriculture (12 percent). Several large state and county parks abut the river in this
segment. The Lower Green River contains less farmland and is mainly urban.
Except for occasional stretches of parkland, a mixture of residential, commercial
and industrial land uses are the main land uses. Residential development (50
percent), industrial development (17 percent), and commercial development (10
percent) are the primary uses along the Lower Green River.
Green River Basin Flood Exposure
EXPOSURE
Reach GBS Value – Structures
Exposed to 100-Year
Event
GBS Value –
Contents Exposed
to 100-Year Event
GBS Value –
(Structures and
Contents) Exposed
to 100-Year Flood
% of GBS
Basin
Total
$76,706,600 $39,647,160 $116,353,760 1.08%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3 3
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-18
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Green River Basin Economic Impact
IMPACT ECONOMY
Reach 100-Year
Flood
Displaced
Population
100-Year
Flood
People
Requiring
Short-
Term
Shelter
GBS Value
Total
Structure
Damaged by a
100-Year
Flood
GBS Value
Total
Contents
Damaged by a
100-Year
Flood
100-Year
Flood Total
GBS Value
(Structures
and Contents)
Damaged
% of
Exposed
GBS
Value
Basin
Total
1,374 841 $32,464,000 $27,920,000 $60,384,000 0.6%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3 3
Development Trends
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.
Repetitive Loss Properties
Based on the County’s review of repetitive loss data provided by FEMA, there are
three repetitive loss properties in the Green River basin that have not been
mitigated. These properties are all single-family residential. One property is
located at the south end of Horseshoe Land and the other two are in the 100-year
floodplain of the Green River.
There are also three unmitigated repetitive loss properties located on Vashon
Island, which are not technically part of the Green River basin but rather are part of
the larger Puget Sound Drainage.
WHITE RIVER BASIN
Flood Hazard Profile on the White River
With headwaters on Mount Rainier glaciers, snowmelt also increases White River
flows in late summer, but not to a level of flood concern. The primary determinant
for flooding characteristics in the White River is the presence and flow control
operations of Mud Mountain Dam.
As a sole-purpose flood protection facility near River Mile 30, Mud Mountain Dam
reduces peak flood flows and releases the stored water at a lower flow over a
longer duration than would occur if the dam were not in place. Mud Mountain Dam
is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to control floods along the lower
Puyallup River. Its operation is targeted to the Puyallup River at the Puyallup gage
(USGS #12101500). Although targeted for the Puyallup River, theses dam
operations also result in decreased flood flows along the White River relative to pre-
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-19
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
dam conditions. Mud Mountain Dam is operated to a target maximum flow of
45,000 cubic feet per second at the Puyallup gage. In addition to this primary flood
control authority directed toward the Puyallup River, the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers operates Mud Mountain Dam to achieve flood benefits on the White
River as is feasible. The table below summarizes White River flow data. Flood
frequencies for the White River were obtained from a backwater channel-capacity
study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of Engineers completed in 1974.
White River Flows
Recurrence
Interval (years)
White River near Auburn Dischargea (cubic feet
per second)
10 15,870
50 17,600
100 18,370
500 20,700
FEMA 2005
The period of record of gage data used to derive values in this table
may differ from the period of record currently available.
Over the course of 90 years, flow control at Mud Mountain Dam and the Puget
Sound Energy diversion to Lake Tapps have had a dramatic effect on the natural
flow regimes of the basin. In this sediment-rich river, such changes in flow regime
affect sediment transport capacity, geomorphic processes, channel patterns and
fish habitat. Rapid changes in sediment levels and shifting channel locations in turn
affect inundation and channel migration flood hazards.
Flood Characteristics of the White River Basin
The table below summarizes observed flooding characteristics typical for this basin.
Understanding the potential flood conditions for a specific area enables the County
to identify mitigation alternatives appropriate for the level of risk for that stream or
reach.
White River Basin Flow Characteristics
Gage
Location
USGS
Station
Number
River
Mile
Drainage
Area
(square
miles) 100-Year Flow (cfs) a
Flood of Record,
Date & Peak Flow
(cfs)
Buckley 12098500 27.9 401.0 17,600 (maximum release from Mud
Mountain Dam)
12/01/1933; 28,000
(pre-dam)
Auburn 12100496 6.30 464.0 18,370 02/10/1996; 15,000
Greenwater 12097500 1.10 73.5 5,776 12/02/1977; 10,500
FEMA 2005.
Land Use, Structures and Estimating Potential Losses
Approximately 175 square miles in the White River basin is owned and managed by
the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Another 90 square miles of the basin
is part of Mount Rainier National Park. In this upper portion, the basin is mainly
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-20
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
undeveloped but includes some scattered residential and commercial property
around Greenwater. In the lower areas of the basin, there are some agricultural
lands and a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses closer to and in the
cities. Upstream of the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, the river is unconstrained
and the valley is mostly undeveloped.
FEMA floodplain mapping shows 3,025 acres of mapped floodplain in the White
River basin. Approximately 74 percent of this, or 2,246 acres, is along the White
River mainstem. The table below defines the mapped floodplain in terms of
incorporated and unincorporated King County. One of the major risks in the White
River basin is that there are significant channel migration hazards related to the
river’s significant sediment load and debris local, especially in the upper basin.
Floodplain maps for the White River are outdated and do not reflect recent changes
in several channel locations.
White River Basin Flood Exposure
EXPOSURE
Reach GBS Value –Structures
Exposed to 100-Year
Event
GBS Value –
Contents
Exposed to 100-
Year Event
GBS Value –
(Structures and
Contents) Exposed to
100-Year Flood
% of GBS
Basin Total $21,772,400 $11,006,160 $32,778,560 2.38%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3 3
White River Basin Economic Impact
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Reach 100-Year
Flood
Displaced
Population
100-Year
Flood
People
Requiring
Short-Term
Shelter
GBS Value
Total
Structure
Damaged by
a 100-Year
Flood
GBS Value
Total
Contents
Damaged by
a 100-Year
Flood
100-Year
Flood Total
GBS Value
(Structures
and
Contents)
Damaged
% of
Exposed
GBS
Value
Basin
Total
529 275 $10,433,000 $9,405,000 $19,838,000 1.4%
GBS means General Building Stock
This risk assessment was prepared using Level 2 HAZUS – MR3 3
Development Trends
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.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-21
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Repetitive Loss Properties
There currently are no unmitigated repetitive loss properties in this basin. However, at
one time, this basin included a single repetitive loss property with the most flood
insurance claims of any property in the County. This property was located along the
Boise Creek reach of this basin, and was mitigated through a property acquisition by
King County in 2000. This is end of the King County Flood Control District data. 2
INCORPORATED CITIES (new for 2009)
There are 39 incorporated citied within King County. Some of these cities, such as
Snoqualmie, North Bend, Renton, Tukwila, Ken, Auburn and Pacific are located along
King County’s major river systems and are subjected to the same risks identified above.
The tables below shows the exposure and impact to the economy of these 39 cities
using HAZUS modeling based on census tract data, King County Assessor’s data and
geographic information system (GIS) data for flood hazards.
Unincorporated Cities Flood Exposure
Estimated
2009
Population
(1) Building
Count
(2)
GBS Value
Structure in $
Exposed to a
100-Year
Flood Event
(2)
GBS Value
Contents in $
Exposed to a
100-Year
Flood Event
(2)
GBS Value
(Structure and
contents in $)
Exposed to a
100-Year
Flood Event
(2)
% of
GBS
Algona 2,760 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Auburn 60,820 346 $244,168,500 $260,659,350 $504,827,850 5.44%
Beaux Arts 315 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Bellevue 120,600 235 $108,611,300 $75,242,830 $183,854,130 0.66%
Black Diamond 4,180 7 $261,000 $136,500 $397,500 0.08%
Bothell 17,260 82 $380,780,700 $417,797,970 $798,578,670 29.24%
Burien 31,890 267 $106,395,100 $54,278,210 $160,673,310 3.65%
Carnation 1,910 85 $20,161,800 $12,203,580 $32,365,380 13.12%
Clyde Hill 2,815 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Covington 17,530 87 $13,858,500 $7,267,950 $21,126,450 1.03%
Des Moines 29,270 125 $37,906,800 $27,171,480 $65,078,280 1.97%
Duvall 5,980 7 $2,294,700 $2,524,170 $4,818,870 0.52%
Enumclaw 11,460 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Federal Way 88,580 92 $26,231,700 $13,533,450 $39,765,150 0.38%
Hunts Point 465 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Issaquah 26,890 380 $149,405,200 $118,348,920 $267,754,120 4.65%
Kenmore 20,450 118 $26,443,800 $15,722,580 $42,166,380 1.75%
Kent 88,380 1069 $1,816,502,229 $1,982,705,452 $3,799,207,681 26.69%
Kirkland 49,010 12 $6,592,400 $7,251,640 $13,844,040 0.15%
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-22
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Lake Forest Park 12,820 35 $10,390,000 $5,398,400 $15,788,400 0.87%
Maple Valley 20,840 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Medina 2,970 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Mercer Island 22,720 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Milton 830 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Newcastle 9,925 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
Normandy Park 6,485 81 $24,969,000 $12,511,500 $37,480,500 2.50%
North Bend 4,760 818 $187,507,100 $147,525,010 $335,032,110 42.86%
Pacific 6,200 37 $5,867,000 $3,983,500 $9,850,500 2.06%
Redmond 51,890 196 $457,748,500 $500,670,350 $958,418,850 7.76%
Renton 83,650 263 $346,655,800 $368,864,780 $715,520,580 5.69%
Sammamish 40,670 240 $97,905,000 $49,339,500 $147,244,500 1.70%
SeaTac 25,730 6 $258,100 $207,110 $465,210 0.01%
Seattle 602,000 675 $220,834,815 $164,123,296 $384,958,111 0.34%
Shoreline 54,320 16 $4,319,000 $2,159,500 $6,478,500 0.10%
Skykomish 210 171 $17,471,200 $13,009,520 $30,480,720 75.27%
Snoqualmie 9,730 628 $167,489,200 $117,606,120 $285,095,320 14.97%
Tukwila 18,170 74 $67,211,000 $73,219,900 $140,430,900 2.96%
Woodinville 10,670 16 $32,538,700 $35,792,570 $68,331,270 2.72%
Yarrow Point 965 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
(1) 2009 Washington Office of Financial Management estimated population.
(2) Exposure numbers were estimated using King County parcel centroids and Assessor data.
Unincorporated Cities Economic Impact
100-year
Flood
Event -
Displaced
Population
100-year
Flood
Event -
People
Requiring
Short-
Term
Shelter
GBS Value
Structure in
$ Damaged
by a 100-
Year Flood
Event (1)
GBS Value
Contents in
$ Damaged
by a 100-
Year Flood
Event (1)
GBS Value
(Structure
and
Contents in
$) Damaged
by a 100-
Year Flood
Event (1) % of GBS
Algona 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Auburn 2666 2519 $45,514,000 $81,689,000 $127,203,000 1.4%
Beaux Arts 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Bellevue 1024 827 $4,617,000 $5,545,000 $10,162,000 0.0%
Black Diamond 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Bothell 554 476 $37,641,000 $81,060,000 $118,701,000 4.3%
Burien 14 1 $46,000 $56,000 $102,000 0.0%
Carnation 1323 1021 $5,974,000 $6,880,000 $12,854,000 5.2%
Clyde Hill 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Covington 59 28 $45,000 $54,000 $99,000 0.0%
Des Moines 36 36 $212,000 $136,000 $348,000 0.0%
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-23
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Duvall 9 1 $1,033,000 $2,096,000 $3,129,000 0.3%
Enumclaw 56 37 $875,000 $1,331,000 $2,206,000 0.2%
Federal Way 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Hunts Point 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Issaquah 1039 868 $15,821,000 $25,531,000 $41,352,000 0.7%
Kenmore 682 606 $2,158,000 $1,990,000 $4,148,000 0.2%
Kent 8946 8387 $250,828,000 $602,286,000 $853,114,000 6.0%
Kirkland 186 164 $222,000 $264,000 $486,000 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 121 81 $4,429,000 $2,986,000 $7,415,000 0.5%
North Bend 2345 2109 $21,562,000 $36,122,000 $57,684,000 7.4%
Pacific 123 123 $1,373,000 $991,000 $2,364,000 0.5%
Redmond 2577 2485 $29,709,000 $62,722,000 $92,431,000 0.7%
Renton 713 509 $66,883,000 $147,987,000 $214,870,000 1.7%
Sammamish 13 3 $2,762,000 $1,432,000 $4,194,000 0.0%
SeaTac 11 0 $17,000 $34,000 $51,000 0.0%
Seattle 317 83 $657,000 $443,000 $1,100,000 0.0%
Shoreline 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Skykomish 164 43 $2,760,000 $4,100,000 $6,860,000 16.9%
Snoqualmie 1653 1442 $11,322,833 $18,474,095 $29,796,928 1.6%
Tukwila 128 36 $44,693,000 $82,886,000 $127,579,000 2.7%
Woodinville 9 1 $3,779,000 $6,425,000 $10,204,000 0.4%
Yarrow Point 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
(1) The valuation of general building stock and loss estimates determined in King County were
based off an updated HAZUS-MH MR3 general building stock dataset at a Census Block
analysis level.
Vulnerable Populations Defined
The Regional Profile, provided in Section 3, describes the demographic setting of
the King County region, its cities, economy and resources, and examines potential
at-risk populations. In this section, we will evaluate vulnerability in more detail.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-24
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
People at Risk4
Densely Populated Areas
More than 96 percent of King County’s population lives in densely settled
urbanized areas. The current growth pattern, both urban and rural, affects how
agencies prepare for emergencies as changes in the population and
development can increase risks associated with hazards. Growth is being
directed into Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) of the County which can be more
vulnerable to certain hazards, such as earthquakes. Comparing the hazard
maps located in Section 5: HIVA and Map 3-1: Population Density provides
an idea of where populations (and facilities) can be impacted.
Populations with Special Needs
The ability to prepare for and recover from a disaster varies among population
groups. Research on various population groups and disasters found that it took
some populations longer to recover from a disaster for a variety of reasons.
These population groups include minorities, people with language barriers, the
disabled, the elderly, those with low income, and young children.
• Minorities: People from non-white population groups generally experience
longer recoveries due to lower incomes, savings and insurance; their
difficulty accessing insurance; and their using aid and relief organizations
differently than was anticipated. Language and cultural differences can
pose difficulties in some populations understanding and implementing
preparedness and mitigation actions as well as accessing and using
available disaster relief resources.
• People with Language Barriers: Since nearly one in five residents in King
County do not speak English as their primary language, there is a significant
segment of the population may have a language barrier that prevents them
from preparing for a disaster, responding to an event, or applying for
assistance after a disaster. In 2009, 127 languages are spoken in King
County reflecting great cultural diversity.
• Disabled Persons: People with disabilities often are left out of community
preparedness activities for a disaster. They have complex challenges
because of hearing, sight, mobility, or mental impairments. Additionally, a
significant percentage of working-age people with disabilities do not work.
These factors may make it difficult for the person with disabilities to prepare
in advance of a disaster.
• Elderly: The elderly may be overlooked in preparedness and recovery
activities; their age could lead them to have trouble after a disaster, perhaps
not qualify for loans, or become disabled because of the disaster.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-25
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
• Low Income: The amount of money people have influences what type of
housing they live in, whether they can engage in mitigation actions, and how
long it takes to recover. Income is based on a number of factors, including
the individual, the economy, availability of jobs, and educational opportunity
among others. Expenses can vary by location – rural places are cheaper to
live but have fewer jobs, while urban areas can be costly, especially for
renters.
• Young Children: The number of children attending school is a concern
because many of the school buildings they spend considerable time in each
day are older and potentially more vulnerable to the effects of disaster.
Property at Risk
Housing
The year housing was built is important for mitigation. The older a home is, the
greater the risk of damage from natural disasters. Homes built after 1980 are
more likely to have been constructed to current standards for hazards such as
floods, high winds, snow loads, and earthquake. About two-thirds of the homes
in King County were built before 1960 when codes were less restrictive.
Natural Resources at Risk
Conserving King County’s rural and natural resource lands is integral to
providing diversity in lifestyle choices, continuing farming and forestry
economies, protecting environmental quality, fisheries, salmon streams, and
wildlife habitat and maintaining a link to King County’s resource-based heritage.
Capability Assessment
A capability assessment is an integral part of the planning process in which you
identify, review and analyze what your community is doing to reduce risk. A
capability assessment also allows you to identify a framework that is in place or
should be in place for implementation of new mitigation actions. A capability
assessment has 2 components: an inventory of a jurisdiction’s mission, programs
and policies; and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. By completing a
capability assessment, a community will learn how or whether they will be able to
implement certain mitigation activities by determining:
• Certain types of actions that may be prohibited by law
• Limitations that may exist on undertaking actions; and
• The range of local regulatory, technical and financial resources available to
assist in implementing the actions.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-26
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
The following tables illustrate the regulatory, technical and financial capabilities of
the King County Municipal government. It should be noted that each local
government that links to this Plan under Phase 2 of this planning process will
assess their individual capabilities in this format.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-27
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Regulatory Tools
(Codes, Ordinances., Plans)
Lo
c
a
l
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(Y
o
r
N
)
Pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
i
o
n
s
(S
t
a
t
e
o
r
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
)
(Y
N)
Hi
g
h
e
r
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(Y
o
r
N
)
St
a
t
e
Ma
n
d
a
t
e
d
(Y
o
r
N
)
Comments
1) Building Code Y N N Y
Building and Construction Standards
(King County Code Title 16); NOTE:
King County had adopted the
International Codes. Title 16 has been
amended in 2009.
2) Zoning Ordinance Y N N N Zoning (King County Code Title 21A)
Title 21A has been amended in 2009.
3) Subdivision Ordinance Y N N N
Land Segregation (King County Code
Title 19A) Title 19A has been amended
in 2009.
4) Special Purpose Ordinances
(floodplain management, critical or
sensitive areas)
Y N N N
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) (King
County Code chapter 21A.24);
Floodplain management (King County
Code 21A.24.230-.270) State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), (King
County Code chapter 20.44), Ch.
43.21C RCW
5) Growth Management Y N N Y
King County Countywide Planning
Policies, 10/2008, Washington State
Growth Management Act (GMA), 1990
6) Floodplain Management/ Basin
Plan Y N N N
King County Flood Hazard Management
Plan, Ord. 15673, 1/17/2007, King
County Flood Control District, Ord.
15728, 4/2007, King County basin plans
(King County Code chapter 20.14),
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP)
7) Stormwater Management
Plan/ordinance Y N N Y
Surface Water Management (King
County Code Title 9) Title 9 has been
amended in 2009, Surface Water
Design Manual, updated in 2009,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) phase I municipal
stormwater permit updated in 2009
8) General Plan or Comprehensive
Plan Y N N Y King County Comprehensive Plan,
10/6/2008,
9) Capital Improvements Plan Y N N N Capital Improvements Plans for roads,
transit, airport, stormwater, wastewater,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-28
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-29
11/12/09
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Regulatory Tools
(Codes, Ordinances., Plans)
Lo
c
a
l
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(Y
o
r
N
)
Pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
i
o
n
s
(S
t
a
t
e
o
r
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
)
(Y
N
)
Hi
g
h
e
r
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(Y
o
r
N
)
St
a
t
e
Ma
n
d
a
t
e
d
(Y
o
r
N
)
Comments
solid waste, parks, open space, and
flood hazard management are approved
annually as part of the King County
budget process
10) Site Plan Review
Requirements Y N N N
King County Code Title 21A (Zoning),
19A (Land Segregation) and 16
(Building and Construction Standards)
all require site plan review
11) Habitat Conservation Plan Y N N N
Lake Washington, Cedars, Sammamish
Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan, 7/2005, Snohomish
River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan
(WRIA 7), 6/2005, Green/Duwamish &
Central Puget Sound Watershed Plan
(WRIA 9)
12) Economic Development Plan Y N N N King County Business Development and
Contract Compliance Program
13) Emergency Response Plan Y N N Y
King County Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan,
December 2008
14) Shoreline Management Plan Y N N Y
Shoreline Management (King County
Code Title 25) update in process , King
County Shoreline Management Master
Program, Ord. 3692, 5/1/1978,
Shoreline Master Program Guidelines,
Ch. 173-26 WAC, 1/17/2004,
Washington State Shoreline
Management, Ch. 90.58 RCW, 1971,
Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972
15) Post Disaster Recovery Plan N N N N NA
16) Post Disaster Recovery
Ordinance N N N N NA
17) Real Estate Disclosure req. Y N N Y
Washington State Real Property
Transfer Disclosure Statement, Ch.
64.06 RCW, Amended 2003-2004
18) Other
Attachment A
16715
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Staff/ Personnel Resources
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
(Y
o
r
N
o
)
Department/ Agency/Position
1) Planner(s) or Engineer(s) with knowledge of
land development and land management
practices
Y King County Water & Land Resources Division, King
County Department of Development and Environmental
Services
2) Engineer(s) or Professional(s) trained in
construction practices related to buildings
and/or infrastructure
Y King County Water & Land Resources Division, King County
Department of Development and Environmental Services,
King County Roads Services Division
3) Planners or engineers with an understanding
of natural hazards
Y King County Water & Land Resources Division, King County
Department of Development and Environmental Services,
King County Road Services Division
4) Public Information officer/liaison Y All King county Government Agencies,
5) Webmaster- website technical capability Y All King county Government Agencies
6) Floodplain Manager Y King County Water & Land Resources Division
King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services
7) Surveyor(s) Y King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services, King County Road Services Division
8) Personnel skilled or trained in “GIS”
applications
Y King County Water & Land Resources Division, King County
Department of Development and Environmental Services,
King County Geographic Information Systems Center
9) Scientist familiar with natural hazards in King
County.
