Resolution 20-007 Adopts Haz Mit Plan CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION 20-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING TAE APRIL 2020 SPOKANE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN, REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION 07-002 AND RESOLUTION 14-015;
AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, all of Spokane County has exposure to natural hazards that increase the risk to life,property,
environment and the County's economy; and
WHEREAS,proactive mitigation of known hazards before a disaster event can reduce or eliminate long-
term risk to life and property; and
WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) established requirements
for pre and post-disaster hazard mitigation programs requiring that"local and tribal government applicants
for sub-grants must have an approved local mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR 201.6 prior to receipt
of a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program sub-grant funding." The purpose of such local mitigation plan is to
represent the member jurisdictions' commitment to reduce risks from natural and man-made hazards; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to 44 CFR 201.6, a coalition of Spokane County governmental entities with like-
planning objectives was formed to pool resources and create consistent mitigation strategies to be
implemented within each partner's identified capabilities within the Spokane County Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the coalition has completed a planning process that engages the public, assesses the risk and
vulnerability to the impacts of natural hazards, develops a mitigation strategy consistent with a set of
uniform goals and objectives, and creates a plan for implementing, evaluating and revising this strategy;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to 44 CFR 201.6 and 44 CFR 201.7, the April 2020 Spokane County Hazard
Mitigation Plan has been reviewed and found to meet the regulatory criteria, and following adoption by
participating jurisdictions, will be approved by FEMA, making all adopting jurisdictions eligible for
mitigation project grants.
NOW,THEREFORE,be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,
Washington, as follows:
Section 1. The April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Volume 1 and Volume 2
including all appendices, incorporated by reference and attached hereto, is hereby approved. A copy of the
aforementioned Plan including all appendices, shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 2. Spokane Valley Resolutions 07-002 and 14-015 are hereby repealed in their entirety.
Section 3. Effective Date: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
Resolution 20-007 adopting Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 1 of 2
Adopted this 28`x'day of April,2020
Attest: City of Spokane Valley
.
ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk t Ben Wick, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
C)44—
11 -14
Office o e Ci omey
Resolution 20-007 adopting Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 2 of 2
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements
April 2020
Final Adopted Version
Spokane County
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VOLUME 1: PLANNING-AREA-WIDE ELEMENTS
APRIL 2020
FINAL ADOPTED VERSION
Prepared for:
Spokane Department of Emergency Management
1121 W. Gardner
Spokane, WA 99201
Prepared by:
"±¨£¦¤µ¨¤¶ #®²´«³¨¦Ǿ ,,#
ΘΐΔ .®±³§ , ´±¤« , ¤
4 ¢®¬ Ǿ 7 ²§¨¦³® ΘΗΓΏΕ
ΑΔΒȁΒΏΐȁΐΒΒΏ
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan;
Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ ES-1
Chapter 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Authority .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.1Local Concerns ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2Purposes for Hazard Mitigation Planning ........................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Plan Layout .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Plan Integration .................................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Plan Adoption ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3
Chapter 2. Planning Process .................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Plan Development ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Changes in Development ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Process Followed ................................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Grant Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Formation of the Planning Team ......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.6 Planning Partnership ............................................................................................................................ 2-3
2.7 Defining the Planning Area.................................................................................................................. 2-5
2.8 Coordination with Other Agencies ...................................................................................................... 2-5
2.9 Review of Existing reports, studies and Programs............................................................................... 2-7
2.9.1Related Hazard Planning Documents .................................................................................. 2-7
2.10 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................ 2-8
2.10.1Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.10.2Hazard Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 2-9
2.10.3Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 2-10
2.10.4Internet .............................................................................................................................. 2-10
2.10.5Social Media ..................................................................................................................... 2-11
2.10.6Public Meetings ................................................................................................................. 2-11
2.11 Plan Development Chronology/Milestones ..................................................................................... 2-12
Chapter 3. Spokane County Profile ......................................................................................3-1
3.1 Jurisdictions and Attractions ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Historical Overview ............................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.3 Major Past Hazard Events .................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.4 Physical Setting .................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.4.1Geology ............................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.4.2Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.4.3Climate .............................................................................................................................. 3-11
3.5 Demographics .................................................................................................................................... 3-13
3.5.1Population Characteristics ................................................................................................. 3-13
3.5.2Income ............................................................................................................................... 3-15
3.5.3Age Distribution ................................................................................................................ 3-15
3.5.4Race, Ethnicity and Language ........................................................................................... 3-16
3.5.5Disabled Populations ......................................................................................................... 3-17
3.6 Economy ............................................................................................................................................ 3-17
3.6.1Employment Trends .......................................................................................................... 3-17
Bridgeview Consulting i April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3.7 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 3-18
3.8 Housing Stock .................................................................................................................................... 3-21
3.8.1Building Stock Age ........................................................................................................... 3-21
3.9 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 3-22
3.9.1Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................................... 3-26
3.9.2Infrastructure and Utility Failure ...................................................................................... 3-27
3.9.3Transportation ................................................................................................................... 3-29
3.10 Future Trends in Development ........................................................................................................ 3-29
3.11 Laws and Ordinances ....................................................................................................................... 3-30
3.11.1Federal ............................................................................................................................... 3-30
3.11.2State ................................................................................................................................... 3-32
3.12 Land Use Development in the Local Municipalities ........................................................................ 3-35
Chapter 4. Risk Assessment Methodology ..........................................................................4-1
4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2.1Hazard Identification ........................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2Hazard Profiles .................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.3Risk Assessment Process .................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4Hazus and GIS Applications ............................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.5Calculated Priority Risk Index Scoring Criteria ................................................................. 4-7
4.3 Probability of Occurrence and Return Intervals................................................................................. 4-11
4.4 Consequence Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 4-12
4.5 Community Variations to the Risk Assessment ................................................................................. 4-14
4.6 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 4-14
Chapter 5. Drought.................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 General Background ............................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1Extent and Location ............................................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.2Previous Occurrence ........................................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.3Frequency ............................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.2.4Severity ............................................................................................................................... 5-8
5.2.5Warning Time ................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.3 Secondary Hazards ............................................................................................................................. 5-10
5.4 Climate Change Impacts .................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.5 Vulnerability ...................................................................................................................................... 5-11
5.5.1Overview ........................................................................................................................... 5-11
5.5.2Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................................................................... 5-13
5.5.2Impact on Property ............................................................................................................ 5-13
5.5.3Impact on Critical Facilities .............................................................................................. 5-13
5.5.4Impact on Economy .......................................................................................................... 5-13
5.5.5Impact on Environment ..................................................................................................... 5-14
5.6 Future Trends in Development .......................................................................................................... 5-14
5.7 Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 5-15
5.8 Consequence Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 5-15
5.9 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 5-16
Chapter 6. Earthquake ...........................................................................................................6-1
6.1 General Background ............................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.1How Earthquakes Happen ................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2Earthquake Classifications .................................................................................................. 6-2
6.1.3Ground Motion .................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.1.4Effect of Soil Types ............................................................................................................ 6-4
Bridgeview Consulting ii April 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.1Extent and Location ............................................................................................................ 6-6
6.2.1Previous Occurrence ......................................................................................................... 6-11
6.2.2Frequency .......................................................................................................................... 6-13
6.2.3Severity ............................................................................................................................. 6-14
6.2.4Warning Time ................................................................................................................... 6-18
6.3 Secondary Hazards ............................................................................................................................. 6-18
6.4 Climate Change Impacts .................................................................................................................... 6-19
6.5 Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................................................................. 6-19
6.5.1Overview ........................................................................................................................... 6-19
6.5.2Impact on Life, Health and Safety .................................................................................... 6-19
6.5.3Impact on Property ............................................................................................................ 6-20
6.5.4Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................. 6-23
6.5.5Impact on Economy .......................................................................................................... 6-24
6.5.6Impact on Environment ..................................................................................................... 6-26
6.5.7Secondary Impacts ............................................................................................................ 6-26
6.6 Future Trends in Development .......................................................................................................... 6-26
6.7 Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 6-26
6.8 Consequence Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 6-27
6.9 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 6-28
Chapter 7. Flood and Dam Failure ........................................................................................7-1
7.1 General Background ............................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1.1Flood ................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2Flooding Types ................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.1.3National Flood Insurance Program ..................................................................................... 7-3
7.1.4NFIP Program Overview..................................................................................................... 7-4
7.1.5Dam Failure ......................................................................................................................... 7-7
7.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 7-9
7.2.1Extent and Location - Flood ................................................................................................ 7-9
7.2.2Previous Occurrence ......................................................................................................... 7-10
7.2.3Frequency .......................................................................................................................... 7-11
7.2.4Severity ............................................................................................................................. 7-11
7.2.5Extent and Location Dam Failure .................................................................................. 7-17
7.2.6Previous Occurrence ......................................................................................................... 7-18
7.2.7Frequency .......................................................................................................................... 7-19
7.2.8Severity ............................................................................................................................. 7-19
7.2.9Warning Time ................................................................................................................... 7-19
7.3 Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................................................................. 7-21
7.3.1Overview ........................................................................................................................... 7-21
7.3.2Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................................................................... 7-21
7.3.3Impact on Property ............................................................................................................ 7-23
7.3.4Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................. 7-25
7.3.5Impact to the Economy ..................................................................................................... 7-28
7.3.6Impact on the Environment ............................................................................................... 7-29
7.4 Future Development Trends............................................................................................................... 7-29
7.5 Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 7-29
7.6 Consequence Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 7-31
7.7 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 7-32
Chapter 8. Landslide ..............................................................................................................8-1
8.1 General Background ............................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 8-1
Bridgeview Consulting iii April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8.2.1Extent and Location ............................................................................................................ 8-2
8.2.2Previous Occurrence ........................................................................................................... 8-3
8.2.3Frequency ............................................................................................................................ 8-4
8.2.4Severity ............................................................................................................................... 8-4
8.2.5Warning Time ..................................................................................................................... 8-6
8.3 Secondary Hazards ............................................................................................................................... 8-6
8.4 Climate Change Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 8-7
8.5 Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................................................................... 8-7
8.5.1Overview ............................................................................................................................. 8-7
8.5.2Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ..................................................................................... 8-7
8.5.3Impact on Property .............................................................................................................. 8-8
8.5.4Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................. 8-10
8.5.5Impact on Economy .......................................................................................................... 8-13
8.5.6Impact on Environment ..................................................................................................... 8-13
8.6 Future Development Trends............................................................................................................... 8-13
8.7 Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 8-14
8.8 Consequence Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 8-14
8.9 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 8-15
Chapter 9. Severe Weather ...................................................................................................9-1
9.1 General Background ............................................................................................................................ 9-1
9.1.1Damaging Winds ................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.2Tornado ............................................................................................................................... 9-2
9.1.3Blizzards and Snowstorms .................................................................................................. 9-5
9.1.4Ice Storms ........................................................................................................................... 9-5
9.1.5Dust Storms ......................................................................................................................... 9-6
9.1.6Thunderstorms .................................................................................................................... 9-6
9.2 Hazard Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 9-8
9.2.1Extent and Location ............................................................................................................ 9-8
9.2.2Previous Occurrence ........................................................................................................... 9-8
9.2.3Frequency .......................................................................................................................... 9-12
9.2.4Severity ............................................................................................................................. 9-12
9.2.5Warning Time ................................................................................................................... 9-13
9.3 Secondary Hazards ............................................................................................................................. 9-13
9.4 Climate Change Impacts .................................................................................................................... 9-13
9.5 Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................................................................. 9-14
9.5.1Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................. 9-14
9.5.2Impact on Economy .......................................................................................................... 9-15
9.5.3Impact on Environment ..................................................................................................... 9-15
9.6 Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................................................................. 9-16
9.6.1Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................................................................... 9-16
9.6.2Impact on Property ............................................................................................................ 9-17
9.7 Future Trends in Development .......................................................................................................... 9-17
9.8 Scenario.............................................................................................................................................. 9-17
9.9 Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 9-17
9.10 Consequence Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9-18
9.11 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 9-19
Chapter 10. Volcano ............................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1 General Background ........................................................................................................................ 10-1
10.2 Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.2.1Extent and Location .......................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2.2Previous Occurrence ......................................................................................................... 10-1
Bridgeview Consulting iv April 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.2.3Frequency .......................................................................................................................... 10-3
10.2.4Severity ............................................................................................................................. 10-3
10.2.5Warning Time ................................................................................................................... 10-3
10.3 Secondary Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 10-4
10.4 Climate Change Impacts .................................................................................................................. 10-4
10.5 Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................................................................ 10-4
10.5.1Overview ........................................................................................................................... 10-4
10.5.2Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................................................................... 10-4
10.5.3Impact on Property ............................................................................................................ 10-4
10.5.4Impact on Critical Facilities .............................................................................................. 10-5
10.5.5Impact on Economy .......................................................................................................... 10-5
10.5.6Impact on Environment ..................................................................................................... 10-6
10.6 Future Trends in Development ........................................................................................................ 10-6
10.7 Issues ................................................................................................................................................ 10-6
10.8 Consequence Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 10-6
10.9 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 10-7
Chapter 11. Wildfire ............................................................................................................. 11-1
11.1 General Background ........................................................................................................................ 11-1
11.1.1Wildland-Urban Interface Areas ....................................................................................... 11-2
11.1.2Wildfire Types .................................................................................................................. 11-4
11.1.3Identifying Wildfire Risk .................................................................................................. 11-4
11.1.4Historical Fire Regime and Current Condition Classification .......................................... 11-5
11.2 Hazard Profile .................................................................................................................................. 11-7
11.2.1Extent and Location .......................................................................................................... 11-8
11.2.2Previous Occurrence ....................................................................................................... 11-11
11.2.3Frequency ........................................................................................................................ 11-13
11.2.4Severity ........................................................................................................................... 11-17
11.2.5Warning Time ................................................................................................................. 11-17
11.3 Secondary Hazards ......................................................................................................................... 11-17
11.4 Climate Change Impacts ................................................................................................................ 11-17
11.5 Vulnerability Assessment .............................................................................................................. 11-18
11.5.1Overview ......................................................................................................................... 11-18
11.5.2Impact on Life, Health, and Safety ................................................................................. 11-18
11.5.3Impact on Property .......................................................................................................... 11-19
11.5.4Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................... 11-23
11.5.5Impact on Economy ........................................................................................................ 11-24
11.5.6Impact on Environment ................................................................................................... 11-25
11.6 Future Trends in Development ...................................................................................................... 11-25
11.7 Issues .............................................................................................................................................. 11-25
11.8 Consequence Analysis ................................................................................................................... 11-26
11.9 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 11-27
Chapter 12. Hazard Ranking ................................................................................................ 12-1
12.1 Calculated Priority Risk Index ......................................................................................................... 12-1
12.2 Risk Ranking .................................................................................................................................... 12-2
Chapter 13. Mitigation Strategy........................................................................................... 13-1
13.1 Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... 13-1
13.1.1Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 13-1
13.2 Hazard Mitigation Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 13-3
13.3 Selected Mitigation Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 13-3
13.4 Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives .................................................................................................... 13-3
13.5 Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives .................................................................................................. 13-13
Bridgeview Consulting v April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13.6 Benefit/Cost Review ...................................................................................................................... 13-13
13.7 Prioritization of Initiatives ............................................................................................................. 13-14
13.8 2015 Action Plan Status ................................................................................................................. 13-16
13.9 Additional Mitigation Activities .................................................................................................... 13-22
13.10 Funding Opportunities ................................................................................................................. 13-22
Chapter 14. Capability Assessment .................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 Laws and Ordinances ....................................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1.1Federal ............................................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1.2State-Level Planning Initiatives ........................................................................................ 14-3
14.1.3Local Programs ................................................................................................................. 14-6
14.2 Mitigation-Related Regulatory Authority ........................................................................................ 14-7
14.3 Washington State Rating Bureau Levels of Service ...................................................................... 14-12
14.3.1Public Protection Classification Program ....................................................................... 14-12
14.3.2Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule ............................................................. 14-13
14.3.3Public Safety Programs ................................................................................................... 14-14
Chapter 15. Plan Maintenance ............................................................................................ 15-1
15.1.1Plan Implementation and Maintenance ............................................................................. 15-1
15.1.2Annual Review .................................................................................................................. 15-2
15.1.3Future Plan Updates .......................................................................................................... 15-3
15.1.4Implementation through Existing Programs ..................................................................... 15-3
15.1.5Continued Public Involvement .......................................................................................... 15-4
References ............................................................................................................................ R-1
Appendices
A. Acronyms and Definitions
B. Public Outreach Materials and Results
C. Annual Progress Report Template
D. Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners
Bridgeview Consulting vi April 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page No.
Table 2-1. Hazard Mitigation Planning Partners and Level of Participation ............................................. 2-4
Table 2-2. Plan Development Milestones ................................................................................................ 2-12
Table 3-1. Disaster Declarations in Spokane County ................................................................................ 3-7
Table 3-2. Monthly Average Spokane River Flow at Long lake dam ..................................................... 3-11
Table 3-3. Average Monthly and Annual Rainfall in WRIA 54 .............................................................. 3-12
Table 3-4. 2017 Spokane County Population by Jurisdiction .................................................................. 3-14
Table 3-5. 2017 Percent Comparison Population by Age ........................................................................ 3-16
Table 3-6. Existing Unincorporated Area Zoning By Acreage ................................................................ 3-19
Table 3-7. Spokane County Housing Units By Structure Type (2018) ................................................... 3-21
Table 3-8. Spokane County Year / Percent House Built Distribution (Excludes Mobile Homes) .......... 3-22
Table 3-9. Spokane County Critical Facilities ......................................................................................... 3-25
Table 3-10. Spokane County Critical Infrastructure ................................................................................ 3-25
Table 5-1. Consequence Analysis ........................................................................................................... 5-16
Table 6-1. Earthquake Magnitude Classes ................................................................................................. 6-3
Table 6-2. Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity ........................................................................................ 6-3
Table 6-3. Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison .................................................... 6-4
Table 6-4. NEHRP Soil Classification System .......................................................................................... 6-5
Table 6-5. Acres of NEHRP Soils within Spokane County ...................................................................... 6-5
Table 6-6. Estimated Earthquake Impact on Person and Households ..................................................... 6-20
Table 6-7. Age of Structures in Spokane County .................................................................................... 6-21
Table 6-8. Earthquake Building Loss PotentialProbabilistic* ............................................................. 6-22
Table 6-9. Estimated Earthquake-Caused Debris .................................................................................... 6-23
Table 6-10. Critical Facility Vulnerability to 100-Year Earthquake Event ............................................. 6-24
Table 6-11. Functionality of Critical Facilities for 100-Year Event ........................................................ 6-24
Table 6-12. Consequence Analysis ......................................................................................................... 6-28
Table 7-1. NFIP Status of Spokane County and Incorporated Municipalities ........................................... 7-5
Table 7-2. Flood Insurance Statistics for Spokane County ........................................................................ 7-6
Table 7-3. Repetitive and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties in Spokane County .................................... 7-7
Table 7-4. Spokane County Flood Events 1964-2018 ............................................................................. 7-10
Table 7-5. Summary of Peak Discharges within Spokane County .......................................................... 7-14
Table 7-6. Dams in Spokane County ....................................................................................................... 7-18
Table 7-7. Corps of Engineers Hazard Potential Classification ............................................................... 7-20
Table 7-8. Populations Based on Residential Structures within Flood Hazard Areas* .......................... 7-22
Table 7-9. Area and Structures Within the 100-Year Floodplain ............................................................ 7-23
Table 7-10. Area and Structures Within the 500-Year Floodplain .......................................................... 7-23
Table 7-11. Value of Exposed Buildings Within the 100-Year Floodplain ............................................. 7-24
Table 7-12. Value of Exposed Buildings Within the 500-Year Floodplain ............................................. 7-25
Table 7-13. Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain ...................................................................... 7-26
Table 7-14. Critical Infrastructure in the 100-Year Floodplain ............................................................... 7-26
Table 7-15. Critical Facilities in the 500-Year Floodplain ...................................................................... 7-27
Table 7-16. Critical Infrastructure in the 500-Year Floodplain ............................................................... 7-27
Table 7-17. Consequence Analysis ......................................................................................................... 7-31
Table 8-1. Populations and Residential Structure Impact in Landslide Risk Area* .................................. 8-7
Table 8-2. Percent of Land Area in Landslide Risk Area .......................................................................... 8-8
Table 8-3. Spokane County Structures in Landslide Hazard Areas* ......................................................... 8-9
Table 8-4. Critical Facilities Exposed to Landslide Hazards ................................................................... 8-11
Table 8-5. Consequence Analysis ........................................................................................................... 8-15
Table 9-1. Severe Weather Events Impacting Planning Area Since 1993 ................................................. 9-8
Bridgeview Consulting vii April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 9-2. Loss Potential to Severe Weather Hazard .............................................................................. 9-16
Table 9-3. Consequence Analysis ........................................................................................................... 9-19
Table 10-1. Past Eruptions in Washington ............................................................................................... 10-3
Table 10-2. Estimated Loss Potential for Volcano Hazard ...................................................................... 10-5
Table 10-3. Consequence Analysis ......................................................................................................... 10-7
Table 11-1. Fire Regime Condition Class Definitions ............................................................................. 11-6
Table 11-2. Summary of Ignitions in Spokane County 2008-2019 ....................................................... 11-11
Table 11-3. Population Estimates Within Fire Regimes ....................................................................... 11-19
Table 11-4. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 1 ........................................................ 11-20
Table 11-5. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 2 ........................................................ 11-20
Table 11-6. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 3 ........................................................ 11-21
Table 11-7. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 4 ........................................................ 11-22
Table 11-8. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 5 ........................................................ 11-22
Table 11-9. Critical Facilities Exposed to Wildfire Regimes ................................................................ 11-23
Table 11-10. Consequence Analysis ..................................................................................................... 11-27
Table 12-1. County Calculated Priority Risk Index Ranking Scores ....................................................... 12-1
Table 12-2. Countywide Combined Calculated Priority Risk Index Score ............................................. 12-2
Table 12-3. Countywide Hazard Ranking ................................................................................................ 12-3
Table 12-4. Countywide Risk Summary .................................................................................................. 12-4
Table 13-1. Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives ........................................................................... 13-4
Table 13-2. County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives ..................................................................... 13-9
Table 13-3. Prioritization of Countywide Mitigation Initiatives ........................................................... 13-14
Table 13-4. Prioritization of County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives ........................................ 13-15
Table 13-5. Action PlanCountywide Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................... 13-17
Table 13-6. 2020 Status of Spokane County-Specific 2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategies .................. 13-18
Table 13-7. Grant Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 13-23
Table 13-8. Countywide Fiscal Capabilities which Support Mitigation Efforts .................................... 13-23
Table 14-1. Spokane County Legal and Regulatory Capability .............................................................. 14-8
Table 14-2. Administrative and Technical Capability ........................................................................... 14-10
Table 14-3. Education and Outreach ...................................................................................................... 14-11
Table 14-4. Countywide Public Protection Classification ..................................................................... 14-13
Table 14-5. Countywide Building Code Effectiveness Grading ............................................................ 14-14
Bridgeview Consulting viii April 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page No.
Figure 2-1. Spokane County Facebook Page ........................................................................................... 2-11
Figure 2-2. June LEPC Meeting .............................................................................................................. 2-14
Figure 2-3. Strategy and Template Development Workshop ................................................................... 2-14
Figure 2-4. Presentation of Risk Findings(Meeting Setup) ..................................................................... 2-15
Figure 2-5. September LEPC Meeting Risk Presentation ........................................................................ 2-15
Figure 3-1. Main Features of Spokane County .......................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2. Precipitation Trends 1950-2019 ............................................................................................ 3-12
Figure 3-3. Annual Population Growth 1961-2018 ................................................................................. 3-14
Figure 3-4. Poverty by Age and Gender .................................................................................................. 3-15
Figure 3-5. Spokane County Unemployment Rates 2016-2019 .............................................................. 3-18
Figure 3-6. Spokane County Land Distribution ....................................................................................... 3-20
Figure 3-7. Spokane County Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .......................................................... 3-24
Figure 4-1. Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) .................................................................................... 4-8
Figure 4-2. Hazard Ranking Worksheet with Weighted Factors ............................................................. 4-11
Figure 5-1. May 2019 Drought Declaration Areas .................................................................................... 5-4
Figure 5-2. Palmer Z Index Short-Term Drought Conditions (May 2019) ................................................ 5-5
Figure 5-3. Palmer Drought Severity Index - May 2019 ........................................................................... 5-6
Figure 5-4. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index Long-Term Hydrologic Conditions (June 2019) .......... 5-6
Figure 5-5. 24-Month Standardized Precipitation Index (June 2018June 2019) ................................... 5-7
Figure 5-6. NIDIS Drought In Washington as of June 11, 2019 ............................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-7. Soil Moisture Impact ............................................................................................................... 5-8
Figure 5-8. Drought Hazard In Washington State (WA HMP, 2018)...................................................... 5-12
Figure 5-9. WA EMD Illustration of Drought Risk Index (2018) ........................................................... 5-13
Figure 6-1. Earthquake Types in the Pacific Northwest ............................................................................ 6-2
Figure 6-2. Peak Ground Acceleration; 100-Year Probability Event ........................................................ 6-8
Figure 6-3. Peak Ground Acceleration; 500-Year Probability Event ........................................................ 6-9
Figure 6-4. Peak Ground Acceleration; Spokane M5.5 Scenario ............................................................ 6-10
Figure 6-5. Earthquake History June 26, 2019 Spokane County ............................................................. 6-12
Figure 6-6. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Site Classes ...................................... 6-15
Figure 6-7. Liquefaction Susceptibility ................................................................................................... 6-16
Figure 6-8. Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years - Nationwide ..... 6-17
Figure 6-9. PGA with 2-Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, Northwest Region ................. 6-18
Figure 6-10. Hazus M5.5 Spokane Scenario Damage Categories by General Occupancy Type (2019) . 6-22
Figure 6-11. Hazus Estimated Dollar Losses by Occupancy Type Spokane M5.5 ShakeMap (2019) .... 6-25
Figure 6-12. Hazus Estimate of Percent of Losses by Loss Type for Spokane M5.5 ShakeMap (2019) 6-25
Figure 7-1. FEMA DFIRM Flood Hazard Areas ..................................................................................... 7-13
Figure 7-2. Frequency of Major Flooding in Washington by County ..................................................... 7-14
Figure 7-3. Spokane River Hydrograph at Spokane (USGS Station 12424000) ..................................... 7-14
Figure 8-1. Deep Seated Slide ................................................................................................................... 8-2
Figure 8-2. Shallow Colluvial Slide ........................................................................................................... 8-2
Figure 8-3. Bench Slide ............................................................................................................................. 8-2
Figure 8-4. Large Slide .............................................................................................................................. 8-2
Figure 8-5. Landslide Probability .............................................................................................................. 8-5
Figure 8-6. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure within Landslide Hazard Area ..................................... 8-12
Figure 9-1. Tornado Ratings ...................................................................................................................... 9-2
Figure 9-2. Potential Impact and Damage from a Tornado ....................................................................... 9-3
Figure 9-3. Tornado Risk Areas in the United States ................................................................................ 9-4
Bridgeview Consulting ix April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 9-4. Wind Zone Map of U.S. .......................................................................................................... 9-4
Figure 9-5. The Thunderstorm Life Cycle ................................................................................................. 9-7
Figure 9-6. Tornado History in Washington 1950-2018 .......................................................................... 9-11
Figure 9-7. November 2015 Windstorm Damage to Spokane County Resident ..................................... 9-11
Figure 9-8. Downed Power Lines - November 2015 Windstorm ............................................................ 9-12
Figure 9-9. National Weather Service Weather Fatalities 2018 .............................................................. 9-13
Figure 9-10. Severe Weather Probabilities in Warmer Climates ............................................................. 9-14
Figure 10-1. Probability of Tephra Accumulation in Pacific Northwest ................................................. 10-2
Figure 10-2. Past Eruptions in the Cascade Range .................................................................................. 10-2
Figure 11-1. Wildland Urban Interface and Level of Risk (DNR, 2018) ................................................ 11-3
Figure 11-2. LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model - Anderson 13 Fuel Classes ................................ 11-10
Figure 11-3. Historic Wildland Fires 2008-2019 and Land Ownership ................................................ 11-12
Figure 11-4. LandFire Fire Regime Groups (2017) ............................................................................... 11-15
Bridgeview Consulting x April 2020
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Hazard Mitigation Plan Project Manager
Gerry Bozarth
Disaster Mitigation & Recovery, PIO
Spokane Department of Emergency Management
1121 W. Gardner
Spokane, WA, 99201
Phone: 509-477-7613
FAX: (509) 477-5759
Email: GBOZARTH@spokanecounty.org
Other Spokane County Staff
Kristen Frost-Andersen, IT Supervisor
Collen Little, PE Environmental Programs and Floodplain Manager
Consultants
, Project Manager and Lead Planner, Bridgeview Consulting, LLC.
, Strategic Analyst and Lead Facilitator, Bridgeview Consulting, LLC.
Special Acknowledgments
The development of this plan would not have been possible without the dedication and commitment to this
process by the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan team members, which included the planning
partners, the stakeholders and the citizens of Spokane County. The dedication of the planning partners who
graciously allocated their time to this process is greatly appreciated. Spokane County citizens and all who
participated in the public process are commended for their participation and contributions to this planning
process.
Bridgeview Consulting xi April 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) is federal legislation that requires proactive, pre-disaster planning as a
prerequisite for some funding available under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The DMA encourages state and
local authorities to work together on pre-disaster planning. The enhanced planning network called for by
the DMA helps local governments articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of
funding and more cost-effective risk reduction projects.