Y King County Water & Land Resources Division
King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services
10) Emergency Manager Y King County Office of Emergency Management
11) Grant Writer(s) Y King County Water & Land Resources Division
12) Staff with expertise or training in
benefit/cost analysis
Y King County Office of Emergency Management
King County Water & Land Resources Division, River and
Floodplain Management Program
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-30
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Financial Resources
Accessible or Eligible to use
(yes/no/Don’t know)
1) Community development Block Grants
(CDBG)
Yes
2) Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
3) Authority to Levy Taxes for specific purposes Yes
4) User fees for water, sewer, gas or electric
service
Yes
5) Impact Fees for homebuyers or developers of
new development/homes
Yes
6) Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes
7) Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes
8) Incur debt through private activity bonds Don’t Know
9) Withhold public expenditures in hazard-prone
areas
No
10) State sponsored grant programs such as
FCAAP
Yes
11) Other-Flood Control District Funding Yes
Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Analysis Endnotes
0.5 State of Washington, Emergency Management Division, Hazard Mitigation Section staff, September,
2009
1 King Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, River and
Floodplain Management, September 2009
2 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan, King Department of Natural Resources and Parks,
Water and Land Resources Division, Final, January 2007
3 FEMA, Level 1 HAZUS – MR3
4 Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan – Regional 6 Profile, Sept 2003 Draft
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Vulnerability Assess., Risk Anal. & Capabilities Page 6-31
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Section 7: Regional Mitigation Strategy
The 2004 Plan
The 2004 Plan identified mission/vision statements, six regional goals and
corresponding objectives that are all identified in section 1 of this Plan. Each of the
planning partners covered by the 2004 Plan was asked to identify both strategies and
initiatives that were consistent with these mission/vision statements, goals and
objectives. The strategies were very broad stroke statements that read more like
objectives. These statements provided each jurisdiction a focus for their actions
identified in their mitigation action plan. While the goals and objectives were regional,
these strategies were jurisdiction specific, and were based on the capabilities of each
jurisdiction to carry out their action plan. Planning tools such as “Mitigation 20/20”
were used by some planning partners to identify their actions. These mitigation
actions plans were included in Appendix B of the 2004 Plan.
The Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Group (called Taskforce in 2004)
discussed and determined the strategy to be a prioritization of the six (6) regional
goals:
1) Protect Life and Property
2) Support Emergency Services
3) Increase Public Awareness
4) Preserve Natural Systems and Resources
5) Encourage Partnerships
6) Enhance Planning Activities
First Priority: Protect Life and Property and Support of Emergency Services
Most organizations and agencies identified initiatives that supported protection of
critical infrastructure necessary to providing and supporting emergency services,
public safety and essential services during a hazard event. Mitigating the potential
loss of these facilities and systems has a direct and immediate impact on the ability
to reduce injuries, save lives and minimize property damage. (Critical infrastructure
and response capabilities are broadly identified in Section 6: Vulnerability
Assessment, Risk Analysis and Capabilities; detailed critical facility data is
located in “Annex G” which is not subject to public disclosure.)
The RHMP partners also identified the need to promote mitigation activities that
prevent losses by making homes, businesses, other properties and infrastructures
more resistant to the impacts of hazards. The first step in accomplishing this is to
implement activities specific to repetitive loss properties and chronic hazard event
damages. Viable activities include better coordination among other agencies
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Mitigation Strategy Page 7-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
governing land use and building regulations to ensure hazard mitigation concerns
and strategies are incorporated into development activities.
Protection of life and property often relies on the ability of citizens to take the
appropriate action before, during and after a hazard event. Critical to minimizing the
loss of life and preventing injuries is ensuring the population understands the
potential hazards in our region, how to prepare or mitigate the impacts, and what to
do if a disaster should happen. This leads to the next priority, increasing public
awareness.
Second Priority: Increase Public Awareness and Preserve Natural Systems
Most agencies felt public education was one of the most important ingredients in the
regional mitigation strategy equation, with emphasis on making additional efforts to
reach populations who may be more vulnerable. Broadening the spectrum to include
businesses and private agencies, in addition to private citizens, would also enhance
the region’s ability to sustain itself during a disaster or hazard event.
There are numerous natural systems within King County and the Puget Sound region
that could be seriously impacted during a manmade or natural hazard event. Working
closely with other agencies to understand potential impacts on our natural
environment and resources, and to coordinate mitigation goals and objectives will
help to support the preservation of natural systems.
Third Priority: Encourage Partnerships and Enhance Planning Activities
Encouraging additional partnerships and enhancing planning activities will build upon
the existing planning effort. While the RHMP process is off to a good start, the
overall success of a long-term planning effort relies on gaining support and
involvement from the region as a whole. Inclusion of other regional partners and
contributions from private entities is essential in promoting a comprehensive planning
approach. Potential partners and private agencies must see the benefit in
participating in such an effort.
The 2009 Plan Update
As stated in section 4 of this Plan, the Plan update process of the RHMP will be
completed in 2 phases. Phase 1 will focus on the preparation of a “Base Plan” that
addresses only King County Municipal Government Agencies, while Phase 2 will
focus on reformatting the Base Plan back into a Regional plan with comprehensive
enhancements. The prioritization discussed above will carry over to the Phase 1
Base Plan, and will be updated under Phase 2. The Phase 1 Base Plan will only
evaluate the status of the initiatives identified in the 2004 Plan for King County
Municipal Agencies. There will be no new initiatives identified in the Phase 1 Base
Plan. Since the strategies identified in the 2004 Plan were broader stroke policy type
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Mitigation Strategy Page 7-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
directives, no status report will be created for the strategies under the Phase 1 Base
Plan. These strategies will be carried over to the Phase 1 Base Plan and reevaluated
under Phase 2, and folded into a revised series of regional objectives pertinent to the
reassembled planning partnership. The 2004 mitigation strategies and initiatives were
developed using a combination of cost-benefit analysis and Mitigation 20/20 software
as described below in detail. As no new initiatives have been developed for Phase 1
of the 2009 update, this methodology will remain intact.
Cost - Benefit Review
As in 2003, and within the current 2009 Plan edition, the Cost – Benefit review
consideration is a requirement of this mitigation Plan. The Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-94 describes the economic principles and methods by which most
federal programs must determine the cost-effectiveness of funded projects. OMB A-
94 states: “Analysis should include comprehensive estimates of the expected
benefits and costs to society based on the established definitions and practices for
program and policy evaluation. Social benefits, and not the benefits and costs to the
Federal Government, should be the basis for evaluating government programs or
policies that have effects on private citizens or other levels of Government.”
Elements of Cost - Benefit Review
Cost - Benefit Review is an effort to objectively prioritize projects that will best serve
the community in a cost-effective way. This key element in the planning process is
derived from the use of multiple elements. Many of the regional partners participating
in the development of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan used Mitigation 20/20
software methodology (in 2004) to generate this ratio by using a formula. The formula
requires an estimated cost to implement the project, the estimated replacement cost
of the infrastructure protected by the project and the population served by the
services provided by agencies using the infrastructure. Additional factors might
include a valuation of human life derived from the World Trade Center Terrorist
Attack on 9/11/01, relative service levels provided by major equipment and/or
facilities in a jurisdiction. An effort to quantify other intangible benefits that might
contribute to public or responder safety was included by specific agencies as
needed.
All signatory agencies to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan have included Cost -
Benefit Review as a primary consideration in the establishment of their strategy
unless other wise specified in their annex. Only mitigation projects with a ratio greater
than 1 have been considered for inclusion in the jurisdiction annexes. Some
organizations included greater detail in their Cost - Benefit Review descriptions.
Criteria for evaluating impacts are somewhat more subjective. While some figures
are available for dollar damages, productivity and economic losses are more difficult
to gauge. Injuries and fatalities are similarly difficult to assess. There is no known
method for evaluating and quantifying the impacts of personal injury or loss of life,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Mitigation Strategy Page 7-3
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Regional Mitigation Strategy Page 7-4
11/12/09
and whether the potential exists to affect one life or many. However, without
establishing a value to human casualty, calculation of cost-benefit analysis for
proposed mitigation projects could not be conducted.
Cost / Benefit = ratio
Cost-Benefit analysis is required to prioritize mitigation projects. High ratios would
receive a higher priority than lower ratios. We will use $2.3 million as the minimum
benefit of one life saved by these projects. The figure was one used by some in the
9-11 World Trade Tower settlement discussions.
Table 7-1 below illustrates the current status of those initiatives identified by King
County Municipal Agencies covered in the 2004 Plan. The table summarizes the
action, and lists the status as completed, ongoing or no progress reported at this
time. (See Annex B for these 2004 materials with status updates noted in upper right-
hand corner. Completed 2004 initiatives have been removed to Annex L.) To clarify
terminology utilized in this table, the term “short-term” under timeline was assigned to
those projects that could be completed in the initial performance period of the Plan,
which is 1 t0 5 years. Long –term would be any project that may take more than 5
years to implement.
Attachment A
16715
TA
B
L
E
7
-
1
.
AC
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
-
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ac
t
i
o
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Go
a
l
s
Ti
m
e
Li
n
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Completion Status (X,O,)
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
h
e
r
i
f
f
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
(
K
C
S
O
)
KC
S
O
-
1
En
h
a
n
c
e
h
o
m
e
l
a
n
d
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
,
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
b
y
a
c
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
s
t
a
f
f
f
o
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
,
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
1
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
e
K
C
S
O
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
s
e
e
k
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
en
h
a
n
c
e
i
t
s
h
o
m
e
l
a
n
d
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
,
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
on
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
Ba
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O
So
l
i
d
W
a
s
t
e
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
(
S
W
D
)
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
e
p
a
rt
m
e
n
t
o
f
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
s
SW
D
-
1
Gr
i
d
2
&
3
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
.
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
re
t
r
o
f
i
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
n
u
m
c
l
a
w
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
st
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
t
s
s
t
e
e
l
p
l
a
t
i
n
g
to
t
h
e
r
o
o
f
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
re
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
s
t
r
o
n
g
ea
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
.
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
(h
i
g
h
)
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
SW
D
-
2
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
W
a
l
l
.
P
h
a
s
e
2
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
re
t
r
o
f
i
t
t
o
t
h
e
En
u
m
c
l
a
w
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
in
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
t
s
s
t
e
e
l
p
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
w
a
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
of
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
st
r
o
n
g
e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
.
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
(h
i
g
h
)
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
SW
D
-
3
Pa
n
e
l
t
o
P
a
n
e
l
j
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ph
a
s
e
3
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
al
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
to
t
h
e
E
n
u
m
c
l
a
w
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
in
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
t
s
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
n
e
l
s
wi
t
h
j
o
i
n
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
re
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
s
t
r
o
n
g
ea
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
(h
i
g
h
)
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
SW
D
-
4
Ro
o
f
p
a
r
a
p
e
t
b
r
a
c
i
n
g
.
P
h
a
s
e
4
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
re
t
r
o
f
i
t
t
o
t
h
e
En
u
m
c
l
a
w
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
(h
i
g
h
)
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
:
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pa
g
e
7
-
5
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
Attachment A 16715
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
:
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pa
g
e
7
-
6
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
TA
B
L
E
7
-
1
.
AC
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
-
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ac
t
i
o
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
s
Ti
m
e
Li
n
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
u
s
Completion Status (X,O,)
in
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
t
s
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
o
o
f
pa
r
a
p
e
t
w
i
t
h
s
t
e
e
l
b
r
a
c
i
n
g
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
th
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
he
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
s
t
r
o
n
g
ea
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
SW
D
-
5
Sh
e
e
r
w
a
l
l
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
P
h
a
s
e
5
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
re
t
r
o
f
i
t
t
o
t
h
e
En
u
m
c
l
a
w
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
in
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
t
s
s
h
e
e
r
w
a
l
l
b
r
a
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
s
t
r
o
n
g
e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
(h
i
g
h
)
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
l
t
h
–
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
&
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
(
P
H
S
K
C
)
PH
-
1
Su
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
’
s
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
sa
f
e
t
y
b
y
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
l
t
h
s
t
a
f
f
in
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
PH
h
a
s
b
e
g
u
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
o
e
d
u
c
a
t
e
s
t
a
f
f
t
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
at
h
o
m
e
a
n
d
w
o
r
k
t
o
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
s
.
Th
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
be
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O
PH
-
2
En
h
a
n
c
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
He
a
l
t
h
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
l
y
(
b
o
t
h
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
P
H
s
i
t
e
s
)
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
m
a
t
e
u
r
a
n
d
sh
o
r
t
-
r
a
n
g
e
r
a
d
i
o
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
PH
-
3
De
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
i
n
f
e
c
t
i
o
u
s
d
i
s
e
a
s
e
o
u
t
b
r
e
a
k
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
e
a
m
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
PH
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
s
e
e
k
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
in
f
e
c
t
i
o
u
s
d
i
s
e
a
s
e
o
u
t
b
r
e
a
k
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
e
a
m
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Th
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
be
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O Attachment A 16715
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
:
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pa
g
e
7
-
7
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
TA
B
L
E
7
-
1
.
AC
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
-
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ac
t
i
o
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
s
Ti
m
e
Li
n
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
u
s
Completion Status (X,O,)
PH
-
4
Ed
u
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
i
n
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
1,
2
,
3
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
PH
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
.
e
.
f
a
c
t
sh
e
e
t
s
)
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
s
,
b
u
t
se
e
k
s
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
ac
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
Pl
a
n
.
O
PH
-
5
Su
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
f
i
r
s
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
r
di
s
a
s
t
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
d
a
t
a
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
PH
i
s
i
n
t
he
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
en
h
a
n
c
e
d
f
i
r
s
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
b
u
t
se
e
k
s
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
s
e
ca
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
ac
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
Pl
a
n
.
O
PH
-
6
a
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
a
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
He
a
l
t
h
s
i
t
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
a
l
s
o
in
v
o
l
v
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
da
m
a
g
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
f
t
e
r
h
a
z
a
r
d
e
v
e
n
t
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
PH
-
6
b
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
n
o
n
-
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
a
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
l
t
h
s
i
t
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
a
l
s
o
in
v
o
l
v
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
n
o
n
-
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
f
t
e
r
ha
z
a
r
d
e
v
e
n
t
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Lo
w
Th
e
n
o
n
-
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
wa
s
t
a
b
l
e
d
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
o
t
h
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
b
e
s
o
u
g
h
t
b
y
P
H
.
X
PH
-
7
En
h
a
n
c
e
s
y
n
d
r
o
m
i
c
s
u
r
v
e
i
l
l
a
n
c
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
d
u
r
i
n
g
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
s
1,
2
,
3
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
s
y
n
d
r
om
i
c
s
u
r
v
e
i
l
l
a
n
c
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
by
P
H
,
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
ex
p
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
on
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
Ba
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O
PH
-
8
En
h
a
n
c
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
t
e
r
r
o
r
i
s
t
a
c
t
s
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
r
a
d
i
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
ev
e
n
t
s
,
t
h
r
e
a
t
s
t
o
f
o
o
d
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
1,
2
,
5
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
PH
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
s
e
e
k
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
ad
v
a
n
c
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
to
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
t
e
r
r
o
r
i
s
t
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
an
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
O Attachment A 16715
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
:
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pa
g
e
7
-
8
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
TA
B
L
E
7
-
1
.
AC
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
-
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ac
t
i
o
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
s
Ti
m
e
Li
n
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
u
s
Completion Status (X,O,)
su
p
p
l
y
a
n
d
a
i
r
b
o
r
n
e
i
l
l
n
e
s
s
e
s
20
0
9
B
a
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
PH
-
9
Du
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
P
H
-
2
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
e
c
hn
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
(
O
I
R
M
)
IT
S
-
1
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
i
t
e
s
a
n
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
t
h
s
f
o
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
’
s
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
a
l
s
o
s
e
e
k
s
to
r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
di
s
a
s
t
e
r
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
1,
2
,
5
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
Me
t
r
o
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
(
K
C
D
O
T
)
MK
C
T
-
1
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
tu
n
n
e
l
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
al
l
o
w
f
o
r
d
e
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
,
g
a
s
,
o
r
f
i
r
e
e
v
e
n
t
.
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
r
e
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
M
K
C
T
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
p
u
r
s
u
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
t
u
n
n
e
l
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
to
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
th
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O
MK
C
T
-
2
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
a
m
e
r
a
s
o
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
bu
s
e
s
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
c
r
i
m
e
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
ci
v
i
l
u
n
r
e
s
t
a
n
d
t
e
r
r
o
r
i
s
t
a
c
t
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
t
a
g
e
al
t
h
o
u
g
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
ou
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
a
m
e
ra
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Th
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
be
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
(
F
M
D
)
FM
D
-
1
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
o
f
c
o
u
n
t
y
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
ea
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
FM
D
-
2
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
4
0
1
-
4
0
3
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
m
o
t
i
o
n
de
t
e
c
t
o
r
,
d
u
r
e
s
s
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
,
c
a
m
e
r
a
a
n
d
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
NA
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
Attachment A 16715
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
:
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pa
g
e
7
-
9
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
TA
B
L
E
7
-
1
.
AC
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
-
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ac
t
i
o
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
s
Ti
m
e
Li
n
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
u
s
Completion Status (X,O,)
FM
D
-
3
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
t
h
f
l
o
o
r
-
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
c
a
r
d
ac
c
e
s
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
d
u
r
e
s
s
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
,
c
a
m
e
r
a
an
d
v
i
d
e
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
NA
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
FM
D
-
4
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
6
t
h
f
l
o
o
r
-
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
c
a
r
d
ac
c
e
s
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
d
u
r
e
s
s
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
,
c
a
m
e
r
a
an
d
v
i
d
e
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
NA
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
FM
D
-
5
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1
s
t
A
v
e
M
B
O
S
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
Up
g
r
a
d
e
.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
c
a
r
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
du
r
e
s
s
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
,
c
a
m
e
r
a
a
n
d
v
i
d
e
o
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
NA
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Lo
w
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
M
D
’
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
,
al
t
h
o
u
g
h
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
b
e
so
u
g
h
t
b
y
F
M
D
.
X
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
r
e
M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l
’
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
(
F
M
O
)
FM
O
-
1
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
n
e
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
1,
2
,
3
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
o
t
h
e
r
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
ar
e
s
o
u
g
h
t
t
o
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
ca
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O
FM
O
-
2
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
l
a
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
f
o
r
n
o
t
e
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
1,
2
,
3
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
l
a
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
ca
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O
FM
O
-
3
Su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
1,
2
,
3
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
ca
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
B
a
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O
FM
O
-
4
Wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
f
i
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
pu
b
l
i
c
e
d
u
c
a
t
o
r
s
t
o
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
me
s
s
a
g
e
s
1,
2
,
3
,
5
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Ot
h
e
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
ce
s
a
r
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
sa
f
e
t
y
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
n
on
g
o
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
v
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
2
0
0
9
Ba
s
e
P
l
a
n
.
O Attachment A 16715
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
:
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pa
g
e
7
-
1
0
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
TA
B
L
E
7
-
1
.
AC
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
-
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ac
t
i
o
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
s
Ti
m
e
Li
n
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
u
s
Completion Status (X,O,)
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
s
(
D
N
R
P
)
DN
R
P
-
1
Sn
o
q
u
a
l
m
i
e
2
0
5
(
F
u
n
d
3
1
8
F
)
.
Co
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
K
i
n
g
Co
u
n
t
y
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
n
o
q
u
a
l
m
i
e
a
n
d
C
o
r
p
s
of
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
f
l
o
o
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
b
o
v
e
S
n
o
q
u
a
l
m
i
e
F
a
l
l
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
m
a
j
o
r
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
1,
2
,
4
,
5
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
of
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
DN
R
P
-
2
No
r
t
h
B
e
n
d
2
0
5
(
F
u
n
d
3
1
8
F
a
n
d
3
1
8
U
)
.
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
a
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
f
l
o
o
d
da
m
a
g
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
Co
r
p
s
o
f
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
(
C
o
r
p
s
)
,
K
i
n
g
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
B
e
n
d
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
e
v
a
l
ua
t
e
c
o
s
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
fl
o
o
d
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
an
d
M
i
d
d
l
e
F
o
r
k
S
n
o
q
u
a
l
m
i
e
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
n
an
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
1,
2
,
4
,
5
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
i
n
i
t
i
a
ti
v
e
i
s
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
in
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
.
L
i
ke
l
y
r
e
-
s
c
o
p
e
t
o
e
x
p
a
n
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
.
T
h
i
s
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
O
DN
R
P
-
3
Ri
v
e
r
s
M
a
j
o
r
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
F
u
n
d
3
1
8
F
an
d
3
1
8
U
)
.
M
a
j
o
r
r
i
v
e
r
s
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
f
u
n
d
s
t
o
r
e
p
a
i
r
da
m
a
g
e
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
K
i
n
g
Co
u
n
t
y
’
s
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
f
f
l
o
o
d
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
1,
2
,
4
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
e
R
i
v
e
r
s
M
a
j
o
r
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
i
s
a
n
o
n
-
go
i
n
g
b
o
d
y
o
f
w
o
r
k
.
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3
3
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
i
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
.
T
h
i
s
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
O Attachment A 16715
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
:
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pa
g
e
7
-
1
1
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
TA
B
L
E
7
-
1
.
AC
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
-
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ac
t
i
o
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
s
Ti
m
e
Li
n
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
u
s
Completion Status (X,O,)
DN
R
P
-
4
Fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
U
N
D
31
8
F
a
n
d
3
1
8
U
)
.
F
l
o
o
d
w
a
y
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
re
m
o
v
a
l
,
s
l
o
p
e
-
b
a
c
k
o
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
o
f
Co
u
n
t
y
-
o
w
n
e
d
f
l
o
o
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
,
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
ch
a
n
n
e
l
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
a
n
d
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
re
c
l
a
i
m
e
d
f
l
o
o
d
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
op
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
/
-
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
us
e
s
.
1,
3
,
4
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
e
F
l
o
o
d
w
a
y
C
o
r
r
i
do
r
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
i
s
a
n
o
n
-
go
i
n
g
b
o
d
y
o
f
w
o
r
k
.
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
s
i
x
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
th
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
Th
i
s
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
O
DN
R
P
-
5
Fl
o
o
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
U
N
D
3
1
8
F
an
d
3
1
8
U
)
.
F
l
o
o
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
re
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
l
y
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
h
o
m
e
s
,
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
of
u
n
d
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
l
a
n
d
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
fu
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
f
l
o
o
d
p
r
o
n
e
ar
e
a
s
,
a
n
d
w
h
e
r
e
c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
t
h
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ho
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
r
e
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
d
e
e
p
,
l
o
w
-
ve
l
o
c
i
t
y
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
.
1,
4
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
e
F
l
o
o
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
i
s
a
n
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
bo
d
y
o
f
w
o
r
k
.
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1
8
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
pr
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Fl
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
O
DN
R
P
-
6
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
Re
t
r
o
f
i
t
.
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
,
t
h
e
fu
e
l
s
u
p
p
l
y
t
a
n
k
s
f
o
r
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
f
l
o
o
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
n
d
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
to
m
a
j
o
r
q
u
a
k
e
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
re
t
r
o
f
i
t
t
h
e
B
l
a
c
k
R
i
v
e
r
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
th
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
I
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
U
S
G
S
S
n
o
q
u
a
l
m
i
e
C
a
b
l
e
w
a
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ha
s
a
l
s
o
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
DN
R
P
-
7
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
Fl
o
o
d
W
a
r
n
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
(
F
W
C
)
f
r
o
m
i
t
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
i
s
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
s
e
v
e
r
e
se
i
s
m
i
c
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
,
t
o
a
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
i
s
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Me
d
i
u
m
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
th
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
T
h
e
Fl
o
o
d
W
a
r
n
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
Ki
n
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
b
u
i
l
t
t
o
m
o
d
e
r
n
Attachment A 16715
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
a
z
a
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
:
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
Pa
g
e
7
-
1
2
11
/
1
2
/
0
9
TA
B
L
E
7
-
1
.
AC
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
-
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ac
t
i
o
n
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G
o
a
l
s
Ti
m
e
Li
n
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
u
s
Completion Status (X,O,)
no
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
a
n
y
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
h
a
z
a
r
d
r
i
s
k
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
.
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
se
i
s
m
i
c
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
DN
R
P
-
8
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
fl
o
o
d
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
t
e
l
e
m
e
t
r
y
a
n
d
g
a
u
g
i
n
g
,
co
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
,
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
p
o
w
e
r
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
1,
2
Sh
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
Hi
g
h
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
th
e
2
0
0
4
K
C
R
H
M
P
.
K
i
n
g
Co
u
n
t
y
h
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
a
n
d
s
t
a
r
t
e
d
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
th
a
t
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
s
e
n
d
s
o
u
t
e
-
m
a
i
l
a
n
d
p
a
g
e
r
a
l
e
r
t
s
wh
e
n
r
e
a
l
-
t
i
m
e
g
a
g
e
d
a
t
a
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
f
l
o
o
d
p
h
a
s
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
.
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
h
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
w
e
b
p
a
g
e
s
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
f
o
r
P
D
A
a
n
d
c
e
l
l
p
h
o
n
e
u
s
e
r
s
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
re
a
l
-
t
i
m
e
r
i
v
e
r
g
a
u
g
e
d
a
t
a
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
.
DN
R
P
-
9
Fl
o
o
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Th
i
s
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
u
c
h
as
h
a
z
a
r
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
r
e
v
i
t
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
n
g
K
i
n
g
Co
u
n
t
y
.
1,
2
,
3
Lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
Me
d
i
u
m
Th
i
s
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
i
s
a
n
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
w
o
r
k
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
fl
o
o
d
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
O
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
u
s
l
e
g
e
n
d
:
G
o
a
l
s
:
=
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
1
)
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
=
A
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
2
)
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
X
=
N
o
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
a
t
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
3
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
4
)
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
n
d
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
5
)
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
Attachment A 16715
Section 8: *Annexes 2009
Annex A: Plan Distribution List
*Annex B: Individual Jurisdiction Plans
*Annex C: King County Government and Jurisdiction Participation
*Annex D: King County Plan Adoption Documentation
*Annex E: Public Participation
Annex F: Policy and Program Analysis
Annex G: Critical Facilities
Annex H: Potential Funding Sources
Annex I: References and Resources
Annex J: Glossary
(new for 2009)
Annex K: 2004 Plan Maps
(removed from Section 3)
Annex L: 2004 King County Government Initiatives - Completed
(removed from 2004 KC Annex B)
* Name change for 2009 RHMP Plan
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annexes 2009 Page 8-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Annex A: Plan Distribution List
The DRAFT 2009 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) is
available on the King County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) website
at www.kingcounty.gov/prepare with a link to the Plan (10/02/09 version). When
final approved and adopted Plan and annual version(s) of the RHMP becomes
available, the website will be updated.
A hard copy DRAFT 2009 RHMP can be found in five (5) Regional Libraries,
located in the Government Section, as a Reference Copy. The Libraries are:
Bellevue, Bothell, Redmond, Auburn and the King County Library System (KCLS)
online. When RHMP updates are available, they will be submitted in hard copy
to the KCLS distribution system contact, for insertion into the 3 ring binders at the
Libraries listed above, or replaced with a new binder, as needed.
The RHMP, with Annexes, will be submitted to the Washington State, Emergency
Management Division (EMD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region X, in the prescribed
method and frequency interval as stated in Section 2 of this Plan.
Specific requests for individual annexes or data pertaining to specific
participating jurisdictions will be forwarded to the respective jurisdiction.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Plan Distribution List A-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Annex B: Individual Jurisdiction Plans
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Individual Jurisdiction Plans B-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
ANNEX B Section 2, 1.1 DRAFT
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Jurisdiction Letter of Intent to Join King County’s Plan
Signature Form
I, jurisdiction of __________________ hereby commit to actively participating in the
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. I understand that each jurisdiction participating in the
Plan is individually responsible for accomplishing the tasks listed below.
ο Designate a Point of Contact (POC) for this jurisdiction to coordinate mitigation
planning efforts. Inform KC OEM immediately when the POC changes.
__________________________________________________________________
Point of Contact email address phone number
ο Ensure the governing body of this jurisdiction adopts the Regional Mitigation Plan by
local ordinance.
ο Contribute at no cost available geographic data necessary to development of the
Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis including, but not limited to:
• land use data
• development patterns
• population figures
• infrastructure systems
• hazard data and history of incidents
ο Develop a Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) based on the King County Hazard
Identification and Vulnerability Analysis. The LMS will include:
• a set of mitigation goals specific to this jurisdiction aimed at reducing long-
term vulnerability to hazards
• a list of mitigation projects and actions
• a description of how projects and actions will be prioritized and implemented
• Involvement in NIFP compliance
• Other FEMA required Plan components as amended
ο Develop a schedule for updating this jurisdiction's LMS and geographic data
contained within the KC Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan guidelines, Section 2, Plan
Maintenance and Plan Management section
ο Incorporate recommendations, policies, and strategies included in the LMS into
other local planning tools and methods such as land use plans, Capital
Improvements Plans, site review processes, zoning ordinances, and others.
Signature of Chief Elected Official Signed: __________________________________
Printed signature:_______________________________________________________
Jurisdiction: _______________________________ Date: ___________________
Attachment A
16715
Annex B: Cities
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex B - Cities
Attachment A
16715
Annex B: Fire Districts
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex B - Fire Districts
Attachment A
16715
Annex B: Utility Districts
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex B - Utility Districts
Attachment A
16715
Annex B: School Districts
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex B - School Districts
Attachment A
16715
2009 Evaluation of 2004 King County Initiatives
(Status is noted in upper right-hand corner)
Annex B: King County Government Departments (2004)
King County Facilities Management
King County Department of Transportation
King County Department of Executive Services, Information and
Telecommunications Services Division
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King County Sheriff's Office
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex B - King County Government
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Status:Ongoing
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Status:OngoingAttachment A
16715
Status:Ongoing
Attachment A
16715
Status:OngoingAttachment A
16715
Status:InProgressAttachment A
16715
Status:6a-Completed
6b-TabledAttachment A
16715
Status:OngoingAttachment A
16715
Status:OngoingAttachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Status:InProgressAttachment A
16715
Status:InProgressAttachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Annex C: King County Government and
Jurisdiction Participation
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – King County Government and Jurisdiction Participation
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Historical Planning Process Information
Retained from 2004 Plan
Annex C: Historical King County 2003 / 2004 RHMP Planning Process
Information (retained in 2009 Plan update)
2004 Editor’s Note: The following sections outline the process utilized during the
initial drafting of the Plan in 2003. The planning process consisted of multiple
phases and teams, including the Taskforce, work groups, and partners group.
The RHMP “Taskforce” included representatives from participating agencies who
acted as a guiding body for the direction of the regional plan and work group
activities. The Taskforce met monthly to review work progress, adoption process
and public participation efforts.
Originally, participating agencies met monthly as a group. When a review of the
RHMP progress and information submitted by jurisdictions was conducted late in
the spring of 2003, it became evident that some agencies had made substantial
progress in the planning progress while other agencies had not. For this reason,
participants were divided into two groups – one with a submission deadline of
December 8, 2003 and a second group to convene for the 2004 planning phase.
Only those with December 8th deadline targets participated in work group
sessions. Work groups were segregated into operational areas: schools, cities,
utilities, fire districts, and King County government agencies. They met every
week to discuss selected topics, submit data and review draft plan document
drafts. Eventually the schools joined the cities work group to consolidate meeting
schedules. New work groups for the next planning phase were formed in early
2004.
In an effort to pull together the entire process, all participants and interested
parties met once a month at the “RHMP Partners Meeting.” This forum provided
an opportunity to brief everyone on the plan status, distribute draft documents,
share information and provide for agency comments and feedback.
Note: 2009 RHMP Partners are now referred to in the plan as “Planning Team,”
which is an informal body comprised of representatives from jurisdictions that
have annexed or wish to annex to the RHMP.
King County Emergency Management Staff Support
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan (retained from 2004 Plan): Annex C Page C-1
11/12/2009
Attachment A
16715
King County’s personnel contribution to the development of the Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan consisted of two full-time Project Management III staff members,
one contract temporary technical writer, one part-time work-study student, and
several volunteers. These staff resources were dedicated to the facilitation of
regional participation, coordination of the planning process, research, data
collection, plan writing, and administration of public presentations. Office of
Emergency Management staff also provided support and guidance to partner
agencies as requested and developed and maintained the RHMP website for the
benefit of partner agencies and the general public.
Data Collection and Mitigation 20/20 Software
The County received a copy of “Mitigation 20/20” software as part of the 2003 /
2004 FEMA / State $100,000 Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant to develop a King
County RHMP. This “Microsoft Access” database program provided a step-by-
step method to help agencies collect and evaluate hazard mitigation data. We
provided a limited version of the County’s master copy to interested signatories,
per the licensing agreement. While the software was somewhat useful for single
jurisdictions, it did not lend itself to the political jurisdictional environment in King
County or to a true regional hazard mitigation planning effort. In addition, some
agencies did not have the computer hardware or software capability to run the
program. Forms and data generated and collected in the Mitigation 20/20
software format was limited but somewhat useful as a standard for collecting
data in hardcopy form. Some agencies opted to use their own methods for
collecting, documenting and evaluating data for their plan. This information was
manually integrated with other data submitted via the Mitigation 20/20 format.
Due to program limitations, the County chose to manually develop the plan
instead of utilizing the pre-written format provided in the Mitigation 20/20
program. Mitigation 20/20 will not be utilized for future revisions and additions to
the RHMP.
Plan Adoption
The December 8, 2003 submission date and the RHMP work plan left very little
time for the regional partners to review and adopt the final composite of the Draft
Plan. For this reason, the plan sections were released to the partners as they
were drafted for comment and reviewed at the weekly work group meetings.
Draft documents were also made available on-line at the King County Office of
Emergency Management website at www.metrokc.gov/prepare/KCRHMP as they
were completed. Partners and citizens alike were given access to the documents
in this fashion.
Intention to Adopt – Individual Agencies
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan (retained from 2004 Plan): Annex C Page C-2
11/12/2009
Attachment A
16715
Each jurisdiction chose to pass resolutions expressing their intention to adopt the
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan upon acceptance of the plan by
Washington State Emergency Management and FEMA. This was done at
different points in the process per the desires of each jurisdiction. Documentation
of the adoption resolution was a requirement for acknowledgement of the
jurisdiction’s successful participation in the hazard mitigation planning process.
All participating agencies in this planning session met this requirement as
identified in the Annex D: Plan Adoption, in the 2004 Plan. Original resolutions
are kept on file at the King County Office of Emergency Management.
Public Involvement
The planning process attempted to provide opportunity for public involvement in
a variety of ways at every step. While we recognized this topic was typically of
interest to specific individuals and groups, we provided appropriate opportunity to
gain public interest and feedback. We felt it was important to educate the public
on the hazard mitigation planning process as well as the specific work being
done by the various agencies contributing to the Plan.
We also acknowledged the need to reach individuals and groups at all levels in a
way that met their needs. To accomplish this we approached the task using
several different methods:
CTV- King County Civic Television
In March 2003, the County produced and aired a “Project Impact” segment
featuring the Director of Emergency Management, Taskforce members and
RHMP project staff. The production, televised on County Television (CTV),
focused on the types of hazards that occur in our region and the benefits to
developing a multi-jurisdictional Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. This segment
was available to a potential viewing population of approximately 445,000
households throughout King County. VHS and DVD copies were also made
available to RHMP partner agencies.
Internet / Website
A portion of the King County’s Emergency Management website was specifically
dedicated to regional hazard mitigation planning. This site was developed and
still remains as a tool for participating agencies as well as the general public. It
contains information on hazard mitigation planning, help for participating
agencies, resources, draft and final plan components, and a method for providing
plan comments and feedback. The address is www.metrokc.gov/prepare/kcrhmp.
Public Meetings
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan (retained from 2004 Plan): Annex C Page C-3
11/12/2009
Attachment A
16715
As the RHMP was being developed, Office of Emergency Management staff
conducted presentations to a variety of political and community groups, including
commissioners, city councils, emergency managers and the general public. Many
of these meetings and/or presentations were provided as a direct result from
public requests. To insure a formal opportunity for the public to provide input,
staff and members of the RHMP Partners group hosted two public meetings, one
in Woodinville and one in Federal Way. Meeting content included an overview of
the hazard mitigation process and the Plan.
The public presentations completed prior to the submission of the plan to
Washington State Emergency Management are listed in Annex E: Public
Participation, of the 2004 Plan.
Citizen Involvement
The RHMP group benefited greatly from the interest and involvement of a private
citizen who was willing to dedicate time and disaster-related expertise to the
project. He contributed a considerable amount of personal time doing research,
developing sections of the Plan, reviewing the draft document, and helping to
facilitate meetings.
Participating Agency Input
For participating agencies, the review process was incorporated into the weekly
work group meetings and monthly RHMP partner meetings. Partners were
provided with draft documents in hard copy and/or via electronic format for their
review. There were able to provide input, additions and corrections throughout
the entire process.
Public Review Comment Period/Process
Throughout the planning process the RHMP was made available via the World
Wide Web for public review; no comments were received from the general public
by the November 8, 2003 deadline. Any written comments received after
November 8, 2003 and prior to March 1, 2004 will be addressed in the next
planning phase starting in 2004. The Plan was also distributed during public
meetings with utility commissioners, city councils and fire commissioners.
Continued Public Involvement
The FEMA Approved Draft of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be made
available via a link on the King County Office of Emergency Management
website at www.metrokc.gov/prepare. A second Project Impact television
Program was planned to elaborate on the Plan and the projects being
implemented in the region. As the Plan underwent additional amendments and
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan (retained from 2004 Plan): Annex C Page C-4
11/12/2009
Attachment A
16715
additions, public meetings were announced at locations around King County. The
pubic could contact the project manager at anytime with comments. The project
manager scheduled public meetings during the revision process for inclusion of
their comments. Meetings were held at locations around King County.
Hardcopies of the most current version were made available to the library system
in King County once FEMA approved the submitted draft.
Documentation
King County Office of Emergency Management, the coordinating agency,
documented and tracked meeting attendance, participation activities, and public
review and comment throughout the entire planning process.
RHMP partners were required to sign in at all meetings. Later in the process,
OEM designed an electronic tracking record in order to monitor week-to-week
agency participation.
OEM project staff developed a “Functional Group Work Plan” that outlined the
weekly activities for each discipline group. Each agency was required to submit
data in hardcopy and electronic formats. All data was filed in electronic as well as
hard copy filing systems. In order to track whether data was submitted and if it
was complete, OEM staff also developed a quick-reference tracking form.
Meeting reminders and meeting summaries were provided to partners via e-mail.
Agendas and draft plan documents were provided at public meetings. Public
input and comments were documented. Comments and input received through
other avenues, such as participant meetings, agency review, or the web site
were documented and maintained in hard copy files. Electronic media was also
maintained in the electronic filing system. All plan comments were addressed
and documented. For comments that were not included in the December 8, 2003
/ 2004 Plan submission, written justification was provided.
All documents are maintained at the King County Office of Emergency
Management. Work plan, data summaries and other tracking documents are in
Annex C: 2004 Agency Participation.
Cost - Benefit Review
Cost – Benefit review consideration is a requirement of this mitigation plan. The
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 describes the economic
principles and methods by which most federal programs must determine the
cost-effectiveness of funded projects. OMB A-94 states: “Analysis should include
comprehensive estimates of the expected benefits and costs to society based on
the established definitions and practices for program and policy evaluation.
Social benefits, and not the benefits and costs to the Federal Government,
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan (retained from 2004 Plan): Annex C Page C-5
11/12/2009
Attachment A
16715
should be the basis for evaluating government programs or policies that have
effects on private citizens or other levels of Government.”
Elements of Cost - Benefit Review
Cost - Benefit Review is an effort to objectively prioritize projects that will best
serve the community in a cost-effective way. This key element in the planning
process is derived from the use of multiple elements. Many of the regional
partners participating in the development of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
used Mitigation 20/20 software methodology to generate this ratio by using a
formula. The formula requires an estimated cost to implement the project, the
estimated replacement cost of the infrastructure protected by the project and the
population served by the services provided by agencies using the infrastructure.
Additional factors might include a valuation of human life derived from the World
Trade Center Terrorist Attack on 9/11/01, relative service levels provided by
major equipment and/or facilities in a jurisdiction. An effort to quantify other
intangible benefits that might contribute to public or responder safety was
included by specific agencies as needed.
All signatory agencies to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan have included Cost
- Benefit Review as a primary consideration in the establishment of their strategy
unless other wise specified in their annex. Only mitigation projects with a ratio
greater than 1 have been considered for inclusion in the jurisdiction annexes.
Some organizations included greater detail in their C - B Review descriptions.
Implementation of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
All signatory agencies to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan implemented their
designated strategies through the following funding mechanisms unless
otherwise designated in their individual annexes:
• Capital Improvement Program Budgets
• Operations Budgets
• Grant Proposals where available
• Expansion of Public Education program scope
• Proposals for bond levies where applicable
Most signatory agencies operate on annual budget cycles. Some large projects
may require implementation over multiple budget cycles (pipeline replacement is
an example). Progress and changes were addressed in the regular revisions of
this Plan by all signatory agencies as noted under Plan Administration and
Maintenance below.
Plan Administration and Maintenance
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan (retained from 2004 Plan): Annex C Page C-6
11/12/2009
Attachment A
16715
The King County Office of Emergency Management Director/ Program Manager
is the designated keeper of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP). The
King County Office of Emergency Management will be responsible for
administering changes to the Plan, facilitating the planning process for new
partners, and forwarding annual revisions to Washington State Emergency
Management for review.
Signatory jurisdictions, businesses and agencies to the RHMP were responsible
for the maintenance of their individual strategies, revision of incomplete
mitigation initiative efforts, and submission of those changes to the King County
Office of Emergency Management for review by the Regional Hazard Mitigation
Plan Taskforce. RHMP amendments, revisions and additions were to be
provided to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Taskforce by the end of
September each year for review. Changes to RHMP sections one through six will
be affirmed by the impacted department managers.
The RHMP was to be revised annually for resubmission to FEMA and the State
of Washington, on the second Monday of December. Changes to the RHMP
would be posted on the King County Office of Emergency Management website.
A public meeting to present the Plan changes or additions was conducted one
month after review by Washington State Emergency Management but prior to
acceptance by FEMA. Public comment will continue to be solicited.