Hazard mitigation is the use of long- and short-term strategies to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal
injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. It involves strategies such as planning, policy
changes, programs, projects and other activities that can mitigate the impacts of hazards. It is impossible to
predict exactly when and where disasters will occur or the extent to which they will impact an area, but
with careful planning and collaboration among public agencies, stakeholders and citizens, it is possible to
minimize losses that disasters can cause. The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including
private property owners; business and industry; and local, state and federal government.
Spokane County and a partnership of local governments have developed and maintained a hazard mitigation
plan to reduce risks from natural disasters and to comply with the DMA. This plan will, and has, acted as
the keyway to federal funding afforded under FEMA hazard mitigation grant programs.
PLAN UPDATE
Federal regulations require monitoring, evaluation and updating of hazard mitigation plans. An update
provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been
accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. A jurisdiction
covered by a plan that has expired is no longer in compliance with the DMA.
Initial Response to the DMA in Spokane County
On May 2, 2007, -jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan
for Spokane County and the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley.
Recognizing limitations in the initial plan, the Spokane Department of Emergency Management (DEM)
used the plan update requirements to significantly enhance the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan in
scope and content with development of the 2015 Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, which greatly
increased the planning partnership. In continuation of that effort, the County again moved forward with the
2020 update, inviting additional planning partners while also updating the scope and content of the new
edition.
2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update - Changes
With development of the 2020 update, the County is again taking the initiative to not only increase the
planning partnership to include additional partners, but further expanding the data contained within the
plan.
The 2020 updated plan differs from previous plan editions for the following reasons:
Updated guidance on what is required to meet the intent of the DMA.
Bridgeview Consulting ES-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Further expansion of the scope of the plan to include Special Purpose District and Tribal
planning partners not involved in previous editions. These planning partners are true
stakeholders in mitigation within the planning area.
New data and tools provide for an enhanced risk assessment, further expanding on the use of
tools such as FEMAs Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) computer model.
New studies and reports will be integrated to the various hazards of concern as appropriate.
All maps, charts, and census data information have been updated as appropriate.
The risk assessment has again been prepared to better support future grant applications by
providing risk and vulnerability information that will directly support the measurement of
cost-effectiveness required under FEMA mitigation grant programs.
A new hazard ranking methodology is utilized for the 2020 update, which is more user-friendly
for any planning partners wishing to join on at a later date through an established linkage
procedure.
This plan is
Accreditation Program (EMAP) standards through the International Association of Emergency
Managers (IAEM).
The plan identifies mitigation action items which meet multiple objectives that are measurable,
so that each planning partner can measure the effectiveness of their mitigation actions.
Previous action items have been updated to their current status, and new action items developed
for this update process.
The hazards of concern remain the same; however, the non-natural hazard section of this plan,
Chapter 14 Hazards of Interest, have been removed as the information is repetitive in both the
Updating the plan consisted of the following phases:
Phase 1, Organize and Review
A planning team was assembled to provide technical support
for the plan update, consisting of key staff from DEM and a technical consultant. The first step
in developing the plan update was to re-organize the planning partnership. The initial planning
effort covered 3 local governments. This partnership was increased to 22 as identified in
Chapter 2, an increase from the 2015 effort of 10 planning partners.
The planning team led the plan update, consisting of planning partner staff and other
stakeholders in the planning area. Coordination with other county, state and federal agencies
involved in hazard mitigation occurred throughout the plan update process. This phase included
a comprehensive review of the existing plan, the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan,
and existing programs that may support or enhance hazard mitigation actions.
Phase 2, Update the Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is the process of measuring the
potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from
natural hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of people, buildings and infrastructure
to natural hazards. It focuses on the following parameters:
Bridgeview Consulting ES-2 April 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hazard identification and profiling
The impact of hazards on physical, social and economic assets
Vulnerability identification
Estimates of the cost of potential damage or costs that can be avoided through mitigation.
The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan meets requirements outlined in Chapter 44
of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR 201.6). Phase 2 occurred simultaneously with
Phase 1, with the two efforts using information generated by one another to create the best
possible risk assessment. This was the most comprehensive phase of the plan update process.
All facets of the risk assessment of the plan were visited by the planning team and updated with
the best available data and technology.
Phase 3, Engage the Public
A public involvement strategy developed by the planning team
was implemented, and included public meetings to present the risk assessment as well as the
draft plan, distribution of a hazard mitigation survey, a County-sponsored website for the plan
update, and multiple media releases.
Phase 4, Assemble the Updated Plan
The planning team assembled key information into a
document to meet the DMA requirements for all planning partners. The updated plan contains
two volumes. Volume 1 contains components that apply to all partners and the broader planning
area. Volume 2 contains all components that are jurisdiction-specific. Each planning partner
has a dedicated chapter in Volume 2.
Phase 5, Plan Adoption/Implementation
Once pre-adoption approval was granted by
Washington State Emergency Management Division and FEMA Region X, the final adoption
phase began. Each planning partner individually adopt the updated plan. The plan maintenance
process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the plans progress periodically and
producing a plan revision every 5 years. This plan maintenance strategy also includes process
for continuing public involvement and integration with other programs that can support or
enhance hazard mitigation.
IMPLEMENTATION
Full implementation of the recommendations of this plan will require time and resources. The measure of
the plans success will be its ability to adapt to the changing climate of planet earth as well as the field of
hazard mitigation. Funding resources are always evolving, as are state and federal mandates. Spokane
County and its planning partners will assume responsibility for adopting the recommendations of this plan
and committing resources toward implementation. The framework established by this plan commits all
planning partners to pursue initiatives when the benefits of a project exceed its costs. The planning
partnership developed this plan with extensive public input, and public support of the actions identified in
this plan will help ensure the plans success.
Bridgeview Consulting ES-3 April 2020
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
Hazard mitigation is defined as the use of long- and short-term strategies to reduce or alleviate the loss of
life, personal injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. It involves strategies such as
planning, policy changes, programs, projects and other activities that can mitigate the impacts of hazards.
The responsibility for hazard mitigation lies with many, including private property owners; business and
industry; and local, state and federal government.
1.1 AUTHORITY
The federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) required state and local
governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. Prior to
2000, federal disaster funding focused on disaster relief and recovery, with limited funding for hazard
mitigation planning. The DMA increased the emphasis on planning for disasters before they occur.
The DMA encourages state and local authorities to work together on pre-disaster planning, and it promotes
sustainability for disaster resistance. Sustainable hazard mitigation includes the sound management of
natural resources and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest possible
social and economic context. The enhanced planning network called for by the DMA helps local
governments articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more
cost-effective risk reduction projects.
1.1.1 Local Concerns
Natural hazards impact citizens, property, the environment and the economy of Spokane County. Flooding,
landslides, windstorms, severe winter storms, volcanoes and earthquakes have exposed Spokane County
residents and businesses to the financial and emotional costs of recovering after natural disasters. Other
events, such as urban fire, terrorism and hazardous material spills, also pose dangers to the population of
Spokane County. The risk associated with natural hazards increases as more people move to areas affected
by hazards.
The inevitability of natural hazards and the growing population and activity within Spokane County create
an urgent need to develop strategies, coordinate resources and increase public awareness to reduce risk and
prevent loss from future hazard events. Identifying risks posed by hazards, and developing strategies to
reduce the impact of a hazard event can assist in protecting life and property of citizens and communities.
Local residents and businesses can work together with the County to create a hazard mitigation plan that
addresses the potential impacts of hazard events.
1.1.2 Purposes for Hazard Mitigation Planning
This hazard mitigation plan identifies resources, information and strategies for reducing risk from natural
hazards. Elements and strategies in the plan were selected because they meet a program requirement and
because they best meet the needs of the planning partners and their citizens. One of the benefits of multi-
jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning
area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) encourages multi-jurisdictional planning under its guidance for the DMA. The plan will help guide
Bridgeview Consulting 1-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
and coordinate mitigation activities throughout Spokane County. It was developed to meet the following
objectives:
Meet or exceed requirements of the DMA.
Enable all planning partners to continue using federal grant funding to reduce risk through
mitigation.
Meet the needs of each planning partner as well as state and federal requirements.
Create a risk assessment that focuses on Spokane County hazards of concern.
Create a single planning document that integrates all planning partners into a framework that
supports partnerships within the county, and puts all partners on the same planning cycle for
future updates.
Meet the planning requirements of FEMAs Community Rating System (CRS), allowing
planning partners that wish to participate in the CRS program to maintain or enhance their CRS
classifications (currently there are no CRS communities within Spokane County).
Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high-priority initiatives and projects to mitigate
possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented.
All citizens and businesses of Spokane County are the ultimate beneficiaries of this hazard mitigation plan.
The plan reduces risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the county. It provides a viable planning
framework for all foreseeable natural hazards that may impact the county. Participation in development of
the plan by key stakeholders in the county helped ensure that outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The
resources and background information in the plan are applicable countywide, and the plans goals and
recommendations can lay groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation
activities and partnerships.
1.2 PLAN LAYOUT
This plan has been set up in two volumes so that elements that are jurisdiction-specific can easily be
distinguished from those that apply to the whole planning area:
Volume 1
Volume 1 includes all federally required elements of a disaster mitigation plan that
apply to the entire planning area. This includes the description of the planning process, public
involvement strategy, goals and objectives, countywide hazard risk assessment, countywide
mitigation initiatives, and a plan maintenance strategy.
Volume 2
Volume 2 includes all federally required jurisdiction-specific elements, in annexes
for each participating jurisdiction. It includes a description of the participation requirements
established by the planning team. Volume 2 also includes linkage procedures for eligible
jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this plan but wish to adopt it in the
future.
All planning partners will adopt Volume 1 in its entirety, in addition to each partners jurisdiction-specific
annex and the appendices contained in Volume 2.
Bridgeview Consulting 1-2 April 2020
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS
The following appendices provided at the end of Volume 1 include information or explanations to support
the main content of the plan:
Appendix A Glossary of acronyms and definitions
Appendix B Public outreach information questionnaire/survey
Appendix C A template for progress reports to be completed as this plan is implemented
Appendix D Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners
1.3 PLAN INTEGRATION
This plan update includes the integration of other comprehensive planning documents that are in effect
within the planning area. These plans include:
The Spokane County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP);
The Spokane County Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment; and
The Comprehensive Plans for Spokane County and all incorporated cities within the County.
Spokane County completed a threat and hazard identification and risk assessment (THIRA) that is
compliant with federal guidance. The THIRA was completed at both the County and Regional levels. Key
components of the THIRA development were originally completed during the 2015 plan update process.
These componentss documentation
and analysis for the non-natural hazard. This linkage will continue through all subsequent updates to the
Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). The THIRA will remain a stand-alone document for security purposesas
the HMP and THIRA are two entirely different documents created for entirely different program directives.
Comprehensive Plans are mandated by Washington statute (Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
36.70A.070) adopted under its Growth Management Act. The comprehensive plan of a county or city that
is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text
covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be
an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. All
municipal planning partners have adopted comprehensive plans pursuant to the Growth Management Act.
Recognizing the value of the information contained in the Hazard Mitigation Plan in making wise land use
decisions, each municipal planning partner has adopted action(s) that promote the integration of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan and the comprehensive plans in effect within the planning area. These actions can be found
in the jurisdictional annexes contained in Volume 2 of this plan.
1.4 PLAN ADOPTION
44 CFR Section 201.6(c)(5) requires documentation that a hazard mitigation plan has been formally adopted
by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting federal approval of the plan. For multi-jurisdictional
plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval must document that is has been formally adopted. This plan
will be submitted for a pre-adoption review to the Washington State Division of Emergency Management
and FEMA prior to adoption. Once pre-adoption approval has been provided, all planning partners will
formally adopt the plan. All partners understand that DMA compliance and its benefits cannot be achieved
until the plan is adopted. FEMA Region X granted final approval of the 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update to Spokane County and its eligible planning partners in April 2020. Copies of the resolutions
adopting the plan as well as the FEMA approval letter can be found in Appendix C.
Bridgeview Consulting 1-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Bridgeview Consulting 1-4 April 2020
CHAPTER 2.
PLANNING PROCESS
2.1 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Spokane Countys hazard planning process originally began in the spring of 2002 with the Department of
Emergency Management and several committee groups coordinating planning efforts to prepare a hazard
identification and vulnerability analysis ranking hazards based on probability and priority. A final updated
hazard identification and vulnerability analysis was completed in February 2004.
In September 2005, the All Hazards Mitigation Committee was formed, representing city and county
departments, disciplines that support emergency services, and citizens throughout the county. The
Department of Emergency Management contacted incorporated communities within the county about their
interest in being actively involved in a process to prepare a hazard mitigation plan. Most cities decided to
not participate, so the plan focused on three major areas: unincorporated Spokane County, the City of
Spokane, and the City of Spokane Valley. The All Hazards Mitigation Committee held several meetings
with consultants to develop the plan.
In 2014, the County again initiated an update to the then existing Hazard Mitigation Plan, which culminated
in the adoption of the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan, which included 12 planning partners. The current
update, the 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan, followed a similar process to that previously
utilized, with the exception of those changes identified within the Executive Summary and the integration
of EMAP Standards for IAEM Accreditation of the Emergency Management organization.
It should be noted that the risk assessments in the initial plan and this plan update were both conducted
under differing methodologies. The initial risk assessment was more subjective utilizing qualitative
analyses and assumptions, while the updated plan utilized a more quantitative approach built upon data and
science. Based on these differences, it is not possible to simply compare the results of the two risk
assessments to see if risk has increased during the performance period. Now that the planning area is
equipped with tools such as a HAZUS model for the planning area, this type of comparative analysis will
be possible for future updates to this plan.
During its initial kick-off meeting, the planning team reviewed the critical infrastructure list utilized for the
2015 plan update, and determined that no new structures had been built. This data was further confirmed
through review of the various annua
covering 2013-2019), and discussions with the various planning partners. The County has developed a
specific initiative for maintenance of the critical facilities list, which will ensure continuation of an up-to-
date document for use in other emergency management and public safety initiatives.
2.2 CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT
44 CFR Section 201.6(d)(3) requires that plan updates be revised to reflect changes in development that
occurred within the planning area during the past performance period of the plan. The plan must describe
changes in development that have occurred in hazard prone areas and increased or decreased the
vulnerability of each jurisdiction since the last plan was approved. If no changes in development impacted
the jurisdictions overall vulnerability, plan updates may validate the information in the previously
approved plan. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the mitigation strategy continues to address
Bridgeview Consulting 2-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
the risk and vulnerabilities to existing and potential development, and takes into consideration possible
future conditions that can impact the vulnerability of the community.
The planning area previously experienced a 13.80 percent increase in population between 2000 and 2012.
During the time period of 2010-2018, population increased 9.2 percent. The County and its cities have
adopted comprehensive plans that govern land use decision and policy making in their jurisdictions as well
as building codes and specialty ordinances based on state and federal mandates. Decisions on land use are
governed by these programs. It has been assumed by this planning process that new development triggered
by this increase in population interfaced with hazard areas assessed by this plan. All new development is
regulated pursuant to the programs and initiatives discussed throughout this plan, including flood, landslide,
wildfire, and load capacity for snow and ash. Therefore, even though exposure may have increased, it has
been assumed that vulnerability did not due to the strength of these land use regulations and programs.
2.3 PROCESS FOLLOWED
To develop the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan, the County followed a process that had the
following primary objectives:
Secure grant funding;
Form a core planning work group within the County (as grant recipient) to lead the effort;
Establish a planning partnership of municipalities, special purpose districts, and stakeholders
in the planning area;
Define the planning area;
Establish a planning team of who will develop annex templates;
Coordinate with other agencies to gain information and stakeholder involvement;
Review existing programs, plans and studies in place, and
Engage the public.
These objectives are discussed in the following sections.
2.4 GRANT FUNDING
This planning effort was supplemented by a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant from FEMA. Spokane County
was the applicant agent for the grant. The grant was applied for in 2017, and funding was appropriated in
2018. It covered 75 percent of the cost for development of this plan; the County and its planning partners
covered the balance of the cost through in-kind contributions.
2.5 FORMATION OF THE PLANNING TEAM
Spokane County hired Bridgeview Consulting, LLC., to assist with development and implementation of the
plan. The Bridgeview Consulting project manager assumed the role of the lead planner, reporting directly
to a County-designated project manager. An internal planning team was formed to lead the planning effort,
made up of the following members:
Bridgeview Consulting 2-2 April 2020
PLAN METHODOLOGY
Gerry Bozarth, Spokane Department of Emergency Management, Spokane County Project
Manager;
Chandra Fox, Spokane Department of Emergency Management Deputy Director, Alternate
Project Manager;
, Bridgeview Consulting, Lead Project Planner;
, Bridgeview Consulting, Strategic Analyst and Lead Facilitator; and
Cathy Walker, Bridgeview Consulting (GIS)
2.6 PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
Spokane County opened this planning effort to all eligible local governments and tribes within the county.
Combined, these members formed the hazard mitigation planning team-off
meeting, County representatives and Consultant made a presentation to all planning partners on May 22,
2019 to introduce the mitigation planning process and solicit additional planning partners. Key meeting
objectives were as follows:
Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act.
Describe the reasons for a plan.
Outline the County work-plan.
Outline planning partner expectations.
Seek commitment to the planning partnership.
Each jurisdiction wishing to join the planning partnership was asked to provide a letter of intentto
participate in the planning process. That letter designated a point of contact for the jurisdiction and
confirmed the jurisdictions commitment to the process and understanding of expectations. Linkage
procedures have been established (see Volume 2 of this plan) for any jurisdiction wishing to link to the
Spokane County plan in the future. The planning partners covered under this plan are shown in Table 2-1.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 2-1.
Hazard Mitigation Planning Partners and Level of Participation
e
t
a
l
g
p
n
i
nm
k
n
e
o
n
i
a
tT
l
a
a
P
x
w
R
g
w
p
e
e
s
e
ih
n
i
i
k
t
i
n
c
u
v
ts
i
v
n
in
o
t
e
e
e
i
o
r
e
RA
v
R
R
a
e
M
dd
M
Pn
r
n
ee
fa
n
f
-a
P
tt
l
f
l
o
oee
f
i
ll
P
P
O
t
o
r
pp
t
l
County, City, Town or Primary Point of Alternate Point(s)
ep
f
e
k
a
t
o
tmm
a
t
c
n
i
aoord
Entity Represented Contact of Contact e
i
DLKCCDFA
County DEM
Gerry Bozarth, Chandra Fox, X X X X X X
Project Manager Deputy Director
County IT/GIS
Kirsten Frost-
Anderson
County (Various)
Colleen Little Wendy Iris
Floodplain Manager Road Maintenance
Engineer
Municipalities
Chief Mitch Metzger Nate Whannell X X X X X X
Airway Heights, City of
Chief Tom Jenkins X X X X X X
Cheney, City of
Roger Krieger, X X X X X X
Deer Park, City of
Community Services
Director
Mayor KayDee Ken Fuchs X X X X X X
Fairfield, Town of
Gilkey
Chief Brian Asmus Sgt. Darin Morgan X X X X X X
Liberty Lake, City of
Doug Ross, City J. Mayfield X X X X X X
Medical Lake, City of
Administrator
Mark Calhoun, City John Hohman, X X X X X X
Spokane Valley, City of
Manager Deputy City
Manager
Marci Patterson,
Executive Assistant
Special Purpose Districts and Stakeholders
Garth Davis Forestry X X X X X X
Spokane County
Program Manager
Conservation District
Malcolm Hamilton, X X X X X X
Newman Lake Flood
PE
Control Zone District
Fire Districts
Chief Shawn Arold X X X X X X
Spokane Valley Fire
Chief Cody
Bill Dennstaedt X X X X X X
Spokane County FD 3
Rohrbach
Chief Randy A/Chief Howard X X X X X X
Spokane County FD 4
Johnson Johnson
Bridgeview Consulting 2-4 April 2020
PLAN METHODOLOGY
e
t
a
l
g
p
n
i
nm
k
n
e
o
n
i
a
tT
l
a
a
P
x
w
R
g
w
p
e
e
s
e
ih
n
i
i
k
t
i
n
c
u
v
ts
i
v
n
in
o
t
e
e
e
i
o
r
e
RA
v
R
R
a
e
M
dd
M
Pn
r
n
ee
fa
n
f
-a
P
tt
l
f
l
o
oee
f
i
ll
P
P
O
t
o
r
pp
t
l
County, City, Town or Primary Point of Alternate Point(s)
ep
f
e
k
a
t
o
tmm
a
t
c
n
i
aoord
Entity Represented Contact of Contact e
i
DLKCCDFA
Commissioner X X X X X X
Spokane County FD 5
Bonita Cobb
A/C Lonnie Rash Chief Tony Nielsen X X X X X X
Spokane County FD 8
Chief K. Johnson X X X X X X
Spokane County FD 10
Consultants and Planning Team Facilitators
Bridgeview Consulting, LLC
Cathy Walker, GIS
2.7 DEFINING THE PLANNING AREA
The planning area consists of all of Spokane County. All partners to this plan have jurisdictional authority
over specific locations within this planning area.
2.8 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) requires that opportunities for involvement in the
planning process be provided to neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard
mitigation, agencies with authority to regulate development, businesses, academia, and other private and
nonprofit interests (Section 201.6.b.2). Involvement by various agencies and stakeholders is identified in
the table below, but included hazard input information, invitation to serve on the planning team, review of
data, information and the draft and pre-adopted plan. Those identified were provided an opportunity to
provide input, review and/or comment on this plan throughout the effort as they elected to do so, with
information provided via the hazard mitigation plan website (see Section 2.10.1), at various public outreach
efforts, or via email. It should be noted that this is an overview, and is not all-encompassing.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
StakeholdersData and/or Information
Provided
Eastern WA University Geology Dept. Earthquake Data
FEMA/FEMA Region X John Schelling, Plan Review, National Flood Hazard
Mitigation Data
Manager FEMA
Region X
National Earthquake https://www.nehr Earthquake, Liquefaction, Soils data
Hazard Reduction Program p.gov/ information
(NEHRP)
Pend Oreille County JoAnn Bogs, Region 9 HLS and LEPC plan
Emergency discussions, review opportunity, public
Management outreach attendance
Deputy Director
Red Cross of Spokane (Invited but declined to participate; did
receiving briefings during various
meetings)
USGS https://www.usgs Earthquake, Liquefaction Data;
.gov/natural-Earthquake Scenarios
hazards/earthqua
ke-
hazards/research
WA DEM Tim Cook, Kevin Zerbe, Attended kick-off and other meetings,
SHMO Mitigation provided information concerning
Strategist strategies, grant opportunities, NFIP,
Michael RFC/SRL data, plan review input.
Levkowitz, Stacey McClain,
Mitigation Mitigation &
Strategist Recovery Section
Manager
WA DNR Various Steve Harris, Landslide, Wildfire data
Myron Boles, Wildfire & Forest
Wildfire Practices Asst.
Landowner Manager
Assistance
WA DOE Jerry Franklin, Flood data, SRL and CRS data and
RiskMap information
Coordinator
WA DOE Diane Fowler, Reporting Hazmat sites in county
Community
Right to Know
Specialist
Whitman County DEM Bill Tensfeld, Region 9 HLS and LEPC plan
Emergency discussions, review opportunity, public
Management outreach attendance
Director
Bridgeview Consulting 2-6 April 2020
PLAN METHODOLOGY
2.9 REVIEW OF EXISTING REPORTS, STUDIES AND PROGRAMS
44 CFR states that hazard mitigation planning must include review and incorporation, if appropriate, of
existing plans, studies, reports and technical information (Section 201.6.b(3)). Chapter 3 of this plan
provides a review of laws and ordinances in effect within the planning area that can affect hazard mitigation
initiatives. In addition, the following programs can affect mitigation within the planning area:
Spokane County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2018 plus updates)
Spokane County WRIA 54 (Lower Spokane Watershed Plan) (Reviewed 2019)
Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance
Spokane County Code (Titles 1-20)
Spokane County Shorelines Master Program
Spokane County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (1999)
Spokane County Recovery Annex
Spokane County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2015)
Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013, 2018)
Comprehensive plans for each incorporated planning partner
-2019)
An assessment of all planning partners regulatory, technical and financial capabilities to implement hazard
mitigation initiatives is presented in the individual jurisdiction-specific annexes in Volume 2. Many of these
relevant plans, studies and regulations are cited in the capability assessment.
2.9.1 Related Hazard Planning Documents
To leverage the planning process and technical resources utilized for the plan update process, the County
also maintains its Community Wildfire Protection Plan and has previously developed a regional and county-
specific threat hazard identification and risk assessment, and a county level, FEMA approved debris
management plan.
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)
The CWPP for Spokane County is the result of analyses and collaboration with state, county and local
agencies, and includes an assessment of the wildfire risk with the intent to reduce the potential for wildfires
which threaten people, structures, infrastructure and unique ecosystems in Spokane County. The CWPP,
in its entirety, provides supplemental information for the wildfire chapter of Spokane Countys Hazard
Mitigation Plan update.
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)
The THIRA is a tool that allows a jurisdiction to understand its threats and hazards, and how the impacts
may vary according to time of occurrence, season, location, and other community factors. The THIRA
document, while risk-based, was completed utilizing a different type of analysis to determine the level and
Bridgeview Consulting 2-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
probability of risk based on established criticality factors when assessed against core capabilities and target
capabilities established by the planning team during assessment. The THIRA is intended to inform risk-
based decision making with respect to capabilities of the jurisdiction. While there are distinct overlaps
between a THIRA and a local hazard mitigation plan, they are two very distinctly different documents.
While a mitigation plan is developed via an open public process, the THIRA is fact-based on previous
incidents, and because of the confidential information, the process and end document are developed in a
more secure environment due to the sensitivity of the information being collected and analyzed. As the
THIRA document is updated, data used in the development of the hazard mitigation plan will be used to
support the development of the THIRA as they relate to the natural hazards, with the non-natural hazards
maintained wholly in the THIRA. As such, the two documents will be kept and maintained separately by
Spokane County Emergency Management, with the THIRA document not available for public review.
Debris Management Plan
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages State and local governments, tribal
authorities, and private non-profit organizations to take a proactive approach to coordinating and managing
debris removal operations as part of their overall emergency management plan. Communities with a debris
management plan are better prepared to restore public services and ensure the public health and safety in
the aftermath of a disaster, and they are better positioned to receive the full level of assistance available to
them from FEMA and other participating entities.
The core components of a comprehensive debris management plan incorporate best practices in debris
removal, reflect FEMA eligibility criteria, and are tailored to the specific needs and unique circumstances
of each applicant. The intent for development of a debris management plan is to provide applicants with a
programmatic and operational framework for structuring their own debris management plan or ensuring
that their existing plan is consistent with FEMAs eligibility criteria.
Key elements from the risk assessment portion of the hazard mitigation planning will again be utilized to
further support and update the ebris Management Plan during its update (which is underway as
of October 2019). The Debris Management Plan will utilize results from the HAZUS model for flood and
earthquake, which identified debris amounts for specific incidents.
2.10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Broad public participation in the planning process helps ensure that diverse points of view about the
planning areas needs are considered and addressed. 44 CFR requires that the public have opportunities to
comment on disaster mitigation plans during the drafting stages and prior to plan approval (Section
201.6.b.1).
2.10.1 Strategy
The County and its planning partners did extensive outreach and used different methods to increase
involvement, such as pairing meetings with existing council and commission meetings, holding web-based
meetings, and scheduling conference calls that allowed participation by agencies and individuals.
Interviews with individuals and specialists from outside organizations identified common concerns related
to natural and manmade hazards, and key long- and short-term activities to reduce risk. Interviews included
public safety personnel, planning department personnel, natural resources personnel, cultural resource
personnel, and representatives from other government agencies from surrounding jurisdictions. The public
outreach strategy for involving the public in this plan emphasized the following elements:
Include members of the public on the Planning Team.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-8 April 2020
PLAN METHODOLOGY
Use a questionnaire to determine general perceptions of risk and support for hazard mitigation
and to solicit direction on alternatives. The questionnaire was available to anyone wishing to
respond via the website and was distributed by hard copy for those without computer access
(hard-copy results were entered by the consultant).
Several Planning Team Members throughout the County posted links to the survey and
information concerning the mitigation planning effort on their various Facebook and Twitter
accounts.
The planning team attempted to reach as many citizens as possible using multiple formats. This
is important because of the somewhat geographically remote areas in the county.
Identify and involve planning area stakeholders.
Newsletter articles about mitigation efforts, such as the of FEMA flood maps, National Flood
Insurance Program, and other hazard-specific outreach, etc. were provided and distributed at
various outreach events which occurred during the plan development period.
Of interesting noteinvolved
of the various means they felt were most appropriate for obtaining disaster-related information, or
information about the hazards of concern. Of the survey respondents, well over half identified the use
of the Internet being most effective, followed by respondents identifying Social Media as being
additional as effective. Approximately less than one-third of the respondents indicated that a separate
public meeting was an effective tool to disseminate related information. Such information assisted in
validating the public outreach strategy identified at the onset of the planning process as being effective
for the planning area. Such information will further help support the planning partners in their
continued public outreach efforts related to the Plan Maintenance Strategy for the HMP.
2.10.2 Hazard Questionnaire
A web-based hazard mitigation plan questionnaire was developed by the planning team. The questionnaire
was used to gauge household preparedness for natural hazards and the level of knowledge of tools and
techniques that assist in reducing risk and loss from natural hazards. This questionnaire was designed to
help identify areas vulnerable to one or more natural hazards.