Transmittal of Plan Documents
On November 12, 2009, King County Department of Executive Services, Office
of Emergency Management (OEM), transmitted copies of the King County
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) to the State of Washington, Emergency
Management Division (EMD), Mitigation Strategist, for official review and
submission to FEMA. FEMA conditionally approved the Plan on November 30,
which cleared the way for King County and each partner jurisdiction to formally
adopt the Plan. Adoption dates for specific annexes may be found in Annex XX
and in each jurisdictional annex.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan (retained from 2004 Plan): Annex C Page C-7
11/12/2009
Attachment A
16715
Annex C
2009 Planning Team - KC Hazard Mitigation Plan Meetings
Date Document Venue
5/18/2009 Sign-In Sheet King County ECC
6/15/2009 Sign-In Sheet King County ECC
7/13/2009 Sign-In Sheet Hazard Mitigation Meeting
9/17/2009 Conference Call
Roster
KC OEM, State EMD 2009 and Conference Call
Participants
9/29/2009 State EMD Doodle
Poll "King County Technical Assistance Day" at KC ECC
9/29/2009 Sign-In Sheet 2009 Regional Mitigation Plan - Participating Agencies
Workshop
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Co
n
f
e
r
a
n
c
e
C
a
l
l
S
t
a
t
e
E
M
D
2
0
0
9
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
t
h
,
2
0
0
9
1
1
:
3
0
a
m
-
1
p
m
Na
m
e
F
r
a
n
k
I
r
i
a
r
t
e
De
s
k
P
h
o
n
e
20
6
-
4
3
1
-
2
4
4
5
Em
a
i
l
f
i
r
i
a
t
e
@
c
i
.
t
u
k
w
i
l
a
.
w
a
.
u
s
Ag
e
n
c
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
T
u
k
w
i
l
a
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
2
0
6
-
5
7
1
-
6
3
1
9
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
63
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
c
e
n
t
e
r
B
l
v
d
.
T
u
k
w
i
l
a
,
W
A
9
8
1
8
8
Na
m
e
Go
r
d
i
e
O
l
s
o
n
De
s
k
P
h
o
n
e
Em
a
i
l
Ag
e
n
c
y
KC
F
D
#
3
9
-
So
u
t
h
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
31
6
1
7
1
s
t
A
v
e
S
.
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
,
W
a
9
8
0
0
3
Na
m
e
Sc
o
t
t
W
e
b
s
t
e
r
De
s
k
P
h
o
n
e
Em
a
i
l
s
c
o
t
t
w
@
m
a
p
l
e
v
a
l
l
e
y
f
i
r
e
.
o
r
g
Ag
e
n
c
y
KC
F
D
#
4
3
-
M
a
p
l
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
F
i
r
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
23
7
7
5
S
E
2
6
4
t
h
S
t
.
M
a
p
l
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
,
W
A
9
8
0
3
8
Na
m
e
P
a
m
C
o
b
l
e
y
De
s
k
P
h
o
n
e
2
5
3
-
6
3
1
-
3
7
7
0
Em
a
i
l
pc
o
b
e
l
y
@
r
o
t
h
h
i
l
l
.
c
o
m
Ag
e
n
c
y
KC
W
D
#
1
1
1
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
2
7
2
2
4
1
4
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
K
e
n
t
,
W
A
9
8
0
4
2
Na
m
e
De
s
k
P
h
o
n
e
2
0
6
-
8
2
4
-
0
3
7
5
Em
a
i
l
Ag
e
n
c
y
Hi
g
h
l
i
n
e
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
27
2
2
4
1
4
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
K
e
n
t
,
W
A
9
8
0
4
2
Na
m
e
De
s
k
P
h
o
n
e
25
3
-
6
3
0
-
9
9
0
0
Em
a
i
l
Ag
e
n
c
y
S
o
o
s
C
r
e
e
k
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
14
6
1
6
S
E
1
9
2
n
d
S
t
.
R
e
n
t
o
n
,
W
A
9
8
0
5
8
-
1
0
3
9
Na
m
e
De
s
k
P
h
o
n
e
Em
a
i
l
Ag
e
n
c
y
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Na
m
e
De
s
k
P
h
o
n
e
Em
a
i
l
Ag
e
n
c
y
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Pa
g
e
2
Attachment A 16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Annex D: King County Plan Adoption
Documentation
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Plan Adoption Documentation Page D-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Kurt Triplett
King County Executive
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3210
Seattle, WA 98104
206-296-4040 Fax 206-296-0194
TTY Relay: 711
www.kingcounty.gov
November 12, 2009
The Honorable Dow Constantine
Chair, King County Council
Room 1200
C O U R T H O U S E
Dear Councilmember Constantine:
I am pleased to transmit to you a proposed ordinance approving and adopting an updated
Multi-Jurisdictional Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) for King County. Adoption of
this plan by the Metropolitan King County Council and approval by both State of Washington,
Emergency Management Division (EMD), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is required to ensure access to future Federal mitigation project funding related to
potential flooding or any other type hazard the region may experience over the next five year
period.
A Mitigation Plan is a community-driven document used to identify projects or programs to
reduce vulnerability to hazards. Mitigation planning is a process through which communities
assess risks and identify prioritized actions or strategies to reduce vulnerability to hazards
through hazard mitigation. The Plan and its process show the link between hazard
identification, vulnerability and risk assessment and provide a vehicle to expand on and
improve existing mitigation tools. Communities must have an approved Plan to apply for or
receive federal mitigation grants. These grants augment local mitigation activities, reduce
vulnerability, and allow communities to recover more quickly from disasters.
King County and its residents receive many benefits from the RHMP planning process:
• increases public awareness and understanding of vulnerabilities and specific actions to
reduce losses from future natural or man-made disasters;
Attachment A
16715
The Honorable Dow Constantine
November 12, 2009
Page 2
• builds partnerships with diverse stakeholders, increasing opportunities to leverage data
and resources; and
• informs development, prioritization and implementation of mitigation projects
In addition, mitigation planning creates safer communities, reduces life and property damage,
allows individuals to minimize post-disaster disruptions and recover more rapidly, and lessens
the financial impact on individuals, communities, and society as a whole.
The King County Council adopted the County’s initial RHMP in October 2004 (Ordinance
15038); an update of that plan is now required. The current plan expired November 1, 2009.
Until King County has an adopted plan to update the 2004 plan, it cannot compete for funds
through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, a nationally competitive program, or the
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. King County and its residents continue to have
access to Public Assistance or Individual Assistance following a declared disaster, as this
funding is not contingent upon the required plan update.
State review is complete and the county’s plan was forwarded as approved by Washington
State to FEMA earlier this week for federal review. Upon adoption by the King County
Council and Executive signature, FEMA has indicated a willingness to provide prompt review
and consideration for final approval.
This transmittal package includes an adopting ordinance that will allow the county’s Office of
Emergency Management to incorporate any final FEMA changes required to gain Federal
approval of the updated mitigation plan. It is common practice for a jurisdiction’s legislative
actions to occur in advance of final FEMA approval. FEMA expects such adjustments to the
plan subsequent to Council approval.
Highlights of the updated 2009 RHMP include:
• flooding hazard risk increased to high, given the Howard Hanson Dam and
potential increased risk for Green River Valley flooding for the next possible
5 years (Section 5);
• a risk assessment of the six major King County river basins (Section 6); and
• use of easy to read tables and charts to highlight 2009 RHMP updates in each
Section and Annex.
Attachment A
16715
The Honorable Dow Constantine
November 12, 2009
Page 3
If you have any questions, please contact Caroline Whalen, Program Project Director,
Department of Executive Services at 263-9755.
Sincerely,
Kurt Triplett
King County Executive
Enclosures
cc: King County Councilmembers
ATTN: Tom Bristow, Interim Chief of Staff
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
Frank Abe, Communications Director
Pam Bissonnette, Assistant County Executive, Executive Office (EO)
Noel Treat, Chief of Staff, EO
Paul Tanaka, King County Emergency Manager, EO
Beth Goldberg, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget
Bob Cowan, Acting County Administrative Officer, Department of Executive
Services (DES)
Caroline Whalen, Program Project Director, DES
Robin Friedman, Director, Office of Emergency Management, DES
Attachment A
16715
..Title
AN ORDINANCE approving and adopting the updated
Multi-Jurisdictional Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, as
approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
..Body
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. Findings:
A. King County supports disaster mitigation efforts and regional disaster
planning.
B. A locally adopted plan reviewed and approved by Federal Emergency
Management Agency ("FEMA") is required under the Mitigation Act of 2000, 44 C.F.R.
201.
C. Regular revisions and updates to the updated five year plan are required by
FEMA.
D. In October 2004, the King County council approved the county's initial five
year Multi-Jurisdictional Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
E. An updated plan is now required to comply with the Mitigation Act of 2000.
F. King County and other jurisdictions within King County have a cooperative
interest in disaster mitigation planning efforts.
G. Additional agencies are expected to annex to this plan following FEMA
approval.
Attachment A
16715
H. FEMA approval of this plan enables the county to seek Federal mitigation
project funding related to potential flooding or other hazards the region may experience
over the next five year planning period.
I. Certification of the King County council's approval of this plan is required for
FEMA final approval.
SECTION 2. The King County council hereby approves and adopts the Multi-
Jurisdictional Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Attachment A to this ordinance.
SECTION 3. The King County council authorizes the office of emergency
management to make any required FEMA revisions to updated Multi-Jurisdictional
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan required by FEMA final approval.
Attachment A. King County Multi-Jurisdictional Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan,
November 2009.
Attachment A
16715
Annex E: Public Participation
The list provided in Annex E identifies the 2009 King County Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan (RHMP), King County Government, internal Public Participation
activities, as shown on a chart.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Public Participation Page E-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Annex E
2009 Public Involvement Phase 1
DateDocument Venue Status Public
Input
12/1/2005 Affidavit of
Publication King County Journal PublishedNone
8/5/2009 Affidavit of
Publication Snoqualmie Valley RecordPublishedNone
8/5/2009 Affidavit of
Publication Bothell/Kenmore ReportersPublishedNone
8/5/2009 Affidavit of
Publication Kent Reporter PublishedNone
9/29/2009Agenda KCLS Board of Trustees Meeting Public
Announcement N/A
9/29/2009AnnouncementKCLS Board of Trustees Meeting Public
Announcement N/A
9/29/2009Minutes KCLS Board of Trustees Meeting Public
Announcement N/A
10/26/2009
Email document
confirming DRAFT
2009 KC RHMP is
available in Libraries
King County Regional Libraries:
Auburn, Bellevue, Bothell,
Redmond and the KCLS Online
Catalogue
5 Libraries have
Plan in
Government
Section for
Public Review
with Request
for Input
document (with
email address)
N/A
10/27/2009 Affidavit of
Publication Seattle Times PublishedNone
10/28/2009 Affidavit of
Publication Kent Reporter PublishedNone
10/28/2009 Affidavit of
Publication Snoqualmie Valley RecordPublishedNone
10/28/2009 Affidavit of
Publication Bothell/Kenmore ReportersPublishedNone
Attachment A
16715
Annex E
2009 Public Involvement Phase 1
DateDocument Venue Status Public
Input
10/30/2009 Email document:
Request for Input
Request to KC Government
contacts and key jurisdictions to
fill out the King County Hazard
Mitigation Survey Questionnaire
by November 8, 2009
EmailedNone
Year 2009
2009 Howard
Hanson Dam and
Green River Flood
Planning - Regional
Communications
and Public Outreach
(Spreadsheet)
Various Meetings and Forums
Spreadsheet
2009 - Approx.
12 Events
attended by KC
OEM
N/A
Fall 2009 Hazard Mitigation
Defined
Link posted on
http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety
/prepare/EmergencyManagemen
tProfessionals/PlansandProgram
s/RegionalHazardMitigationPlan.
aspx
Posted N/A
Fall 2009 mitigation.plan@kin
gcounty.gov
Email address maintained for
gathering public/agency
feedback on DRAFT 2009
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
ActiveNone
Fall 2009
Survey re DRAFT
King County
Regional Hazard
Mitigation Plan -
Public Involvment
2009
Link posted on
http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety
/prepare/EmergencyManagemen
tProfessionals/PlansandProgram
s/RegionalHazardMitigationPlan.
aspx
Posted -
Questionnaire
Survey closing
on Nov. 16,
2009
See below
for Survey
Results
11/9/2009 Survey Results
Report
From link to questionnaire
posted on
http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety
/prepare/EmergencyManagemen
tProfessionals/PlansandProgram
s/RegionalHazardMitigationPlan.
aspx
Active
8
Responses
Rec'd
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Board Meeting Agenda
For Immediate Release
Jackie Brown: 425.369.3275 jabrown@kcls.org
Julie Brand Williams: 425.369.3273 jwilliams@kcls.org
Lauren Mikov: 425.369.3233 lpmikov@kcls.org
For Directions: 425.369.3200
960 Newport Way NW Service Center
Issaquah, WA 98027 Tuesday, September 29, 2009
5pm
Open to the Public
1. Call To Order........................................................................................................................................... Chair
Action Items
1. Approval of Agenda .................................................................................................................................. Board
2. Approval of Board Minutes – August 25, 2009 (Attachment A) ................................................................................ Board
3. Payment of Bills (Attachment B) .................................................................................................................. Board
a. Finance Report ............................................................................................................................. Staff
b. Approval of Bills .......................................................................................................................... Board
4. Resolution 2009-13 – Sale of Unlimited Tax Obligation Bonds (Attachment C) ............................................................... Staff
5. Sammamish Property Sale (Attachment D)......................................................................................................... Staff
6. National Friends of Library Day Proclamation (Attachment E) .............................................................. Planning Committee
Public Forum .............................................................................................................................................. Chair
Members of the public are invited to share their comments and concerns with members of the Board and Administration about library-
related issues. The staff will be asked to respond to main topics and the Board will take the comments and responses under advisement.
The forum will be conducted to maximize public input and participation. All are asked to be courteous of others, to listen to each other
and to focus on the highest good of the entire library community, both for the present and the future. Thank you.
New Business
1. Summer Reading Program and Study Zone Annual Reports (Attachment F) .................................................................. Staff
2. Library Advisory Boards in Unincorporated Areas .............................................................................. Planning Committee
Old Business
1. Interim Staff Survey Response Plan ................................................................................................................. Staff
Written Reports
1. Director’s Report ................................................................................................................................... Director
2. Dashboard ............................................................................................................................................... Staff
Information Items
1. Dashboard Details ...................................................................................................................................... Staff
2. Board Retreat Agenda & Summary Notes ......................................................................................................... Board
3. August Finance Committee Summary Notes ..................................................................................................... Board
4. September Planning Committee Agenda & Summary Notes ................................................................................... Board
5. Newspaper Clippings ................................................................................................................................... Staff
Adjournment .............................................................................................................................................. Chair
Attachment A
16715
King County Library Board Meeting September 29, 2009, 5 pm
An Announcement from King County Emergency Management about:
The King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan update in 2009
This is required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
For 2009, we are in the process of an update of the 2004 RHMP,
approved by FEMA and adopted by the King County Council, Nov 1, 2004.
The Plan includes all parts of King County, unincorporated
KC, Cities, Special Purpose Districts such as Fire and Utility
Districts, and School Districts – it’s voluntary to participate
Same planning process to update the Plan including Public
Involvement
“Old” Plan version - 2004 RHMP document - is on-line (for 5
years) now for you to review and provide comments on
The 2009 Plan update is scheduled to go – online on
approximately October 8th, 2009 -
For public review and to provide comments
Once we have a completed Plan, we can offer putting 3-4
copies in Libraries around King County – as a Reference
document, as arranged.
I also have brought copies of the Green River Flooding brochure. More copies
can be put into the southern cities Libraries, if desired.
Contact:
Deirdre Totten, King County, Office of Emergency Management (KC OEM), 206-205-
4064
deirdre.totten@kingcounty.gov www.kingcounty.gov/prepare
OR
Jeff Bowers, KC OEM, Assistant Director, 206-205-4062
jeff.bowers@kingcounty.gov
9/29/09 DT
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 1 September 29, 2009
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 4:10pm, Jessica Bonebright announced, per RCW42.30.110(1)(g), that an executive session
to review the performance of a public employee would begin. The estimated duration of the
executive session was 50 minutes. Jessica Bonebright, Richard Eadie, Lucy Krakowiak, Rob
Spitzer and Jim Wigfall were in attendance.
MOTIONS APPROVED
1. Motion to approve the Board agenda
2. Motion to approve the August 25, 2009 minutes
3. Motion to approve Payroll expenditures
4. Motion to approve General Fund #0010 expenditures
5. Motion to approve Construction Bond Fund ’88 #3020 expenditures
6. Motion to approve Capital Project Fund 2005 #3070 expenditures
7. Motion to approve Gift Fund #6010 expenditures
8. Motion to approve Bond Resolution 2009-13
9. Motion to approve the sale of the current Sammamish Library to the City of Sammamish
10. Motion to approve the National Friends of Libraries Week proclamation
11. Motion to amend the agenda to move Library Advisory Boards in Unincorporated Areas
before the Summer Reading Program report
12. Motion to recognize the Committee selected by the Vashon-Maury Island Community
Council and to reaffirm that there will be a strong connection between KCLS, the
community and the Committee
13. Motion to table the Vashon Library Committee motion until the October Board meeting
CALL TO ORDER
Jessica Bonebright called the meeting to order at 5:07pm.
King County Library System
Board of Trustees Meeting
Service Center
5pm 29 September 2009
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Rob Spitzer moved approval of the agenda. Lucy Krakowiak seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Lucy Krakowiak moved approval of the August 25, 2009 Board minutes. Jim Wigfall seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
FINANCE REPORT
General fund expenditures were $6.6 million in August, compared to a monthly average of $8 million. August is
typically a low spending month. Year-to-date growth in benefits is 12.5%, down 17% from June 2009. That
decline is due to the reduction in PERS rates. The percentage will drop throughout the rest of the year. Although
there are no insurance expenditures in August, there has been a lot in the press about flood insurance and the
Howard Hanson Dam. KCLS has three facilities in the pathway of the potential dam spillage: the Kent, Auburn
and Southcenter libraries. KCLS’ existing property insurance has always included flood coverage as a standard
part of the property insurance package. The standard deductible for KCLS’ property coverage is $5,000; however
for occurrences of flood, the deductible is $100,000 in most locations. In a few cases, Southcenter being one,
the deductible is $250,000. To address these high deductibles, KCLS has taken advantage of the national flood
PRESENT
KCLS BOARD
Jessica Bonebright
Judge Richard Eadie
Lucy Krakowiak
Rob Spitzer
Jim Wigfall
KCLS Staff
Bruce Adams
Jerene Battisti
Linda Glenicki
Kay Johnson
Holly Koelling
Cecilia McGowan
Donna McMillen
Lauren Mikov
Jed Moffitt
Bill Ptacek
Annie Poyner
Charlene Richards
Dri Ralph
Bruce Schauer
David Scott-Risner
Greg Smith
Nancy Smith
Jeanne Thorsen
Julie B. Williams
Jennifer Wiseman
GUESTS
Kyle Cruver
Bonnie de Steiguer
Dan Gottlieb
Martin Koenig
Susan Musselman
Connie Reed
Yoshiko Saheki
Deirdre Totten
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 2 September 29, 2009
insurance program, buying policies for locations that are more likely to experience flooding. The national
insurance coverage has a $1,000 deductible and KCLS purchased coverage up to the amount of the deductible on
the base property coverage, at which point the base policy takes over.
The following general fund items were called out:
Repairs: Expenditures of $430 thousand in August are low versus the monthly average. More than half of
the bills were related to contracted services such as janitorial and landscaping, and $97 thousand was
related to the Automated Materials Handling annual maintenance contract. The large amount of
expenditures in Repairs and Maintenance in 2008 was related to costs in excess of the budget for
construction projects due to the construction inflation experienced at that time.
Miscellaneous: Expenditures for 2009 include a payment made to the City of Renton for the Benson Hill
annexation. In 2008, KCLS made the annexation payment near the end of the year, so at the end of
2009, the percentage growth over 2008 will be even. There is a payment due to Renton in December, but
that payment has been suspended pending the outcome of the annexation election.
Capital – Materials: Of the $797 thousand in August expenditures, $484 thousand were for books. Based
on the average price for books, that equates to 15,000-20,000 books purchased in August. The remaining
expenditures were for periodicals and electronic databases.
August is a slow revenue month, with $680 thousand in revenue for August 2009. This includes $92 thousand in
contracts for the first half of this year’s payment for the services KCLS provides to the Youth Services Center.
Year-to-date collections of current and delinquent tax revenues are slightly ahead of 2008.
Expenditures in the 307 fund were high because KCLS has a few big projects in full swing. Overall 307 fund
expenditures were $2.8 million, the largest being a payment of almost $1.4 million on the Sammamish Library
project. Other big payments were on the Kirkland Library, which is in the midst of construction, and the Burien
Library, for final bills after the completion of that project. Additional payments included installments on
Automated Materials Handling equipment at three locations and a few other administrative items. Total spending
to date in the 307 fund is $69.5 million. KCLS has spent almost all of the proceeds from the first bond issue, so
the sale of the next tranche of bonds is timely.
Rob Spitzer asked why KCLS has spent more than expected on the Automated Materials Handling equipment at
the Issaquah Library. Linda Glenicki replied that KCLS budgeted $515 thousand in 2009, but that the overall
project budget is $772 thousand. KCLS misjudged the timing of how much would be spent on that project in
2009, but the spending is still well within the overall project budget.