Hard copies of the questionnaires were also made available and discussed at public meetings. The survey
was advertised via press releases and advertised the website.
The Survey also provided an opportunity for citizens to provide comments during the entire process, from
the initial drafting stages when the survey was deployed, until the draft plan was available for review.
Comments received, which were relevant to the planning process and provided applicable information to
the various sections of the plan were incorporated as appropriate.
event of a tsunami or earthquake, and various mechanisms and efforts citizens have performed already to
prepare themselves an information exchange.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Over 144 questionnaires were completed during the course of this planning process. The complete
questionnaire and a summary of its
findings can be found in Appendix B.
2.10.3 Survey Results
Additional points of interest from the
survey results include:
31.25 percent of respondents have
experienced an earthquake; 8.33
percent have experienced a volcanic
eruption, and 85.42 percent have
experienced a severe weather event.
Of the 15 disaster declarations
occurring in the County, 11 have been
as a result of Severe Weather (which
may include flooding as a component), while four (4) have been as a result of Flood events. Severe
Weather events are the majority of hazards that have impacted the County since 1951.
Severe Weather and Wildfire are the hazards of greatest concern to citizens, with the prioritized scoring
closely mirroring that identified by the HMP Planning Team, confirming the hazards of greatest
concern by both the planning team, and the citizens of the area. Severe Weather and Wildfire were in
the same order of significance.
Approximately 32 percent of citizens responded that they considered Drought of higher concern in the
planning area than Earthquake.
2.10.4 Internet
At the beginning of the plan development process, a website was created to keep the public posted on plan
development milestones and to solicit input. The plan was provided via a file-transfer site, which allowed
for the plan downloading
completion to keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates.
ionnaires and public
meetings. Information on the plan development process, the use of a Planning Team, the questionnaire and
phased drafts of the plan were made available to the public on the site throughout the process. Hazard maps
Bridgeview Consulting 2-10 April 2020
PLAN METHODOLOGY
were published on this
survey.
In addition, several of the planning partners also posted information on their respective websites, posting
frequently asked questions, and asking for citizen comments. As comments were received, they were
reviewed by the planning team and integrated into the plan as appropriate.
2.10.5 Social Media
In addition to the website, the County also has a Twitter account and a
Facebook account which has approximately 5,000 followers (see figure
right). Both were utilized to distribute information concerning the
dvise
citizens of the availability of the hazard maps for review and comment;
announcing public outreach events, and when the final plan was
complete, alerting citizens to the draft plan, asking for review and
comment during the open public comment period.
Figure 2-1. Spokane County Facebook Page
Various Planning Team members also utilized established accounts to
distribute information, such as the City of Spokane Valley, which
created a news article/webpage (http://www.spokanevalley.org/qcontent/NewsFeed.aspx?FeedID=6544),
and provided updated information on its Facebook and Twitter accounts.
2.10.6 Public Meetings
Several public meetings and events which were open to the public were held during this effort, including
regular use of the LEPC meetings, safety fairs, presentation at Veterans Day events, etc. All planning
meetings were open to the public, and citizens did attend those meetings, providing information and input.
The figures below highlight some of the public outreach efforts conducted. In addition, some public
viewing at a later date by citizens or other interested parties.
The various Fire Districts also held regular monthly and quarterly meetings, all of which were open to the
public, during which various elements of the HMP process were discussed, in addition to the hazard risks
associated with each district, and potential mitigation strategies. These sessions were advertised via the
website, press coverage and flyers posted throughout the planning area.
The LEPC was also involved in this process. Project Manager Bozarth regularly updated the LEPC
members during the entire process, giving regular updates at every meeting, and presenting risk information
and posters, soliciting input and information from all LEPC members in attendance.
The meeting format allowed attendees to examine maps and handouts and have direct conversations with
project staff. Reasons for planning and information generated for the risk assessment were shared with
attendees. Planning partners and the planning team were present to answer questions. Each citizen
attending the open houses was asked to complete a questionnaire, and each was given an opportunity to
provide written comments to the steering committee. Local media outlets were informed of the open houses
by a press release from the County.
During the public comment period, several meeting were held to inform the public about the draft plan and
how to review and comment on it. Approximately three weeks prior to the plan becoming available on-
line, planning team members, during other public meetings and forums, announced the impending
Bridgeview Consulting 2-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
In addition, Project Manager Bozarth also provided a power point presentation to several of the local
municipalities at the completion of the risk assessment and strategy development portion of the plan, as
well as during the adoption phase. During those sessions, which were open to the public and advertised, a
15-minute presentation on the draft plan was given
Press Releases
Press releases were distributed to all media outlets over the course of the plans development as key
milestones were achieved. Interviews with County Project Manager Bozarth and Deputy Emergency
Management Director Fox also occurred concerning various aspects of the plan, including identification of
hazards concerning, with a key focus on unreinforced masonry structures in the County (as well as other
hazards of concern), and information of the mitigation planning process and survey information by the
Deputy Director.
2.11 PLAN DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY/MILESTONES
Table 2.2 summaries important milestones in the development of the plan.
Table 2-2.
Plan Development Milestones
Date Event Description Attendance
2019
April Contractor Selection County selects Bridgeview Consulting, LLC to facilitate the development N/A
of the mitigation plan update
Initial press release on the planning process disseminated by Spokane
April Public Outreach Strategy N/A
Department of Emergency Management
May Kick-off meeting Kick-off meeting held to organize planning partnership ~35
Confirmed Goals & Objectives
Confirmed Hazards
Confirmed definition of Critical Facility
Provided information on methodology for Risk Assessment
Identified Public Outreach Strategy
Hazard Mitigation Plan website established on Spokane Department of
May Public Outreach Strategy N/A
Emergency Management website; Facebook and Twitter Accounts utilized
to announce effort.
Hazard Mitigation survey posted on Spokane Department of Emergency
May Public Outreach Strategy N/A
Management website.
Project Manager Gerry Bozarth presented information concerning the
6/1/19 Public Outreach
HMP update at the Community Organizations Active in Disasters
(COAD) meeting.
Project Manager Gerry Bozarth presented information concerning the
6/19/19 LEPC Meeting 17
HMP update. Topics of discussion during the LEPC meeting included
water purveyors and the risk from associated hazmat sites and a review of
the natural hazards of concern.
Topics of discussion during the planning team meeting included review of
Aug Planning Team Meeting
the initial hazard maps, confirming the countywide risk assessment, and
working through the process for each planning team member to conduct
their internal hazard ranking based on the confirmed risk assessment.
City of Spokane Valley established Facebook and Twitter announcements
8/12 Public Outreach
concerning planning process and survey link. The PIO developed a news
article and webpage to disseminate information and provide a link to the
plan.
http://www.spokanevalley.org/qcontent/NewsFeed.aspx?FeedID=6544
Bridgeview Consulting 2-12 April 2020
PLAN METHODOLOGY
Table 2-2.
Plan Development Milestones
Date Event Description Attendance
Planning team members coordinated information at the Primera Safety
9/10 Primera Safety Fair
Fair that talked about various risks and hazards, and how citizens can
prepare themselves.
EMD Deputy Director Chandra Fox was interviewed by the Spokesman
9/11 Interview - Spokesman
Review for Preparedness Month. Discussions included an update on the
Review
mitigation plan process, identification of the risks and hazards of concern,
and a review of the survey questions. Deputy Director Fox also advised
that the risk assessment has been completed, and maps are available for
review.
During the monthly LEPC meeting, Project Manager Gerry Bozarth made
9/18 LEPC Meeting 21
a presentation of the risk findings, risk maps, and the risk ranking
information via a Power Point. Topics also involved the strategy
development, and availability of the draft plan for review by citizens.
Public notices via County website of upcoming meetings, Facebook and
Various Public Outreach Strategy N/A
Twitter posters, and website announcements were made concerning the
open houses to review the various hazards maps and provide input to the
planning team members.
The countywide risk assessment was provided by consultant, with the
10/1/19 Public Outreach ~25
majority of all planning team members present. Information was
Presentation of Risk
exchanged concerning the hazard, areas of greatest concern, and the
results of the hazard ranking. Citizen results from the survey were also
presented, with additional surveys available for response during the
meeting.
After the public outreach event occurred (12-3) a Mandatory workshop
10/1/19 Planning Team Meeting ~16
was held to assist with Strategy Development by the planning team
members. Several examples were discussed, with Mitigation
Ideas guidebook presented, along with other cheat-sheets and information.
At the completion of the planning team meeting, the Jurisdictional Annex
workshop was held for all planning partners to go over completion of their
jurisdictional annex template.
Planning Partner Garth Davis provided an overview of the hazard
11/12/19 Spokane Conservation Unknown
mitigation planning process, the risk assessment and the Conservation
District
advertised and open to the public.
The draft of the base plan was provided to the planning team members,
11/14/19 Planning Team Review
with a two week period provided for comments.
12/10 Public Outreach Strategy Initiation of final public comment period. Various planning team N/A
meetings; the County issued a separate press release announcing that the
draft plan was available for review and comment for a 14 day period.
1/2 Public Outreach Strategy End of final public comment period N/A
2020
1/6 Plan submittal Draft plan submitted to the Washington Emergency Management Division N/A
for pre-adoption review and approval.
Feb Plan submittal Draft plan submitted to FEMA N/A
March Pre-adoption approval Approval Pending Adoption (APA) letter issued by FEMA N/A
March / Adoption Adoption window of final plan opens N/A
April
April Plan approval Final plan approved by FEMA N/A
Bridgeview Consulting 2-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 2-2. June LEPC Meeting
Figure 2-3. Strategy and Template Development Workshop
Bridgeview Consulting 2-14 April 2020
PLAN METHODOLOGY
Figure 2-4. Presentation of Risk Findings(Meeting Setup)
Figure 2-5. September LEPC Meeting Risk Presentation
Bridgeview Consulting 2-15 April 2020
CHAPTER 3.
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
Spokane County is located in northeastern Washington adjacent to the Idaho border (see Figure 3.1). The
County has an array of landscapes ranging from the mountainous area in the northeast, including Mount
Spokane, to the semiarid basalt plains in the southwest. Between these extremes are the rolling wheat lands
of the Palouse area, the channeled scablands created by the glacial floods, and the Spokane metropolitan
area. The total County area is approximately 1,763 square miles, making it 19th in size among the states
counties, with a population of 514,631 (2018 census). Spokane County is rectangular, except for the
northwest corner, which is bounded by the Spokane River (see Figure 3-1). Pend Oreille and Stevens
Counties provide its northern boundary, Lincoln County its western boundary, Whitman County its
southern boundary, and the State of Idaho its eastern boundary.
3.1 JURISDICTIONS AND ATTRACTIONS
Spokane County has 13 incorporated communities:
City of Airway Heights City of Millwood
City of Cheney Town of Rockford
City of Deer Park City of Spangle
Town of Fairfield City of Spokane
Town of Latah City of Spokane Valley
City of Liberty Lake Town of Waverly
City of Medical Lake
One way to describe Spokane County is by the major, unique landscapes and landforms and past geologic
processes. The features and soils seen now are the result of past cataclysmic events of floods, uplift
(mountain building) and volcanic activity. The county is divided in two parts by the Spokane River flowing
east to west, eventually joining the Columbia River. The river having carved its path through the basalt is
flanked above by outwash terraces and plains in the valleys to the north and the loess covered and scoured
basalt plateau to the south. Multiple flood events from glacial Lake Missoula have made their mark in
Spokane County. They have sculpted the basalt plateau by scouring and depositing soil material along the
way, leaving in their wake, a wide swath of unique features, called the channeled scablands. Also in the
southern part of the county are the fertile, rolling, loess hills of the Palouse.
The southeastern part of the county is in the Palouse Hills Region, which is characterized by rolling to hilly
topography and deep soils that formed in silty material deposited by wind. Basalt is the base rock, but there
are a few promontories of quartzite, shale and sandstone in the region. Tekoa Mountain, the highest part of
this region, rises to an elevation of 3,900 feet.
The Northern part of the county is in the Okanogan Highlands. This region consists of mountains, foot
slopes, glaciated valleys, broad glacial lake terraces, and outwash terraces. It includes Mount Spokane, the
Bridgeview Consulting 3-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
highest point in the county, which has an elevation of 5,882 feet. Glacial scouring and damming by deposits
by glacial meltwater created Newman, Liberty and Eloika Lakes. With its unique range of outdoor
recreational opportunities, Spokane County has much to offer outdoor enthusiasts. The four distinct seasons
and holdings of public lands have made this area an increasingly popular place in which to recreate. Fishing
and hunting, skiing, equestrian activities, snowmobiling, hiking and biking are some of the more popular
types of outings (Spokane County, 2012a).
Bridgeview Consulting 3-2 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
Figure 3-1. Main Features of Spokane County
Bridgeview Consulting 3-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3.2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The City of Spokane was an early hub for the mining, timber and railroad industries of the Inland Northwest,
while cattle ranging and wheat farming became important in the surrounding areas. Today, the city and
county of Spokane serve as a medical, financial and commercial center for region from the Cascades to
western Montana. Fairchild Air Force Base is the countys largest employer, and agriculture remains
important. The following are key events in the history of the Spokane County area (HistoryLink.org, 2012
and Spokane County, 2012b):
Before European and American settlement of the area, three bands of Spokane IndiansUpper,
Middle and Lowerlived in the Spokane River watershed and the Coeur d lived
along the river near the present-day border with Idaho.
In 1810, the British fur-trading North West Company sent two men to establish a trading house
in the territory. They built Spokane House at the confluence of the Spokane and Little Spokane
Rivers, the first long-term European settlement in what is now Washington.
European/American settlement of the area through the 1840s and 1850s led to a period of
conflicts with the Native American population. The end of hostilities in 1858 opened the region
to further American settlement and development.
On January 29, 1858, Spokane County was created by the Territorial Assembly. Pinkney City,
a small trading post near Colville, was the first county seat.
In 1863, Idaho Territory was created, cutting off two-thirds of Spokane County.
On January 19, 1864, Spokane County was annexed to Stevens County by act of the Territorial
Legislature.
The 1870s saw the rise of Spokane Falls from a homestead and gristmill to a village to a city
of a few hundred by the time of incorporation in 1881.
In 1879, Spokane County was again established as a separate county.
In 1880, the first county seat election was held, and the City of Cheney became the county seat
for six years.
Spokane County boomed during the 1880s with the arrival of the Northern Pacific Railroad in
1881 and with mining in the mountains to the north and east. Although no mining took place
in Spokane County itself, the city of Spokane became the commercial and residential center for
the mining industry and the railroads in the Inland Northwest.
In 1883, Lincoln County was subdivided from Spokane County, establishing the present county
boundaries.
In 1886, the county seat was moved to Spokane after a second election.
In 1893, construction of the present County Courthouse began. Its initial cost was $273,600.
All county officials moved into quarters in the new courthouse by November 20, 1895.
By 1900, Spokane County had a population of 57,500 in more than 20 towns.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-4 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
The areas economic growth slowed by the 1920s, as older mines in Idaho that had contributed
wealth to Spokane began to play out. With the Great Depression, the area entered a long period
of economic stagnation and lack of growth.
During the 1930s, construction of the Grand Coulee Dam, 75 miles to the west, and other New
Deal programs drew people to the area and provided employment for those already in the
county.
During the early years of World War II, several units of the Army Air Corps occupied the
newly completed Geiger Field, just west of Spokane. Three years after the war, the War
Department returned Geiger Field to the city; it would become Spokane International Airport.
In 1943 the War Department opened the Galena aircraft maintenance and supply depot on
donated farmland. The depots mission changed and grew during the postwar years and in 1951
it became Fairchild Air Force Base.
The Spokane County Courthouse was extensively remodeled in 1946, and a new wing was
added in 1956, which cost more than the original building: $525,000.
In recent decades, the population growth of Spokane County has been largely outside the City
of Spokane; between 1970 and 2000, the population of Spokane grew 15 percent while the
population in other areas of the county increased 90 percent.
The county is drained by two principal streams: the Palouse and Spokane Rivers. All the water
ultimately drains into the Columbia River. Approximately 400 square miles of the southwestern
part of the county lie within the Palouse River basin. All streams in this part of the county,
except North Pine Creek, are intermittent. This area has many lakes and poorly drained
depressions.1
The Spokane River has only two perennial tributaries: the Little Spokane River from the north
and Hangman Creek from the south. The little Spokane River drains the entire northern part of
the county through Dragoon, Dry, Deer and Deadman Creeks. Hangman Creek drains all of the
southeastern part of the county, but it discharges very little water into the Spokane River except
spring runoff from melting snow.
The City of Spokane straddles the Spokane River from approximately 2 river miles downstream
from its confluence with Hangman Creek to approximately 9 river miles upstream from the
confluence. Except for the southern part, the city is located almost entirely on the surface of
the gravel fill of the Spokane Valley. Most of the city lies at elevations from 1900 to 2100. The
City of Spokane consists of rich farmlands, both non-irrigated and irrigated, extensive mineral
deposits, and thousands of acres of commercial timber. However, the city is not noted for
employment in these fields of activity, but rather the secondary type industries, such as trade,
transportation, finance and services. Historically, these areas of employment that tend to
experience a relatively stable existence. As a result, variations in business activity within
1
USDA Soil Survey, Spokane County, WA. (1968). Accessed 10/8/19. Available at:
https://books.google.com/books?id=vKIMcjrd1j8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=spokane+county+is+drained+by+two+principal+st
reams&source=bl&ots=RNLEJDrc2j&sig=ACfU3U0klgCrGHzSTFvHnBrcGGbZW2f9gg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisyYn
5i43lAhXXjp4KHaKxDYwQ6AEwCHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=spokane%20county%20is%20drained%20by%20two%20pri
ncipal%20streams&f=false
Bridgeview Consulting 3-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Spokane have been less pronounced than elsewhere in Washington. These conditions are
expected to continue relatively unchanged.
3.3 MAJOR PAST HAZARD EVENTS
Major hazard events are often identified by federal disaster declarations, which are issued for hazard events
that cause more damage than state and local governments can handle without assistance. FEMA categorizes
disaster declarations as one of three types (FEMA, 2012a):
Presidential major disaster declaration
Major disasters are hurricanes, earthquakes,
floods, tornados or major fires that the President determines warrant supplemental federal aid.
The event must be clearly more than state or local governments can handle alone. Funding
comes from the Presidents Disaster Relief Fund, managed by FEMA and disaster aid programs
of other participating federal agencies. A presidential major disaster declaration puts into
motion long-term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by state programs, to
help disaster victims, businesses and public entities.
Emergency declaration
An emergency declaration is more limited in scope and without the
long-term federal recovery programs of a presidential major disaster declaration. Generally,
federal assistance and funding are provided to meet a specific emergency need or to help
prevent a major disaster from occurring.
Fire management assistance declaration
(44 CFR 204.21)FEMA approves declarations
for fire management assistance when a fire constitutes a major disaster, based on the following
criteria:
Threat to lives and improved property, including threats to critical facilities and critical
watershed areas
Availability of state and local firefighting resources
High fire danger conditions, as indicated by nationally accepted indices such as the
National Fire Danger Ratings System
Potential major economic impact.
Since 1964, 15 federal disaster declarations have affected Spokane County, as listed in Table 3-1 (FEMA,
2019)2. In addition, four declarations prior to 1964 are Washington-statewide, not Spokane County specific
as FEMA did not begin distinguishing declarations by county until 1964. There are also four Emergency
Management Declarations for the County, which did not rise to the level of a Federal Declaration, but did
significantly impact the County. There is also one Fire Mobilization Declaration which occurred. Review
of these events helps identify targets for risk reduction and ways to increase a communitys capability to
avoid large-scale events in the future. Still, many natural hazard events do not trigger federal disaster
declaration protocol but have significant impacts on their communities. These events are also important to
consider in establishing recurrence intervals for hazards of concern.
2 :
FEMA Disaster Declarations Summary. Accessed May 9, 2019. Available at
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/28318?id=6292
Bridgeview Consulting 3-6 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
Table 3-1.
Disaster Declarations in Spokane County
Disaster
a
NumberDeclaration Date Incident Type/ Title
b
2/25/1956 Flood/ Flood
DR-50
b
3/6/1957 Flood/ Flood
DR-70
b
10/20/1962 Severe Storm/ Severe Storm
DR-137
b
3/2/1963 Flood/ Flood
DR-146
DR-185 12/29/1964 Flood/ Heavy Rains & Flooding
DR-623 5/21/1980 Volcano/ Volcanic Eruption, Mt. St. Helens
DR-769 7/26/1986 Flood/ Severe Storms and Flooding
DR-922 11/13/1991 Fire/ Fires
DR-1100 2/9/1996 Flood/ High Winds, Severe Storms and Flooding
DR-1152 1/7/1997 Snow/ Severe Ice Storm
DR-1159 1/17/1997 Severe Storm/ Severe Winter Storms, Land- and Mud-slides,
Flooding
DR-1172 4/2/1997 Flood/ Heavy Rains, Snow Melt, Flooding, Land- and Mud-slides
DR-1825 3/2/2009 Severe Storm/ Severe Winter Storm And Record and Near-
Record Snow
DR-4249 1/15/2016 Severe Storms, Straight-line winds, Flooding, Landslides and
Mudslides
DR-4309 4/21/2017 Flood, Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Land- and Mud-slides
Emergency Declarations
EM-3372 8/21/2015 Wildfires
EM-3037 3/31/1977 Drought/ Drought
EM-3086 8/19/1982 Flood/ Threat Of Flooding At Spirit Lake
EM-3227 9/7/2005 Coastal Storm/ Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Fire Mobilization
FM-2783 7/11/2008 Fire/ Spokane Valley Fire
a. Declaration number codes as follows: DR = Major disaster declaration; EM = Emergency declaration;
FM = Fire management assistance declaration
b. Declarations prior to 1964 are Washington-statewide, not Spokane County specific; FEMA did not
begin distinguishing declarations by county until 1964
3.4 PHYSICAL SETTING
Spokane Countys terrain is varied. The northern county is forested and rugged. Mount Spokane, the highest
point in the county, is 5,878 feet. The southeast county is a rich agricultural area among fertile Palouse
soils. The southwest county has channeled-scabland rock outcroppings and big lakes. Much of this region
is part of the Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
The diversity of Spokane Countys natural environment is illustrated by ecosystems that range from sub-
alpine forests to semi-desert scablands. This diversity supports a broad spectrum of wildlife, from the moose
of Mt. Spokane to the western painted turtles of Granite Lake. Numerous lakes, rivers and wetland areas
provide linkages and corridors for wildlife. Spokane Countys natural environment also includes the
Spokane-Rathdrum aquifer, which is one of the most productive aquifers in the United States (Spokane
County, 2012a).
The county has two rivers. The Little Spokane River flows south from Pend Oreille County to the Spokane
River in the center of the county. The Spokane River, outlet for Lake Coeur dAlene, flows west from Idaho
into central Spokane County and through the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley. The river turns to the
northwest, joining the Little Spokane River at the northwestern boundary of the county, eventually
emptying into the Columbia River.
The lowest point in the county is the Spokane River behind Long Lake Dam (boundary of Stevens County)
at 1538 feet (468 m) above sea level. (There is virtually no change in elevation between the dam and the
mouth of the Little Spokane River inside Riverside State Park.) The highest point in the county is the
summit of Mount Spokane at 5,883 feet (1793 m).
Joe Rivers. The watershed of the Spokane River in Idaho is largely forested mountains. From the
Washington-Idaho border, the Spokane River flows westerly across Spokane County through a flat alluvial
valley, averaging from 2-3 miles in width, to the eastern corporate limits of the City of Spokane. There it
ene Lake is approximately
3,700 square miles, and it drains mountainous, forested area with elevations ranging from 2,120 feet at
and has a natural outlet; it can regulate flows of up to 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at a lake level of
2,131.9 feet. When the lake stage exceeds 2,131.9 feet, the control passes from the dam to the natural lake
outlet.
Hangman Creek drains an area that is predominantly dry-farmed in wheat on Palouse soils with rolling
topography. Its total basin above the confluence with the Spokane River is 689 square miles, of which 203
square miles are in Idaho. It enters Spokane in the southwestern part of the city and flows north-
northwesterly to the confluence with the Spokane River.
3.4.1 Geology
The structural features of the Spokane Valley are the result of a complex sequence of intense folding and
faulting. Geologic structures within the planning area fall into two units based on their permeability. The
consolidated Precambrian and Tertiary rocks, composing one unit, are relatively impermeable and allow
delineation of the bottom and the sides of the valley. Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits compose the
second unit and define the extent and thickness of the valley fill. This unit consists mainly of poorly sorted,
reworked, glaciofluvial deposits of sand and gravel.
Over time, local geology and the dry, temperate climate have developed soils, aquifers and water bodies
that interact in complex ways. Groundwater is located in soil pore spaces and in the fractures of rock
formations. In addition to supplying water for human needs such as drinking, crop irrigation and industrial
use, groundwater plays a critical role in the environment. Water that moves from the subsurface into streams
maintains a base level of flow in the streams during the summer when there is relatively little contribution
from precipitation and snowmelt. Therefore, increased use of groundwater
Bridgeview Consulting 3-8 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
could impact surface water resources, where there is hydraulic continuity. Management of the watersheds
water resources requires a thorough understanding of the watersheds hydrogeology. Generally, principal
aquifers in the watershed lie within unconsolidated sands and gravels, basalt, and basement rocks. The
unconsolidated and basalt aquifers are the most suitable for extracting groundwater of sufficient quantity
for municipal distribution systems.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Spokane County Conservation District completed an
update of the Spokane County Soil Survey in 2011. The soil survey covers over 1.1 million acres of
agricultural, forest, range and urban lands within three Major Land Resource Areas:
9 - Palouse and Nez Perce Prairies
44A - Northern Rocky Mountain Valleys
43A - Northern Rocky Mountains.
Spokane County possesses a diverse topography that is dominated by the Cascade and Wenatchee
Mountains. From the high Cascades, the land slopes generally downward to the east and south to the
Columbia River. The eastern part of the county consists of low, rolling to moderately steep glacial terraces
and long, narrow valleys. The southeast section of the county is characterized by moderately steep to steep
glacial terraces and steep, rough, broken mountain foothills. The Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer
in Washington and Idaho study area has undergone a complex series of geologic events that have resulted
in the surface and subsurface geologic framework that exists today.
Seismic Features
The structural features of the Spokane Valley are the result of a complex sequence of intense folding and
faulting. Geologic structures within the planning area fall into two units based on their permeability. The
consolidated Precambrian and Tertiary rocks, composing one unit, are relatively impermeable and allow
delineation of the bottom and the sides of the valley. Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits compose the
second unit and define the extent and thickness of the valley fill. This unit consists mainly of poorly sorted,
reworked, glaciofluvial deposits of sand and gravel.
Geologically hazardous areas are susceptible to earthquakes, erosion, landslides or other geologic events.
Typically, they are not suited for commercial, residential or industrial development without mitigation.
Geologic hazards are categorized as critical and sensitive areas under the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Geologic hazards and constraints include erodible soils, alluvium, landslide deposits and Latah formation.
Spokane County is in a region with a moderate risk of seismic activity. The Uniform Building Code
classifies the area as Seismic Zone 2B.
Erosion
Spokane County defines erodible soils as those soil associations which have been found to have severe
potential of erosion according to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and/or which have a slope of 30 percent
or greater. There are a few small areas of erodible soils located along the planning area border, primarily
northwest of Mica Peak, east of Millwood, and in the northern portion of the North Spokane service area.
Erodible soil types are found primarily in the northeastern and southeastern portions of the County. Small
areas with these characteristics can also be found northeast and southeast of the City of Spokane, north and
west of the City of Cheney, and west of the City of Medical Lake.
Landslide
Landslide hazard areas have been defined by areas with a history of landslide deposits, Alluvium, or the
Latah formation. Landslide hazard areas are primarily located in pockets in the northern and central portions
Bridgeview Consulting 3-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
of the County. These areas are associated with the Little Spokane River and with the foothills and
mountainous areas north of the City of Spokane. Small areas are also present north and west of the City of
Cheney. There are no Latah formations within the planning area boundaries; however, landslide deposits
are found in a few areas bordering the planning area.
Soils
The planning area follows the Spokane River, resulting in level to gently sloping topography and consistent
soil types. The soils of this area consist of the Garrison Marble-Springdale soil association, which is
excessively drained sandy and gravelly soils formed in glacial outwash. The soils within the planning area
are very porous in nature with a rapid water-intake rate and low water-holding capacity. These soils also
have moderate resistance to erosion, high shear strength, and high load-carrying capacity. The high level
of permeability is a concern for aquifer health, which is located directly under the planning area \[ii\].
Soils characteristics in other parts of the County outside of the planning area may be relevant to some
wastewater management alternatives. These characteristics are described below.
The southwestern part of the County consists of a broad basalt plateau. Only small remnants of
pre-glacial soils, characterized by deep to shallow, gravelly or rocky soils with moderate
permeability and low water-holding capacity, remain from the glacial floods.
The southeastern part of the County is described by rolling to hilly topography with deep soils
that formed from wind deposits of silty material. The soils are characterized as medium to fine-
textured soils with moderate to slow permeability and high to moderate water-holding capacity.
Basalt is the most prominent geologic formation, with quartzite, shale and sandstone also found
in the region. The area consists of rolling loess uplands, glacial till plains, and mountain foot
slopes.
The Okanogan Highlands makes up the northern part of the County and consists of mountains,
foot slopes, glaciated valleys, broad glacial lake terraces, and outwash terraces. Soils in the
eastern area are characteristically deep, medium-textured soils of the hilly and mountainous
areas with moderately rapid permeability and moderate water-holding capacity. Soils in the
northwest consist of gravelly and sandy soils with rapid permeability and moderate water-
holding capacity that formed in glacial materials.
3.4.2 Hydrology
Spokane County has a large number of surface water bodies that provide a variety of economic, recreational
and aesthetic benefits and use. The county has two rivers. The Little Spokane River flows south from Pend
Oreille County to the Spokane River in the center of the county. The Spokane River, outlet for Coeur
dAlene Lake, flows west from Idaho into central Spokane County and through the Cities of Spokane and
Spokane Valley. The river turns to the northwest, joining the Little Spokane River at the northwestern
boundary of the county, eventually emptying into the Columbia River. Almost all the perennial streams
within the County are listed within the States 303d inventory as having impaired water quality.
Flow on the Spokane River is regulated by a series of dams. There are seven hydroelectric dams on the
Spokane River
mile 29. One dam, the Upriver Dam, is owned and operated by the City of Spokane Water Department; the
others are owned by Avista Corporation. Other major dams along the Spokane River include the Nine Mile
Dam, Long Lake Dam and Little Falls Dam. They were constructed in 1908, 1915 and 1910, respectively.
Grand Coulee Dam is located on the Columbia River and creates the Spokane Arm of Lake Roosevelt. Four
smaller dams listed in the Ecology dam database are associated with mining pondstwo in the Chamokane
Bridgeview Consulting 3-10 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
Creek drainage; one in an unnamed drainage within the Spokane Indian Reservation, and one along the
south shoreline of Lake Spokane.
Grand Coulee Dam has a significant effect on the watershed, with backwater from Lake Roosevelt
impacting the lower 30 miles of the Spokane River. Water levels throughout this lower reach fluctuate
throughout the year, with levels reaching a low point in the spring before refilling to a maximum level,
usually by July 4. Monthly average flows on the Spokane River are shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2.
Monthly Average Spokane River Flow at Long lake dam
Month Average Flow (cfs) Month Average Flow (cfs)
January 7,112 July 3,454
February 8,860 August 2,019
March 10,589 September 2,276
April 15,350 October 2,909
May 18,308 November 4,033
June 11,302 December 6,334
Bodies of water with a mean annual flow of greater than 20 cubic feet per second (in the case of flowing
water) and an area greater than 20 acres (in the case of standing water) are considered Shorelines of the
State and are subject to the Shoreline Management Act. The area of jurisdiction is the body of water
together with an adjacent strip of land generally 200 feet wide, measured landward from the ordinary high
watermark. In compliance with the Shoreline Management Act, Spokane County adopted a Shoreline
Management Program in 1975. The Shoreline Management Program established goals, policies and
regulations to protect shoreline areas. Developments after 1975 have been conditioned to comply with the
Shoreline Master Program.
3.4.3 Climate
The climate pattern in the County is related to a gradual increase in elevation from west to east. The County
lies between the Rocky Mountains on the east, the Cascade Mountains on the west, mountains near the
Canadian border on the north and Blue Mountains on the south. Eastern Washington climate is a function
of maritime and continental influences. The marine influence is most noticeable in winter when the
prevailing westerly winds are strongest and most persistent.
The County generally experiences seasonable weather patterns characteristic of eastern Washington. Warm,
dry summers are usually experienced, although heavy rain and hail infrequently accompany thunderstorm
activity. Mid-summer temperatures range in the middle and upper 80s; winter highs are usually in the 30s.
Extreme temperatures can range from 110ºF to -30ºF.
Spokane County resides within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 54. Based on state data for WRIA
54, the average annual precipitation is 15.8 inches; approximately half of that amount falls as snow, which
peaks between October and the end of March. November is the wettest month in the watershed, with average
precipitation of 2.13 inches. July is the driest month in the watershed, averaging 0.57 inches of precipitation.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 3-3 shows the average monthly and annual rainfall in WRIA 54. Historic precipitation trends are
3
illustrated in Figure 3-2.
Table 3-3.
Average Monthly and Annual Rainfall in WRIA 54
Month Month Average Precipitation (inches) Month Month Average Precipitation (inches)
January 1.89 July 0.57
February 1.52 August 0.59
March 1.39 September 0.82
April 1.08 October 1.15
May 1.40 November 2.13
June 1.20 December 2.08
Annual Total 15.82
Figure 3-2. Precipitation Trends 1950-2019
3
NOAA. Accessed June 18, 2019. Available at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/county/time-series/WA-063/pcp/all/5/1950-
2019?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=2010&lastbaseyear=2018&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1950&lasttrendyear=
2019
Bridgeview Consulting 3-12 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
Snow, the dominant form of precipitation due to winter coinciding with the rainy season, accumulates to a
depth of 10 to 15 inches and remains on the ground from December through February. Annual average
precipitation increases from west to east, with the western portion of the County receiving less than 12
inches and the eastern part receiving over 24 inches. The average amount of snowfall that Spokane County
receives annually is about 28 inches.
3.5 DEMOGRAPHICS
Some populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased resources or physical abilities.
Elderly people, for example, may be more likely to require additional assistance. Research has shown that
people living near or below the poverty line, the elderly (especially older single men), the disabled, women,
children, ethnic minorities and renters all experience, to some degree, more severe effects from disasters
than the general population. These vulnerable populations may vary from the general population in risk
perception, living conditions, access to information before, during and after a hazard event, capabilities
during an event, and access to resources for post-disaster recovery. Indicators of vulnerabilitysuch as
disability, age, poverty, and minority race and ethnicityoften overlap spatially and often in the
geographically most vulnerable locations.
3.5.1 Population Characteristics
Knowledge of the composition of the population and how it has changed in the past and how it may change
in the future is needed for making informed decisions about the future. Information about population is a
critical part of planning because it directly relates to land needs such as housing, industry, stores, public
facilities and services, and transportation.
As of 2017 (most recent data available as of the commencement of this update), Spokane County is the
fourth largest county in the state by population, with 499,800 residents, and the eighth most densely
populated county in the state, with 283 residents per square mile. Population changes are useful socio-
economic indicators as a growing population generally indicates a growing economy, while a decreasing
population signifies economic decline. Even though Washington State has seen higher growth rates than
Spokane County during the period 2010-2017 at 10.1 percent versus 7.4 percent respectively, the trends of
accelerating and decelerating growth have been generally the same for both. Table 3-4 summarizes 2017
population in the county by jurisdiction, demonstrating a 7.4 percent growth for the period 2010-2017, with
only one jurisdiction, Spangle, decreasing in population (down by 5 people). The average number of
persons per household in Spokane County was 2.43 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 3-3. Annual Population Growth 1961-2018
Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, US Bureau of Economic Analysis (2018).
Table 3-4.
2017 Spokane County Population by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Population as of April 1, 2017
Airway Heights 8,460
Cheney 11,800
Deer Park 4,105
Fairfield 620
Latah 195
Liberty Lake 9,910
Medical Lake 4,990
Millwood 1,790
Rockford 480
Spangle (declined by 5) 275
Spokane 217,300
Spokane Valley 94,890
Waverly 117
Unincorporated 144,788
Total 499,720
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2019 (2017 data most current)
https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/databook/pdf/53063.pdf
Bridgeview Consulting 3-14 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
3.5.2 Income
In the United States, individual households are expected to use private resources to prepare for, respond to
and recover from disasters to some extent. This means that households living in poverty are automatically
disadvantaged when confronting hazards. Additionally, the poor typically occupy more poorly built and
inadequately maintained housing. Mobile or modular homes, for example, are more susceptible to damage
in earthquakes and floods than other types of housing. In urban areas, the poor often live in older houses
and apartment complexes, which are more likely to be made of un-reinforced masonry, a building type that
is particularly susceptible to damage during earthquakes. Furthermore, residents below the poverty level
are less likely to have insurance to compensate for losses incurred from natural disasters. This means that
residents below the poverty level have a great deal to lose during an event and are the least prepared to deal
with potential losses. Personal household economics also significantly impact peoples decisions on
evacuation. Individuals who cannot afford gas for their cars will likely decide not to evacuate.
Based on the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, per capita income
reached $42,028 in 2016, 23rd in the state. This is 14.7 percent below the U.S. average and 23 percent
below the state average of $54,579. Median household income over the period 2012 to 2016 was $50,550,
2016, 13.3 percent of the population was living below the poverty level in Spokane County. This is well
4
above 11 percent for the state.
Poverty by age and gender for 2017 is illustrated in Figure 3-4.5
Figure 3-4. Poverty by Age and Gender
3.5.3 Age Distribution
As a group, the elderly are more apt to lack the physical and economic resources necessary for response to
hazard events and are more likely to suffer health-related consequences making recovery slower. They are
more likely to be vision, hearing and/or mobility impaired, and more likely to experience mental impairment
or dementia. Additionally, the elderly are more likely to live in assisted-living facilities where emergency
preparedness occurs at the discretion of facility operators. These facilities are typically identified as critical
facilities by emergency managers because they require extra notice to implement evacuation. Elderly
residents living in their own homes may have more difficulty evacuating their homes and could be stranded
4
Washington State Employment Security Department. Accessed May 9, 2019. Available online at:
https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/county-profiles/spokane
5
Data USA Accessed May 9, 2019. Available online at: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/spokane-county-wa/#housing
Bridgeview Consulting 3-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
in dangerous situations. This population group is more likely to need special medical attention, which may
not be readily available during natural disasters due to isolation caused by the event. Specific planning
attention for the elderly is an important consideration given the current aging of the American population.
Children under 14 are particularly vulnerable to disaster events because of their young age and dependence
on others for necessities. Very young children may additionally be vulnerable to injury or sickness; this
vulnerability can be worsened during a natural disaster because they may not understand the measures that
need to be taken to protect themselves from hazards.
Based on U.S. Census estimates, 15.7 percent of Spokane Countys population as of 2017 is 65 or older,
compared to the state average of 15.1 percent. Within Spokane County, that represents a 2.4 percent higher
percentage than in 2015, which identified 13.3 percent of the population 65 or older, demonstrating an aging
population (see Table 3-5-65 population, 6.8 percent are in the poverty rate, which
It is also estimated that 6.1 percent of the countys population is 5 or younger, compared to the state average
of 6.2 percent and 22.2 percent of the countys population is 18 or younger, which is the same as the state
average of 22.2 percent. Children under 18 account for 16.7 percent of individuals who are below the
poverty rate, compared to 14.3 percent at the State level, and the U.S. average of 18.4 percent (US Census
QuickFacts).
Table 3-5.
2017 Percent Comparison Population by Age
Age Range U.S. State Spokane
0-19 25.3 25.1 26.1
20-39 27.2 27.4 26.2
40-59 25.9 25.8 25.0
60+ 21.6 21.7 22.7
3.5.4 Race, Ethnicity and Language
Research shows that minorities are less likely to be involved in pre-disaster planning and experience higher
mortality rates during a disaster event. Post-disaster recovery can be ineffective and is often characterized
by cultural insensitivity. Since higher proportions of ethnic minorities live below the poverty line than the
majority white population, poverty can compound vulnerability.
According to the 2017, U.S. Census QuickFacts, the racial composition of Spokane County is
predominantly white, at about 89.3 percent. The largest minority population is Asian at 3 percent. The
Hispanic population represents 6.7 percent of the county total. Other than English, the most commonly
spoken language in Spokane County is Spanish. The census estimates ~4 percent of the countys residents
speak English less than very well.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-16 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
3.5.5 Disabled Populations
People with disabilities are more likely than the general population to have difficulty responding to a hazard
event. As disabled populations are increasingly integrated into society, they are more likely to require
assistance during the 72 hours after a hazard event, the period generally reserved for self-help. There is no
typical disabled person, which can complicate disaster-planning processes that attempt to incorporate
them. Disability is likely to be compounded with other vulnerabilities, such as age, economic disadvantage
and ethnicity, all of which mean that housing is more likely to be substandard.
According to 2013-2017 ACS data, 10.9 percent of the countys population under the age of 65 years has
some form of a disability, while 37.5 percent of the population 65 and over has some form of disability.
6
Total population with a disability status is estimated to be at 38,104 countywide.
3.6 ECONOMY
3.6.1 Employment Trends
Spokane County is the economic hub of the area known as the Inland Northwest. Medical services constitute
the largest economic sector in the county. It also has strong and diversified manufacturing, wholesale trade
and finance sectors. Other functions include a large agricultural community and a strong retail trade and
services sector. The City of Spokane is the retail trade and services hub, and a regional center for arts and
entertainment. Spokane County is also the home of Fairchild Air Force Base, the home of a refueling tanker
unit, located in the western part of the county. U.S. Census data for 2011 show that Spokane Countys
economy is strongly based in education, health care and social assistance, with 26.5 percent of employees,
followed by Retail Trade at 12.6 percent and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food
services at 9.8 percent.
Unemployment in the area is higher than the state averages, which were 4.8 percent in 2018 and 5.0 in 2017
7
versus the 5.9 percent for 2018, and 6.1 percent for 2017 within Spokane County (see Figure 3-5).
6
American Fact Finder Accessed May 10, 2019. Available online at:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
7 Washington State Department of Labor Accessed May 10, 2019. Available online at:
https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/labor-area-summaries
Bridgeview Consulting 3-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 3-5. Spokane County Unemployment Rates 2016-2019
3.7 LAND USE
The area of the various land use categories within Spokane
County are shown in Table 3-6 and illustrated in Figure 3-6.
Urban uses have replaced farms in the urban core of Spokane
County. Urbanization is particularly evident in the center of the
County along the Interstate 90 corridor. Prime farmland consists
of rural land with excellent physical and chemical
characteristics for the production of food, feed, forage, fiber and
oilseed crops. There is prime farmland scattered throughout the County. Much of the best agricultural land
in Spokane County was protected from development under the Comprehensive Plan. High quality
agricultural soils in portions of southern and western Spokane County sustain dry land crops such as wheat
in those areas. Spokane County has the second-highest number of farms in the state with 2,425; Yakima
County has the highest number of farms, with 2,952.8
Under current zoning, densities range from fifteen units per acre to one unit per 40 acres. The High Density
Residential zone allows a density of fifteen units per acre. The Low density Residential, Rural-5, Small
Tract Agricultural, Rural Conservation, and large tract agricultural allow for a density range of six structures
per acre to one unit per 40 acres. The lowest density in the county is in the Large Tract Agricultural Zone,
where the assigned density is one unit per 40 acres.
8 USDA Agricultural Publications (2017). Accessed May 9, 2019. Available at:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Washin
gton/st53_2_0001_0001.pdf
Bridgeview Consulting 3-18 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
Table 3-6.
Existing Unincorporated Area Zoning By Acreage
Area Area
Zone (Acres) Zone (Acres)
Rural Traditional 250,285 Low Density Residential 13,863
Rural-5 5,483 Medium Density Residential 531
Rural Conservation 337,949 High Density Residential 223
Small Tract Ag 53,703 Mixed Use Area 527
Large Tract Ag 298,006 Community Center 79
Forest Land 48,501 Urban Activity Center 311
Mineral Land 5,243 Neighborhood Commercial 71
Limited Development Area Commercial/Industrial 466 Community Commercial 74
Limited Development Area Residential 837 Regional Commercial 751
Rural Activity Center 1,178 Light Industrial 4,913
Urban Reserve 21,780 Heavy Industrial 1,871
Total 1,046,970
Low Density Residential Plus 325
Bridgeview Consulting 3-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 3-6. Spokane County Land Distribution
Source: Spokane County Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Bridgeview Consulting 3-20 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
3.8 HOUSING STOCK
According to A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management (Journal of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, 2011), housing quality is an important factor in assessing disaster vulnerability.
It is closely tied to personal wealth: people in lower income brackets often live in more poorly constructed
homes that are especially vulnerable to strong storms or earthquakes. Mobile homes are not designed to
withstand severe weather or flooding, and typically do not have basements. They are frequently found
outside of metropolitan areas and, therefore, may not be readily accessible by interstate highways or public
transportation. Also, because mobile homes are often clustered in communities, their overall vulnerability
is increased.
Office of Financial Manag
for Spokane County and its cities. Table 3-7 identifies structure types by jurisdiction.
Table 3-7.
Spokane County Housing Units By Structure Type (2018)
Mobile
Jurisdiction Total
Home/Special
Unincorporated Spokane County 59,196 9,592
Incorporated Spokane County 158,625 4,398
Airway Heights 3,389 531
Cheney 5,026 128
Deer Park 1,741 172
Fairfield 238 43
Latah 90 9
Liberty Lake 4,511 132
Medical Lake 1,874 133
Millwood 789 14
Rockford 214 61
Spangle 125 42
Spokane 98,630 1,570
Spokane Valley 41,943 1,534
Waverly 55 29
TOTAL 217,821* 13,990
Source: Office of Financial Management Forecasting Division April 2018.
*Inclusive of total number of mobile homes.
Data accessible at: https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-demographics/population-estimates/april-1-
official-population-estimates
3.8.1 Building Stock Age
The age of a building in determining vulnerability is a significant factor, as it helps identify the building
code to which a structure was built. Homes built prior to 1975 are considered pre-code since there was no
statewide requirement to include specific standards to address the various hazards of concern (e.g., there
were no seismic provisions contained within the building code). Structures built after 1975 are considered
Bridgeview Consulting 3-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
of moderate code. It was at that point in time in which all Washington jurisdictions were required to adhere
to the provision of the most recently adopted version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (Noson et al.,
1988).
omes built prior to 1941 are considered pre-code; they were
constructed before any type of earthquake building codes were put in place. Homes constructed after 1941
are considered moderate code as they may include some earthquake building components.
Data from 2017 U.S. Census data for Spokane County reported the highest percentage of its buildings had
been built during the time period 1970-1979, with the second highest construction period occurring prior
9
to 1939. Table 3-8 identifies the percent of homes constructed during the identified time periods.
It should be noted that the data may be slightly skewed due to the fact that actual building code adoption
dates may vary slightly by jurisdiction. Also, structures may have undergone remodel, or improvements
which changed the building code classification, increasing the level of code applied. That data may not
have been captured or applied in a manner which would reflect a change in the year of construction.
Additionally, while building codes may not have been in place, houses may have been constructed to higher
standards. Therefore, this data should be used for planning purposes only. Questions concerning actual
structural integrity should be determined by appropriate subject matter experts in the field.
Table 3-8.
Spokane County Year / Percent House Built Distribution (Excludes Mobile Homes)
Year Structure Built Total Number Percent Total
Total housing units 217,821 217,827
Built 2014 or later 6,814 3.1%
Built 2010 to 2013 5,342 2.5%
Built 2000 to 2009 30,593 14.5%
Built 1990 to 1999 29,899 14.2%
Built 1980 to 1989 19,094 9.0%
Built 1970 to 1979 38,627 18.3%
Built 1960 to 1969 14,672 7.0%
Built 1950 to 1959 23,115 11.0%
Built 1940 to 1949 14,034 6.7%
Built 1939 or earlier 33,357 15.8%
3.9 CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Critical facilities and infrastructure are those that are essential to the health and welfare of the population.
These become especially important after a hazard event. Critical facilities are typically defined to include
police and fire stations, schools and emergency operations centers. Critical infrastructure can include the
roads and bridges that provide ingress and egress and allow emergency vehicles access to those in need and
the utilities that provide water, electricity and communication services to the community. Also included are
Tier II facilities and railroads, which hold or carry significant amounts of hazardous materials with a
potential to impact public health and welfare in a hazard event.
9 https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
Bridgeview Consulting 3-22 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
The Planning Team reviewed the 2015 definition of critical facility, and made some slight modifications
for the 2020 update to be more in line with the intent and capabilities of the County and its planning partners.
As such, the definition for this hazard 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan is as follows:
Police stations, fire stations, city/county/tribal government facilities (including those that house
critical information technology and communication infrastructure), vehicle and equipment
storage facilities, communications center (dispatch), and emergency operations centers needed
for disaster response before, during, and after hazard events.
Public and private utilities and infrastructure vital to maintaining or restoring normal services
to areas damaged by hazard events. These facilities include but are not limited to:
Public and private water supply infrastructure, water and wastewater treatment
facilities and infrastructure, potable water pumping, flow regulation, distribution and
storage facilities and infrastructure.
Public and private power generation (electrical and non-electrical), regulation and
distribution facilities and infrastructure.
Data and server communication facilities.
Structures that manage or limit the impacts of natural hazards such as regional flood
conveyance systems, potable water truck, main interconnect systems and redundant pipes
crossing fault lines and reservoirs.
Major road and rail systems including bridges, airports, bus and marine terminal facilities.
Educational facilities, including K-12 and community college.
Hospitals and major medical/health care facilities.
Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic,
and/or water-reactive materials.
Once the definition of critical facilities was confirmed, facilities within the planning area that fit the
definition were inventoried using the comprehensive data management system extension to HAZUS-MH.
Data was collected from a variety of sources. Data attributes on identified critical facilities were provided
to the planning team, who developed an overlay map of the critical facilities. This map was compared with
Spokane County hazard maps in order to identify which critical facilities are located in hazardous areas. To
maintain confidentiality, the risk to these facilities is presented generically without giving location or
estimated replacement costs. These data are presented by broad planning areas. This list of critical facilities
resides with Department of Emergency Management, who over the course of time, will continue to update
the list with new structures as they are identified or constructed. The planning team is aware that there may
be structures currently not included on the list, and have established a means to ensure new structures are
added for future evaluation. Figure 3-7 identifies the location of critical facilities and infrastructure in the
planning area. Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 provide summaries of the general types of critical facilities and
infrastructure. All critical facilities/infrastructure were analyzed in the risk assessment process to help rank
risk and identify mitigation actions. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical
facilities with regard to that hazard.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-23 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 3-7. Spokane County Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Bridgeview Consulting 3-24 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
Table 3-9.
Spokane County Critical Facilities
Other
Medical and Government Protective Critical
Total
Jurisdiction Health Functions Functions Schools Hazmat Functions
10
6
Airway Heights
0 0 3 1 0
18
6
Cheney
0 1 4 7 0
11
Deer Park 3
1 0 2 5 0
2
Fairfield 0
0 0 2 0 0
2
Latah 1
0 0 1 0 0
9
6
Liberty Lake
0 0 2 1 0
7
0
Medical Lake
1 0 2 4 0
5
Millwood 1
0 0 2 2 0
4
Rockford 3
0 0 1 0 0
3
Spangle 2
0 0 1 0 0
219
106
Spokane
6 1 35 74 0
156
91
Spokane Valley
1 0 14 50 0
2
Waverly 1
0 0 1 0 0
171
Unincorporated 0 0 46 51 71 0
Total 297 619
9 2 116 195 0
Table 3-10.
Spokane County Critical Infrastructure
Total
Jurisdiction Bridges Water Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other
0
Airway Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
Cheney 1 0 1 0 0 0
7
Deer Park 1 0 0 0 0 6
0
Fairfield 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Latah 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
Liberty Lake 3 0 0 0 0 0
0
Medical Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
Millwood 2 0 0 0 0 0
4
Rockford 3 0 1 0 0 0
4
Spangle 4 0 0 0 0 0
150
Spokane 134 0 1 2 9 12
43
Spokane Valley 37 0 0 1 1 5
2
Waverly 2 0 0 0 0 0
280
Unincorporated 196 1 4 10 27 42
Total 383 1 7 13 37 65 497
*Other Infrastructure includes airport facilities and runways, bus facilities, dams, highway tunnels, natural gas facilities, and rail.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-25 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
3.9.1 Hazardous Materials
All communities located near Spokane Countys major transportation corridors (land, rail and air) are
subject to the probability of a significant hazardous materials release. Hazardous materials are transported
over or near numerous wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, and through densely populated centers.
For example, the major east-west rail corridor is three blocks and Interstate 9 is one-half block north of a
high school and both major regional hospitals. In addition, the rail lines pass near residential development
areas, blocking traffic into/out of the developments. This is particularly true within Cheney, who has
identified this issue as a potential mitigation strategy to potentially develop an alternate route for ingress
and egress into areas which are impacted by rail lines on a daily basis when loading and unloading cargo.
Beginning September 2012, oil from North Dakota has been shipped through Spokane County en route to
the refineries in Anacortes on a daily basis, and it is anticipated that the number of trips will increase over
the course of the next few years.
In addition, coal shipments have also become an issue of concern for many citizens, citing the impact from
coal dust on health. The State Transportation Department identified in excess of 25 crossing and highway
intersections, most of them in Western Washington and Spokane County, that may need improvements to
accommodate increased coal traffic. Coal dust has become an issue of concern for communities through
which coal is transported. Those individuals with respiratory issues could be more susceptible with
increased exacerbation of conditions with increased volumes of coal dust. As of this 2020 update, several
crossings are scheduled for replacement, but exact dates of construction have not yet been determined.
Natural disasters like floods, landslides and earthquakes can trigger hazardous material incidents. Illegal
drug labs used for methamphetamine manufacturing and illegal dumping of drug paraphernalia and items
used to cook drugs present yet another hazardous materials concern. Recent history shows an increase in
the national threat from terrorist use of hazardous materials. The combination of possible sources of
exposure to sizable population and workforce presents complex problems to responders.
Past Events
The various fire departments throughout the County do respond on a fairly regular basis to spill calls, but
fortunately, these have been fairly routine in nature, and not of major significance. While no significant
events have occurred to date within Spokane County, given the high farm and agricultural areas and the use
of chemicals in those industries, when coupled with the major transportation routes being utilized, the
potential for a significant type event does exist due to both the amount of chemicals stored and transported
throughout the region.
Location
With respect to locations of impact or concern from hazardous materials incidents, the most vulnerable
areas are those associated with the storage of hazardous materials, and those areas adjacent to the major
transportation corridors. Spokane County, being a high agricultural producer, maintains high quantities of
two types of potentially dangerous fertilizers. Ammonium nitrate, which was used in the 1995 Oklahoma
City bombing and other attacks -- including an attempt at the World Training Center in 1993, and
Anhydrous ammonia, which is on the top 10 list of chemicals leaked across the country.
Major transportation corridors are often adjacent to highly populated commercial and residential centers.
The greatest threat appears to be the transportation corridor through the City of Spokane. However, other
areas of the City of Spokane Valley and unincorporated areas are equally as vulnerable. Also of concern
are illegal operations such as laboratories for methamphetamine pose a significant threat. Laboratory
residues are often dumped along roadways, left in rented hotel rooms, transported in the back of vehicles,
Bridgeview Consulting 3-26 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
or cooked within residential structures. All of these scenarios create a serious health threat to unsuspecting
individuals, first responders, hazmat clean-up entities, and to the environment.
Illegal dumping sites for hazardous wastes such as used motor oil, solvents, and paint often dumped in
remote areas or along roadways, creating a potential health threat to unsuspecting individuals and to the
environment. Chemicals leaking from containers seep into ground-water, or are carried distances by
vehicles traveling through the sites. These chemicals also increase fire danger as many are highly flammable
and can cause fires to spread more quickly by acting as a fuel source.
Accidental releases of pesticides, fertilizers, and other agricultural chemicals may be harmful to both
humans and the environment. Agricultural pesticides are transported daily in and around Spokane County.
As an agricultural community, Spokane County has large quantities of pesticides, fertilizers and other
agricultural chemicals year round, with increased quantities during the growing seasons.
Licensed carriers also transport radioactive materials along several transportation routes through Spokane
County. The Spokane Region as a whole is highly engaged in the health and academia sectors for research,
hospital treatment and labs, which utilize radioactive materials. While the quantities in these sectors are not
extreme, there are increased radioactive materials disbursed throughout the County.
Frequency
Hazardous material incidents may occur at any time in Spokane County. To determine an actual frequency
interval is not possible given the presence of transportation routes crossing the County which carry
hazardous materials in unknown quantities and at unknown intervals. Additionally, the locations of
businesses and industry, hospitals, medical facilities and laboratories that use hazardous materials, as well
as the presence of scattered illegitimate clandestine drug laboratories and the improper disposal of
hazardous waste demonstrate unknown risk factors which make frequency determination in a quantitative
manner impossible due to the unknown variables. However, based on the review of the existing data, in a
qualitative assessment, the likelihood of occurrence of some level of hazardous material incident is
relatively high, although the County has thus far been fortunate in not having a major incident.
Severity
Hazardous material incidents are another significant issue within Spokane County due, in part, to the
unknown quantities and types being shipped through the County, as well as the amount of hazardous
materials known to exist for the various purposes mentioned. While hazardous material incidents can be
both intentional and/or unintentional releases of a material, because of their chemical, physical or biological
nature, they pose a potential greater risk to life, health, environment or property. Each incidents impact
and resulting response depend on a multitude of interrelated variables that range from the quantity and
specific characteristic of the material to the conditions of the release and area/population centers involved.
Releases may be small and easily handled with local response resources or rise to catastrophic levels with
long-term consequences, such as was recently experienced in West, Texas with the destruction of the West
Fertilizer Company. Fifteen people were killed as a result of the explosion, with hundreds injured.
Approximately 37 square blocks of the surrounding community were destroyed, including businesses,
schools, residences and a nursing home. The USGS recorded the explosion as a Magnitude 2.1 tremor.
Damage from the explosion was estimated by the Insurance Council of Texas to exceed $100 million of
insured losses; the town received a Presidential Disaster Declaration and sought recovery in excess of $57
million.