Expenditures of $44 thousand in the 302 fund included a few small bills on the Redmond and Kent Library
projects.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Richard Eadie moved approval of Payroll Expenditures in the amount of $2,442,277.06; Checks August 1-15
Chk#145144-145281; 206524-207660 and August 15-31 Chk#145282-145423; 207661-208787. Rob Spitzer
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Rob Spitzer moved approval of General Fund #0010 Expenditures for August 2009 in the amount of
$4,337,558.60; (Travel Advances) Chk #943, (8/7) Chk #1010335-1010415, (8/11) Chk #1010416-1010459,
(8/12) Chk #1010460-1010539, (8/13) Chk #5000107-5000124; 1010540-1010560; 1010561-1010595,
(8/18) Chk #1010596-1010623; 5000125-5000128; 1010624-1010634, (8/19) Chk #1010635-1010684;
1010685-1010714, (8/21) Chk #1010715-1010744; 5000129-5000144; 1010745-1010785, (8/24) Chk
#1010786-1010829; 1010830, (8/25) Chk #1010831-1010854, (8/26) Chk #1010855-1010890, (8/27) Chk
#1010891-1010951, (8/28) Chk #5000145-5000152; 1010952-1010982, (8/31) Chk #1010983-1011036,
(9/1) Chk #1011037-1011045, (9/2) Chk #1011046-1011097; 1011098-1011120, (9/3) Chk #5000153-
5000156; 1011121-1011132; 1011133-1011164, (9/3) Chk #1011165-1011167, (9/4) Chk #1011168-
1011172; 5000157, (Voids) Chk #1010977. Lucy Krakowiak seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Lucy Krakowiak moved approval of Construction Bond Fund ’88 #3020 Expenditures for August 2009 in the
amount of $44,844.59; (8/7) Chk #3020009, (8/18) Chk #3020010, (8/19) Chk #3020011-3020013, (8/24)
Chk #3020014. Jim Wigfall seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 3 September 29, 2009
Jim Wigfall moved approval of Capital Project Fund 2005 #3070 Expenditures for August 2009 in the amount
of $3,099,863.06; (8/11) Chk #3070131-3070132; 3070133-3070134, (8/13) Chk #3070135, (8/19) Chk
#3070136; 3070137-3070144, (8/20) Chk #3070145-3070152, (8/21) Chk #3070153-3070162, (8/26) Chk
#3070163-3070164; 3070165-3070166, (8/28) Chk #3070167-3070171, (8/31) Chk #3070172-3070173;
3070174, (9/3) Chk #3070175-3070182; 3070183, (9/4) Chk #3070184. Richard Eadie seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
Richard Eadie moved approval of Gift Fund #6010 Expenditures for August 2009 in the amount of
$1,238.87; (8/11) Chk #6010025-6010027, (8/14) Chk #6010028-6010029, (8/24) Chk #6010030, (8/28)
Chk #6010031-6010032. Rob Spitzer seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION 2009-13 – SALE OF UNLIMITED TAX OBLIGATION BONDS
Linda Glenicki introduced Susan Musselman, KCLS’ financial adviser, and Dan Gottlieb, KCLS’ bond counsel. KCLS
held an auction process for the bond sale the morning of Tuesday, September 29, and inserted the sale details
into an updated resolution. The bond sale is timely, as KCLS has used up the funds from the $65.3 million
tranche issued in 2005. By resolution earlier in the year, the Board gave staff the authority to sell as much as $75
million in this tranche. When bonds are issued, KCLS wants the interest rate to be as low as possible. Since
municipal yields have plummeted to a 42-year low, this is great timing for KCLS. The District also received an
update of its bond rating and was upgraded from “AA-” to “AA”. The rating agency provided a report regarding
KCLS’ fund balances and strong financial operations. The rating upgrade helped made the bonds more attractive
to potential bidders.
The bonds were offered through a competitive sale process. Initially, 12 bidders expressed interest, eight of
which actually submitted bids. The winner was JP Morgan Securities. KCLS was authorized to sell up to $75
million, and the sale was for $71.5 million in par value. KCLS will actually receive $75 million because JP Morgan
will buy the bonds at a premium. The average interest rate was 2.6%. In 2005, the average interest rate was
4.4%, but those bonds had a longer maturity, so they are not directly comparable. By all accounts, KCLS did well
in terms of the interest rate on this sale. Once the bond sale resolution is approved by the Board, KCLS will go
through the closing process and receive the bond proceeds in about two weeks.
Susan Musselman congratulated KCLS on the upgrade of its rating from “AA-” to “AA.” She noted that the rating
has a great deal of value in today’s market, although it is hard to quantify the exact value. Susan said that in
this new era of finance and flight to quality, “AA” rated general obligation bonds are in high demand, which is
evidenced by the fact that 12 national firms were interested in this bond sale. That eight of the 12 firms
submitted bids is normal. Bids ranged from 2.61% to 2.85%. The top two bonds were within .0001% of each other.
The bonds were structured to provide $75 million in proceeds, with a par amount of around $71.5 million.
Approximately $36.8 million of remaining authority from the voter-approved amount will be issued in the future.
Having been involved in the 2005 bond sale, Susan noted that KCLS hit the mark well in terms of long-term
interest rates during that sale, and has now hit it perfectly for short-term rates on this sale. She said KCLS
couldn’t have executed a better plan. Rob Spitzer asked if it makes sense to issue additional bonds now, since
the interest rates are so low. Susan replied that KCLS must consider the amount of projects it could have in a
three-year period. In this sale, KCLS strived to maximize the borrowing within a three-year window. That is part
of the IRS requirements related to tax-exempt bonds.
Dan Gottlieb mentioned that KCLS should only borrow as much as it can spend in three years. He noted that KCLS
does a good job of spending in a timely way, and the proceeds from the previous bond sale are just running out
now. Dan said that there was a bit of drama with the bidding process. Everyone was watching the bidding on
computers in remote locations, and by 8:59 and 30 seconds, only one bid had been received. The remaining
seven bids arrived in the last 30 seconds. The seventh arrived literally at the 9am deadline. The preliminary
offering statement issued on September 18 said that KCLS was issuing $74.1 million worth of bonds. Because the
purchasers were determined to buy at a premium, the bonds were re-sized to $71.56 million total par amount.
The updated resolution reflects that adjustment. Exhibit C of the resolution governs the maturities and interest
rates of the bonds. Dan said that should the Board adopt the resolution, his firm would be prepared to issue the
opinion that the bonds are valid, binding and tax exempt.
Bill Ptacek asked for clarification on the fact that because the bonds were sold at this rate, KCLS will receive
$75 million in proceeds for less par value than originally anticipated. This creates additional capacity for the
next bond sale and additional resources to work from in capital planning. He asked what the approximate value
of this is. Dan replied that in this case, the premium is $3.8 million, which is the differential KCLS is receiving in
additional capacity. Bill noted that this will help KCLS complete the rest of the bond projects. Linda noted that
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 4 September 29, 2009
when KCLS first embarked on the capital program, the District said it would keep the levy rate less than 8 cents
per $1,000 of assessed value. KCLS has worked to remain below that level, and it now appears that the rate in
2010 will be 6.6 cents. The rate will vary in the future depending on what happens with assessed values but
KCLS’ forecasts indicate that KCLS can expect to remain under the 8 cent threshold going forward.
Dan mentioned that there are changes to the new resolution due to changes in federal securities laws. The SEC
changed the continuing disclosure rules that apply to municipal bonds: the disclosure now goes electronically to
a single board instead of multiple locations. Linda Glenicki is now set up to submit the annual disclosures
through this new process. In response to a question from Rob Spitzer, Dan also noted that his firm qualifies as
nationally recognized bond counsel.
Rob Spitzer moved approval of Bond Resolution 2009-13. Jim Wigfall seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
SAMMAMISH PROPERTY SALE
KCLS is building a new Sammamish Library that is anticipated to open in early 2010, and is concerned about
leaving the current Sammamish Library building and property vacant. The Board declared the property surplus in
2006 and KCLS is trying to find a good way to dispose of it. The City of Sammamish had requested that KCLS
provide an intergovernmental sale to the City to use the building for a purpose other than City operations. It was
not clear under what circumstances this would be permissible, so KCLS had initially thought that an
intergovernmental sale would not work and sale of the property would have to be put out to the general market.
Dan Gottlieb helped clarify that the sale would work if the City was willing to purchase the property at a fair
price and that KCLS must use the proceeds for capital purposes similar to those outlined under the 1988 bonds.
Staff developed a list of appraisers and presented it to the City of Sammamish, so that there would be no biased
opinions about the appraisers. KCLS selected three appraisers off of the list, and the appraisals came in within
$400,000 of each other. KCLS offered the property to the Sammamish City Council at 90% of the average of the
three appraisals, which is a threshold level that appears in KCLS’ purchasing policies for real estate transactions.
Initially, KCLS had hoped to receive closer to $5 million for the project, but realistically none of the appraisals
came in near that. The City may use the property as a teen center or as a location for other nonprofit
organizations to provide service. With the Board’s approval, KCLS staff will be able to take care of the details of
the sale. Staff wanted to ensure that the Board approves the intergovernmental sale and its general terms.
Rob Spitzer asked if KCLS has considered leasing the property given the market at this time. Bill Ptacek replied
that KCLS looked into a lease but is not able to do that. Dan Gottlieb clarified that the Sammamish library was
originally funded with proceeds from the 1988 bond, some small portion of which remain outstanding.
Encumbered by federal tax covenants, state law indicates that the building must be used as a library as long as
there are bonds outstanding. Some portion of the sale proceeds would need to be applied to pay off the bonds
still outstanding that are attributable to this facility. If KCLS entered into a lease transaction, the federal tax
issue could not have been solved. KCLS must do an outright sale.
Richard Eadie noted that although the letter that KCLS received from the City of Sammamish does not have the
details of formality the Board often sees or say whether the offer is backed by a motion of the Sammamish City
Council, it has all of the aspects of an offer of purchase.
Rob Spitzer moved approval of the sale of the current Sammamish library to the City of Sammamish, with
details to be worked out by staff. Lucy Krakowiak seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
NATIONAL FRIENDS OF LIBRARY DAY PROCLAMATION
A proclamation signed by Governor Gregoire declares October 18-24 as National Friends of Libraries Week in King
County. Several KCLS Friends groups encouraged KCLS to celebrate this week, which is recognized by the
American Library Association. Staff has prepared a proclamation for the Board recognizing its 36 Friends groups.
The week of October 18, KCLS will promote National Friends of Libraries Week in the libraries with posters,
special bookmarks and activities.
Lucy Krakowiak moved approval of the National Friends of Libraries Week proclamation. Jim Wigfall
seconded and the motion was discussed.
Jessica Bonebright commented that she is glad the Board is hearing a report on the Summer Reading Program,
since that is one of the efforts the Friends help make a success. Rob Spitzer asked if KCLS does anything else to
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 5 September 29, 2009
recognize the Friends. Julie Williams replied that each year, KCLS hosts a Friends event, and the KCLS
foundation also recognizes several Friends with various awards. A plaque in the hallway of the Service Center is
used to record the winners. Rob Spitzer commented that it is remarkable how much time and energy is given to
support the Library. Julie noted that KCLS’ 36 friends groups collectively contributed $325,000 of support to the
libraries in 2008.
After discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
Kyle Cruver, Vice President of the Vashon-Maury Island Community Council distributed a letter from King County
Executive Kirk Triplett and King County Council Chair Dow Constantine in support of the formation of a local
Library Advisory Board on Vashon Island. Kyle read the letter, as follows: “We are writing today to express our
support for the formation of a local Library Advisory Board to represent the patrons of the Vashon Island Library.
The King County Library System already recognizes Library Advisory Boards in cities that contract with KCLS for
library services. Currently, the citizens of 14 suburban cities can provide comments and other feedback to the
KCLS Board of Trustees and staff through their local Library Advisory Board. The KCLS website states that,
‘Library Advisory Boards have important roles distinct from Friends of the Library groups and the KCLS Board of
Trustees.’ We wholeheartedly agree with this statement. We also agree that it is imperative that residents of
rural areas such as Vashon and Maury Islands are given equal status with the residents of incorporated cities with
regard to the operation of their local library, especially given that KCLS is chartered as a ‘Rural Library District’
under state law. Our offices would be happy to work with KCLS and the Vashon-Maury Island Community Council
regarding the logistics of setting up a local Library Advisory Board to serve the patrons of the Vashon Library.”
Kyle noted that this should be something akin to a win-win situation, increasing transparency and accountability
between the Community Council and KCLS.
Richard Eadie asked Kyle what he sees as the function of a Library Advisory Board with KCLS. Kyle replied that
one of the challenges of a rural island community is a sense of consensus with the community in a situation that
is geographically removed and where it’s difficult for citizens to interact. Having a group in touch with the day-
to-day activities of the Island as well as community forums could be generated to create something akin to a
survey and get the pulse of the Island. He said it would be a valuable opportunity to expand KCLS’ reach. Richard
Eadie asked if the idea is that this organization would communicate to the Board the community’s views on
issues. Kyle said that as opposed to the Friends, which is less a consensus generating than an advocacy body, this
would be more of a fact-finding and outreach communication vehicle. Richard asked what the difference is
between what would come from the Advisory Board and what comes from the Friends. Kyle said that historically,
Advisory Boards act more like a citizens’ advisory group and are tasked with creating public forums for discussion
on library-related topics such as siting. Richard asked if there is anything that prevents the Community Council
from doing that now. Kyle replied that there is no specific mandate. This is something that would be a more
directed effort akin to a branch of the Community Council. Richard said that it’s a matter of communication.
Kyle added that it’s about expanding the reach in communication. Richard noted that what the Community
Council is asking for is a way to communicate the Community Council’s view of issues to the KCLS Board. Kyle
mentioned that the Community Council formed a subcommittee tasked with library issues that is probably similar
to other suburban cities that adopted a model of an Advisory Board. He said that the subcommittee is dedicated
to other things than strictly internal issues.
Lucy asked the KCLS staff to take the time to create a response to the letter from Dow Constantine and Kurt
Triplett. She noted that there needs to be clarification on the structure of government in unincorporated areas
versus cities. Lucy said it’s critical that KCLS connect with Vashon as the Board has been doing for
communication. She stressed that the form that communication takes is already established, and the Advisory
Board form is not the structure that’s in place. To make that clearer, unincorporated areas work directly through
their Friends groups. Cities that have annexed to KCLS have Advisory Boards appointed by the cities. Vashon is
unincorporated. That form of communication (an Advisory Board) isn’t available to unincorporated areas at this
time.
Rob Spitzer noted that it would be interesting to see if there is any legislation that contemplates the Advisory
Board structure. Bill Ptacek said that when the Library District was formed in 1942, it was a Rural Library District
formed to represent the interests of people in unincorporated areas. That was the charge of the people
appointed to be on the KCLS Board. When Cities had the ability to annex, some of them previously had library
boards that worked with the City government. As a gesture to those communities that had elected officials
already, the KCLS Board put in the annexation agreements an encouragement to the cities to appoint Advisory
Boards. These Boards act as a liaison between KCLS and elected officials in the City, which was previously
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 6 September 29, 2009
outside of the Library District. Unincorporated areas are still represented by the KCLS Board, and there is a
mandate to do that in State law. Advisory Boards are a creature of Library Systems seen as a way to have
communication with Cities that were previously not part of the District. Advisory Boards require there to be
elected officials and a City jurisdiction to appoint and coordinate them.
Rob Spitzer noted that, on the other hand, to the extent that there isn’t a municipality on Vashon, there is a
greater need to have some voice and organization to communicate. He said that what KCLS has gone through at
Board meetings over the past year has indicated that good communication is important, and the Vashon
community in particular is interested in communicating. He thinks that this issue is worth discussing more and
just because this hasn’t happened in unincorporated areas, KCLS shouldn’t preclude it if there is no particular
statutory mandate.
Bonnie de Steiguer said that she would like to respond to the statements made by Bill Ptacek during the
September 17 Planning Committee meeting. She noted that Bill expressed a concern that if Vashon were to have
an Advisory Board, other communities would want one as well. Bonnie mentioned that because of recent
annexation activities, she believes that there will only be three libraries in unincorporated King County. She said
that those communities may or may not feel the need for an Advisory Board or have an active Community
Council. Bonnie asked if it would be so bad to have another Board or two if they improve communication
between the communities and senior KCLS staff. She said Bill also proposed that the Vashon Friends of the
Library could substitute for an Advisory Board. Bonnie said Bill is correct in stating that the Friends is a good
group and does many worthwhile activities in support of the Library, such as selling books, T-shirts and plants to
raise funds for the Library and its programs. The Friends also host other activities that add to the cultural
richness of the Vashon community. Bonnie noted, however, that the Friends are an arm of the Library System
and report only to KCLS. She said that in contrast, an Advisory Board is the community’s liaison to KCLS. The
missions are similar but not the same. Bonnie mentioned that the Vashon Friends of the Library feels that it is
not in a position to question library policies or siting issues, whereas an Advisory Board would be able to make
recommendations based on public comment and open discussion of issues via the Community Council. She
suggested that it was interesting that no mention was made at the Planning Committee meeting that those in
attendance at the last Friends’ meeting expressed support for a Vashon Library Advisory Board. Bonnie said
another reason that the Friends of the Library would not be the appropriate organization to substitute for an
Advisory Board is that the Board needs to have active representation from the Vashon Park District since it is
integral to the success of the shared use of Ober Park. She noted that the Vashon Park District Commissioners
have specifically requested a local board that would include representation from the Park District because they
feel they currently do not have a means of communication with the Library System. She said the Park District
Board has been waiting for talks to start for months and are still waiting. Bonnie mentioned that the community
has a strong desire to improve communication with KCLS, which will be beneficial to KCLS and the community
and cost nothing. On behalf of the Library Committee of the Vashon Community Council, Bonnie requested that
the Board of Trustees change its policy to recognize an Advisory Board for Vashon. Bonnie noted that she has
been at a meeting in the past when the KCLS Board modified a policy, and she knows they can do it if they
choose. She said it would be a shame to allow a lack of communication to prevent what is best for the Vashon
community as well as what is best for KCLS.
Martin Koenig, a Vashon resident, said that it’s been a while since he’s been at KCLS Board meetings. He wasn’t
at the last meeting when the Board made the decision to pursue Ober Park, and he thanked the Board for that
decision. Martin has a family, a wife and two teenage children, and meaningful work, so he said that coming to
these Board meetings is a big effort for him, Kyle, Bonnie and anyone else from Vashon. He said that it’s a huge
effort to get off the Island and that there is a moat around it that is psychological as well as physical. Martin
noted that Vashon residents’ sole interest in coming to KCLS Board meetings is to stress the need for excellent
communication between Islanders and KCLS staff and between the Vashon Park District and KCLS staff and the
Board. He said that there are two issues: communication between the Vashon Park District and KCLS, and
communication between Islanders in general and KCLS. His understanding is that in terms of the Vashon Park
District, that discussion hasn’t been happening. Martin has been in real estate transactions and knows that they
take time, conversation and paragraph by paragraph review. He said that there needs to be conversation and
meetings, and there are people of good will sitting at the table. Martin noted that there are two excellent
agencies serving the community: KCLS, which provides a fabulous Library, and the Park District, which serves the
community as well. He feels that it would be a shame to allow lack of communication to prevent what’s best for
the Vashon community and what’s best for KCLS. Martin said that good communication and dialogue would be
beneficial to both KCLS and Vashon and cost nothing. He knows that in their work lives, the Trustees participate
in dialogue, whether in court, real estate, unions or administration, and dialogue is what it’s all about. Martin
said that Vashon’s request for this Committee to be acknowledged is to have the dialogue to let things run more
smoothly.
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 7 September 29, 2009
Dierdre Totten provided an announcement from King County Emergency Management about the King County
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan update in 2009, which is required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. King
County Emergency Management is in the process of updating the 2004 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved
by FEMA and adopted by the King County Council on November 1, 2004. The Plan includes all parts of King
County: unincorporated King County, Cities and special purpose districts, such as fire, utility, school and library
districts. It is voluntary to participate. The 2004 version of the Plan is currently online and available for public
input. The 2009 Plan is scheduled to go online on October 8, 2009 for public review. Once the Plan is complete,
copies can be made available through KCLS libraries. Deirdre also distributed the Green River Flooding brochure.
Lucy asked if an electronic version of the plan will also be available for distribution at the libraries. Deirdre said
that the plan is available on the King County Emergency Management site, and the department would be happy
to supply electronic and hard copy versions for patrons at the libraries as well. Richard Eadie asked what the
current projection of damage and flooding is for the Green River Valley. Deirdre said that although she doesn’t
know that information offhand, she can direct the Board to the people who can provide it. Richard asked if the
curtaining testing was successful or not. Deirdre replied that the test will occur in the event of heavy rains. She
said that the Army Corps of Engineers is now buying sandbags and doing levee work, and directed the Trustees to
the King County Emergency Management Web site for more details. Bill Ptacek noted that Danielle Perry in KCLS’
HR department is coordinating KCLS’ disaster preparedness efforts, and Greg Smith is working on getting
sandbags lined up. Greg said that KCLS is obtaining contracts for pre-delivered sandbags so that all KCLS will
need is the manpower to put them in place. Richard asked if KCLS attended the tour of the dam and heard the
report by the Army Corps Colonel. Greg replied that KCLS did not. Richard suggested making that connection.
Charlene Richards noted that KCLS is connected on this issue, and Danielle Perry has access to the flood maps
and identified the libraries that are in the flood plain. Richard said that given KCLS’ significant investments in
the area, he would like to see that KCLS is on the same level of information as other organizations.
Yoshiko Saheki thanked the KCLS Board for serving as Trustees. She said that KCLS could not operate without
their good work. Yoshiko noted that as Trustees, they have a unique perspective from the very top. She said she
would like to share view from the ground and describe an activity that goes on in many branches throughout the
System: the Friends’ book sale. She said that many, if not most branches in KCLS have a supporting Friends
group. Typically, the Friends run an ongoing sale at their library, usually through a bookcase or two in the lobby
or another very visible area of the library. But on top of the ongoing sale, many Friends groups have an annual or
semiannual book sale. These sales utilize meeting rooms and involve a cast of dozens. Yoshiko mentioned that
the book sale is an activity that encompasses the Friends, public, area booksellers and KCLS staff at multiple
levels. The sales tend to be noisy, spirited, fun-filled and, to the sale organizers, all-consuming. She said that
the branch staff is very accommodating, patient and indulgent, for which the Friends are most appreciative.