3.9.2 Infrastructure and Utility Failure
Societal norms indicate that we are fully dependent upon information technology and information
infrastructure. At the core of the information infrastructure upon which we rely is the Internet, which
Bridgeview Consulting 3-27 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
connects one computer to another, networking the nations infrastructure and essential services. Services
such as electrical transforms, water distribution centers, security systems (radar), and economic sectors
(stock markets) all exist with the infrastructure at its nexus.
While a technological incident of cyber-failure can occur internal to organizations or be a widespread
incidents due to an accident or resulting from a natural hazard, loss of information networks can have
serious consequences, such as disruption of critical operations, loss of revenue or intellectual property, or
loss of life. Of primary concern is the lack of redundant systems (or security measures) which could impact
infrastructure to the extent capable of causing debilitating disruption, including compromising computer
functions, and prolonged disruption of service. Those impacted by such cyber failures, including potential
data loss, can include government and private sector owned control systems for transportation and
communications, industrial processes, power and other utility generation and distribution.
Past Events
Infrastructure and utility failure can result from a multitude of incidents covering large areas. Incidents can
range from computer input or operator error to a lone vehicle striking a major power distribution line as a
result of an accident.
Cyber failure can and does occur throughout the County, including both public and private organizations,
but most often goes unreported for tracking purposes. The most frequent local cyber issues involve
disruption of service due to internal problems, and are more centralized in location of impact. However,
with the reliability on fiber optic cables, the exchange of information relying on the Internet, and the
reliability on control systems for delivery of service illustrates that impacts from technological incidents do
not have to be focused on incidents occurring within Spokane County, or even Washington State, but can
occur great distances away.
The failure of the North Eastern power grid of 2003 resulting from operator error impacted 50 million
customers in eight US states and the province of Ontario. The September 2011 event impacting portions of
the Western power grid - Arizona, Southern California, Baja California and Mexico - affected nearly three
million customers. Inter-dependence on critical infrastructure such as power generation encompasses mass
areas susceptible to potential impact from a technological incident. Fortunately, Washington and Spokane
County have not experienced similar type wide-spread disruptions. Rather, most disruptions occur as a
result of natural hazard impact such as a severe weather event, and are more locally focused.
Location
All areas of the County are susceptible to infrastructure failure or disruption of service as a result of
technological hazard. The impact to computer systems can include government and private sector owned
control systems for transportation and communications, industrial processes, power and other utility
generation and distribution.
Frequency
The utility infrastructure may also be impacted as a result of various hazard-related events, or through
accidental events. Routinely, the County and its jurisdictions can expect at least one incident of power
failure annually based on review of historic records. The length associated with the power disruption can
vary from a few hours, to in excess of weeks as was the case with the 1996 power outage resulting from an
ice storm. As part of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, major power distributors in the County
work with regulatory agencies to ensure protection of our power distribution centers.
Cyber-infrastructure failure resulting from non-terrorist related attacks against computers, networks and/or
information stored thereon, can occur at any time with no advanced warning. Cyber failure occurs with
Bridgeview Consulting 3-28 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
regular frequency as a result of server failure, power outages, lines being severed, etc. The time involved
can be from minutes, to days depending on the issue.
Severity
The length associated with the power disruption can vary from a few hours, to in excess of weeks as was
the case with the 1996 power outage resulting from an ice storm. The issues surrounding the primary cause
of the power failure has the potential to increase severity, such as extreme heat or cold weather, which has
the potential to increase impact to health and safety.
3.9.3 Transportation
The range of magnitude of impact from transportation incidents varies depending upon the mode of
transportation involved. Incidents involving commercial vehicles carrying hazardous materials; impact
from incidents involving structural integrity of bridges; air traffic traveling over jurisdictions, or railway
incidents carrying passengers during rush hour traffic can have a devastating impact on the County. Given
the amount of rail freight and other cargo moved over public access routes, the potential for a major
transportation issue is relatively high.
Past Events
Transportation issues occur regularly throughout the County. Daily accidents disrupt commutes. Train
derailments have occurred throughout the County, shutting down both passenger and cargo lines. The five
public airports throughout the County have experienced flight cancelations and delays due to various types
of events, including computer issues.
Location
All transportation facilities all have the potential for impact related to a technological hazards, which have
the potential to impact commodity flow. Spokane transportation routes include rail, highways, river traffic,
air and bridges. As a major transportation corridor, all areas and modes of transportation can be impacted
from the various technological hazards. Air and rail transportation can be disrupted through cyber-failures;
highway and marine traffic can be impacted from hazardous materials incidents. Bridges can be shut down
as a result of a vehicle striking the bridge structure itself.
Frequency
Over the course of time, the number of transportation conveyances has grown significantly throughout the
County, with increased populations traversing the roadways
Severity
Several of the primary critical infrastructure routes, as well as the other forms of transportation offer the
potential for a mass-casualty incident because of the heavy volume of traffic, although no highway or
surface street is exempt from this hazard. The railroad tracks traversing Spokane County, carrying Amtrak
passengers as well as freight, have the potential of mass-casualty incidents, as do the air corridors above
the county. Mass-casualty incidents may also result from hazardous materials incidents due to the potential
number of individuals impact. Adverse weather may also play a role in roadway, air or rail accidents,
enhancing the potential for a mass-casualty incident. However, mass-casualty incidents can occur
throughout the County, day or night, at any time of the year.
3.10 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The County and its cities have adopted comprehensive plans that govern land use decision and policy
making within their jurisdictions. They have also adopted building codes and specialty ordinances based
on state and federal mandates. Decisions on land use are governed by these programs. This plan will work
Bridgeview Consulting 3-29 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
together with these programs to support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the
risk associated with natural hazards in Spokane County.
As of this 2020 update, there are two on-going efforts which clearly demonstrate the connection between
mitigation planning efforts, and land use development trends.
Within both the unincorporated county below Cheney and within the City of Cheney, an area of land is
currently being reviewed for future residential development, possibly during the life cycle of this plan. That
area, as current maps project, could be impacted by the rail lines traveling the County, as the only ingress
and egress to the planned development requires the crossing of the rail lines, which are shut down several
times daily for extended periods of time when the rail system loads and unloads its train cars. Those cars
also carry Bakken Oil. This is of particular concern to emergency management and first responders due to
the potential need for evacuation, and the limited capacity to do that if the rail line has the access roads
blocked. All parties are looking to identify potential solutions to this problem.
The City of Liberty Lake has recently annexed additional land to its City boundary. That area will include,
among other things, a new school. While none of those areas currently fall within identified hazard areas
of concern, the City will none-the-less continue to utilize information from this plan as it continues to grow
and expand. In an effort to be proactive, the City is currently in the process of establishing regulatory
authority with respect to development in the floodplain in its quest to become an NFIP Community.
All municipal planning partners will seek to incorporate by reference the Spokane County Hazard
Mitigation Plan in their comprehensive plans, and will utilize the risk data identified as applicable. This
will assure that all future trends in development can be established with the benefits of the information on
risk and vulnerability to natural hazards identified in this plan.
3.11 LAWS AND ORDINANCES
Existing laws, ordinances and plans at the federal, state and local level can support or impact hazard
mitigation initiatives identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required by 44 CFR to include a
review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as
part of the planning process (Section 201.6.b(3)). Pertinent federal and state laws are described below. Each
planning partner has individually reviewed existing local plans, studies, reports and technical information
in its jurisdictional annex, presented in Volume 2.
3.11.1 Federal
Disaster Mitigation Act
The DMA is federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation. It emphasizes planning for disasters before
they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in place before Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funds are available to communities. This plan is designed to meet the
requirements of DMA, improving the planning partners eligibility for future hazard mitigation funds.
Endangered Species Act
The 1973 federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted to conserve species facing depletion or
extinction and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species
are threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species
live. The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened
or endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of
critical habitat. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may
jeopardize listed species. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in
Bridgeview Consulting 3-30 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of
the ESA and the Convention. Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species.
The ESA defines three fundamental terms:
Endangered
means that a species of fish, animal or plant is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. (For salmon and other vertebrate species, this may
include subspecies and distinct population segments.)
Threatened
means that a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future. Regulations may be less restrictive than for endangered species.
Critical habitat
means
and management of a listed species, whether occupied by the species or not.
The following are critical sections of the ESA:
Section 4: Listing of a Species
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for listing marine species; the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The
agencies may initiate reviews for listings, or citizens may petition for them. A listing must be
made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. After a listing
has been proposed, agencies receive comment and conduct further scientific reviews, after
which they must decide if the listing is warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in
this decision, but it may include an evaluation of the adequacy of local and state protections.
Section 7: Consultation
Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund
or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species
or adversely modify its critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a
federal permit. Once a final listing is made, non-federal actions are subject to the same review,
termed a consultation. If the listing agency finds that an action will take a species, it must
propose mitigations or reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action; if the proponent
rejects these, the action cannot proceed.
Section 9: Prohibition of Take
It is unlawful to take an endangered species, including
killing or injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
Section 10: Permitted Take
Through voluntary agreements with the federal government
that provide protections to an endangered species, a non-federal applicant may commit a take
that would otherwise be prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity
(such as developing land or building a road). These agreements often take the form of a Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits
Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing
agency to enforce the ESAs prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the
consultation process.
With the listing of salmon and trout species as threatened or endangered, the Pacific Coast states have been
impacted by mandates, programs and policies based on the presumed presence of listed species. Most West
Coast jurisdictions must now take into account the impact of their programs on habitat.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-31 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
The Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant
discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff.
These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the nations surface waters so that they can support the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.
Evolution of CWA programs has included a shift to more holistic watershed-based strategies. Under the
watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. A
full array of issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of
stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining
water quality and other environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach.
National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally backed flood insurance in exchange for
communities enacting floodplain regulations. Participation and good standing under NFIP are prerequisites
to grant funding eligibility under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The County and most of the partner cities for
this plan participate in the NFIP and have adopted regulations that meet the NFIP requirements. At the time
of the preparation of this plan, all participating jurisdictions in the partnership were in good standing with
NFIP requirements.
3.11.2 State
Washington State Enhanced Mitigation Plan
The Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA in 2018 provides guidance
for hazard mitigation throughout Washington. The plan identifies hazard mitigation goals, objectives,
actions and initiatives for state government to reduce injury and damage from natural hazards. By meeting
federal requirements for an enhanced state plan (44 CFR parts 201.4 and 201.5), the plan allows the state
to seek significantly higher funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program following presidential
declared disasters (20 percent of federal disaster expenditures rather than 15 percent with a standard plan).
Growth Management Act
The 1990 Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) mandates that local jurisdictions
adopt land use ordinances protect the following critical areas:
Wetlands
Critical aquifer recharge areas
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
Frequently flooded areas
Geologically hazardous areas.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) regulates development in these areas, and therefore has the potential
to affect hazard vulnerability and exposure at the local level.
Shoreline Management Act
The 1971 Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) was enacted to manage and protect the shorelines of
the state by regulating development in the shoreline area. A major goal of the act is to prevent the inherent
Bridgeview Consulting 3-32 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the states shorelines. Its jurisdiction includes
the Pacific Ocean shoreline and the shorelines of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and rivers, streams
and lakes above a certain size. It also regulates wetlands associated with these shorelines.
Washington State Building Code
The Washington State Building Code is comprised of several different codes. Most are national
model codes adopted by reference and amended at the state level. Others, such as the Washington State
Energy Code, are state-written state-specific codes.
The Washington State Building Code Council adopted the 2015 International Building Code, as well as
previous editions of the codes and the various amendments. Washingtons state-developed codes are
mandatory statewide for residential and commercial buildings.
Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning
Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning law (RCW 38.52) establishes parameters
to ensure that preparations of the state will be adequate to deal with disasters, to ensure the administration
of state and federal programs providing disaster relief to individuals, to ensure adequate support for search
and rescue operations, to protect the public peace, health and safety, and to preserve the lives and property
of the people of the state. It achieves the following:
Provides for emergency management by the state, and authorizes the creation of local
organizations for emergency management in political subdivisions of the state.
Confers emergency powers upon the governor and upon the executive heads of political
subdivisions of the state.
Provides for the rendering of mutual aid among political subdivisions of the state and with
other states and for cooperation with the federal government with respect to the carrying out of
emergency management functions.
Provides a means of compensating emergency management workers who may suffer any injury
or death, who suffer economic harm including personal property damage or loss, or who incur
expenses for transportation, telephone or other methods of communication, and the use of
personal supplies as a result of participation in emergency management activities.
Provides programs, with intergovernmental cooperation, to educate and train the public to be
prepared for emergencies.
It is policy under this law that emergency management functions of the state and its political subdivisions
be coordinated to the maximum extent with comparable functions of the federal government and agencies
of other states and localities, and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective
preparation and use may be made of manpower, resources, and facilities for dealing with disasters.
Washington Administrative Code 118-30-060(1)
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 118-30-060 (1) requires each political subdivision to base its
comprehensive emergency management plan on a hazard analysis, and makes the following definitions
related to hazards:
Hazards are conditions that can threaten human life as the result of three main factors:
Natural conditions, such as weather and seismic activity
Bridgeview Consulting 3-33 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Human interference with natural processes, such as a levee that displaces the natural flow
of floodwaters
Human activity and its products, such as homes on a floodplain.
The definitions for hazard, hazard event, hazard identification, and flood hazard include related
concepts:
A hazard may be connected to human activity.
Hazards are extreme events.
Hazards generally pose a risk of damage, loss, or harm to people and/or their property.
Washington State Floodplain Management Law
Washingtons floodplain management law (RCW 86.16, implemented through WAC 173-158) states that
prevention of flood damage is a matter of statewide public concern and places regulatory control with the
Department of Ecology. RCW 86.16 is cited in floodplain management literature, including FEMAs
national assessment, as one of the first and strongest in the nation. A major challenge to the law in 1978,
Maple Leaf Investors v. Ecology, is cited in legal references to floodplain management issues. The court
upheld the law, declaring that denial of a permit to build residential structures in the floodway is a valid
exercise of police power and did not constitute a taking. RCW Chapter 86.12 (Flood Control by Counties)
authorizes county governments to levy taxes, condemn properties and undertake flood control activities
directed toward a public purpose.
Flood Control Assistance Account Program
Washington flood control maintenance program was passed in 1951, and was called the Flood
Control Maintenance Program. In 1984, RCW 86.26 (State Participation in Flood Control Maintenance)
established the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP), which provides funding for local
flood hazard management. FCAAP rules are found in WAC 173-145. Ecology distributes FCAAP matching
grants to cities, counties and other special districts responsible for flood control. This is one of the few state
programs in the U.S. that provides grant funding to local governments for floodplain management. The
program has been funded for $4 million per Biennium since its establishment, with additional amounts
provided after severe flooding events.
To be eligible for FCAAP assistance, flood hazard management activities must be approved by Ecology in
consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. A comprehensive flood hazard
management plan must have been completed and adopted by the appropriate local authority or be in the
process of being prepared in order to receive FCAAP flood damage reduction project funds. This policy
evolved through years of the Flood Control Maintenance Program and early years of FCAAP in response
to the observation that poor management in one part of a watershed may cause flooding problems in another
part.
Local jurisdictions must participate in the NFIP and be a member in good standing to qualify for an FCAAP
grant. Grants up to 75 percent of total project cost are available for comprehensive flood hazard
management planning. Flood damage reduction projects can receive grants up to 50 percent of total project
cost, and must be consistent with the comprehensive flood hazard management plan. Emergency grants are
available to respond to unusual flood conditions. FCAAP can also be used for the purchase of flood prone
properties, for limited flood mapping and for flood warning systems. Funding currently is running about 60
percent for planning and 40 percent for projects.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-34 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
3.12 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
During this process, all planning partners collectively participated in discussions regarding the hazards of
concern, and issues which specifically impacted their own municipalities. Such discussions included land
use development trends that have occurred since the last plan was completed specific to their jurisdictions,
or special purpose district whose service trends are impacted by growth and development. These
discussions also included future land use trends, specifically as they relate to the built environment within
hazard-prone areas. The general consensus by all planning team members, both municipal and special
purpose districts, is that the expansion and growth experienced throughout the county has not increased
their respective vulnerability beyond the normal aspects of more citizens and structures for which they must
now account, and to which they must provide services. The County and its planning partners are fortunate
in this regard, in that expansion has not caused an increase in risk or vulnerability, nor created new hazards
of concern.
The Planning Team Members felt that existing land use regulations would continue to ensure that new
development was constructed in such a way as to not increase vulnerability, but still allow the municipalities
to grow and expand, increasing their economic vitality. Planning Team Members also felt that the
integration of planning efforts in place with respect to Growth Management and the review of the hazard
areas identified within this document would also help ensure compliance, and the least-negative impact
with respect to identification of the hazard areas. Such discussions were particularly relevant as the risk
assessment was developed to ensure that the planning partnership was addressing and identifying specific
geographic areas of concern not previously identified in earlier plans, including impact from land use
development.
One of the first questions posed during the plan development at the kick-off meeting was the element of
growth and expansion throughout the county and its municipalities. This was also particularly relevant
with respect to the update of the critical facilities list which was used in this update process.
Throughout the County, there have been large-area development projects that have occurred since
completion of the last plan. In some cases, new Public Development Authorities (PDA) have been created,
such as the West Plains/Airport Area Public Development Authority (see Figure 3-8).
Figure 3-8 West Plains/Airport Area Public Development Area
Bridgeview Consulting 3-35 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
While West Plains PDA is but one example of such entities in place throughout Spokane County (there are
multiple), in general, the purpose of Authorities such as this is to provide a legal entity organized under
RCW 35.21.730 - .757 to undertake, assist with and otherwise facilitate the acquisition, construction,
development, leasing, operation and maintenance of public benefit projects within the PDA boundaries in
order to assist all parties involved in their ability to improve the economic conditions in and around their
specific areas of authority. Such Authorities, during their development phases, conduct extensive outreach
with the public, local land use planners, tribal partners, and state agencies to ensure compliance of all
regulatory authority in place, including land use to ensure minimal negative impact in all areas of the
community development.
In the case of the West Plains area of the County, this is the portion where the largest amount of commercial
development has occurred, including the Amazon Fulfillment Center. The surrounding area encompasses
primarily Airway Heights and Medical Lake. This area, referred to as the northern side of the freeway
has experienced the most rapid and largest amount of commercial expansion
completionsouthside of the freeway, which encompasses primarily the City of Cheney,
has been and continues to be the area designated primarily for residential development. The City of Deer
Park in the northern portion of the County, has also increased in siz, with
approximately 300 new residential structures anticipated over the life cycle of this plan. The City of Liberty
Lake has also increased its number of multi-family housing units at a
moderate growth.
As a result of the development of the Amazon Fulfillment Center, Fire District 3 has been impacted with
respect to increased service calls in general, but not as a result of an increased vulnerability to the hazards.
Fire District 3 has also been impacted as a result of the City of Medical Lake
fire services, thereby annexing its boundaries into Fire Dist
All municipal planning partners, with the exception of one, the City of Cheney, have indicated that
development such that has occurred since completion of their last plan has not negatively impacted their
municipalities with respect to increased hazard risk, nor do they anticipate negative impact, with the
-related needs.
The one exception to this is the City of Cheney, specifically as it relates to an area of housing development
access being restricted by railroad tracks, not with respect to an increase in risk associated with the hazards
of concern, but rather, response capabilities. This issue is also a concern for the County, and both the City
of Cheney and the County have identified a strategy to work with the rail transportation carrier to identify
a method to address this issue. The City of Cheney does address this issue in more detail in their annex.
The City of Medical Lake historically has had concerns with respect to a dwindling aquifer, but has
established a second water source, which is anticipated to come on-line early 2020. The impact from a
system does not come on-line
to change with the new system in place.
The general consensus by the planning team members is that the expansion and growth experienced
throughout the county has not increased their respective vulnerability beyond the normal aspect of there
being more citizens and structures for which they must now account, and to which they must provide
services, potentially impacting budgets. Likewise, development itself has not caused additional hazards of
concern. The one exception to this perhaps is with respect to response capabilities within the new
developments. Due to the increased density, there is an increased risk to public safety personnel in response
capacity due to the close proximity of structures, and the increased population.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-36 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY PROFILE
In addition to the items identified in this section of the plan, each planning partner has prepared a
jurisdiction-specific annex to this plan. In preparing these annexes, each partner completed a capability
assessment that looked at its regulatory, technical and financial capability to carry out proactive hazard
mitigation, including the ability of the planning partners to address future land use development in such a
manner so as to not increase the risk or exposure from the hazards of concern. Such information, is
contained in these annexes, which identify regulatory codes and ordinances applicable to each planning
partner. Each hazard profile also provides information on countywide land use development trends.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-37 April 2020
CHAPTER 4.
RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
4.1 OVERVIEW
The DMA requires measuring potential losses to critical facilities and property resulting from natural
hazards. A hazard is an act or phenomenon that has the potential to produce harm or other undesirable
consequences to a person or thing. Natural hazards can exist with or without the presence of people and
land development. However, hazards can be exacerbated by societal behavior and practice, such as building
in a floodplain, along a sea cliff, or on an earthquake fault. Natural disasters are inevitable, but the impacts
of natural hazards can, at a minimum, be mitigated or, in some instances, prevented entirely.
The goal of the risk assessment is to determine which hazards present the greatest risk and what areas are
the most vulnerable to hazards. Spokane County and its planning partners are exposed to many hazards.
The risk assessment and vulnerability analysis help identify where mitigation measures could reduce loss
of life or damage to property in the planning region. Each hazard-specific risk assessment provides risk-
based information to assist Spokane County and its planning partners in determining priorities for
implementing mitigation measures.
4.2 METHODOLOGY
The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan evaluates the risk of natural hazards prevalent in
Spokane County and meets requirements of the DMA (44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(2)). The risk assessment
approach used for this plan entailed using geographic information system (GIS), Hazus hazard-modeling
software, and hazard-impact data to develop vulnerability models for people, structures and critical
facilities, and evaluating those vulnerabilities in relation to hazard profiles that model where hazards exist.
This approach is dependent on the detail and accuracy of the data used. In all instances, this assessment
used Best Available Science and data to ensure the highest level of accuracy possible. The output of the
data allows emergency management personnel the ability to plan by identifying potential hazards and
vulnerable assets. The process focuses on the following elements:
Hazard identificationUse all available information to determine what types of disasters may
affect a jurisdiction, how often they can occur, and their potential severity.
Vulnerability identificationDetermine the impact of natural hazard events on the people,
property, environment, economy and lands of the region.
Cost evaluationEstimate the cost of potential damage or cost that can be avoided by
mitigation.
Utilizing those three phases of assessment, information was developed which identifies the hazards that
affect the planning area, the likely location of natural hazard impact, the severity of the impact, previous
occurrences, and the probability of future hazard events. That data, once complete, is utilized to complete
the Risk Ranking process described in Chapter 12, which applies all of the data capture to the Calculated
Priority Risk Index (CPRI). Each planning partner completes this process for their own community, as well
as conducting the analysis on a countywide level.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
The following elements were utilized in the risk assessment process, and provide the foundation for the
standardized risk terminology:
Hazard: Natural (or human caused) source or cause of harm or damage, demonstrated as actual
(deterministic/historical events) or potential (probabilistic) events.
Risk: The potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from a hazard event, as determined by
its likelihood and associated consequences. For this plan, where possible, risk includes
potential future losses based on probability, severity and vulnerability, expressed in dollar
losses when possible. In some instances, dollar losses are based on actual demonstrated impact,
such as through the use of the Hazus model. In other cases, losses are demonstrated through
exposure analysis due to the inability to determine the extent to which a structure is impacted.
Location/Extent: The area of potential or demonstrated impact within the area in which the
analysis is being conducted. In some instances, the area of impact is within a geographically
defined area, such as a floodplain. In other instances, such as for severe weather, there is no
established geographic boundary associated with the hazard, as it can impact the entire area.
Severity/Magnitude: The extent or magnitude upon which a hazard is ranked, demonstrated in
various means, e.g., Richter Scale.
Vulnerability: The degree of damage, e.g., building damage or the number of people injured.
Probability of Occurrence and Return Intervals: These terms are used as a synonym for
likelihood, or the estimation of the potential of an incident to occur.
4.2.1 Hazard Identification
For this plan, the planning team considered the full range of natural hazards that could impact the planning
area and then listed hazards that present the greatest concern. This plan does not include non-natural (human
caused) hazards, as they are addressed by the THIRA. The process incorporated review of state and local
hazard planning documents, as well as information on the frequency, magnitude and costs associated with
hazards that have impacted or could impact the planning area. Anecdotal information regarding natural
hazards and the perceived vulnerability of the planning areas assets to them was also used. Based on the
review, the planning team confirmed the hazards to be addresses in this plan as follows:
Drought
Earthquake
Flood (including dam failures)
Landslide
Severe weather
Volcano (ash fall)
Wildfire
Bridgeview Consulting 4-2 April 2020
HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Climate Change
Climate change will affect communities in a variety of ways. Impacts could include an increased risk for
extreme events such as drought, storms, flooding and forest fires; more heat-related stress; and the spread
of existing or new vector-born disease into a community. In many cases, communities are already facing
these problems to some degree. Climate change may influence the frequency, intensity, extent and/or
magnitude of the problems.
Within the hazard mitigation plan, climate change will be addressed as a secondary impact for each
evaluated hazard of concern. Each chapter addressing one of the hazards of concern includes a section with
a qualitative discussion on the probable impacts of climate change for that hazard. While many models are
currently being developed to assess the potential impacts of climate change, there are currently none
available to support hazard mitigation planning. As these models are developed in the future, this risk
assessment may be enhanced to better measure these impacts.
4.2.2 Hazard Profiles
The hazard profiles describe the risks associated with identified hazards of concern. Each chapter describes
the hazard and
geographic boundaries, this data is identified within the associated tables in the base plan in which the risk
at the county level is also identified. The following steps were used to define the risk of each hazard:
General overview and description of hazard;
Identification of previous occurrences;
Geographic areas most affected by the hazard;
Event frequency estimates;
Severity estimates;
Warning time likely to be available for response;
Risk and vulnerability assessment, which includes identification of impact on people, property,
economy and the environment.
4.2.3 Risk Assessment Process
Once the profiles identified above were completed, the following steps were used by each planning partner
to define the risk of each hazard:
Determine exposure to each hazardExposure was determined by overlaying hazard maps
with an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to determine which of them would be
exposed to each hazard.
Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilitiesVulnerability of exposed structures and
infrastructure was determined by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and
assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Tools such as GIS
and Hazus (discussed below) were used in this assessment.
Where specific quantitative assessments could not be completed, vulnerability was measured
in general, qualitative term, summarizing the potential impact based on past occurrences,
Bridgeview Consulting 4-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
spatial extent, and subjective damage and casualty potential. Those items were categorized
utilizing the criteria established in the CPRI index.
The final step in the process was to determine the cumulative results of vulnerability based on
the risk assessment and Calculated Priority Risk Index (discussed below) scoring, assigning a
final qualitative assessment based on the following classifications:
Extremely LowThe occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very
minimal to nonexistent.
LowMinimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and
property is minimal.
MediumModerate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated
and less costly than a more widespread disaster. Occurrences are frequent, with more
documented historic events.
HighWidespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in
this category have occurred in the past, and have a high probability of reoccurring.
Extremely HighVery widespread with catastrophic impact. Hazards in this category may
have occurred in the past, and have a high probability for reoccurring.
4.2.4 Hazus and GIS Applications
Earthquake and Flood Modeling Overview
In 1997, FEMA developed the standardized Hazards U.S., or Hazus, model to estimate losses caused by
earthquakes and identify areas that face the highest risk and potential for loss. Hazus was later expanded
into a multi-hazard methodology, Hazus-MH, with new models for estimating potential losses from
hurricanes and floods. The most recent model of Hazus now allows for Tsunami modeling to occurring in
certain regions.
Hazus is a GIS-based software program used to support risk assessments, mitigation planning, and
emergency planning and response. It provides a wide range of inventory data, such as demographics,
building stock, critical facility, transportation and utility lifeline, and multiple models to estimate potential
losses from natural disasters. The program maps and displays hazard data and the results of damage and
economic loss estimates for buildings and infrastructure. Its advantages include the following:
Provides a consistent methodology for assessing risk across geographic and political entities.
Provides a way to save data so that it can readily be updated as population, inventory, and other
factors change and as mitigation-planning efforts evolve.
Facilitates the review of mitigation plans because it helps to ensure that FEMA methodologies
are incorporated.
Supports grant applications by calculating benefits using FEMA definitions and terminology.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-4 April 2020
HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Produces hazard data and loss estimates that can be used in communication with local
stakeholders.
Is administered by the local government and can be used to manage and update a hazard
mitigation plan throughout its implementation.
Levels of Detail for Evaluation
Hazus provides default data for inventory, vulnerability and hazards. This default data can be supplemented
with local data to provide a more refined analysis. The model can carry out three levels of analysis,
depending on the format and level of detail of information about the planning area:
Level 1All of the information needed to produce an estimate of losses is included in the
terms the characteristic parameters of the planning area.
Level 2More accurate estimates of losses require more detailed information about the
planning area. To produce Level 2 estimates of losses, detailed information is required about
local geology, hydrology, hydraulics and building inventory, as well as data about utilities and
critical facilities. This information is needed in a GIS format.In order to calculate losses due
to flooding, HAZUS uses the following inputs about the built environment: structure location,
occupancy type, square footage, first floor height above grade, as well as replacement and
content values.
Level 3This level of analysis generates the most accurate estimate of losses. It requires
detailed engineering and geotechnical information to customize it for the planning area.
Building Inventory
The Spokane County parcel layer was downloaded from Spokane County GIS data site on May 19, 2019.
This parcel layer consisted of 204,662 parcels. In order to be able to work with this large amount of data,
the parcel data layer was converted from a polygon layer to a point layer. From this new point layer
representing each of the 204,662 parcels, the exposure to each hazard included in this plan was determined
using spatial queries to determine whether the parcel was inside or outside of the hazard zone for each
hazard.
For the Flood hazard zones, the most current flood hazard data layer was downloaded from the FEMA map
service center which was dated to be current as of March 15, 2019. The 100 year and 500 year flood zones
were determined based on the attributes of the Special Flood Hazard polygon layer contained in the data
downloaded from FEMA. Spokane County parcels were determined to be inside and or outside the 100 and
500 year flood zones using spatial query methods within ArcGIS Desktop.
A critical facilities analysis was also conducted (inside and outside of HAZUS) and was based on general
exposure rather than estimated losses for some hazards of concern. Risk to structures is identified based on
the structure location and the corresponding exposure to hazard location, where geographically established.
A list of critical facilities developed by the County and its planning partners included geospatial data for
fire, police, schools, medical facilities, etc.
On completion of the analysis, each planning partner was provided the critical facilities list, on which
impact from each hazard is identified for each critical facility. That data was then utilized by each planning
partner to determine dollar impact (e.g., magnitude and severity within the Calculated Priority Risk Index
discussed below). The critical facilities list as a whole is considered privileged in nature from public
disclosure; however, each planning partner was left to make the determination as to how they wished to
Bridgeview Consulting 4-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
identify specific structures based on their policies in place. In addition, specific critical facility structure
impact data is further identified within the various Critical Facilities tables contained in each hazard profile,
identified by critical facility type, e.g., power, water, wastewater, etc.
Building impact was further identified in Loss Matrix Tables, which provide the breakdown to each of the
jurisdictional planning partners for use in completing their risk assessment. That data further identifies the
number of structures impacted and the population impacted (where possible) based on the specific hazard
of concern. As appropriate, that data is also identified within the various public outreach documents and
posters developed for the public outreach efforts. It should be noted that with all data, the critical facilities
list is continually in an update process, and should not be considered to be all-encompassing.
Hazus Application for this Plan
The following methods were used to assess specific hazards for this plan:
Flood
A Hazus (modified) Level 1 analysis was performed for the 2015 plan. Analysis was
based on current FEMA regulatory 100- and 500-year flood hazard data based on the 2010
Flood Study. No new FEMA flood study existed, and therefore the planning team felt it was
not relevant to re-do the similar Hazus analysis for the 2020 update. Focus instead was placed
on a GIS analysis to identify population and critical infrastructure at risk based on the
(Flood Insurance maps
here, as well as being downloadable from the FEMA
Map Center)
Earthquake
A Hazus Level 1 Hazus analysis was performed to assess earthquake risk and
exposure. Earthquake shake maps and probabilistic data prepared by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) were used for the analysis of this hazard. A modified version of the National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) soils inventory was used. The one scenario-
based shake map event utilized was the M5.5 Spokane Fault event, replacing the 2015 scenario
event of a M7.0 Latah Creek Fault.
GIS Application for this Plan
Dam, Hazardous Materials, Landslide, Severe Weather, Volcano, and Wildfire - For these hazards,
historical data is not adequate to model future losses as no specific damage functions have been developed.
However, GIS is able to map hazard areas and calculate exposure if geographic information is available
with respect to the location of the hazard and critical facilities inventory data. Areas and inventory
susceptible to some of the hazards of concern were mapped and exposure was evaluated. For other hazards,
a qualitative analysis was conducted using the best available data and professional judgment. Locally
relevant information was gathered from a variety of sources. Frequency and severity indicators include past
events and the expert opinions of geologists, staff, emergency management personnel, and others. The
primary data source was Spokane County GIS data, augmented with state and federal data sets, including
FEMA, USGS, NOAA, WADOE, and WADNR data. Additional data sources for specific hazards are
identified within the various profiles. In general analysis was completed as follows:
Climate Change
Existing information was utilized to present future impact of climate change
on the planning area. No specific analysis was conducted; however, existing data which
illustrates potential impact was incorporated to the greatest extent possible in a qualitative
manner.
Dam Failure
Inundation data was unavailable for all of the high- or medium-hazard dams in
the County. Therefore, available dam data was used to identify the location and hazard
classification of dams located within the planning area.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-6 April 2020
HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Flood
Inundation data from the previous FEMA Flood Maps were utilized and intersected to
identify exposure analysis for the 100- and 500-year floods utilizing the 201
Database and the 2020 critical infrastructure and facilities data to determine impact to people
and property.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials data was utilized, captured from the Department
8 Tier II reporting data, which requires updates by March of each year
within the State of Washington Rail lines were also illustrated, as they many times transport
chemicals into the area. Hazardous materials sites were incorporated into the critical facilities
data.
Landslide
Historic landslide hazard data was used to assess exposure to landslides using
Washington DNR Landslide Susceptibility data, in conjunction with Spokane County landslide
data. This data depicts landslide susceptibility at a 10 meter resolution across the state of
Washington. Landslide damages are illustrated based on the number of parcels intersecting the
landslide zone
Severe Weather
Severe weather data was downloaded from various sources, including the
Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Climatic Data Center, as well as
PRISM Precipitation, Average Low, and Average High data. Tornado Project data was utilized
to identify any events which have occurred in the planning area.
Wildfire
Information on wildfire analysis was captured from various sources, including
Washington DNR Wildfire History data, Wildfire Protection data, US Forest Service data, and
LAND FIRE data, among other sources. The County also maintains a Comprehensive Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP). Readers should view the CWPP to obtain additional information.
4.2.5 Calculated Priority Risk Index Scoring Criteria
For the 2020 update, the Planning Team utilized a Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) score for each
hazard of concern, addressing impact both at the county level, and at the Planning Partner level. The same
process was followed for both the County and by each Planning Partner. While the base plan defines the
process followed, each jurisdictional annex provides only the outputs rather than re-describing the entire
process.
Vulnerabilities are described in terms of impact to critical facilities, structures, population, economic
values, and functionality of government which can be affected by the hazard event as identified in the below
tables.
Hazard impact areas describe the geographic extent a hazard can impact a jurisdiction and are uniquely
defined on a hazard-by-hazard basis. Mapping of the hazards, where spatial differences exist, allows for
hazard analysis by geographic location. Some hazards can have varying levels of risk based on location.
Other hazards cover larger geographic areas and affect the area uniformly. Therefore, a system must be
established which addresses all elements (people, property, economy, continuity of government) in order
to rate each hazard consistently, and in a manner which addresses the functionality of each Planning Partner
involved (e.g., municipality, fire district, public utility district, etc.).
The use of the Calculated Priority Risk Index allows such application, based on established criteria of
application to determine the risk factor. For identification purposes, the five criteria on which the CPRI is
based are probability, magnitude, geographic extent and location, warning time/speed of onset, and duration
of the event (see Figure 4-1).
Bridgeview Consulting 4-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 4-1. Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)
Bridgeview Consulting 4-8 April 2020
HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Those elements are further defined as follows:
Probability
Probability of a hazard event occurring in the future was assessed based on hazard frequency over a 100-
year period (where available). Hazard frequency was based on the number of times the hazard event
occurred divided by the period of record. If the hazard lacked a definitive historical record, the probability
was assessed qualitatively based on regional history and other contributing factors. Probability of
occurrence was assigned a 40% weighting factor, and was broken down as follows:
Rating Likelihood Frequency of Occurrence
1 Unlikely Less than 1% probability in the next 100 years.
2 Possible Between 1% and 10% probability in the next year, or at least one chance in
the next 100 years.
3 Likely Between 10% and 100% probability in next year, or at least one chance in
the next 10 years.
4 Highly Likely Greater than 1 event per year (frequency greater than 1).
Magnitude
The magnitude of potential hazard events was evaluated for each hazard. Magnitude is a measure of the
strength of a hazard event and is usually determined using technical measures specific to the hazard.
Magnitude was calculated for each hazard where property damage data was available, and was assigned a
25% weighting factor. Magnitude calculation was determined using the following: Property Damage /
Number of Incidents) / $ of Building Stock Exposure = Magnitude. In some cases, the Hazus model
provided specific people/dollar impact data. For other hazards, a GIS exposure analysis was conducted.
Magnitude was broken down as follows:
Rating Magnitude Percentage of People and Property Affected
1 Negligible Less than 5%
Very minor impact to people, property, economy, and continuity of government at
90%.
2 Limited 6% to 24%
Injuries or illnesses minor in nature, with only slight property damage and minimal
loss associated with economic impact; continuity of government only slightly
impacted, with 80% functionality.
3 Critical 25% to 49%
Injuries result in some permanent disability; 25-49% of population impacted;
moderate property damage ; moderate impact to economy, with loss of revenue
and facility impact; government at 50% operational capacity with service
disruption more than one week, but less than a month.
4 Catastrophic More than 50%
Injuries and illness resulting in permanent disability and death to more than 50% of
the population; severe property damage greater than 50%; economy significantly
impacted as a result of loss of buildings, content, inventory; government
significantly impacted; limited services provided, with disruption anticipated to
last beyond one month.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Extent and Location
The measure of the percentage of the people and property within the planning area impacted by the event,
and the extent (degree) to which they are impacted. Extent and location were assigned a weighting factor
of 20%, and broken down as follows:
Rating Magnitude Percentage of People and Property Affected
1 Negligible Less than 10%
Few if any injuries or illness.
Minor quality of life lost with little or no property damage.
Brief interruption of essential facilities and services for less than four hours.
2 Limited 10% to 24%
Minor injuries and illness.
Minor, short term property damage that does not threaten structural stability.
Shutdown of essential facilities and services for 4 to 24 hours.
3 Critical 25% to 49%
Serious injury and illness.
Major or long term property damage, that threatens structural stability.
Shutdown of essential facilities and services for 24 to 72 hours.
4 Catastrophic More than 50%
Multiple deaths
Property destroyed or damaged beyond repair
Complete shutdown of essential facilities and services for 3 days or more.
Warning Time/Speed of Onset
The rate at which a hazard occurs, or the time provided in advance of a situation occurring (e.g., notice of
a cold front approaching or a potential hurricane, etc.) provides the time necessary to prepare for such an
event. Sudden-impact hazards with no advanced warning are of greater concern. Warning Time/Speed of
onset was assigned a 10% weighting factor, and broken down as follows:
Rating Probable amount of warning time
1 More than 24 hours warning time.
2 12-24 hours warning time.
3 5-12 hours warning time.
4 Minimal or no warning time.
Duration
The time span associated with an event was also considered, the concept being the longer an event occurs,
the greater the threat or potential for injuries and damages. Duration was assigned a weighting factor of 5%,
and was broken down as follows:
Rating Duration of Event
1 6-24 hours
2 More than 24 hours
3 Less than 1 week
4 More than 1 week
Bridgeview Consulting 4-10 April 2020
HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Chapter 12 summarizes all of the analysis conducted by way of completion of the Calculated Priority Risk
Index (CPRI) for hazard ranking. It should again be emphasized that each planning partner utilized the
outputs from the risk assessment to compute their CPRI for their own respective jurisdiction, following the
process identified.
In completion of this scoring process, each planning partner is provided not only the hazard profiles
completed during this process, but also a summary report, various loss matrix tables, maps, charts and
graphics identifying information at the jurisdiction-level, and also a copy of the critical facilities and
infrastructure table established at the onset of the process. The critical facilities spreadsheet is not published
within the document due to its confidential nature; however, each planning partner is provided the list for
use in identifying specific structures within their planning area which are at risk.
The rating is then incorporated into an Excel Workbook, which calculates the CPRI Score. Each planning
partnercompleted worksheet is summarized in Chapter 12. An example worksheet is illustrated in Figure
4-2.
Figure 4-2. Hazard Ranking Worksheet with Weighted Factors
4.3 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE AND RETURN INTERVALS
Natural hazard events with relatively long return periods, such as a 100-year flood or a 500- or 1,000-year
earthquake, are often thought to be very unlikely. In reality, the probability that such events occur over the
next 30 or 50 years is relatively high, having significant probabilities of occurring during the lifetime of a
building:
Hazard events with return periods of 100 years have probabilities of occurring in the next 30
or 50 years of about 26 percent and about 40 percent, respectively.
Hazard events with return periods of 500 years have about a 6 percent and about a 10 percent
chance of occurring over the next 30 or 50 years, respectively.
Hazard events with return periods of 1,000 years have about a 3 percent chance and about a 5
percent chance of occurring over the next 30 or 50 years, respectively.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
For life safety considerations, even natural hazard events with return periods of more than 1,000 years are
often deemed significant if the consequences of the event happening are very severe (extremely high
damage and/or substantial loss of life). For example, the seismic design requirements for new construction
are based on the level of ground shaking with a return period of 2,475 years (2 percent probability in 50
years). Providing life safety for this level of ground shaking is deemed necessary for seismic design of new
buildings to minimize life safety risk. Of course, a hazard event with a relatively long return period may
occur tomorrow, next year, or within a few years. Return periods of 100 years, 500 years, or 1,000 years
mean that such events have a 1 percent, a 0.2 percent or a 0.1 percent chance of occurring in any given year.
Seismic Design Categories based on statewide site class map assess for Spokane County are Categories B
10
and C for residential construction.
4.4 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
While not necessary for purposes of gaining FEMA plan approval as identified with 44 CFR 201.6, a
Consequence Analysis was completed for each of the hazards identified to assist the County in meeting
accreditation standards in its quest to achieve accreditation through the Emergency Management
Accreditation Program (EMAP). The EMAP standard for hazard identifications requires the County to
include a consequence analysis for hazards identified. The consequence analysis should consider the impact
on the public; responders; continuity of operations including delivery of services; property, facilities and
infrastructure; the environment; the economic condition of the county, and public confidence in the
governance. In some cases, such as those instances which are wide-spread and not contained within
Spokane County, such as the case with earthquakes, droughts, pandemic/health related, wildfires, terrorism
incidents, etc., the analysis also considers impact at those levels as well.
Impact on the Public:
Based on the risk assessment in the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), there is neither record of a historical
event or impacts as identified in the vulnerability analysis that would be considered catastrophic from a
countywide perspective. Historically, other than emerging disease/pandemic outbreaks or the potential of a
terrorist-related event in the highly populated areas, hazard events in Washington in general and Spokane
County specifically have tended to be moderate in size possibly approaching widespread, but not rising
to the level of catastrophic.
Three natural hazard events that may have a broader impact on the public at the state and county levels
would be a large earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) fault, a statewide severe winter storm
(including higher levels of precipitation in the form of snow or rain) or a significant wildfire season (such
as experienced in 2015 and 2017).
While the CSZ earthquake is not anticipated to have significant, direct impact on Spokane County from
ground shaking, the influx of citizens from the western portion of the state (either in need of emergency
services or evacuation), and the potential impact to commodity flow would be significant. This is
particularly true given the fact that Spokane County is identified as the alternate location for the Emergency
Operations Center for Washington State and are designated as a staging area as well for State Operations.
With the exception of the CSZ (and potential ensuing Tsunami), the impacts on the public from these events
would be moderate. The hazards with the greatest impact on the public (in terms of numbers of individuals
adversely affected) would be a CSZ earthquake (and potential Tsunami), an emerging disease/pandemic
10 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/geologic-hazard-maps#seismic-design-
categories
Bridgeview Consulting 4-12 April 2020
HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
outbreak, a terrorism event that included a nuclear dispersion device in the populated areas, or a severe
wildfire season, which would potentially tax resources nationwide as has occurred over the course of the
last few years.
The proximity of Fairchild Airforce Base in Spokane County does have the potential to increase risk with
respect to a nuclear device as far as Fairchild being identified as a target, but Fairchild itself does not
maintain nuclear devices; the primary purpose of the installation is as a refueling base for tanker aircraft.
Such service could (potentially) increase the risk associated with hazardous materials spills. While the
runways for the base are well maintained and secured, the flight path of the aircraft leaving the runways
does cross over residential (and other) areas.
Impact on Responders:
Because it is unlikely that a hazard event would be widespread enough in Spokane
existing mutual aid mechanisms and the ability to exercise Emergency Management Assistance Compact
(EMAC), should be sufficient to handle any hazard event. The exceptions to this may be an emerging
disease/pandemic outbreak, a terrorist event, wide-spread wildfire season, or a Cascadia Subduction Zone
earthquake as it relates to the influx of citizens from the Western portion of the state, and the activation of
Spokane
Continuity of Operations (COOP) and Continuity of Government (COG):
Spokane County Government does have a COOP and COG for use in the event facilities and/or agencies
are impacted. The County emergency management agency and several primary County departments
maintain the COOP and COG, as well as other disaster recovery plans. It is expected that affected agencies
would exercise their COOP/COG or recovery/response plans as appropriate. Private sector businesses are
encouraged to develop business continuity plans, but they are not mandated by the state.
Property, Facilities, and Infrastructure:
The HMP has collected and created risk assessments and vulnerability analyses for the different hazards it
profiled countywide from all planning partners. The process included the development of a critical facilities
.
One cautionary note in utilizing the data is that in some cases, depending on the hazard and the risk
assessment tool utilized (Hazus vs. GIS), aggregate dollar damage amounts are based on census blocks
versus the actual facility affected. Losses may be identified by the community (e.g., city or town) versus
the ownership of a facility or structure. In some instances, losses may overlap when identified as countywide
losses, and then within each jurisdictional annex. The HMP does not imply that the whole region would
actually have an event occurring countywide where the maximum damages are sustained by all of the cities
and towns identified in the county.
Environment:
Any hazard event has the potential for environmental impact. Flood events, for example, may result in
pollution of streams and rivers due to combined sewage overflows or hazardous materials; a tornado/wind
event will disperse materials, trash and debris over a widespread area; wildfires increase the potential for
flooding, while volcanic ash can cause acid rain and acidic properties that kill fish or livestock. A drought
may affect the environment in a different way by drying up wetlands, and weakening/killing trees and
forestlands. The three hazards that have a significant potential for environmental impact are: CBRNE (not
covered in this plan), emerging disease/pandemic outbreak (covered in a separate plan by the Health
Department), and
separately).
Bridgeview Consulting 4-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Economic Condition of the County:
Because most hazards in Spokane County would not result in a countywide catastrophe, the economic
impacts, while potentially significant, would be recoverable. The County, while high in agricultural lands,
has a very diverse and expanding economy even though there are areas where certain segments of the
economy are concentrated.
From a geographic perspective, an event that would affect the Spokane region would also have the potential
to have a greater impact statewide. For example, an invasive species or pest that would affect the wheat
crop in Spokane County, would also more likely than not impact other wheat producing communities
statewide. Or, as occurred during 2019, a drought might result in a more widespread deterioration of the
economic condition on one side of the state than the other, such as the current drought condition in Western
Washington, while the majority of Eastern Washington, the primary agricultural area of the state, has not
experienced the severity of the drought to date. Finally, an event affecting the City of Spokane, the hub of
county government, could have a significant impact countywide as the centralized area for processing of
payments (accounts receivable and payable) and operations for a variety of programs that could be
interrupted.
Public Confidence in Governance:
As has been demonstrated in catastrophic events in other counties, states, and countries, public confidence
to a hazard event. Even in more regionalized
or local disasters, this is the case although the effect of the disaster on public confidence is customarily
regionalized or localized except in those instances of horrific catastrophic impact which draws attention
from outside areas. The hazards most likely to have a widespread effect on public confidence in county
governance are those that either have the probability of statewide effect (earthquake, drought, severe winter
storm), those that have a high impact or consequence (terrorism, nuclear detonation/dispersion, emerging
disease/pandemic outbreak) and those that have a short speed of onset (terrorism, earthquake).
4.5 COMMUNITY VARIATIONS TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT
Each planning partner within their respective annex describes where or how their risk varies from what is
described in the hazard profiles and risk ranking. Variations are documented in the risk assessment section
in their annex to the plan, if appropriate. In some instances, declared disaster events may not have impacted
a specific jurisdiction or entity. Similarly, there may have been incidents of significance which did not rise
to a level of a disaster declaration, but were nonetheless significant to the jurisdiction or entity. As such,
those differences are noted where applicable.
4.6 LIMITATIONS
Various data sets were utilized in developing the risk assessment incorporated into this planning effort. In
attempting to utilize the various sources, discrepancies may exist. The models and information presented
in this document does not replace or supersede any official document or product generated to meet the
requirements of any state, federal, or local program, which may be much more detailed and encompassing
beyond the scope of this project. This document is intended for planning purposes only. This document
and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Spokane
information and use with respect to hazard mitigation planning, incorporating other relevant data into other
planning mechanisms as appropriate. While this process utilized best available science and scientific data,
the Planning Team, consultant, nor any of the planning partners conducted any scientific analysis within
this document, and none should be construed. The process reproduced existing data only in different ways
to meet the guidelines and requirements of 44 CFR 201.6. All data layers utilized are identified within the
various sections of this document should reviewers wish greater clarification and information.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-14 April 2020
HAZARDS OF CONCERN AND RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Loss estimates, exposure assessments, and hazard-specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best
available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise
in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built
environment. Uncertainties also result from the following:
Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct a study;
Incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic or economic parameter data;
The unique nature, geographic extent and severity of each hazard;
Mitigation measures already employed; and
The amount of advance notice residents have available to prepare for a specific hazard event.
These factors can affect loss estimates by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss
estimates are approximate and are for planning purposes only; not life safety measures. The results do not
predict precise results and should be used only to understand relative risk. Over the long term, as is
customary with all such planning efforts, Spokane County and its planning partners will continue to collect
additional data to assist in better estimating potential losses associated with other hazards as science
increases the validity of data.
Some assumptions were made by the planning partnership in an effort to capture as much data as necessary
to supplant any significant data gaps. One example of this is the valuation for structures within the assessed
data. For structures for which data was not provided, the missing information was determined using
averages of similar types of structures, determining square footage and applying a multiplier. This process
ide.
Some hazards, such as earthquake, are pre-loaded with scientifically determined scenarios which are used
during the modeling process. This does not allow for manipulation of the data as with other hazards, such
as flood. In the case of earthquake, greater reliance existed on the use of the Hazus default data, which is
known to be less accurate, most often causing higher loss values. Therefore, while loss estimates are
provided, they should be viewed with this flaw in mind. A much more in-depth scientific analysis is
necessary to rely on this type of data with a high degree of accuracy. Readers should view this document
as a baseline or starting point, and information should be further studied and analyzed by scientists and
other subject matter experts in specific hazard fields.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-15 April 2020
CHAPTER 5.
DROUGHT
DEFINITIONS
5.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
Drought
The cumulative
Drought is a prolonged period of dryness severe enough to reduce soil
impacts of several dry years
moisture, water and snow levels below the minimum necessary for
on water users. It can include
sustaining plant, animal and economic systems. Washington has a
deficiencies in surface and
subsurface water supplies and
statutory definition of drought (Revised Code of Washington Chapter
generally impacts health, well-
43.83B.400). According to state law, an area is in a drought condition
being, and quality of life.
when:
Hydrological Drought
Deficiencies in surface and
The water supply for the area is below 75 percent of normal.
subsurface water supplies.
Socioeconomic Drought
Water uses and users in the area will likely incur undue
Drought impacts on health,
hardships because of the water shortage.
well-being and quality of life.
Drought is a normal phase in the climatic cycle of most geographical
regions. According to the National Drought Mitigation Center, drought originates from a deficiency of
precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more. This results in a water shortage for
some activity, group or environmental sector. Drought is the result of a significant decrease in water supply
relative to what is normal in a given location. There are four generally accepted operational definitions
of drought (National Drought Mitigation Center, 2006):
Meteorological drought
is an expression of precipitations departure from normal over some
period of time. Meteorological measurements are the first indicators of drought. Definitions are
usually region-specific, and based on an understanding of regional climatology. A definition
of drought developed in one part of the world may not apply to another, given the wide range
of meteorological definitions.
Agricultural drought
occurs when there is not enough soil moisture to meet the needs of a
particular crop at a particular time. Agricultural drought happens after meteorological drought
but before hydrological drought. Agriculture is usually the first economic sector to be affected
by drought.
Hydrological drought
refers to deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. It is
measured as stream flow and as lake, reservoir and groundwater levels. There is a time lag
between lack of rain and less water in streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs, so hydrological
measurements are not the earliest indicators of drought. After precipitation has been reduced
or deficient over an extended period of time, this shortage is reflected in declining surface and
subsurface water levels.
Socioeconomic drought
occurs when a physical water shortage starts to affect people,
individually and collectively. Most socioeconomic definitions of drought associate it with the
supply and demand of an economic good.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Washington has a statutory definition of drought (RCW 43.83B.400), defining an area as being in a drought
condition when the water supply for the area is below 75 percent of normal and water uses and users in the
area are likely to incur undue hardships because of the water shortage.
Droughts originate from a deficiency of precipitation resulting from an unusual weather pattern. If the
weather pattern lasts a short time (a few weeks or a couple of months), the drought is considered short-
term. If the weather pattern becomes entrenched and the precipitation deficits last for several months or
years, the drought is considered to be long-term. It is possible for a region to experience a long-term
circulation pattern that produces drought, and to have short-term changes in this long-term pattern that
result in short-term wet spells. Likewise, it is possible for a long-term wet circulation pattern to be
interrupted by short-term weather spells that result in short-term drought.
It should be noted that water supply is controlled not only by precipitation, but also by other factors,
including evaporation (which is increased by higher than normal heat and winds), transpiration (the use of
water by plants), and human use. Empirical studies conducted over the past century have shown that
meteorological drought is never the result of a single cause. It is the result of many causes, often synergistic
in nature; these include global weather patterns that produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems
along the West Coast with warm, dry air resulting in less precipitation.
5.2 HAZARD PROFILE
5.2.1 Extent and Location
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed several indices to measure
drought impacts and severity and to map their extent and locations:
The Palmer Crop Moisture Index measures short-term drought on a weekly scale and is used
to quantify droughts impacts on agriculture during the growing season.
The Palmer Z Index measures short-term drought on a monthly scale. Figure 5-2 shows this
index for May 2019.
The Palmer Drought Severity Index measures the duration and intensity of long-term drought-
inducing circulation patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative, so the intensity of drought
during a given month is dependent on the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns
of previous months. Weather patterns can change quickly from a long-term drought pattern to
a long-term wet pattern, and the Palmer Drought Severity Index can respond fairly rapidly.
Figure 5-3 shows this index for May 2019.
The hydrological impacts of drought (e.g., reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.) take
longer to develop and it takes longer to recover from them. The Palmer Hydrological Drought
Index, another long-term index, was developed to quantify hydrological effects. The Palmer
Hydrological Drought Index responds more slowly to changing conditions than the Palmer
Drought Index. Figure 5-4 shows this index for May 2019.
While the Palmer indices consider precipitation, evapotranspiration and runoff, the
Standardized Precipitation Index considers only precipitation. In the Standardized
Precipitation Index, an index of zero indicates the median precipitation amount; the index is
negative for drought and positive for wet conditions. The Standardized Precipitation Index is
computed for time scales ranging from one month to 24 months. Figure 5-5 shows the 12-
month Standardized Precipitation Index map for June 2018 through June 2019.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-2 April 2020
DROUGHT
Soil moister indices also help establish baselines from which anomalies can be established.
Soil moisture is not only important for the agricultural aspect, but also for increased fire danger
11
(see Figure 5-7).
Nearly all areas of Washington are vulnerable to drought (see Figure 5-6). The coastal areas of Washington,
the Olympic Peninsula, and areas in Central Washington just east of the Cascades are particularly
vulnerable. High quality agricultural soils exist in portions of southern and western Spokane County. These
areas of the county sustain dry land crops such as wheat that are dependent upon moisture through the
winter and spring and dry arid conditions in the summer.
5.2.2 Previous Occurrence
Droughts recur every few years in Washington, although FEMA reports no presidentially declared drought
situations affecting Spokane County. In the past century, Washington State has experienced a number of
drought episodes, including several that lasted for more than a single season: 1928 to 1932, 1992 to 1994,
and 1996 to 1997. The droughts of 1977 and 2001, the worst and second worst in state history, respectively,
provide good examples of how drought can affect the state. The following are the most notable droughts
recorded in Washington:
June August 1922
From June 10 to August 20, the statewide precipitation average was
only 0.10 inches.
April 1934 March 1937
The mid-1930s saw the longest drought in the regions history.
The driest periods were April to August 1934, September to December 1935, and July 1936 to
January 1937.
1977
The 1977 drought led to widespread water shortages and severe water conservation
measures throughout Washington. More than 70 public and private drinking-water operations
reported water-supply problems. Wheat and cattle were the most seriously affected agricultural
products in the state. The Federal Power Commission ordered public utilities on the Columbia
River to release water to help fish survive. Agriculture experienced drought-related losses of
more than $400 million.
2001
The 2001 drought came on fairly rapidly. Between November 2000 and March 2001,
most of the states rainfall and snowpack totals were only about 60 percent of normal. The 2001
event was a result of warm weather melting snowpack into streams a month earlier than normal.
Nine large utility companies statewide advised the Washington State Department of Health that
they were highly vulnerable to the drought. Washington declared a statewide drought
emergency on March 14, 2001. As a result of the 2001 drought, 90,000 acres of agricultural
land were taken out of production; thousands of acres of orchards were unused, and the sugar
beet industry was out of production.
2005
Water year 2005 (October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005) got off to a good start.