Under optimal conditions, the annual book sale is a bonding experience for all. Yoshiko noted that although the
Friends groups have many things in common in regards to the book sale, each Friends group does things
according to individual needs and schedules, including the Shoreline Friends. She said that like other Friends,
Shoreline’s annual book sale has its beginnings when members of the community donate their unwanted books.
Three Shoreline Friends, Mary Ellen Asmundson, Juanita Birkner, and Liz Poitras, are at the Library every week
to sort through the donations. Some donations are placed on the ongoing sale and the remaining materials in
decent shape are boxed and sent to KCLS storage. During the course of a year, hundreds of boxes are sent to
storage. Yoshiko reported that planning for the 2009 annual sales began in earnest in mid-summer when
Shoreline’s long-time book sale chair, Mary Ellen Asmundson, hosted a dinner party at her home. She said that
over lasagna and several bottles of wine, eight of the Friends hashed over the 2008 sale and divided chores
among themselves in preparation for the sale in September. The actual setup for the sale began on Wednesday,
September 16, when a KCLS driver delivered hundreds of boxes of books from storage. Since the book sale
cannot happen without the books, the friends view the driver as their hero. Unpacking the boxes takes a while.
With the setup, sale and cleanup, the Friends rely on 33 volunteers plus all 15 members of the Friends board.
The Friends sell hardbacks and quality paperbacks for a dollar and paperbacks for $0.50. All children's books are
sold for a quarter a piece. The annual sale made just more than $3,800 this year. Yoshiko said that a cynic may
note that this is not much money for the planning and many volunteer hours, but this misses the larger purpose
of the sale as a community building event. It helps to rally the community around a branch library and, by
extension, the entire King County Library System. It gathers booklovers and readers an activity that is all the
more enjoyable because the Friends know that the proceeds, as well as all the fuss, will benefit the Library.
Yoshiko noted that Friends groups throughout the System have sales at different times of the year. She hopes the
Trustees will take the time to drop in on one or more of the sales and buy a few used books.
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 8 September 29, 2009
Richard Eadie moved to amend the agenda to move Library Advisory Boards in Unincorporated Areas to
the next agenda item, before the Summer Reading Program report. Lucy Krakowiak seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARDS IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS
This agenda item was based on an August 25 letter from Jean Bosch, Chair of the Vashon-Maury Island
Community Council (VMICC). The Board asked that it be referred to the Planning Committee, and it was included
in the discussion at the September Planning Committee meeting. By the request of the Planning Committee,
staff prepared a draft letter in response that encapsulated some thoughts from the Planning Committee
members. The letter from the VMICC requested that KCLS assign staff to a committee appointed by the
Community Council.
The Planning Committee discussed the fact that recognizing an Advisory Board in an unincorporated part of the
County would not be consistent with the definition of Advisory Board. Advisory Boards came about when Cities
began annexing into KCLS and the Library System asked that they appoint liaisons between elected officials and
the Library Board. The spirit of that decision in part was that before annexation of the community into the
Library District, library service was the responsibility of the governing body: the City Council. Advisory Boards
were seen as a way to keep the City in touch with the Library District due to the changed nature of their
relationship. The function of the KCLS Board was to represent the interests of unincorporated areas. As
mentioned in the draft letter and discussed by the Board, there are a number of avenues for people in
unincorporated areas to be involved. The letter from VMICC asked how the community can have input during the
siting and design process. KCLS has a series of public meetings and opportunities for people to comment in
person as well as online, including budget hearings and KCLS Board meetings. Referring to the fact that the
Board of Trustees has set up a number of channels for communication, having an Advisory Board in an
unincorporated area would mean turning over the responsibility of the KCLS Board to another group.
Richard Eadie asked if there is any legislation or County ordinance that specifically identifies Library Advisory
Boards. Bill Ptacek replied that Advisory Boards are only identified in annexation agreements as an
encouragement from the Library District to the City. In annexation agreements with a number of Cities, a
standard section in the draft says that KCLS encourages the City to appoint an Advisory Board to be a liaison.
Richard asked if there is a part of the annexation agreements that says that KCLS will appoint a particular person
to represent KCLS on the Advisory Board. Bill replied that the staff relationship with Advisory Boards has evolved
over time. Currently, Community Liaisons at all of the clusters take on that responsibility. Richard noted that he
believes that in some Library Advisory Boards there’s a more formal connection, and in others there isn’t, and
some Boards are more active. Bill replied that some Boards do meet more often, and that for most, one of their
biggest activities is an annual report to the City Council. KCLS works with almost all of the Boards to develop
their reports to the City. That happens in just about all the groups.
Richard asked what the developed role of the Library Advisory Board is with respect to KCLS, and if it is primarily
informational. He doesn’t recall seeing Advisory Board members come to KCLS Board meetings with a proposal
for a motion by the Board. Bill said that bringing resolutions to the KCLS Board is not the Advisory Boards’ role.
He noted that KCLS staff works with Advisory Boards to educate them on the Library System and ensure that they
are knowledgeable about System activities. KCLS also encourages Advisory Boards to come to budget hearings
and participate in System-wide activities. Bill mentioned that this issue came up for the KCLS Board in the past
when there was a request for the appointment of an Advisory Board in another unincorporated area. At that
time, the issue was participating in an annual gathering compared to the Friends groups, but both groups now
meet annually. They are similar in many ways. The difference would be that an Advisory Board reports back to
the City government and provides information. The members are appointed by City elected officials. Advisory
Boards were created as a way to help the City know what’s going on in service to citizens that at one time they
had responsibility for.
Richard Eadie asked if there is any reason why communication between the Vashon Community Council and KCLS
wouldn’t be the same as a relationship between a City and KCLS. Recognizing that an Advisory Board wouldn’t be
reporting to a City because there is no municipality on Vashon, he asked if there is any reason why a
representative group from Vashon couldn’t do the same as a City Advisory Board.
Lucy Krakowiak suggested that the big picture is improving communication with Vashon. She said how that
happens is important to acknowledge and work on. Lucy said that this is about structure. In unincorporated
areas, the governing body is the County Council. The Community Council is an elected body and serves in an
advisory role to the County Council. In Cities, the governing body is the City Council. The Advisory Board reports
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 9 September 29, 2009
to the governing body, which would be the City. The City provides a structure for that. In unincorporated areas,
there is no structure to support an Advisory Board because that support comes from the municipality, not the
Library. The Advisory Board reports directly to the governing body. For unincorporated areas, the Community
Council is free to appoint committees. Lucy thinks that a great tool for the community would be to create a
committee to act as a voice with KCLS. She believes that splitting hairs and modifying the structure KCLS has in
place is going to create more challenges moving forward. Lucy said that KCLS can reach the goal of
communication and support by having the VMICC appoint a committee to focus on the Library. She does not feel
comfortable modifying KCLS’ policies to have a Vashon Library Advisory Board.
Rob said that Lucy suggested the best vehicle for facilitating communication, given that there isn’t a statutory
framework with rules that KCLS is commanded to follow and that Library Advisory Boards are intended to
facilitate communication. He noted that communication with Vashon is important and the experiences of the
past year have shown that KCLS can improve communication with Vashon and needs to explore ways to do that.
Rob said that if the VMICC sets up a committee that would act in the same way as an Advisory Board, KCLS
shouldn’t care what it’s called. He noted that the Committee members would be volunteers, and it’s not like
KCLS is depleting its coffers to pay more people. Rob said that KCLS supports the goals of people wanting to help
the library and facilitate communication. He also doesn’t understand why Vashon is not a City. Bonnie de
Steiguer replied that the current reason is that Vashon is designated as a rural area, so under land use
management regulations, it can’t be a City. Richard Eadie also noted that there are a lot of financial issues in
terms of the ability to have a tax base to support services that would be municipal rather than County if Vashon
became a city. Lucy said that a rural-urban line gets drawn, and Vashon is drawn into the rural side. It’s hard to
get that line changed. Rob noted that Vashon is an Island, and a clearly defined community with a Community
Council that does municipal things. He would support a Vashon Library Advisory Board. Lucy said that she would
support the format and the creation of a Vashon Library Committee, but she would not support including it as a
Library Advisory Board. Rob said that as a community institution, he doesn’t think it is a positive message for
KCLS to reject Vashon’s request. He doesn’t want to send that message. Rob said it would work for him to
recognize the Committee as Vashon’s representative to the Community Council under a different name. He said
KCLS should thank citizens for working for their libraries, and trying to communicate better and make the
System stronger. Richard Eadie noted that at one level, it’s a matter of semantics in terms of communication
and the form it comes in, but at another level it’s a little bit more than semantics. He said that is because KCLS
has had Library Advisory Boards as an agreement between Cities and KCLS, as an organization that reports to an
established governmental entity that has chosen to join KCLS. The Advisory Boards do have a role of reporting to
elected officials chosen in public elections to represent cities. He recognizes that the VMICC members are
elected, but the VMICC is not the same as a City. Lucy said that it is her understanding that people don’t have to
be Vashon residents to serve on the Council since it’s not a formal governing body. That point was disputed by
Bonnie de Steiguer.
Jessica Bonebright said that when she attended the Planning Committee meeting, she didn’t understand what
Community Councils were, but Bonnie explained that the VMICC members are elected in a regular election. The
difference is that they don’t run Vashon the way a City would. The things that a City would handle are done by
the King County Council. The functions they do aren’t the same as a City Council, or City officials, but the fact is
that they’re elected. Richard asked why KCLS shouldn’t have a Vashon Library Advisory Board if the VMICC
members are elected in a regular election.
Rob Spitzer asked if it makes sense before the October Board meeting to have someone from the Board or staff
talk to the people from the VMICC that are interested in this to see if there is some way to facilitate
communication without setting a precedent and while helping the community feel recognized and listened to.
Bill asked if the Board would like staff to explore doing something similar in lieu of recognizing the Advisory
Committee as requested. Rob replied that the Board is exploring calling the group something slightly different
and giving it some official recognition.
Richard Eadie said that one of the distinctions he wanted to make is that there would still be some distinction in
that cities that have Library Advisory Boards serve the function of reporting to a City. A City has the power to
remove itself from the Library System. He noted that there’s a different kind of communication in maintaining
the choice to be part of KCLS. That being said, he thinks it boils down to semantics. Richard said there is
something to be said for preserving the term Advisory Board for those groups with which KCLS has that particular
relationship. He thinks the decision needs to be made in a way that shows that KCLS understands that some kind
of communication will come in from the Vashon group. He believes that one of the things that is different about
Vashon is that it is a very geographically defined entity that is different from other unincorporated areas where
residents may go partly to one library, and partly to another. It makes Vashon more like a City than the rest of
the unincorporated areas. Bill Ptacek said that staff can come up with a different name for this group, if that is
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 10 September 29, 2009
what the Board would like. KCLS would be happy to talk to any group that came together that wanted to discuss
libraries. He noted that one point that was made, however, is that KCLS might rely on Advisory Boards to help
with some issues. For instance, in Auburn, where KCLS is working with the City to expand the Library, one of the
ideas is the possibility of acquiring more frontage on Auburn Way to make the Library and Park more visible. The
Advisory Board is working to lobby for that issue. It’s a little bit different on Vashon in that the Vashon
Community Council does not have that responsibility or jurisdiction. In lieu of recognizing a Library Advisory
Board, staff would be happy to find another moniker, if that’s what the KCLS Board wants to do.
Lucy said that she would love to see a follow-up letter from KCLS restating that the System would love to work
with an appointed Committee from the Community Council and reconfirming the importance of communication
with the Vashon community.
Jim Wigfall asked if it was true that the Vashon Parks District had issues and things that they wanted to do
differently, and the Friends group took an active role to get them to change their position. Bonnie de Steiguer
said that was not the case. Jim said, however, that it was an active role that the Vashon community took to
make the difference. Bonnie noted that the Friends feel they don’t have permission to take a stance because
they’re part of the Library. Bill replied that the Friends are not part of the Library; they’re a distinct and very
independent group. Jim said that the community took an active role to make a difference in the Library issue,
similar to the role an Advisory Board would take. It was an active role to make sure the position of KCLS was
taken into account. Richard Eadie noted that one of his concerns is that whatever KCLS does in terms of
recognition is done in a way that doesn’t undercut the Friends and make them feel their position is minimized in
some way or disrespected. Bonnie said that Vashon has a wonderful Friends group, but they don’t feel free to
express any opinion contrary to what their perception of KCLS’ position. She said that Vashon needs to get
people sitting together at the table talking: the Parks District, KCLS staff and the community. Bonnie noted that
that has not been happening. She said that Vashon doesn’t need a Library Advisory Board if KCLS can make that
conversation happen.
Lucy said that if the committee that is formed comes from the VMICC, it will have the voice of the community.
She noted that it needs to come from the VMICC rather than the Library so that it has the voice of the
Community Council. Lucy supports creating a committee focused solely on library issues for the Vashon
community. She said that it has the ability to have a powerful voice, and it needs to come from the Vashon
community, but it’s not the same role that Advisory Boards play because those report to a City.
Bonnie noted that the Community Council has a great deal of influence on the community. She has a project to
improve the flow past the book drop, and the Library Advisory Board could help her do that. Richard asked if the
community would take any offense if the name of the group was not exactly Advisory Board. Bonnie replied that
KCLS’ Advisory Boards have a lot of different names. Lucy asked what the VMICC needs to make that committee
happen. Bonnie said that the VMICC would like some recognition. The VMICC has created a Committee already.
She said that the community is tired of reinventing the wheel and nobody having any position or a way to
communicate. Bonnie noted that the community is frustrated that KCLS staff is not meeting with the Park
District. She said they feel that almost everyone on the Island wants the same thing and they are worried about
the lack of progress in making this happen. They feel they could make it happen better if they had recognition
and a little bit of power. Lucy asked if the group has a spokesperson. Bonnie said that she is the acting Chair of
the Library Committee. The other members would be appointed by the Executive Council of the Community
Council. There are application forms for people to fill out. Bonnie said the Committee process is about
democracy and transparency. Jim Wigfall noted that it sounds like the Committee would be in line with the
guidelines KCLS has in place for Advisory Boards.
Richard Eadie suggested a resolution recognizing the Library Committee on Vashon as the representative of the
Vashon Community Council. Jessica added that KCLS should note that the Committee will have representation
from KCLS in a similar manner to other Advisory Boards. Bill Ptacek said that KCLS works with Advisory Boards to
provide annual reports to City Councils, and the relationship is a bit different. Jessica Bonebright asked if each
Board has a KCLS staff member assigned to work with them, and knows who that is. Bill said that KCLS asks staff
to communicate with any group that wants to be involved with the Library. Richard noted that the Cluster
Managers often serve as liaisons to Advisory Boards, but his understanding is that there isn’t anyone whose
formal job is to represent KCLS to Advisory Boards. Bill said that each cluster has a Community Liaison that does
that type of work. There are different communication issues and KCLS promotes the idea that people should
participate in budget hearings. Not all of the communication issues would be the same because Advisory Boards
work with City governments. KCLS would talk to a Vashon group and be connected, and take whatever direction
the KCLS Board provides. The work KCLS does with Advisory Boards of cities is specific to their group and their
relationship with the cities.
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 11 September 29, 2009
Lucy Krakowiak moved to recognize the Committee selected by the Vashon-Maury Island Community
Council and to reaffirm that there will be a strong connection between KCLS, the community and the
Committee. Richard Eadie seconded and the motion was discussed.
Lucy noted that she doesn’t feel comfortable including the Committee as an Advisory Board.
Jessica Bonebright asked if there is any feedback mechanism to clarify that this meets the needs and interests of
the community. Richard said that one way to do that is to table this motion until the October Board meeting so
that there can be communication between both sides. Jim Wigfall asked Bonnie if this is something she thinks
the VMICC would support. Bonnie replied that what Vashon wants is for Bill and possibly Kay Johnson to spend
time with the Park District Board to help work out negotiations. She said this motion might mean that the Vashon
Committee would be treated differently than other Advisory Boards.
Julie Williams noted that, historically, KCLS has worked to educate Friends and Advisory Boards about their role
with the Library System and help them understand that their role is not to deal with the operations of KCLS. She
said that there may be some confusion with that point. Julie thinks that part of KCLS’ communication with a
Vashon group needs to include the understanding of their appropriate role. Julie stressed that neither Friends
nor Advisory Boards have influence over operations. Bill Ptacek added that KCLS does not include Advisory Boards
in negotiations on property matters.
Bonnie noted that part of the research she did showed that Advisory Boards do work on buildings. Yoshiko Saheki
commented that there is a difference between what Friends and Advisory Boards do. She was appointed to the
Shoreline Library Advisory Board by the Shoreline City Council. Yoshiko said that one of the first ordinances the
City Council passed after incorporation was to create the Library Advisory Board. Yoshiko noted that the
operative word is Advisory. Having been appointed by the City Council, Yoshiko believes that she was advising
the City Council on library matters, not advising KCLS Trustees. She mentioned that the Advisory Board was
active when the Richmond Beach Library was built in the park and during the Shoreline Library parking lot
expansion. She noted, however, that the Advisory Board served as a conduit to the community of Shoreline,
taking feedback from the community to report to the City Council. Bonnie asked if it could work both ways.
Yoshiko said that she was taking information from KCLS to the City Council, but it seems that the Vashon group
would like to go the other direction. Bonnie asked if she shouldn’t make a suggestion regarding a solution to a
library problem.
Jessica Bonebright asked if the Board would like to table this issue and come up with an agreeable proposal in
October.
Lucy Krakowiak moved to table Richard Eadie’s motion until the October Board meeting.
Rob Spitzer seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
SUMMER READING PROGRAM AND STUDY ZONE ANNUAL REPORTS
Cecilia McGowan reported that the Summer Reading Program (SRP) had a 9% increase in the number of signups, a
20% increase in the number of children who reached the halfway goal and an 11.5% increase in the number of
total finishers. The Summer Reading Program can’t happen without everyone at KCLS working together, and
Cecilia especially thanked the KCLS Foundation, Friends groups, Community Relations, Graphics and the Shipping
department. She said it is fabulous that everyone that works in the community libraries feels like SRP is part of
their regular programming that can help children be better readers. Staff also provided great stories of people
loving the art kit prizes for this year’s SRP. Cecilia mentioned that this year, 934 unique students visited the
libraries, of the 3,500 total participants. These are children who don’t regularly go to the library, some of whom
were taken there on buses, supported by the KCLS Foundation.
Rob Spitzer asked what KCLS could and will do differently with SRP in the future. Cecilia replied that KCLS is
hoping to increase participation in and the completion of SRP. She and Jerene Battisti have been discussing the
best way to target specific age groups and get the word out to schools for students to sign up and complete SRP.
KCLS would also like to increase participation by preschoolers, so Cecilia will be working to target parents.
Lucy Krakowiak said SRP is fabulous, but enthusiasm from a few students she knows fizzled after a few weeks
when they were out of school because their parents were not able to listen to them read. Lucy asked if there is a
way to do this program during the school year, because it seems that the schools are an important part of
getting students excited about SRP. She said it is a shame that the students she knows did not participate fully in
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 12 September 29, 2009
the program because their family life was unable to support them; however they could be supported during the
school year. Cecilia replied that during the school year, students can participate in Ready, Set, Read!, where
they read for 20 minutes a day, for 20 days a month and receive a book. Lucy suggested that a pizza prize might
help fuel participation in that program. Cecilia noted that KCLS is always looking for ways to reach children who
have no family support for reading, including day cares, camps and other outlets. Richard Eadie said SRP is a
very successful program, and a credit to KCLS and the staff who put it together.
Annie Poyner reviewed the 2009 Study Zone Annual Report. She noted that in the 2008-2009 school year, the
number of volunteers increased and student usage of the program nearly doubled. KCLS began receiving requests
for tutors before the program officially started. Richard Eadie asked if the increased usage at the Muckleshoot
Library is attributable to the size of the new Library. Annie noted that this was the first year that Muckleshoot
has offered Study Zone, and it was also a test site for the online Study Zone. Through the online program,
students at branches where tutors are unavailable can connect with online volunteer tutors. Online tutors are
available Sundays from 3:30pm- 6pm and Monday–Thursday from 3pm-8pm. So far, there have been 1-3 students
booking 2.5 hour sessions of online tutoring in each of the first two weeks of the program.
Annie reported that KCLS ended the year with 206 tutors at 31 libraries, and is already starting the next school
year with around 200. The number of tutors usually increases throughout the school year, and by next June KCLS
could have anywhere from 200-300 Study Zone volunteers.
In 2008, KCLS held the first summer Study Zone program, with 180 students getting help at seven branches. In
2009, summer Study Zone was offered at 16 locations. Both years, students sought help with skills building to
prepare for the next school year.
Annie reported that this year, the annual recognition event for Study Zone was combined with recognition for
Netmasters and Talk Time volunteers. The event was a huge success with better turnout than previous years.
Staff provided workshops for the groups, and formal recognition of the volunteers’ efforts. A surprising number
of volunteers participate in more than one of the programs.
Lucy Krakowiak asked if there has been an increase in tutors willing to volunteer in the south end of the County.
Annie replied that there have been increases in volunteers at many locations, and increases at all of the south
end libraries except Skyway, which lost tutors due to scheduling conflicts. So far, Skyway is the only actively
recruiting library that hasn’t been able to find a tutor yet, while usually two or three locations have that type of
delay. Media attention, including coverage by King-TV last fall, increased the demand for tutors.
Jerene Battisti provided a review of KCLS’ teen programs. She thanked the Graphics department, the KCLS
Foundation and KCLS staff for their support of the Read 3, Get 1 Free program. More teens than ever are
participating, and so far 7,000 books have been given away. This summer, the program offered gift card
incentives from Barnes and Noble, Target and Zumiez, and all of the teens who participated were eligible to win
the first prize, a laptop, or second prize, an iPod. The laptop went to a regular user of the Burien Library, and
the iPod went to a member of the Bothell Teen Advisory Board.
With 52 entries, participation in the 2009 Read.Flip.Win. program almost doubled that of 2008. After review by a
panel of judges, the top four entries were tied and Jerene Battisti had to think long and hard to pick the grand
prize winners in the Book Review and Book Trailer categories. The Board viewed the winning entries. Jerene said
it was a privilege to host the contest, and KCLS hopes to continue it once again. She thanked the Foundation for
providing support for the Flip camera prizes.
INTERIM STAFF SURVEY RESPONSE PLAN
Through the Interim Staff Survey Response Plan, KCLS is engaged in making improvements in the five key areas
identified in the most recent staff survey: communication, chain of command, scheduling, staff participation and
teamwork, and policies and procedures for emergencies. Holly Koelling provided an update on the progress in
each of the five areas. Under communication, the Cluster Managers have spearheaded improvements to local and
cluster-level meeting structures so staff at all levels have access to information through consistent formats. All
of the Cluster Managers and management team members set office hours and one-on-one appointment schedules
for staff to have access to them. KCLS also formed a team of staff to look at KCLS’ passive communication
structure to discover what’s working, what is not and how to make changes. The group came up with
recommendations for increased communication at the individual, local and System levels, which will be brought
to the Administrative Planning Team before the end of the year. Those recommendations led to the revision of
the System-level communication norms document.
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 13 September 29, 2009
One of the primary issues around chain of command is that staff feel they don’t know who to go to for various
issues under the current structure. The Cluster Managers therefore worked with the Public Services Team to
create a template for a responsibility matrix, which the Cluster Managers have fleshed out for staff to use along
with a searchable spreadsheet to help them find the person they need to talk to regarding particular issues. The
Public Services Team has also been working with the Staff Development Coordinator to develop a clearer system
to identify the person in charge of a location at any given time and to help the people who might serve in that
role get the training they need to do so.
Staff have also created, compiled and posted updated information, including policies, rules, guidelines and
procedures, on how staff is scheduled. This information can be used by the management teams in annual
appointments with staff to help them understand why schedules are the way they are. The Public Services Team
created a process for involving cluster-level staff in opportunities to engage in their communities. The Cluster
Managers also developed expertise expectations to identify who to seek expertise from in a cluster when it is not
easily available from a local individual.
KCLS is also working to update its emergency policies, procedures and guidelines, the first two of which were
presented to the Board for approval in April. This is part of a larger effort by the Public Services Team to update
its Policy Manual and ensure policies, procedures and guidelines are easy to locate, search, and interpret. A
number of policies are under review by groups of staff, including those related to the Rules of Conduct,
volunteer services, unscheduled library closures, incident reports, and bans and trespasses. Some of those
policies will require Board approval, and those that don’t will be rolled out as they are finalized.
Jessica Bonebright asked if there will be an additional staff survey to see if KCLS is making improvements in
these areas of concern. Bill replied that the staff and Board agreed to give these efforts a chance to be
implemented and get far enough along to be measured. KCLS is planning to follow up with an additional survey
to measure the success of this effort once it has had a chance to take effect. Jessica noted that Boeing just
released an annual employee survey with simple questions regarding employee pride, motivation and
satisfaction. She would like to see KCLS do a broad staff survey in the future rather than being limited to
measuring just these things. Bill Ptacek replied that since KCLS has spent time and effort on these items that
were identified in the previous staff survey, KCLS should see if the response plan has made a difference. He
noted that KCLS could do a general survey as well. Jessica requested that staff provide a report to the Planning
Committee before a future survey is released. She hopes that a future staff survey will be broad enough to
address the areas identified as problematic in the last staff survey. Lucy Krakowiak added that she supports
following through with the areas identified as needing attention and getting specific data to see if KCLS is
making progress. She thinks that once these problems are addressed, it would be good to have a regular survey
with big-picture questions similar to a patron satisfaction survey.
Bill said that when it is appropriate, KCLS will go back and survey staff on the issues raised in the Interim Staff
Survey. Holly noted that it will likely take a year to fully design and implement the tools needed to improve in
these areas. She anticipates that KCLS would get the most useful data back from staff in late 2010 or early 2011.
Bill added that the Board would have the opportunity to review an additional survey before it was finalized. Rob
Spitzer said that he is satisfied with waiting a year to assess the results of this plan, but asked if the
Administrative Planning Team is aware of other issues that staff might have. Lucy noted that that is a tough
question, and what KCLS is working on now is data from staff at the ground level. She believes that it is
appropriate for the Trustees to go to the libraries and talk to staff, get a sense of the patrons and see how the
libraries are functioning. Bill replied that operations is always a difficult question, and he appreciates the fact
that the Board wants to be aware of any potential issues. He noted that one thing going on right now is 34 staff
meetings to discuss implementation of the Future Services Strategy with regards to staffing. That and the levy
lid lift are key issues for staff right now, in addition to the libraries being very busy. Jessica noted that the issues
in this plan are mostly to do with the public services staff. Holly added that all of the Administrative Planning
Team members could give anecdotal thoughts, but the only way to get definitive is to ask the public services
staff. She pointed out however that doing so would give a non-representative sample as opposed to the trends of
the larger staff. Holly agreed with Bill that the most challenging issues for staff at the moment are the Future
Services changes being implemented and the economy and how those issues might impact staff on a personal
level. Julie Williams also added that staff has appreciated the opportunities provided by the libraries developing
their own Annual Service Priorities. The process provided a lot more interaction with public services staff, and
got them more engaged and excited about the opportunity to do more locally based things in their communities.
Attachment A
16715
KCLS Board Meeting Page 14 September 29, 2009
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
KCLS is excited about the progress being made on the Evergreen project. Jed Moffitt reported that the Evergreen
team was just up at the North Bend Library doing an Evergreen demo for staff members there, who were excited
about the fact that Evergreen lets them click and store a barcode to make library cards for members of the same
family. There are a lot of small things that Evergreen can do that is really important for staff and that can make
huge improvements for individual experiences with patrons. The recent news of the almost $1 million grant from
the Institute of Museum and Library Services is exciting because it validates at a high level that what KCLS is
doing can not only help KCLS staff to improve the software but is also helping spread word of what KCLS is doing
across the country. Through the grant, KCLS can share the work on Evergreen with other Library Systems, which
in turn can share their improvements with KCLS. Richard Eadie noted that this is a good example of the national
recognition of KCLS that the Board discussed at its Retreat.
ADJOURNMENT
Jessica Bonebright adjourned the meeting at 7:59pm.
Jessica Bonebright, President Rob Spitzer, Secretary
Attachment A
16715
file:///H|/My Documents/Holly's Documents/Haz Mit Plan/Phase 1/2009_A-E 2009 Draft KC Plan in libraries; 102609 Plan Binder Status.htm From: Danielle Perry [mailto:dmperry@kcls.org]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:29 PM
To: Totten, Deirdre
Subject: RE: 2009 Draft KC Plan in libraries; 10/26/09 Plan Binder Status
Yes, this is correct.
Danielle Perry
Safety & Security Program Coordinator
King County Library System
(425) 369-3218
From: Totten, Deirdre [mailto:Deirdre.Totten@kingcounty.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:17 PM
To: Danielle Perry
Subject: RE: 2009 Draft KC Plan in libraries; 10/26/09 Plan Binder Status
Hi Danielle,
This is to confirm our phone conversation today about the DRAFT 2009 KC Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
binder copies initially sent for distribution to the (5) Regional Libraries (5);10/22/09.
As of 10/26/09 - Due to construction at Kent and Federal Way Regional Libraries, Auburn Library and the
KCLS online Catalogue at www.kcls.org) will be subbed for these two Regional Libraries.
3 DRAFT Plan binder copies are also at the following three Regional Libraries today:
Bellevue, Bothell, Redmond.
When the Draft Plan is approved as Final (Phase 1, and 2), a new cover and guts will be sent to you based
on the completion date to insert into the existing binders. And we will evaluate where the "construction is at
that point", to reassess where the Plan will be (re) distributed to, as appropriate.
In summary: as of 10/26/ 09: Five (5) DRAFT 2009 KC Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan binder
copies are at the following Libraries in the Government section: Bellevue, Bothell, Redmond, Auburn, and
KCLS Online Catalogue at www.kcls.org.
When I get your confirmation, I'll have the last paragpraph uploaded to our website.
Thanks so much,
Dee
Thanks and Sincerely,
Deirdre (Dee) Totten
Emergency Management Program Manager
file:///H|/My Documents/Holly's Documents/Haz Mit P...C Plan in libraries; 102609 Plan Binder Status.htm (1 of 2) [11/2/2009 11:46:21 AM]
Attachment A
16715
file:///H|/My Documents/Holly's Documents/Haz Mit Plan/Phase 1/2009_A-E 2009 Draft KC Plan in libraries; 102609 Plan Binder Status.htm King County, Office of Emergency Management
RCECC - 3511 NE Second Street
Renton, WA 98056
deirdre.totten@kingcounty.gov
EOC/Office - 206-296-3830
Desk - 206-205-4064
www.kingcounty.gov/prepare
From: Danielle Perry [mailto:dmperry@kcls.org]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:57 AM
To: Totten, Deirdre
Subject: 2009 Plan in libraries
Dee,
I just wanted to give you an update on the plan. We decided to keep them bound as-is, rather than
rebinding them in-house. When we last spoke, we were talking about putting copies in all the regional
libraries. Both the Kent and Federal Way libraries are under construction right now. Even though they
are open for business, this business is being conducted out of temporary locations and the traffic flow is
significantly lighter than usual. One of our government document staff recommended putting the fourth
copy at Auburn instead of the temporary locations. The fifth copy will be available through our
cataloging and processing department. These will all be cataloged and available for public review shortly.
Danielle Perry
Safety & Security Program Coordinator
King County Library System
(425) 369-3218
file:///H|/My Documents/Holly's Documents/Haz Mit P...C Plan in libraries; 102609 Plan Binder Status.htm (2 of 2) [11/2/2009 11:46:21 AM]
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Rohr Tran, Holly
From: Totten, Deirdre
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:12 AM
To: 'Al Church (allen.church@southkingfire.org)'; Alston, Allen; 'Backer, Bud'; Bleifuhs, Steve; 'Bob
Taylor'; 'breth@ci.issaquah.wa.us'; 'Chief Barlow'; 'Chief Tim Lemon'; 'Chris Hall'; 'Dana Dick';
'David Brower'; 'David Nelson'; 'David Remmem (dremmem@fwps.org)'; DeCapua, Mike; 'Dick
Swaab (dswaab@kcwd20.com)'; 'Forrest Miller'; 'Frank Iriarte'; 'Gordie Olson
(gordon.olson@southkingfire.org)'; Hayes, William; 'Jay Regenstreif (jay@sammplat.wa.org)';
'Jeffrey Lakin (jlakin@water19.com)'; 'Jennifer Warmke (Jennifer.Warmke@ci.bothell.wa.us)';
'Jeremy Delmar'; 'Jerry Thornton'; 'John Lambert'; 'Joshua Deraitus'; 'Karen Ferreira
(KarenF@burienwa.gov)'; Kaufmann, Priscilla; 'Ken Miller'; Kimble, Larry; 'Kory Batterman'; 'Kris
Finnigan'; 'kurt Oakland'; 'Larry Rude'; 'Laura Gallez'; 'LCroco@bellevuewa.gov'; 'len cornwel'; 'Mark
Adler (madler@burienfire.org)'; 'Mark Davidson (mdavidso@fwps.org)'; 'Mary Hobday'; 'Pam
Cobley'; 'Patti Harris'; 'PWeller'; 'Ray Gross'; 'Rick K'; 'Ron Garrow (rong@ci.north-bend.wa.us)';
'Sarah Miller (skmiller@auburnwa.gov)'; 'Scott Webster'; 'Steve Campbell'; 'Steve Roberge'; 'Tim
Campbell'; 'Tom Hoffman'; 'Vernon Owens (vowens@bellevuewa.gov)'
Cc: 'O'Dea, Beverly (EMD)'; Whalen, Caroline; Worsham, Dennis; Rohr Tran, Holly; Friedman, Robin;
'Flaner, Rob'; Smith, Lauren; Miller, Lynne
Subject: Request for Input: Please fill out the King County Hazard Mitigation Survey Questionnaire by
November 8, 2009
Page 1of 1
11/6/2009
To all Hazard Mitigation planning partners:
Please take 5 minutes to fill out the King County Hazard Mitigation Survey Questionnaire by
November 8, 2009.
A Request for Input and a Questionnaire are posted on the King County, Office of Emergency
Management, website under "Hot Topics", as part of Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning
effort, linked below from homepage. The Plan, King County Government - Phase 1, is a work
in progress; so please recheck the website for the most current version updates and
information coming "soon". Please distribute this email to others, as appropriate.
www.kingcounty.gov/prepare
Thank you,
King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Attachment A
16715
20
0
9
H
o
w
a
r
d
H
a
n
s
o
n
D
a
m
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
F
l
o
o
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
= King County, Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Involvement
Pa
s
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
E
v
e
n
t
s
Me
e
t
i
n
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Y
e
a
r
2
0
0
9
Gr
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
F
l
o
o
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
GR
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
l
l
e
g
e
3
1
-
M
a
r
Bo
e
i
n
g
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
E
n
v
i
r
o
.
F
a
i
r
Re
n
t
o
n
15
-
J
u
l
Aub
u
r
n
W
a
s
t
e
m
o
b
i
l
e
K
i
c
k
o
f
f
e
v
e
n
t
Aub
u
r
n
17
-
J
u
l
En
u
m
c
l
a
w
F
a
i
r
En
u
m
c
l
a
w
Ju
l
y
1
6
-
1
8
Bo
e
i
n
g
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
E
n
v
i
r
o
.
F
a
i
r
Aub
u
r
n
24
-
J
u
l
Bo
e
i
n
g
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
F
a
i
r
Tu
k
w
i
l
a
5-
A
u
g
Sn
o
q
u
a
l
m
i
e
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
D
a
y
s
Sn
o
q
u
a
l
m
i
e
Aug
.
1
8
Lo
w
e
r
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
S
e
p
t
.
9
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
'
s
M
e
d
i
a
E
v
e
n
t
r
e
:
p
r
e
-
d
e
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
Se
p
t
.
9
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
S
i
t
e
l
i
v
e
o
n
I
n
t
r
a
n
e
t
S
i
t
e
S
e
p
t
.
8
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
R
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
“
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
y
o
f
C
a
r
i
n
g
”
(
d
o
o
r
t
o
d
o
o
r
t
o
v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e
p
o
p
.
)
Se
p
t
.
1
1
Ol
y
m
p
i
a
C
a
p
i
t
o
l
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
F
a
i
r
.
Se
p
t
.
1
1
Tr
u
c
k
e
r
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
l
u
n
c
h
e
o
n
Se
p
t
.
1
Pr
e
s
s
e
v
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
G
o
v
e
r
n
o
r
’
s
o
f
f
i
c
e
Ri
v
e
r
B
e
n
d
G
o
l
f
Co
u
r
s
e
-
K
e
n
t
S
e
p
t
.
1
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
d
r
o
p
,
c
o
v
e
r
&
h
o
l
d
d
r
i
l
l
s
(
G
R
P
I
O
m
t
g
.
n
o
t
e
s
)
S
e
p
t
.
1
6
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
(
1
5
0
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
)
Fl
a
m
i
n
g
G
e
y
s
e
r
Pa
r
k
S
e
p
t
.
1
4
Agr
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
(
4
6
)
Aub
u
r
n
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
S
e
p
t
.
1
7
Agr
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
(
5
0
)
Em
e
r
a
l
d
D
o
w
n
s
S
e
p
t
.
2
2
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
E
v
e
n
t
Sh
o
W
a
r
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ke
n
t
S
e
p
t
.
2
3
OE
M
'
s
P
u
b
l
i
c
E
d
u
c
a
t
o
r
m
a
k
i
n
g
4
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
'
s
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
La
k
e
T
a
p
p
s
S
e
p
t
2
4
t
h
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
u
r
t
s
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
v
e
n
t
-
J
a
c
k
i
e
A
u
s
t
i
n
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
S
e
p
t
.
2
4
NO
A
A
R
a
d
i
o
E
v
e
n
t
@
r
e
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
o
f
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
S
t
a
t
e
S
e
p
t
.
2
6
Di
s
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
E
v
e
n
t
a
t
L
e
s
G
o
v
e
P
a
r
k
-
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
-
S
a
r
a
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
Aub
u
r
n
S
e
p
t
.
2
6
BU
S
I
N
E
S
S
-
T
r
a
i
n
t
h
e
T
r
a
i
n
e
r
Tu
k
w
i
l
a
-
F
o
s
t
e
r
HS
S
e
p
t
.
3
0
11/12/20098:44 AMAttachment A 16715
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
S
-
F
l
o
o
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Tu
k
w
i
l
a
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
S
e
p
t
.
3
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
w
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Oc
t
.
1
Ke
n
t
-
S
h
o
w
a
r
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ke
n
t
O
c
t
.
3
He
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
F
r
e
e
t
w
o
-
d
a
y
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
o
f
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
h
o
w
t
o
e
a
s
i
l
y
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
K
e
n
t
O
c
t
.
6
He
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
F
r
e
e
t
w
o
-
d
a
y
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
o
f
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
h
o
w
t
o
e
a
s
i
l
y
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
K
e
n
t
O
c
t
.
7
Fl
o
o
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
M
t
g
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Tu
k
w
i
l
a
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
O
c
t
.
7
Ke
n
t
-
S
h
o
w
a
r
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ke
n
t
O
c
t
.
8
Re
d
c
r
o
s
s
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
H
1
N
1
a
n
d
F
l
o
o
d
-
D
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
H
S
&
D
e
a
f
C
e
n
t
e
r
O
c
t
.
9
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
-
H
a
z
W
a
s
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Tu
k
w
i
l
a
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
c
t
.
1
0
So
u
t
h
Pa
r
k
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
of
Se
a
t
t
l
e
Se
a
t
t
l
e
Oc
t
.
1
3
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
-
H
a
z
W
a
s
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Fo
s
t
e
r
H
S
T
u
k
w
i
l
a
O
c
t
.
1
4
11/12/20098:44 AMAttachment A 16715
Thank you for reviewing our 2009 KC Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan at
www.kingcounty.gov/prepare
Please go to the King County Office of Emergency Management website
link to view the Questionnaire and to provide your input on the survey
monkey.
NOTE: This Plan is not a forum to address issues with the Howard Hanson
Dam and Green River Valley Flood planning effort currently being
undertaken in earnest.
HAZARD MITIGATION DEFINED
What is mitigation? 1
Mitigation is the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact
of disasters. This is achieved through risk analysis and hazard assessment,
which results in information that provides a foundation for mitigation activities that
reduce potential risk, such as purchasing flood insurance that protects financial
investment or changing building codes to protect property in landslide or
liquefaction zones.
What is a Mitigation Plan?
A Mitigation Plan is a community-driven, living document that communities use to
reduce their vulnerability to hazards. Mitigation planning is a process through
which communities assess risks and identify actions or strategies to reduce
vulnerability to hazards through hazard mitigation.
Why assess and plan for risk?
The Plan and its process show the link between hazard risk assessment and
vulnerability and provides a vehicle to expand on and improve existing tools.
Government agencies and the public must understand the full impact of natural
hazards vulnerability and risk assessment in order to reduce natural and man-
made hazard effects. Planning serves as a tool to be used by planners or other
officials to advise and inform decision makers about future planning decisions, as
example, land-use.
Attachment A
16715
Why have a Mitigation Plan?
Communities must have a Plan to apply for or receive a mitigation grant. These
grants can augment local mitigation activities already being done. Ultimately,
these actions reduce vulnerability, and communities are able to recover more
quickly from disasters.
Benefits of Mitigation Planning
• Increases public awareness and understanding of vulnerabilities as well
as support for specific actions to reduce losses from future natural or man-
made disasters.
• Builds partnerships with diverse stakeholders increasing opportunities to
leverage data and resources in reducing workloads as well as achieving
shared community objectives.
• Expands understanding of potential risk reduction measures to include
structural and regulatory tools, where available, such as ordinances and
building codes.
• Informs development, prioritization, and implementation of mitigation
projects. Benefits accrue over the life of the project as losses are avoided
from each subsequent hazard event.
Mitigation is valuable to society in these ways:
• It creates safer communities by reducing loss of life and property damage.
For example, the rigorous building standards adopted by 20,000
communities across the country are saving the nation more than $1.1
billion a year in prevented flood damages.
• It allows individuals to minimize post-flood disaster disruptions and
recover more rapidly. For example, homes built to NFIP standards incur
less damage from floods. And when floods do cause damages, flood
insurance protects the homeowner’s investment, as it did for the more
than 200,000 Gulf Coast residents who received more than $23 billion in
payments following the 2005 hurricanes.
• It lessens the financial impact on individuals, communities, and society as
a whole. For example, a recent study by the Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Council shows that each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an
average of four dollars.
1 FEMA website 2009; Hazard Mitigation
Attachment A
16715
1. Please tell us your name and/or name of your organization or
community group (optional):
2. Are you responding as:
3. How concerned are you about the following natural and man-made
hazards affecting you, your community or organization?