October precipitation ranged from normal to well-above normal for most of the state. However,
precipitation was below average for much of the state from November through February, and
the fall and winter were extremely warm, which adversely affected the states mountain
snowpack. A warm mid-January storm removed much of the remaining snowpack. February
was warm and dry, and by early March projections showed Washington might be facing a
11
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/Drought/Monitoring/monthly-weasd-anom.shtml
Bridgeview Consulting 5-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
drought as bad as or worse than the 1977 drought. A statewide drought emergency was declared
on March 10, 2005. The state Legislature approved a $12 million supplemental budget request
that provided funds for buying water, improving wells, implementing other emergency water-
supply projects, and hiring temporary state staff to respond to the drought emergency. The
emergency proclamation expired on December 31, 2005.
2019
As of May 20, 2019, Governor Jay Inslee issued an emergency drought declaration in 24
watersheds statewide (see Figure 5-1). According to the Washington State Department of Ecology,
very dry conditions over the last several months and a diminished snowpack impacted streamflow,
which was identified to be well below normal conditions across most of the state. Watersheds west
of the Cascades crest, which are more rain dependent than rivers on the east side, flowed at much
below normal levels. Some rivers set record daily lows for historic May flows. Statewide, only four
(4) percent of rivers were flowing at levels above normal. Stream flows were strong in the southeast
corner of the state. Twenty-seven out of 62 watersheds were declared for drought as of May 20,
2019. Spokane County was not among the Counties identified as having a drought emergency. As
an agricultural area, droughts do have an impact on the County as a whole.
The total social and economic impacts of these events on the Spokane County planning area are not known
at this time
indicates that in the last two decades, the two major droughts which Washington has experienced identify
that in both cases, water levels were less than 75 percent of the normal water supply and caused undue
hardship. Both droughts also inflicted significant impacts throughout the state, which included the
following: increased production costs and reduced revenue in the agricultural sector; reduced deliveries to
junior water rights holders; reduced power generation; increased power costs; reduced survival of adult and
juvenile salmonid; and reduced visitation to ski areas. Estimates of drought damages to agriculture ranged
from $270 million - $400 million in 2001 and $195 million - $299 million in 2005 (Stephens et al., 2005).
Figure 5-1. May 2019 Drought Declaration Areas
Bridgeview Consulting 5-4 April 2020
DROUGHT
The 2015 Governor-declared drought on March 13 for the three regions of the State (the Olympic Peninsula,
the east slopes of the central Cascades, and the Walla Walla Basin) resulted in the Washington State
Legislature approving $16 million for Ecology to support drought relief work for the biennium. As the 2019
drought remains on-going, the ultimate cost is unknown.
5.2.3 Frequency
Drought conditions occur every few years in Washington. According to the 2010 Washington State
Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, Spokane County has experienced serious or extreme drought conditions
10 to 15 percent of the time from 1895 to 1995 and 20 to 30 percent of the time from 1985 to 1995. Thus it
can be predicted that Spokane County may experience the effects of drought at least once every decade.
Figure 5-2. Palmer Z Index Short-Term Drought Conditions (May 2019)
Bridgeview Consulting 5-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 5-3. Palmer Drought Severity Index - May 2019
Figure 5-4. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index Long-Term Hydrologic Conditions (June 2019)
Bridgeview Consulting 5-6 April 2020
DROUGHT
Figure 5-5. 24-Month Standardized Precipitation Index (June 2018June 2019)
Figure 5-6. NIDIS Drought In Washington as of June 11, 2019
Source: https://www.drought.gov/drought/states/washington
Bridgeview Consulting 5-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 5-7. Soil Moisture Impact
5.2.4 Severity
The severity of a drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size and
location of the affected area. The longer the duration of the drought and the larger the area impacted, the
more severe the potential impacts. Droughts are not usually associated with direct impacts on people or
property, but they can have significant impacts on agriculture, which can impact people indirectly.
Unlike most disasters, droughts normally occur slowly, but can last a long time. Drought can have a
widespread impact on the environment and the economy, depending upon its severity, although it typically
does not result in loss of life or damage to property, as do other natural disasters. The National Drought
Mitigation Center uses three categories to describe likely drought impacts:
Water supplyDrought threatens supplies of water for irrigated crops and for communities.
AgriculturalDrought threatens crops that rely on natural precipitation.
Fire hazardDrought increases the threat of wildfires in forest and rangelands.
On average, the nationwide impacts of drought are greater than those of any other natural hazard. They are
estimated to be between $6 billion and $8 billion annually in the United States and occur primarily in the
Bridgeview Consulting 5-8 April 2020
DROUGHT
agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and environmental
impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts.
Drought generally does not affect groundwater sources as quickly as surface water supplies, although
groundwater supplies generally take longer to recover. Drought conditions increase the demand for
irrigation and begin to deplete underground aquifers as deep as 100 feet. Reduced precipitation during a
drought means that groundwater supplies are not replenished at a normal rate. This can lead to a reduction
in groundwater levels and problems such as reduced pumping capacity or wells going dry. Shallow wells
are more susceptible than deep wells. About 16,000 drinking water systems in Washington get water from
the ground; these systems serve about 5.2 million people. Reduced replenishment of groundwater affects
streams. Much of the flow in streams comes from groundwater, especially during the summer when there
is less precipitation and after snowmelt ends. Reduced groundwater levels mean that even less water will
enter streams when steam flows are lowest.
The most direct impact of drought is economic rather than loss of life or immediate destruction of property.
A drought directly or indirectly impacts all people in affected areas:
In every drought, agriculture is adversely impacted, especially in non-irrigated areas such as
dry land farms and rangelands. A drought can result in farmers not being able to plant crops or
the failure of planted crops. This results in loss of work for farm workers and those in related
food processing jobs.
Other water- or electricity-dependent industries are commonly forced to shut down all or a
portion of their facilities, resulting in further layoffs.
A drought can harm recreational companies that use water (e.g., swimming pools, water parks
and river rafting companies) as well as landscape and nursery businesses because people will
not invest in new plants if water is not available to sustain them. A lack of snow-pack has
forced ski resorts into bankruptcy.
In Washington, where hydroelectric power plants generate nearly three-quarters of the
electricity produced, a drought means less inexpensive electricity coming from dams and
probably higher electric bills. All people could pay more for water if utilities increase their
rates.
Fire dangers, which are extremely high in the normal dry seasons, become more hazardous
under drought conditions. Control of fires strains the budgets of fire districts. This increases
manpower and equipment use and equipment failure. Millions of board feet of timber have
been lost, and in many cases, erosion occurred, which caused serious damage to aquatic life,
irrigation and power production by heavy silting of streams, reservoirs and rivers.
The Spokane ValleyRathdrum Prairie aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for over 400,000
residents in Spokane County, Washington, and Bonner and Kootenai Counties, Idaho. Recent and projected
urban, suburban and industrial/commercial growth has raised concerns about potential future effects on
water availability and water quality in the aquifer and the Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers.
While Spokane County does experience droughts, they are generally mild and do not cause damage to the
area. Thus, the likelihood of severe hardship due to drought in Spokane County is more limited in nature.
Crop losses would more than likely be isolated to the southern and western portions of the county. Cities
could experience water shortages.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
5.2.5 Warning Time
Droughts are climatic patterns that occur over long periods. Meteorological drought is the result of many
causes, including global weather patterns that produce persistent, upper-level high-pressure systems along
the West Coast resulting in less precipitation. Only generalized warning can take place due to the numerous
variables that scientists have not pieced together well enough to make accurate and precise predictions. It
is often difficult to recognize a drought before being in the middle of it. Droughts do not occur
spontaneously; they evolve over time as certain conditions are met.
Scientists do not know how to predict drought more than a month in advance for most locations. Predicting
drought depends on the ability to forecast precipitation and temperature. Weather anomalies may last from
several months to several decades. How long they last depend on interactions between the atmosphere and
the oceans, soil moisture and land surface processes, topography, internal dynamics, and the accumulated
influence of weather systems on the global scale. In temperate regions such as Washington, long-range
forecasts of drought have limited reliability. Meteorologists do not believe that reliable forecasts are
attainable at this time a season or more in advance for temperate regions.
5.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
The secondary hazard most commonly associated with drought is wildfire. A prolonged lack of precipitation
dries out vegetation, which becomes increasingly susceptible to ignition as the duration of the drought
extends. Loss of forests and trees increases erosion, causing serious damage to aquatic life, irrigation and
power development by heavy silting of streams, reservoirs and rivers. Low stream flows have created high
temperatures, oxygen depletion, disease and lack of spawning areas for our fish resources.
Often, drought is accompanied by extreme heat. When temperatures reach 90ºF and above, people are
vulnerable to sunstroke, heat cramps and heat exhaustion. Pets and livestock are also vulnerable to heat-
related injuries. Crops can be vulnerable as well. In past Washington state droughts, wheat has been
scorched, apples have sunburned and peeled and yields were significantly lessened.
5.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Research conducted by the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington indicates that the
temperature of Eastern Washington is increasing. As temperatures increase there will be less water stored
as ice and snow. This reduction may not result in a net change in annual precipitation, but it will result in
lower late spring and summer river flows. Accordingly there will be increased competition between power,
sport fishing and environmentalists, and farmers dependent on irritation.
The long-term effects of climate change on regional water resources are unknown, but global water
resources are already experiencing the following stresses without climate change:
Growing populations
Increased competition for available water
Poor water quality
Environmental claims
Uncertain reserved water rights
Bridgeview Consulting 5-10 April 2020
DROUGHT
Groundwater overdraft
Aging urban water infrastructure.
With a warmer climate, droughts could become more frequent, more severe, and longer-lasting. From 1987
to 1989, losses from drought in the U.S. totaled $39 billion (OTA, 1993). More frequent extreme events
such as droughts could end up being more cause for concern than the long-term change in temperature and
precipitation averages. This would be the result of less water stored as ice and snow in the hills and
mountains to the east. This would ultimately result in decreased stream flows in the spring in local rivers.
Competition for water would increase. Spokane County farmers and residents may be less affected than
those depending on irrigation for their water source. Crop insurance has provided the cushion to mitigate
the most adverse impacts of drought in the County. As the effects of regionally based changes in climate
begin to be felt, the County may consider building structures that compensate for the expected reduction in
natural storage and enhance aquifer recharge.
The best advice to water resource managers regarding climate change is to start addressing current stresses
on water supplies and build flexibility and robustness into any system. Flexibility helps to ensure a quick
response to changing conditions, and robustness helps people prepare for and survive the worst conditions.
With this approach to planning, water system managers will be better able to adapt to the impacts of climate
change. The planning team has identified the following drought-related issues:
Identification and development of alternative water supplies
Utilization of groundwater recharge techniques to stabilize the groundwater supply
The probability of increased drought frequencies and durations due to climate change
The promotion of active water conservation even during non-drought periods.
The best advice to water resource managers regarding climate change is to start addressing current stresses
on water supplies and build flexibility and robustness into any system. Flexibility helps to ensure a quick
response to changing conditions, and robustness helps people prepare for and survive the worst conditions.
With this approach to planning, water system managers will be better able to adapt to the impacts of climate
change.
5.5 VULNERABILITY
5.5.1 Overview
All people, property and environments in the Spokane County planning area would be exposed to some
degree to the impacts of moderate to extreme drought conditions. Drought produces impacts that span
many sectors of the economy and reach well beyond the physical area experiencing the drought. This
complexity exists because water is integral to the ability to produce goods and provide services. Drought
can affect a wide range of economic, environmental and social activities. The vulnerability of an activityto
the effects of drought usually depends on its water demand, how the demand is met, and what water supplies
are available to meet the demand.
According to the 2018 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, Spokane County is among the
75 percent of total land area of the state estimated to be at medium or higher exposure from droughts (see
Bridgeview Consulting 5-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 5-8risk index, Spokane County gained
12
) (see Figure 5-9).
exposure. At current indicators (June 2019), Spokane County is not among those counties declared in the
May 2019 drought situation; however, based on the low levels of precipitation, when reviewing the high
wildfire danger impacting in particular the eastern portion of Washington State over the course of the last
several years, it is clear that drought situations in the short-term significantly increase the long-range fire
prediction models, indicating drought as a clear and significant hazard of concern.
Figure 5-8. Drought Hazard In Washington State (WA HMP, 2018)
12 Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018) https://mil.wa.gov/enhanced-hazard-mitigation-plan
Bridgeview Consulting 5-12 April 2020
DROUGHT
Figure 5-9. WA EMD Illustration of Drought Risk Index (2018)
5.5.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
The planning partnership has the ability to minimize any impacts on residents and water consumers in the
county should several consecutive dry years occur. No significant life or health impacts are anticipated as
a result of drought within the planning area. While the entire population is at risk to being exposed to a
drought impact, Spokane County has less than five (5) percent of its population ranked medium or higher
when considering the social vulnerability impacts (WA EMD, p. 116, 2018).
5.5.2 Impact on Property
No structures will be directly affected by drought conditions, though some structures may become
vulnerable to wildfires, which are more likely following years of drought. Droughts can also have
significant impacts on landscapes, which could cause a financial burden to property owners. However, these
impacts are not considered critical in planning for impacts from the drought hazard.
5.5.3 Impact on Critical Facilities
Critical facilities as defined for this plan will continue to be operational during a drought. Critical facility
elements such as landscaping may not be maintained due to limited resources, but the risk to the planning
areas critical facilities inventory will be largely aesthetic. For example, when water conservation measures
are in place, landscaped areas will not be watered and may die. These aesthetic impacts are not considered
significant. Also of concern would be any limitations with respect to water availability to fight wildfires.
5.5.4 Impact on Economy
Economic impact will be largely associated with industries that use water or depend on water for their
business. For example, agricultural/farm areas will be significantly impacted. Likewise, landscaping
Bridgeview Consulting 5-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
businesses historically were affected in the droughts of the past as the demand for service significantly
declined because landscaping was not watered. Agricultural industries will continue to be impacted if water
usage is restricted for irrigation.
Review of Spokane County Census of Agriculture data (2012 most recent available for 2019 update), the
County ranks among the top five producers statewide in production of lentils, hay, wheat, sheep (including
goats, wool mohair, and milk), horses (including ponies, mules, burros and donkeys).13 The County is also
considered top producers nationwide in several of these products. Combined, the impact from a drought
export markets for economic sustainability could be high.
Additional economic impact stems from the potential loss of critical infrastructure due to fire damage and
impacts on industries that depend on water for their business, such as fishing industries, water-based
recreational activities, and public facilities and recreational areas.
Problems of domestic and municipal water supplies have historically been corrected by building another
reservoir, a larger pipeline, new well, or some other facility. With drought conditions increasing pressure
on aquifers and increased pumping, which can result in saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers,
resultant reductions or restrictions on economic growth and development could occur. Given potential
political issues, a drought situation, if prolonged, could restrict building within specific areas due to lack of
supporting infrastructure, thereby impacting the tax base and economy of the region by limiting growth. In
addition, impact to or the lack of hydroelectric generating capacity associated with drought conditions as a
result of reduced precipitation levels could raise electric prices throughout the region.
5.5.5 Impact on Environment
Environmental losses from drought are associated with damage to plants, animals, wildlife habitat, and air
and water quality; forest and range fires; degradation of landscape quality; loss of biodiversity; and soil
erosion. Some of the effects are short-term and conditions quickly return to normal following the end of the
drought. Other environmental effects linger for some time or may even become permanent. Wildlife habitat,
for example, may be degraded through the loss of wetlands, lakes and vegetation. However, many species
will eventually recover from this temporary aberration. The degradation of landscape quality, including
increased soil erosion, may lead to a more permanent loss of biological productivity. Although
environmental losses are difficult to quantify, growing public awareness and concern for environmental
quality has forced public officials to focus greater attention and resources on these effects.
5.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The U.S. Geological Surveys water use figures for Washington State show that public supplydomestic,
commercial, industrial, and thermoelectric generationuses about one gallon of every eight. Growing
counties will find their rate of water use grow as their population grows. Spokane Countys average annual
growth rate was above the state average. This rate of growth is anticipated to remain consistent during the
performance period of this plan update due to economic growth which the County is currently experiencing.
Each municipal planning partner in this effort has an established comprehensive plan that includes policies
directing land use and dealing with issues of water supply and the protection of water resources. These
plans provide the capability at the local municipal level to protect future development from the impacts of
drought. All planning partners reviewed their general plans under the capability assessments performed for
13
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Washington/cp53063.pdf
Accessed 8 July 2019.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-14 April 2020
DROUGHT
this effort. Deficiencies identified by these reviews can be identified as mitigation actions to increase the
capability to deal with future trends in development.
An extreme multiyear drought more intense than the 1977 drought could impact the region with little
warning. Combinations of low precipitation and unusually high temperatures could occur over several
consecutive years. Intensified by such conditions, extreme wildfires could break out throughout Spokane
County, increasing the need for water. Surrounding communities, also in drought conditions, could increase
their demand for water supplies relied upon by the planning partnership, causing social and political
conflicts. If such conditions persisted for several years, the economy of Spokane County could experience
setbacks, especially in water dependent industries. Spokane County may experience a period of prolonged
drought. The lack of precipitation would not affect crops or domestic water supplies for towns, but may
increase the risk of wildfires. Also affected would be electric rates.
5.7 ISSUES
The planning team has identified the following drought-related issues:
Identification and development of alternative water supplies
Use of groundwater recharge techniques to stabilize the groundwater supply
The probability of increased drought frequencies and durations due to climate change
The promotion of active water conservation even during non-drought periods.
5.8 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
An extreme multiyear drought more intense than the 1977 drought could impact the region. Combinations
of low precipitation and unusually high temperatures could occur over several consecutive years. Intensified
by such conditions, extreme wildfires could break out throughout Spokane County, increasing the need for
water. Surrounding communities, also in drought conditions, could increase their demand for water supplies
relied upon by the planning partnership, causing social and political conflicts. If such conditions persisted
for several years, the economy of Spokane County could experience setbacks, especially in water dependent
industries. Power generation could also be impacted, which could result in brownouts for load reduction.
First responders would sustain some level of impact due to potential decreased water supplies to fight fires,
as well as increased calls for service in responding to medical calls; hospitals, due to the heat customarily
associated with a drought situation, could also be impacted due to health-related issues; local governments
may be required to open cooling shelters as a result of the increased heat, or institute conservation plans to
help ensure water supplies.
In addition, drought conditions could impact the ability to fight wildfires due to low water availability.
Table 5-1 identifies the Consequence Analysis for the Drought hazard.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 5-1.
Consequence Analysis
L ML M MH H VH
Likelihood / Probability X
Geographic Boundary X
Population X
Vulnerable Population X
Built Environment X
Critical Infrastructure X
Facilities X
First Responders X
Economic Consequences X
Environmental Impact X
X
L=Low; ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium; MH=Medium-High; H=High; VH=Very High
5.9 RESULTS
medium or higher for drought exposure. As indicated, at current indicators (June 2019), Spokane County
is not among those counties declared in the May 2019 drought situation; however, based on the low levels
of precipitation, and when taking into account the impact of a drought situation on the high wildfire danger
impacting the eastern portion of the state over the course of the last several years, it is clear that drought is
a significant hazard of concern as the impact to the agricultural community (both crops and livestock) would
also be of significance. Based on those findings, the Planning Team determined the Drought Hazard to be
of medium concern, ranking a score of 2.75.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-16 April 2020
CHAPTER 6.
EARTHQUAKE
DEFINITIONS
6.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
EarthquakeThe shaking of the
6.1.1 How Earthquakes Happen
ground caused by an abrupt shift of
rock along a fracture in the earth or a
An earthquake is the vibration of the earths surface following
contact zone between tectonic plates.
a release of energy in the earths crust. This energy can be
EpicenterThe point on the earths
generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic
surface directly above the hypocenter of
eruption. Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocations
an earthquake. The location of an
of the crust. The crust may first bend and then, when the stress
earthquake is commonly described by
exceeds the strength of the rocks, break and snap to a new
the geographic position of its epicenter
position. In the process of breaking, vibrations called
and by its focal depth.
seismic waves are generated. These waves travel outward
FaultA fracture in the earths crust
from the source of the earthquake at varying speeds.
along which two blocks of the crust
have slipped with respect to each other.
Earthquakes tend to reoccur along faults, which are zones of
Focal DepthThe depth from the
weakness in the crust. Even if a fault zone has recently
earths surface to the hypocenter.
experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the
HypocenterThe region underground
stress has been relieved. Another earthquake could still occur.
where an earthquakes energy
originates
Earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest have been studied
LiquefactionLoosely packed, water-
extensively. It is generally agreed that three source zones exist
logged sediments losing their strength
for Pacific Northwest quakes: a shallow (crustal) zone; the
in response to strong shaking, causing
Cascadia Subduction Zone; and a deep, intraplate Benioff
major damage during earthquakes.
zone. These are shown in Figure 6-1. More than 90 percent of
Pacific Northwest earthquakes occur along the boundary
between the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate.
Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. Active faults, which represent the highest hazard, are
those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years).
Potentially active faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last
1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is active or potentially active depends on geologic evidence,
which may not be available for every fault. Although there are probably still some unrecognized active
faults, nearly all the movement between the two plates, and therefore the majority of the seismic hazards,
are on the well-known active faults.
Faults are more likely to have earthquakes on them if they have more rapid rates of movement, have had
recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement
can relieve accumulating tectonic stresses. A direct relationship exists between a faults length and location
and its ability to generate damaging ground motion at a given site. In some areas, smaller, local faults
produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong, and damage can be significant as a
result of the faults proximity to the area. In contrast, large regional faults can generate great magnitudes
but, because of their distance and depth, may result in only moderate shaking in the area.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 6-1. Earthquake Types in the Pacific Northwest
Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over five minutes; they may also occur as a series of tremors
over several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury
or death. Casualties generally result from falling objects and debris, because the shocks shake, damage or
demolish buildings and other structures. Disruption of communications, electrical power supplies and gas,
sewer and water lines should be expected. Earthquakes may trigger fires, dam failures, landslides or releases
of hazardous material, compounding their disastrous effects.
Small, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong and damage can be
significant in areas close to the fault. In contrast, large regional faults can generate earthquakes of great
magnitudes but, because of their distance and depth, they may result in only moderate shaking in an area.
6.1.2 Earthquake Classifications
Earthquakes are classified according to the amount of energy released as measured by magnitude or
intensity scales. Currently the most commonly used scales are the moment magnitude (Mw) scale, and the
modified Mercalli intensity scale. Estimates of moment magnitude roughly match the local magnitude scale
(ML) commonly called the Richter scale. One advantage of the moment magnitude scale is that, unlike
other magnitude scales, it does not saturate at the upper end. That is, there is no value beyond which all
large earthquakes have about the same magnitude. For this reason, moment magnitude is now the most
often used estimate of large earthquake magnitudes. Table 6-1 presents a classification of earthquakes
according to their magnitude. Table 6-2 compares the moment magnitude scale to the modified Mercalli
intensity scale.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-2 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Table 6-1.
Earthquake Magnitude Classes
Magnitude Class Magnitude Range (M = magnitude)
Great M > 8
Major 7 <= M < 7.9
Strong 6 <= M < 6.9
Moderate 5 <= M < 5.9
Light 4 <= M < 4.9
Minor 3 <= M < 3.9
Micro M < 3
Table 6-2.
Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity
Intensity
Magnitude (Modified
(Mw) Mercalli) Description
1.03.0 I
I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions
3.03.9 IIIII II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.
III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings.
Many people do not recognize it is an earthquake. Standing cars may rock slightly.
Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.
4.04.9 IVV IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened.
Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like a heavy
truck striking building. Standing cars rocked noticeably.
5.05.9 VIVII VI. Felt by all; many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of
fallen plaster. Damage slight.
VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight in well-
built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures.
Some chimneys broken.
6.06.9 VIIIX VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary
buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of
chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.
IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame
structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial
collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
7.0 and VIII and X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures
higher destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.
higher
XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed.
Rails bent greatly.
XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
6.1.3 Ground Motion
Earthquake hazard assessment is also based on expected ground motion. This involves determining the
annual probability that certain ground motion accelerations will be exceeded, then summing the annual
probabilities over the time period of interest. The most commonly mapped ground motion parameters are
the horizontal and vertical peak ground accelerations (PGA) for a given soil or rock type. Instruments called
accelerographs record levels of ground motion due to earthquakes at stations throughout a region. These
readings are recorded by state and federal agencies that monitor and predict seismic activity.
Maps of PGA values form the basis of seismic zone maps that are included in building codes such as the
International Building Code. Building codes that include seismic provisions specify the horizontal force
due to lateral acceleration that a building should be able to withstand during an earthquake. PGA values are
directly related to these lateral forces that could damage short period structures (e.g. single-family
dwellings). Longer period response components determine the lateral forces that damage larger structures
with longer natural periods (apartment buildings, factories, high-rises, bridges). Table 6-3 lists damage
potential and perceived shaking by PGA factors, compared to the Mercalli scale.
Table 6-3.
Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration Comparison
Potential Structure Damage
a
Modified Estimated PGA
Mercalli Scale Perceived Shaking Resistant Buildings Vulnerable Buildings (%g)
I Not Felt None None <0.17%
II-III Weak None None 0.17%1.4%
IV Light None None 1.4%3.9%
V Moderate Very Light Light 3.9%9.2%
VI Strong Light Moderate 9.2%18%
VII Very Strong Moderate Moderate/Heavy 18%34%
VIII Severe Moderate/Heavy Heavy 34%65%
IX Violent Heavy Very Heavy 65%124%
XXII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124%
a. PGA measured in percent of g, where g is the acceleration of gravity
Sources: USGS, 2008; USGS, 2010
6.1.4 Effect of Soil Types
The impact of an earthquake on structures and infrastructure is largely a function of ground shaking,
distance from the source of the quake, and liquefaction, a secondary effect of an earthquake in which soils
lose their shear strength and flow or behave as liquid, thereby damaging structures that derive their support
from the soil. Liquefaction generally occurs in soft, unconsolidated sedimentary soils. A program called
the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) creates maps based on soil characteristics
to help identify locations subject to liquefaction. Table 6-4 summarizes NEHRP soil classifications NEHRP
Soils B and C typically can sustain ground shaking without much effect, dependent on the earthquake
magnitude. The areas that are commonly most affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F.
In general, these areas are also most susceptible to liquefaction. Table 6-5 summarizes the NEHRP soils
classifications countywide.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-4 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Table 6-4.
NEHRP Soil Classification System
NEHRP Mean Shear Velocity
Soil Type Description to 30 m (m/s)
A Hard Rock 1,500
B Firm to Hard Rock 760-1,500
C Dense Soil/Soft Rock 360-760
D Stiff Soil 180-360
E Soft Clays < 180
F Special Study Soils (liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, organic soils, soft
clays >36 m thick)
Table 6-5.
Acres of NEHRP Soils within Spokane County
Jurisdiction B B-C C C-D D D-E E F Water Total
Airway Heights 228.2 0 3,065.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 3,293.7
Cheney 794.9 0 1,437.5 0 526.4 15.0 0 0.0 22.4 2,796.3
Deer Park 0.0 0 3,968.3 0 0.0 40.5 0 0.0 0.0 4,008.8
Fairfield 0.0 0 0.0 0 289.0 289.0 0 0.0 0.0 577.9
Latah 70.9 0 0.0 0 107.8 20.3 0 0.0 0.0 199.0
Liberty Lake 652.6 0 2,822.1 0 339.1 117.4 0 0.0 0.0 3,931.1
Medical Lake 1,953.3 0 150.9 0 70.2 0.0 0 0.0 129.1 2,303.5
Millwood 0.0 0 440.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.2 440.2
Rockford 176.4 0 0.0 0 126.8 122.5 0 0.0 0.0 425.7
Spangle 0.0 0 0.0 0 188.7 35.7 0 0.0 0.0 224.5
Spokane 5,719.1 0 24,961.6 0 7,123.5 45.3 0 0.0 439.6 38,289.1
Spokane Valley 1,284.8 0 22,031.6 0 856.1 0.2 0 0.0 179.1 24,351.8
Waverly 42.7 0 0.0 0 129.5 86.5 0 0.0 0.0 258.8
Unincorporated 430,840.9 0 232,287.2 0 336,465.6 44,325.2 0 3,938.2 10,247.4 1,058,104.5
Spokane Co.
Total (Acres) 441,763.6 0 291,164.6 0 346,222.9 45,097.6 0 3,938.2 11,017.8 1,139,204.8
% of Planning Area 38.8% 0.0% 25.6% 0.0% 30.4% 4.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 100%
*Planning area for Spokane County calculated at 1,139,204.8 acres
Bridgeview Consulting 6-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
6.2 HAZARD PROFILE
The seismic history of the Spokane area is poorly understood since past events did not result in any major
property damage and distant seismograph stations did not pick up many of the low-magnitude earthquakes.
Newspaper reports indicate that between 1915 and 1962 nine earthquakes were felt only in the Spokane
area (indicating a local source), but none had the characteristics of the 2001 swarm sequence. A number of
these historical earthquakes were felt most strongly in the area of the Hangman Creek lineament. Many
geologists have mapped the Spokane area, but none had confirmed the presence of any major faults with
demonstrated offset that might be capable of producing earthquakes. The linear trace of Hangman Creek,
however, was noted by Griggs (1973). It can be traced for nearly 50 miles from the Tekoa Mountain area
on the south to beyond Nine Mile Falls on the north. The logical explanation for this was that the creek
followed the trace of a fault.