DRAFT King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - Public
Involvement 2009
Exit this survey
1. Hazards
Name:
Company/Organization/Group:
Address:
Address 2:
City/Town:
State:-- select state --
ZIP/Postal Code:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
Extremely
Concerned Very ConcernedConcerned Somewhat
Concerned No Concern
Avalanche
Climate Change
Dam/Dam Safety
Drought
Earthquake
Flood
Citizen
Local Jurisdiction
Community Organization
Company
Non-Profit Organization
Page 1of 3DRAFT King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan -Public Involvement 2009
10/30/2009http://www.surveymk.com/s.aspx?sm=gi5y_2bPEmHuao2dJie938TQ_3d_3d
Attachment A
16715
4. Are you prepared for the following disasters?
Hazardous Materials
Severe Winter Storm
and High Winds
Landslide / Ground
Failure
Public Health
Tsunami
Volcanic Eruption
Wildfire
Other (Please specify in
box below)
NoYes
Avalanche
Climate Change
Dam /Dam Safety
Drought
Earthquake
Flood
Hazardous Materials
Severe Winter Storm
and High Winds
Landslide / Ground
Failure
Public Health
Tsunami
Volcanic Eruption
Wildfire
Other (Please specify in
box below)
Please fill in if "Other" line above is checked
Please fill in if "Other" line above is checked
Page 2of 3DRAFT King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan -Public Involvement 2009
10/30/2009http://www.surveymk.com/s.aspx?sm=gi5y_2bPEmHuao2dJie938TQ_3d_3d
Attachment A
16715
5. Did you know preparedness information is available about these
hazards from King County, your local jurisdiction, and/or the State of
Washington?
6. Do you have insurance for the following?
No Yes
Earthquake
Flood
Next
No
Yes
Page 3of 3DRAFT King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan -Public Involvement 2009
10/30/2009http://www.surveymk.com/s.aspx?sm=gi5y_2bPEmHuao2dJie938TQ_3d_3d
Attachment A
16715
A number of activities can reduce your own, or jurisdiction/community/organization’s risk from
hazards. These activities can be both regulatory and non-regulatory. An example of a regulatory
activity is a policy that limits or prohibits development in a known hazard area such as a
floodplain. An example of a non-regulatory activity would be to develop a public education
program to demonstrate steps citizens can take to make their homes safer from hazards.
1. Please select the option that best represents your opinion of each
of the following community-wide strategies.
DRAFT King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - Public
Involvement 2009
Exit this survey
2. Mitigation Strategies
Strongly AgreeAgree NeutralDisagree Strongly
Disagree Not Sure
I support a regulatory
approach to reducing
risk.
I support a non-
regulatory approach to
reducing risk.
I support a mix of both
regulatory and non-
regulatory approaches
to reducing risk.
I support policies to
prohibit development in
areas subject to natural
hazards.
I support the use of tax
dollars (federal, state
and/or local) to
compensate landowners
for not developing in
areas subject to natural
hazards.
I support the use of
local tax dollars to
reduce risks and losses
from disasters.
I support protecting
historical and cultural
structures.
I would be willing to
make my home or
business more disaster
resistant.
I support steps to
safeguard the local
economy following a
disaster event.
I support improving the
disaster preparedness
Page 1of 2DRAFT King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan -Public Involvement 2009
10/30/2009http://www.surveymk.com/s.aspx?sm=gi5y%2bPEmHuao2dJie938TQ%3d%3d
Attachment A
16715
of local schools.
I support a local
inventory of at-risk
buildings and
infrastructure.
Prev Done
Page 2of 2DRAFT King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan -Public Involvement 2009
10/30/2009http://www.surveymk.com/s.aspx?sm=gi5y%2bPEmHuao2dJie938TQ%3d%3d
Attachment A
16715
1 of 5
DRAFT King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - Public Involvement 2009
1. Please tell us your name and/or name of your organization or community group (optional):
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Name:85.7%6
Company/Organization/Group:100.0%7
Address:100.0%7
Address 2:28.6%2
City/Town:100.0%7
State:100.0%7
ZIP/Postal Code:100.0%7
Email Address:100.0%7
Phone Number:100.0%7
answered question 7
skipped question 1
2. Are you responding as:
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Citizen 0.0%0
Local Jurisdiction 87.5%7
Community Organization 0.0%0
Company 12.5%1
Non-Profit Organization 0.0%0
answered question 8
skipped question 0
Attachment A
16715
2 of 5
3. How concerned are you about the following natural and man-made hazards affecting you, your community or
organization?
Extremely
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
No
Concern
Rating
Average
Response
Count
Avalanche 0.0% (0)0.0% (0)0.0% (0)12.5% (1)87.5%
(7)
1.13
Climate Change 0.0% (0)37.5% (3)25.0% (2)37.5% (3)0.0% (0)3.00
Dam/Dam Safety 37.5% (3)25.0% (2)0.0% (0)12.5% (1)
25.0%
(2)
3.38
Drought 0.0% (0)25.0% (2)37.5% (3)12.5% (1)
25.0%
(2)
2.63
Earthquake 37.5% (3)50.0% (4)12.5% (1)0.0% (0)0.0% (0)4.25
Flood 14.3% (1)57.1% (4)0.0% (0)14.3% (1)
14.3%
(1)
3.43
Hazardous Materials 0.0% (0)0.0% (0)50.0% (4)25.0% (2)
25.0%
(2)
2.25
Severe Winter Storm and High
Winds 62.5% (5)25.0% (2)12.5% (1)0.0% (0)0.0% (0)4.50
Landslide / Ground Failure 25.0% (2)25.0% (2)50.0% (4)0.0% (0)0.0% (0)3.75
Public Health 25.0% (2)25.0% (2)25.0% (2)25.0% (2)0.0% (0)3.50
Tsunami 0.0% (0)0.0% (0)25.0% (2)25.0% (2)50.0%
(4)
1.75
Volcanic Eruption 0.0% (0)12.5% (1)50.0% (4)25.0% (2)
12.5%
(1)
2.63
Wildfire 0.0% (0)0.0% (0)50.0% (4)25.0% (2)
25.0%
(2)
2.25
Other (Please specify in box below)100.0% (1)0.0% (0)0.0% (0)0.0% (0)0.0% (0)5.00
Please fill in if "Other" line above is checked
answered question
skipped question
Attachment A
16715
3 of 5
4. Are you prepared for the following disasters?
No Yes
Response
Count
Avalanche 87.5% (7)12.5% (1)8
Climate Change 75.0% (6)25.0% (2)8
Dam /Dam Safety 50.0% (4)50.0% (4)8
Drought 37.5% (3)62.5% (5)8
Earthquake 0.0% (0)100.0% (8)8
Flood 0.0% (0)100.0% (8)8
Hazardous Materials 25.0% (2)75.0% (6)8
Severe Winter Storm and High
Winds
0.0% (0)100.0% (8)8
Landslide / Ground Failure 25.0% (2)75.0% (6)8
Public Health 25.0% (2)75.0% (6)8
Tsunami 75.0% (6)25.0% (2)8
Volcanic Eruption 37.5% (3)62.5% (5)8
Wildfire 50.0% (4)50.0% (4)8
Other (Please specify in box below)0.0% (0)100.0% (1)1
Please fill in if "Other" line above is checked 1
answered question 8
skipped question 0
Attachment A
16715
4 of 5
5. Did you know preparedness information is available about these hazards from King County, your local
jurisdiction, and/or the State of Washington?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
No 0.0%0
Yes 100.0%8
answered question 8
skipped question 0
6. Do you have insurance for the following?
No Yes
Response
Count
Earthquake 14.3% (1)85.7% (6)7
Flood 37.5% (3)62.5% (5)8
answered question 8
skipped question 0
Attachment A
16715
5 of 5
7. Please select the option that best represents your opinion of each of the following community-wide strategies.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not
Sure
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I support a regulatory approach to
reducing risk.
37.5%
(3)
0.0%
(0)
50.0%
(4)
0.0% (0)12.5% (1)
0.0%
(0)
3.50 8
I support a non-regulatory approach
to reducing risk.
37.5%
(3)
25.0%
(2)
37.5%
(3)
0.0% (0)0.0% (0)
0.0%
(0)
4.00 8
I support a mix of both regulatory
and non-regulatory approaches to
reducing risk.
37.5%
(3)
37.5%
(3)
12.5%
(1)
0.0% (0)12.5% (1)
0.0%
(0)
3.88 8
I support policies to prohibit
development in areas subject to
natural hazards.
50.0%
(4)
37.5%
(3)
0.0%
(0)
0.0% (0)12.5% (1)
0.0%
(0)
4.13 8
I support the use of tax dollars
(federal, state and/or local) to
compensate landowners for not
developing in areas subject to
natural hazards.
12.5%
(1)
25.0%
(2)
12.5%
(1)25.0% (2)25.0% (2)
0.0%
(0)
2.75 8
I support the use of local tax
dollars to reduce risks and losses
from disasters.
25.0%
(2)
50.0%
(4)
25.0%
(2)
0.0% (0)0.0% (0)
0.0%
(0)
4.00 8
I support protecting historical and
cultural structures.
0.0% (0)62.5%
(5)
37.5%
(3)
0.0% (0)0.0% (0)
0.0%
(0)
3.63 8
I would be willing to make my home
or business more disaster resistant.
62.5%
(5)
37.5%
(3)
0.0%
(0)
0.0% (0)0.0% (0)
0.0%
(0)
4.63 8
I support steps to safeguard the
local economy following a disaster
event.
62.5%
(5)
37.5%
(3)
0.0%
(0)
0.0% (0)0.0% (0)
0.0%
(0)
4.63 8
I support improving the disaster
preparedness of local schools.
50.0%
(4)
50.0%
(4)
0.0%
(0)
0.0% (0)0.0% (0)
0.0%
(0)
4.50 8
I support a local inventory of at-
risk buildings and infrastructure.
37.5%
(3)
50.0%
(4)
12.5%
(1)
0.0% (0)0.0% (0)
0.0%
(0)
4.25 8
answered question 8
skipped question 0
Attachment A
16715
Annex F: Policy and Program Analysis
This annex was updated by Department of Development and Environmental
Services (DDES) for the 2009 Plan update.
VISION 2020 in 2004 is replaced with Vision 2040 in 2009.
VISION 2040
VISION 2040 is a regional strategy for accommodating the additional 1.7 million
people and 1.2 million new jobs expected to be in the region by the year 2040.
VISION 2040 is an integrated, long-range vision for maintaining a healthy region –
promoting the well-being of people and communities, economic vitality, and a
healthy environment. It contains an environmental framework, a numeric regional
growth strategy, six policy sections guided by overarching goals as well as
implementation actions and measures to monitor progress.
The concept of people, prosperity, and planet provides a central theme for
VISION 2040. This concept signals that our regional leaders use an approach that
takes into account social, cultural, economic, and environmental benefits when
making decisions
King County Region
Countywide Planning Policies
The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) define the countywide vision and sets
the framework for the County’s and cities’ comprehensive plans. The CPPs,
adopted by the County and cities in 1992, are primarily goals that, if properly
implemented, should improve the quality of life in King County during the next
twenty years. The policies established an Urban Growth Area (UGA) within the
western one-third of King County where most growth and development is
targeted. The goals and policies include: reducing urban sprawl, protecting rural
areas, providing affordable housing throughout the county and coordinating
protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Many of these policies directly and
indirectly influence hazard mitigation activities. The King County Benchmark
Report, issued annually, provides a mechanism to monitor progress of the
Countywide Planning Policies to determine if public policy and programs are
making a difference. This information is also helpful in understanding trends
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Policy and Program Analysis Page F-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
affecting hazard mitigation issues. King County Annual Growth Report –
Benchmark Highlights.
King County (Unincorporated)
Municipalities, Districts, and Other Agencies
King County Comprehensive Plan
King County’s comprehensive land-use planning dates back to 1964, the year the
first comprehensive plan under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) was
adopted. In 1994, Comprehensive plans adopted in accordance with GMA must
manage growth so that the majority of new development is directed to designated
urban areas and away from rural areas. The GMA also requires jurisdictions to
designate and protect critical areas and commercially significant forestry,
agriculture, and mining areas. The GMA requires each Comprehensive Plan to
adhere to a set of thirteen goals and to include the following elements: land use,
housing, capital facilities, utilities, rural and transportation. King County’s
Comprehensive Plan applies only to unincorporated areas of the County.
Source: 2008 KC Comp Plan
Land Use: Cities also develop their own comprehensive plans and development
regulations. These plans must be consistent with the Countywide Planning
Policies.
BUILDING CODES SUPPORT MITIGATION (rewritten for 2009)
The Building Services Division of the Department of Development and
Environmental Services serves the citizens, homeowners and business of
unincorporated King County with building permit services. Its mission is to
promote public safety in accordance with the International Building Codes.
The Building Services Division promotes mitigation by ensuring that the design
and construction of buildings and structures are in compliance with the building
code as amended and adopted by King County. As stated in the International
Building Code; "The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum
requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through
structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light
and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and
other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire
fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations."
The Division also operates the Code Enforcement section who's mission is to
ensure properties that have non-permitted structures or site code violations are
mitigated by either obtaining a permit or removing the violation. This Section
works with a wide variety and level of public hazard conditions, coordinating with
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Policy and Program Analysis Page F-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
other agencies including; the Public Health - Seattle & King County, the King
County Sheriff, and the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Policy and Program Analysis Page F-3
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Annex G: Critical Facilities
”Annex G: Critical Facilities” is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to
RCW 42.56.420. Requests for public disclosure of this document, or parts
thereof, should be referred immediately to the King County Prosecuting
Attorney’s Office.
Distribution of this document beyond the intended party is prohibited
unless authorized in writing in advance by the King County Prosecuting
Attorney’s Office or Designee.
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Critical Facilities Page G-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Annex H: Potential Funding Sources
In fulfillment of 44 CFR § 201.4(c) (3) (iv), the following are the identification of
current and potential sources of Federal, State, local, or private funding that may
be utilized to implement mitigation activities. With jurisdictions of similar
disciplines (e.g., water, sewer & utilities) all having common resource pools, the
resources are grouped below. This list is representative of the types of funding
sources possibly available and may not be all inclusive in 2009.
King County Government – Internal Agencies
Taxes
Bonds
Levies
Grants: FEMA, CDBC, ODP, DOE, DOJ
General Fund
Debt Capacity
Self-Insurance fund (Raid; borrow)
Capitol Improvement Fund
WoLP – Budgeted – non-discretionary funds
Fair Increases (Metro Transit)
Utility District
Rates – Customer/ Product / Sales
FEMA – Hazard Mitigation Grants (Pre and Post Disaster)
PWPF – Public Works Trust Fund
DOE--Water Quality Program (SRF, Centennial)
General Facilities Changes/Development Fees
Pilot Projects (Coal Creek)
Bonds
Insurance (? Mitigation)
CDBG (Community Development Block Grants)
State Line Item Appropriations
ULID -Utility Local Improvement Districts
General Facilities Funds
Water Revolving Funds
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Potential Funding Sources H-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Fire Districts
Taxes
Bonds
Levies
Grants (FEMA, EPA, Dept of Education, DOE, DOJ, HHS)
State Fire Mobility (Mutual aid/ FEMA Reimbursement)
Corporate and Private Donations
Benefit Service Charge (based upon structure and s. f.)
Estimating Existing Resource Availability
Current Capital Improvement Budget
Current Debt Capability
Annual Budget
CITIES
General Fund
Levies
Bonds
Grants: FEMA, CDBC, WA State, etc.
Loan (Public Works Trust Fund)
Reserve Fund
Insurance (? As a loan or a reduction in rates?)
Impact Fund (only for new facilities and operations)
Debt Capacity
Local Improvement Districts
VOADs (Faith Based – Shelters)
Native American Nation Partnerships
SCHOOLS
Levies
Bonds
Impact Fees
Current Resource Availability
Capital Improvements
Budget
Debt Capacity
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Potential Funding Sources H-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Annex I: References and Resources
Forms
2009 KC RHMP, Regional Mitigation Plan Signatory Form
In Annex B; 1.1 Letter of Intent; Refer to Section 2, Plan Development, Plan
Maintenance and Plan Management
Hazard Mitigation Planning References / Resources
The following agencies were major resources in the development of this Plan.
This list is representative only and is not a complete list. Please look to the
footnotes and / or endnotes in each KC RHMP Plan Section, for more detailed
information on sources and documentation.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
500 C Street SW
Washington, DC 20472
Website: http://www.fema.gov
• Plan Adoption Resolution Sample
Federal Regional Center
130 228th Street SW
Bothell, WA 98021-9796
(425) 487-4600
Website: http://www.fema.gov/about/regions/regionx/index.shtm
• FEMA Region X - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk, July 1,
2008
King County Office of Emergency Management
3511 NE 2nd Street, MS: ECC-ES-0100
Renton, WA 98056
(206) 396-3830
Website: http://www.metrokc.gov/prepare
King County GIS Center
King Street Center
201 South Jackson Street
MS: KSC-NR-0706
Seattle, WA 98014
Website: http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – References Page I-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Municipal Research Center
Website: http://www.mrsc.org
United States Census Bureau
4700 Silver Hill Road
Washington, DC 20233
(301) 763-4636
Website: http://www.census.gov
Washington Institute for Hazards Mitigation Planning and Research
Website: http://depts.washington.edu/mitigate/
Washington State Military Department - Emergency Management Division
Building 20, M/S: TA-20
Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122
800-562-6108
Website: http://www.emd.wa.gov
Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM)
PO Box 43113
Olympia, Washington 98504-3113
(360) 902-0555
Website: http://www.ofm.wa.gov
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – References Page I-2
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Annex J: Glossary
A.F.I.S. – Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems
ALF – Animal Liberation Front
ALS – Advanced Life Support
BLS – Basic Life Support
CBA– Cost / Benefit Analysis
CDC – Center for Disease Control and Prevention
CERT – Citizens Emergency Response Team
CHS Engineers – Contractor hired by multiple utilities for plan development
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CS – Tear gas
CTV – County Television
DI – Ductile-iron
DOJ – United States Department of Justice
EAS – Emergency Alert System
EDC – Education Development Center
EMAC – Emergency Management Advisory Committee
EMS – Emergency Medical Services
EMT – Emergency Medical Technician
EOC/ECC – King County Emergency Operation Center/Emergency Coordination Center
ERP – Emergency Response Plan
ESCA – Emergency Services Coordinating Agency
FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Glossary J-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Flood Phases – Phase I-IV Progressive with IV being worst
FMO – Fire Marshal's Office
FTA – Federal Transit Administration
GIS – Geographic Information System
HIVA – Hazard Identification Vulnerability Analysis
HMGP – Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HMP – Hazard Mitigation Plan
ISB – Investigative Services Bureau
K.C.F.D. – King County Fire Department
KCDNR&P – King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
KCSO – King County Sheriff's Office
LEPC – Local Emergency Planning Committee, Hazardous Materials Planning group
M.A.R.R. – Major Accident Response and Reconstruction
MCI – Mass Casualty Incident
NET – Neighborhood Emergency Team
ODP – Office of Domestic Development, part of Homeland Security
OEM – King County Office of Emergency Management
PBEC – Precinct-Based Emergency Communications
Presidential Decision Directive #39 – Issued by the President without congressional approval
process
Project Impact – FEMA public info. television production
PRV –
PSA – Public Service Announcements
PSAP – Public Safety Answer Point (911)
RCPGP – Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Program
RH2 Engineers – Contractor hired by multiple utilities for plan development
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Glossary J-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
RHMP – Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
RWD – Ronald Wastewater District
SAR – Search and Rescue
SBA – Small Business Administration
SKDPH – Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
SPART – Ski Patrol and Rescue Team
SPU – Seattle Public Utility
SWAT – Special Weapons and Tactics Teams
Tac 30 – Tactical Team 30 (SWAT)
TOPOFF – Top Officials (Exercises)
TSA – Transportation Safety Administration
U.S.C. – United States Code
UGA – Urban Growth Area
ULID – Utility Local Improvement District
USAR – Washington State Urban Search and Rescue
VATS – Vessel and Terminal Security
WAC 118-04 – Regulation governing Emergency Management Registration of Emergency
Workers
WAC 118-40 – Regulation creating LEPC's
Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) – Encourage wise land use and planning
Washington State Fire Services Resource Mobilization Plan – also "Mobilization Plan;"
designed to provide a process to quickly notify, assemble, and deploy fire service personnel and
equipment to any local fire jurisdiction in the state that has expended all local and mutual aid
resources
WAWSD – Washington Association of Water and Sewer District
WMD – Weapons of Mass Destruction
WSDOT – Washington State Department of Transportation
WTD – Water Treatment Division
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Glossary J-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
WTO – World Trade Organization
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Glossary J-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Annex K: 2004 Plan Maps
(removed from Section 3)
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – 2004 Plan Maps K-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Annex L: 2004 King County Government Initiatives
– Completed (removed from 2004 KC Annex B)
King County Hazard Mitigation Plan: Annex – Completed Initiatives L-1
11/12/09
Attachment A
16715
Status:Completed
Attachment A
16715
Status:Completed
Attachment A
16715
Status:Completed
Attachment A
16715
Status:CompletedAttachment A
16715
Status:CompletedAttachment A
16715
Status:Completed
Attachment A
16715
Status:Completed
(Note:thisis
duplicativeof
PHInitiative2)
Attachment A
16715
Status:CompletedAttachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Status:Completed
Attachment A
16715
Status:CompletedAttachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Status:CompletedAttachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Status:CompletedAttachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715
Status:RemovedAttachment A
16715
Attachment A
16715