Geologists in the Spokane office of the Division of Geology and Earth Resources have been mapping the
geology of four quadrangles west and southwest of downtown Spokane. During the winter of 2013-2014,
the geologists evaluated results of whole rock geochemistry tests on basalt samples that were collected to
determine basalt stratigraphy in the Hangman Creek area, and found that basalt formations on the west side
of the lineament did not correspond directly to those on the east side. The lack of lateral continuity in basalt
flows could be attributed to erosion prior to deposition of younger flows. Alternatively, the lack of
continuity could be attributed to movement on a fault roughly paralleling the lineament. This proposed fault
has been informally named the Latah fault.
6.2.1 Extent and Location
In Eastern Washington, geologists have uncovered evidence of a number of surface faults; however, they
have not yet determined how active the faults are, nor determined the extent of the risk they pose to the
public. One fault, Toppenish Ridge, appears to have been the source of two earthquakes with magnitudes
of 6.5 to 7.3 in the past 10,000 years.
For most residents in the planning area, the 2001 Spokane earthquake swarm is the most memorable.
Earthquake swarms are events where a local area experiences sequences of many earthquakes striking in a
relatively short period of time, with the length of time used to define the swarm itself varying by days or
weeks. The quakes involved in the 2001 swarm were very shallow, with most events within a few miles of
the surface. The events occurred near a suspected fault referred to as the Latah Fault; however, the relation
between the fault and the swarm is uncertain. Geologists have mapped the Spokane area, but none
confirmed the presence of major faults that might be capable of producing earthquakes. State geologists
continue to investigate the geology and earthquake risk in Spokane.
Identifying the extent and location of an earthquake is not as simple as it is for other hazards such as flood,
landslide or wildfire. The impact of an earthquake is largely a function of the following components:
Ground shaking (ground motion accelerations)
Liquefaction (soil instability)
Distance from the source (both horizontally and vertically).
Mapping that shows the impacts of these components was used to assess the risk of earthquakes within the
planning area. While the impacts from each of these components can build upon each other during an
earthquake event, the mapping looks at each component individually. The mapping used in this assessment
is described below.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-6 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Shake Maps
A shake map is a representation of ground shaking produced by an earthquake. The information it presents
is different from the earthquake magnitude and epicenter that are released after an earthquake because shake
maps focus on the ground shaking resulting from the earthquake, rather than the parameters describing the
earthquake source. An earthquake has only one magnitude and one epicenter, but it produces a range of
ground shaking at sites throughout the region, depending on the distance from the earthquake, the rock and
soil conditions at sites, and variations in the propagation of seismic waves from the earthquake due to
complexities in the structure of the earths crust. A shake map shows the extent and variation of ground
shaking in a region immediately following significant earthquakes.
Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic
sensors (accelerometers), with interpolation based on estimated amplitudes where data are lacking, and site
amplification corrections. Color-coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations
between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. Two types of shake maps are typically
generated from the data:
A probabilistic seismic hazard map shows the hazard from earthquakes that geologists and
seismologists agree could occur. The maps are expressed in terms of probability of exceeding
a certain ground motion, such as the 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This
level of ground shaking has been used for designing buildings in high seismic areas. Figure 6-2
and Figure 6-3 show the estimated ground motion for the 100-year and 500-year probabilistic
earthquakes in Spokane County. The analysis completed during the 2015 update remained
sound, and as such, the data was determined current for this 2020 update. The maps were
updated to reflect the current edition and data input.
Earthquake scenario maps describe the expected ground motions and effects of hypothetical
large earthquakes for a region. Maps of these scenarios can be used to support all phases of
emergency management. The 2015 plan edition included a scenario on the Latah Creek Fault
(M7.0) for which no data existed to support such an event. As such, the planning team
determined that the outputs were not a reliable estimation, and removed the event. For this
2020 update, one scenario was chosen: a M5.5 event on the Spokane fault with a shallow depth
and epicenter in Spokane County, 10 miles north of Steptoe Butte (see Figure 6-4).
Bridgeview Consulting 6-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 6-2. Peak Ground Acceleration; 100-Year Probability Event
Bridgeview Consulting 6-8 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Figure 6-3. Peak Ground Acceleration; 500-Year Probability Event
Bridgeview Consulting 6-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 6-4. Peak Ground Acceleration; Spokane M5.5 Scenario
Bridgeview Consulting 6-10 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
NEHRP Soil Maps
NEHRP soil types define the locations that will be significantly impacted by an earthquake. NEHRP Soils
B and C typically can sustain low-magnitude ground shaking without much effect. The areas that are most
commonly affected by ground shaking have NEHRP Soils D, E and F. Figure 6-6 shows NEHRP soil
classifications in the county.
Liquefaction Maps
Soil liquefaction maps are useful tools to assess potential damage from earthquakes. When the ground
liquefies, sandy or silty materials saturated with water behave like a liquid, causing pipes to leak, roads and
airport runways to buckle, and building foundations to be damaged. In general, areas with NEHRP Soils D,
E and F are also susceptible to liquefaction. If there is a dry soil crust, excess water will sometimes come
to the surface through cracks in the confining layer, bringing liquefied sand with it, creating sand boils.
Figure 6-7. Liquefaction Susceptibility
shows the liquefaction susceptibility in Spokane County.
6.2.1 Previous Occurrence
While earthquakes do occur within Spokane County, they are customarily of a lower magnitude as recorded
by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (see Figure 6-5)14. The most recent earthquake event of a magnitude
4 or higher occurred in 2001, when the county experienced a swarm of earthquakes. The largest earthquake
in that swarm had a magnitude of 4.0.
Within the planning region, Washingtons two largest crustal earthquakes since European settlement
occurred in Eastern Washington: the 1872 quake near Lake Chelan and the 1936 earthquake near Walla
Walla. Of these two, only the Walla Walla earthquake caused any damage in Spokane County.
Additional data and impact for historic earthquake events are discussed below.
14 Earthquake Track. Accessed May 10, 2019. Available online at: https://earthquaketrack.com/us-wa-spokane/recent
Bridgeview Consulting 6-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 6-5. Earthquake History June 26, 2019 Spokane County
Lake Chelan, December 14, 1872
The magnitude 6.8 (estimated) Lake Chelan earthquake occurred about 9:40 p.m. and was felt from British
Columbia to Oregon and from the Pacific Ocean to Montana. It occurred in a wilderness area that had only
a few inhabitants. Reported effects included the following:
Extensive landslides occurred on shorelines of the Columbia River. One slide, at Ribbon Cliff
between Entiat and Winesap, blocked the Columbia River for several hours. Other slides
occurred throughout the Cascade Mountains.
Ground fissures occurred at the east end of Lake Chelan in the area of the Indian camp area; in
the Chelan Landing-Chelan Falls area; on a mountain about 12 miles west of the Indian camp
area; on the east side of the Columbia River (where three springs formed); and near the top of
a ridge on the east side of the Columbia River.
Water spouted as much as 27 feet in the air from a fissure at Chelan Falls. The geyser activity
continued for several days, and, after diminishing, left permanent springs.
In the area of the epicenter, the quake damaged one log building near the mouth of the
Wenatchee River. Ground shaking threw people to the floor, waves were observed in the
ground, and loud detonations were heard. The logs on another cabin caved in about 2 miles
above the Ribbon Cliff slide area.
Damaging ground shaking of intensity VI extended to the west throughout the Puget Sound
basin and to the southeast beyond the Hanford Site. Individuals in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and
Canada felt the earthquake. Aftershocks occurred in the area for two years.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-12 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Walla Walla Earthquake, July 15, 1936
This magnitude-6.1 earthquake occurred at 11:05 a.m. about 5 miles south-southeast of Walla Walla. It was
widely felt through Oregon, Washington and northern Idaho, with the greatest shaking in northeast Oregon.
Property damage was estimated at $100,000 (about $1.35 million in 2004 dollars).
The earthquake moved small objects, rattled windows, and cracked plaster in Colfax, Hooper, Page,
Pomeroy, Prescott, Touchet, Wallula and Wheeler; most of the impact and damage was near Walla Walla.
The earthquake knocked down a few chimneys and many loose chimney bricks; damaged a brick home
used by the warden at the State Penitentiary that was condemned and declared unsafe; and damaged the
local railroad station. Several homes moved an inch or less on their foundations. Five miles southwest of
Walla Walla, the quake restored the flow of a weakened 600-foot deep artesian well to close to original
strength; the flow had not diminished after several months. Walla Walla residents reported about 15 or 20
aftershocks.
Hebgen Lake (Montana), August 18, 1959
The Hebgen Lake earthquake in Montana was felt in parts of eastern Washington. The magnitude-7.5 event
generated Intensity X shaking, killed 28 people as a result of a landslide, formed Quake Lake, and did
$11 million in damage to roads and timber. Many campers in the Yellowstone area were trapped for days
and a fishing lodge dropped into a lake. There were six aftershocks of magnitude 5.5 or greater within one
day. The initial earthquake was felt in an area of over 450,000 square miles.
Borah Peak (Idaho), October 28, 1983
The Borah Peak earthquake was the largest recorded in Idaho, both in magnitude and in the amount of
property damage. At a magnitude of 7.3, it was also the largest earthquake to hit the continental United
States since the Hebgen Lake quake. The epicenter was in the Barton Flats area, 10 miles northwest of
Mackay and 30 miles southeast of Challis. The maximum observed Intensity was IX (based on surface
faulting), and the earthquake was felt in an area over 330,000 square miles. Four aftershocks of magnitude
5.5 or greater were recorded within 1 year.
Spokane Earthquake Swarm, 2001
Spokane in 2001 had the most noticed earthquake swarm in the Northwest in recent decades. Scientists at
the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network in Seattle said the epicenter of the events was 1 mile north of
Gonzaga University and 2.9 miles underground. The U.S. Geological Survey stated that a sequence of 105
small (less than magnitude 4) earthquakes occurred beneath Spokane, accompanied by a small increase (1/2
inch) in ground elevation. The shape of the deforming ground surface was consistent with movement on a
northeast-trending fault beneath Spokane, yet no known mapped faults in Spokane have been active in the
last 1.6 million years.15 The largest of the quakes was less than a Magnitude 4 event, so little damage done.
No property damage or casualties were reported as a result of the events. However, because the fault whose
movement caused the swarm was very shallow, even earthquakes of Magnitude 2 and less were felt. In June
and November, there were days with numerous quakes.
6.2.2 Frequency
The majority of Eastern Washington, including Spokane County is in a low risk area as defined by the
National Earthquake Reduction Program, and is supported by the fact that few earthquakes of significance
have occurred in the County. While the County itself may be at low risk, the impact from earthquakes in
15 USGS Geophysical Study. Accessed 25 June 2019. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/news/geophysical-studies-
reveal-potential-quake-hazard-spokane-area
Bridgeview Consulting 6-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
the western portion of the state will impact Spokane County, and it is therefore important to recognize the
frequency of earthquakes in the western portion of the state as well.
The USGS estimated that a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake has a 10 to 15 percent probability of
occurrence in 50 years, and a crustal zone earthquake has a recurrence interval of about 500 to 600 years.
In general, it is difficult to estimate the probability of occurrence of crustal earthquake events. The best
estimate for a major crustal earthquake to occur is once every 1000 years. A Benioff zone earthquake has
an 85 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years, making it the most likely of the three types.
Because of its location at the boundary of two major tectonic plates, Washington State is particularly
vulnerable to earthquakes. FEMA has determined that Washington State ranks second (behind only
California) among states most susceptible to damaging earthquakes. According to the Washington State
Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, the probability of future occurrence for earthquakes similar to the 1965
Magnitude 6.5 Seattle-Tacoma event and the 2001 Magnitude 6.8 Nisqually event is about once every 35
years. The USGS has estimated that there is an 84-percent chance of a Magnitude 6.5 or greater deep
earthquake over the next 50 years.
6.2.3 Severity
The severity of an earthquake can be expressed in terms of intensity or magnitude. Intensity represents the
observed effects of ground shaking on people, buildings and natural features. The USGS has created ground
motion maps based on current information about several fault zones. These maps show the PGA that has a
certain probability (2 percent or 10 percent) of being exceeded in a 50-year period. The PGA is measured
in numbers of gs (the acceleration associated with gravity). Figure 6-9 shows the PGAs with a 2-percent
exceedance chance in 50 years in Washington. The Eastern Washington area, including Spokane County,
is in a low-risk area, with a 2 percent probability in a 50-year period of ground shaking from a seismic event
exceeding 0.15 g.
Magnitude is related to the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of an earthquake. It is
determined by the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments. Whereas intensity varies
depending on location with respect to the earthquake epicenter, magnitude is represented by a single,
instrumentally determined value for each earthquake event.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-14 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Figure 6-6. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Site Classes
Bridgeview Consulting 6-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 6-7. Liquefaction Susceptibility
Bridgeview Consulting 6-16 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Figure 6-8. Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years - Nationwide
Bridgeview Consulting 6-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 6-9. PGA with 2-Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, Northwest Region
In simplistic terms, the severity of an earthquake event can be measured in the following terms:
How hard did the ground shake?
How did the ground move? (Horizontally or vertically)
How stable was the soil?
What is the fragility of the built environment in the area of impact?
Past events have indicated that an earthquake in the Spokane County area would cause little or no damage.
Most crustal earthquakes are in 5.0 to 5.5 magnitude range, and do not have a history of occurrence in the
planning area. Nonetheless severity can increase in areas that have softer soils, such as the unconsolidated
sediments found in the Spokane River Valley.
6.2.4 Warning Time
There is currently no reliable way to predict the day or month that an earthquake will occur at any given
location. Researchers have developed an early warning system that uses the low energy waves that precede
major earthquakes, although such systems are not in place within Spokane County. This system can give
some advanced notice that a major earthquake is about to occur. While the warning time is short, it could
allow for some response activities during surgical procedures, allow equipment to be shut down, or allow
someone to get under a desk or step away from a window.
6.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Earthquakes can cause large and sometimes disastrous landslides and mudslides. River valleys are
vulnerable to slope failure, often as a result of loss of cohesion in clay-rich soils. Soil liquefaction occurs
Bridgeview Consulting 6-18 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
when water-saturated sands, silts or gravelly soils are shaken so violently that the individual grains lose
contact with one another and float freely in the water, turning the ground into a pudding-like liquid. Building
and road foundations lose load-bearing strength and may sink into what was previously solid ground. Unless
properly secured, hazardous materials can be released, causing significant damage to the environment and
people. Earthen dams and levees are highly susceptible to seismic events and the impacts of their eventual
failures can be considered secondary risks for earthquakes.
6.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown. Scientists indicate that
melting glaciers could induce tectonic activity. As ice melts and water runs off, tremendous amounts of
weight are shifted on the earths crust. As newly freed crust returns to its original, pre-glacier shape, it could
cause seismic plates to slip and stimulate volcanic activity according to research into prehistoric
earthquakes and volcanic activity. NASA and USGS scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern
Alaska may be opening the way for future earthquakes (NASA, 2004).
Secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. Soils saturated by repetitive
storms could experience liquefaction during seismic activity due to the increased saturation. Dams storing
increased volumes of water due to changes in the hydrograph could fail during seismic events. There are
currently no models available to estimate these impacts.
6.5 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6.5.1 Overview
Several faults within the planning region have the potential to cause direct impact. The area also is
vulnerable to impact from an event outside the County, although the intensity of ground motions diminishes
with increasing distance from the epicenter. As a result, the entire population of the planning area is exposed
to both direct and indirect impacts from earthquakes. The degree of direct impact (and exposure) is
dependent on factors including the soil type on which homes are constructed, the proximity to fault location,
the type of materials used to construct residences and facilities, etc. Indirect impacts are associated with
elements such as the inability to evacuate the area as a result of earthquakes occurring in other regions of
the state as well as impact on commodity flow for goods and services into the area, many of which are
serviced only by one roadway in or out. Impact from other parts of the state could require shipment of
supplies via rail (if available) or via a barge to different destinations. Evacuation routes from the western
portion of the state through Spokane are also of potential concern as a result of the nature of the transient
population, and the potential for increased supply and demand for goods and services from evacuees.
Methodology
Earthquake vulnerability data was generated using Hazus analysis. Once the location and size of an
earthquake are identified, Hazus estimates the intensity of the ground shaking, the number of buildings
damaged, the number of casualties, the damage to transportation systems and utilities, the number of people
displaced from their homes, and the estimated cost of repair and cleanup.
6.5.2 Impact on Life, Health and Safety
The entire population of Spokane County is potentially exposed to direct and indirect impacts from
earthquakes. The degree of exposure is dependent on many factors, including the age and construction type
of the structures people live in, the soils type their homes are constructed on, their proximity to fault
location, etc. Whether directly or indirectly impact, the entire population will have to deal with the
consequences of earthquakes to some degree. Business interruption could keep people from working, road
Bridgeview Consulting 6-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
closures could isolate populations, and loss of functions of utilities could impact populations that suffered
no direct damage from an event itself.
Impacts on persons and households in the planning area were estimated for the 100-year and 500-year
earthquakes and the scenario event through the use of Hazus analysis. Table 6-6 summarizes the results.
Table 6-6.
Estimated Earthquake Impact on Person and Households
Number of Displaced Number of Persons Requiring
Households Short-Term Shelter
100-Year Earthquake 5 3
500-year Earthquake 88 52
Spokane M5.5 Scenario 22 14
6.5.3 Impact on Property
All structures in the planning area are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees. Many
structures throughout the county are aged, increasing the potential exposure due to lower building codes.
While most structures in the county are residential in nature, in some cases, retrofits or remodels may have
occurred which have increased building codes, thereby lowering potential exposure, but such information
is not identifiable with a high degree of accuracy based on when the retrofit was completed, and the
permitting process in place at the time.
In a recent study completed by Washington State utilizing the Washington Unreinforced Masonry
Dashboard (http://www.gartrellgroup.net/WashURMViewer/#7/47.347/-121.029/), over 850 structures
(public and private) were identified with a composition of unreinforced masonry and susceptible to damage
16
from earthquakes (March 2019 Bozarth interview with KREM2 TV).
Building Age
Structures that are in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) of 1970 or later are generally less
vulnerable to seismic damage because 1970 was when the UBC started including seismic construction
standards based on regional location. This stipulated that all structures be constructed to at least seismic
risk Zone 2 standards.
The State of Washington adopted the UBC as its state building code in 1972, so it is assumed that buildings
in the planning area built after 1972 were built in conformance with UBC seismic standards and have less
vulnerability. Issues such as code enforcement and code compliance could impact this assumption.
Construction material is also important when determining the potential risk to a structure. However, for
planning purposes, establishing this line of demarcation can be an effective tool for estimating vulnerability.
In 1994, seismic risk Zone 3 standards of the UBC went into effect in Washington, requiring all new
construction to be capable of withstanding the effects of 0.3 times the force of gravity. More recent housing
16 KREM2 Interview with Spokane County Emergency Management Gerry Bozarth available at:
https://www.krem.com/article/tech/science/environment/more-than-850-buildings-in-spokane-co-could-be-unstable-
during-quake-database-says/293-0563dfe0-a0b4-471f-8a49-009aac8f8580
Bridgeview Consulting 6-20 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
stock is in compliance with Zone 3 standards. In July 2004, the state again upgraded the building code to
follow International Building Code Standards.
Based on Census data, the median date of construction for the planning area is 1966. It is estimated that in
excess of 40 percent of the building stock in the planning area was constructed prior to 1972. The planning
team utilized different data sources, including information from the 2015 HMP, to identify the number of
structures within the County by date of construction. Table 6-7 shows the results of this analysis. It should
be noted that these are estimates only.
Table 6-7.
Age of Structures in Spokane County
Number of Current County
Time Period Structures Built in Period Significance of Time Frame
90,082
Pre-1972 No explicit earthquake requirements in building codes. State law
did not require local governments to have building officials or
issue building permits.
51,329
1972-1994 UBC seismic construction standards adopted in Washington in
1972.
47,418
1994-2004 Seismic risk Zone 3 standards of the UBC went into effect in
Washington in 1994
>29,000
2004 - present Washington upgraded the building code to follow International
Building Code Standards in 2004
which includes, among others, items such as barns,
sheds, carports and general purpose wood pole frame buildings, which were included in the above calculations.
Loss Potential
Property losses for the 100-year and 500-year earthquakes events were estimated through the 2015 HAZUS-
MH analysis process. Table 6-8 shows the results for those Hazus runs, broken down as follows:
Structural loss, representing damage to building structures
Non-structural loss, representing the value of lost contents and inventory, relocation, income
loss, rental loss, and wage loss.
In addition to the 2015 probabilistic earthquakes, loss potential for the Spokane M5.5 ShakeMap
scenario was also completed in 2019, replacing the Latah Creek scenario previously completed. Results
from that analysis are illustrated in Figure 6-10, Figure 6-11 and Figure 6-12.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 6-8.
Earthquake Building Loss PotentialProbabilistic*
Estimated Earthquake Loss Value
100- Year Probabilistic Earthquake 500- Year Probabilistic Earthquake
Total Total
Jurisdiction Structural Non-Structural Structural Non-Structural
$102,741 $1,536,728
Airway Heights $95,540 $7,201 $1,236,014 $300,714
$186,394 $2,843,811
Cheney $165,704 $20,690 $2,148,836 $694,975
$57,817 $972,866
Deer Park $52,774 $5,043 $754,163 $218,704
$2,254 $27,039
Fairfield $1,806 $448 $20,579 $6,461
$1,166 $13,991
Latah $934 $232 $10,648 $3,343
$522,633 $7,555,608
Liberty Lake $416,047 $106,586 $5,623,903 $1,931,706
$10,568 $198,137
Medical Lake $9,799 $769 $157,013 $41,125
$47,355 $943,345
Millwood $40,988 $6,367 $694,953 $248,392
$2,429 $29,139
Rockford $1,946 $483 $22,177 $6,963
$1,280 $15,356
Spangle $1,025 $255 $11,687 $3,669
$5,350,130 $89,997,855
Spokane $4,818,546 $531,584 $69,574,102 $20,423,752
$2,567,699 $42,427,112
Spokane Valley $2,339,761 $227,938 $32,758,742 $9,668,369
$1,496 $17,948
Waverly $1,199 $298 $13,660 $4,289
$9,860,736.00 $144,713,977
$8,337,242 $1,523,494 $110,575,963 $33,748,414
Unincorporated
Total $16,283,311 $2,431,388 $18,714,698 $223,602,440 $67,300,876 $291,292,912
*(Spokane County 2015 HMP)
Figure 6-10. Hazus M5.5 Spokane Scenario Damage Categories by General Occupancy Type (2019)
Bridgeview Consulting 6-22 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Debris Tonnage
The HAZUS-MH analysis also estimated the amount of earthquake-caused debris in the planning area for
the 100-year and 500-year earthquakes and the M5.5 scenario event, as summarized in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9.
Estimated Earthquake-Caused Debris
Debris to Be Removed (tons)
100-Year Earthquake 12,180
500-Year Earthquake 118,820
5.0 M Spokane Scenario Event 40,000
6.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
All critical facilities in Spokane County are exposed to the earthquake hazard to some degree, either
directly, or through secondary impacts such as power loss, or the spread of fire from one structure to
another. Contained within Chapter 3, Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 are the number of each type of facility by
jurisdiction which could potentially be impacted.
In addition, hazardous materials releases can also occur during an earthquake from fixed facilities or
transportation-related incidents. Transportation corridors can be disrupted during an earthquake, leading to
the release of materials to the surrounding environment. Facilities holding hazardous materials are of
particular concern because of possible isolation of neighborhoods surrounding them. During an earthquake,
structures storing these materials could rupture and leak into the surrounding area or an adjacent waterway,
having a disastrous effect on the environment.
Level of Damage
Hazus uses five categories of vulnerability of critical facilities to earthquake: no damage, slight damage,
moderate damage, extensive damage, or complete damage. The model was used to assign a category to
each critical facility in the planning area except hazmat facilities and other infrastructure facilities, for
which there are no established damage functions. The analysis was performed for the 100-year event. Table
6-810 summarize the results as illustrated in the Spokane County HMP (2015).
Time to Return to Functionality
Hazus estimates the time to restore critical facilities to fully functional use. Results are presented as
probability of being functional at specified time increments: 1, 3, 7, 14, 30 and 90 days after the event. For
example, Hazus may estimate that a facility has 5 percent chance of being fully functional at Day 3, and a
95-percent chance of being fully functional at Day 90. The analysis of critical facilities in the planning area
was performed for the 100-year earthquake event. Table 6-11 summarizes the results (Spokane County
HMP, 2015).
Bridgeview Consulting 6-23 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 6-10.
Critical Facility Vulnerability to 100-Year Earthquake Event
Moderate Extensive Complete
CategoryNo Damage Slight Damage Damage Damage Damage
Medical and Health 82.90% 16.89% 0.17% 0.00% 0.01%
Government Functions 83.40% 16.43% 0.15% 0.01% 0.00%
Protective Functions 79.45% 20.11% 0.38% 0.04% 0.00%
Schools 81.93% 17.81% 0.22% 0.02% 0.00%
Other Critical Functions 99.84% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Bridges 98.78% 1.16% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00%
Water supply 99.53% 0.45% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
Wastewater 99.90% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Power 99.98% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Communications 97.77% 2.22% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
Total 92.35% 7.53% 0.10% 0.01% 0.00%
Table 6-11.
Functionality of Critical Facilities for 100-Year Event
Probability of Being Fully Functional (%)
# of Critical
Planning Unit Facilities at Day 1 at Day 3 at Day 7 at Day 14 at Day 30 at Day 90
Medical and Health 9 82.89 83.22 99.36 99.77 99.90 99.90
Government Functions 2 83.40 83.70 99.40 99.80 99.90 99.90
Protective Functions 116 79.43 79.85 99.05 99.54 99.88 99.89
Schools 195 81.91 82.27 99.28 99.71 99.89 99.90
Other Critical functions 26 99.91 99.91 99.91 99.91 99.91 99.91
Bridges 383 99.98 99.99 99.99 99.99 99.99 99.99
Water supply 66 99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90
Wastewater 7 99.07 99.81 99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90
Power 13 99.75 99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90
Communications 38
99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90 99.90
Total/Average 855 92.61 92.85 99.66 99.83 99.91 99.91
6.5.5 Impact on Economy
Economic losses due to earthquake damage include damage to buildings, including the cost of structural
and non-structural damage, damage to contents, and loss of inventory, loss of wages and loss of income.
Loss of tax base both from revenue and lack of improved land values will increase the economic loss to the
County and its planning partners. In addition, loss of goods and services may hamper recovery efforts, and
even preclude residents from rebuilding within the area. Available loss data generated by Hazus is
identified in Figures 6-11 and 6-12, illustrating economic losses by structure, as well as percentage of losses
to inventory, wages, or loss of income above based on the 2019 M5.5 ShakeMap scenario event.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-24 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Figure 6-11. Hazus Estimated Dollar Losses by Occupancy Type Spokane M5.5 ShakeMap (2019)
Figure 6-12. Hazus Estimate of Percent of Losses by Loss Type for Spokane M5.5 ShakeMap (2019)
Bridgeview Consulting 6-25 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
6.5.6 Impact on Environment
Secondary hazards associated with earthquakes will likely have some of the most damaging effects on the
environment. Earthquake-induced landslides can significantly impact surrounding habitat. It is also possible
for streams to be rerouted after an earthquake. This can change the water quality, possibly damaging habitat
and feeding areas. There is a possibility of streams fed by groundwater drying up because of changes in
underlying geology.
6.5.7 Secondary Impacts
The secondary impacts are the effects that happen later on. Here are a few examples of possible impacts:
Earthquakes can trigger landslides, tsunamis and seiches - these can destroy more buildings
and cause more injuries and deaths.
Leaking gas can be ignited, starting fires.
People may be left homeless.
There may be a shortage of clean water and a lack of proper sanitation - this makes it easier for
diseases to spread.
Roads may be blocked or destroyed so aid and emergency vehicles cannot get through.
Businesses may be damaged or destroyed causing unemployment.
6.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The land use elements of the comprehensive plans adopted by the municipal planning partners provide a
long-range guide to the physical development of the planning area and its urban growth area. As one of the
faster growing counties in Washington, Spokane County and its planning partners will need to manage
growth in a way that accounts for impacts from potential earthquakes. With tools such as the Washington
State Building Code and local critical areas ordinances that define seismic hazard areas, the planning
partners are prepared to deal with future growth.
Once the technological capability of the planning partnership is enhanced with tools such as GIS, this
assessment should be revisited to provide a better gauge of vulnerability, looking at parameters such as
zoned land use and age of structures.
6.7 ISSUES
More research needs to be conducted to determine the exposure and vulnerability of Spokane County and
the Columbia Plateau region in general to earthquakes. The County and its communities should inventory
and assess older structures and seek ways to retrofit those that are determined most likely to be damaged
during an earthquake. Until additional data on the impacts of events typical for this region are developed,
non-structural retrofitting techniques should be considered and promoted by the partnership. Important
issues associated with an earthquake include but are not limited to the following:
A more robust assessor d
seismic risk.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-26 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
More scenario-based shake map data is need for the region.
More information is needed on the exposure and performance of soft-story construction within
the planning area.
According to the 2010 U.S. census (most recent available as of this 2020 update), more than
40
provisions became uniformly applied through building code applications.
Critical facility owners should be encouraged to create or enhance Continuity of Operations
Plans using the information on risk and vulnerability contained in this plan.
Geotechnical standards should be established that take into account the probable impacts from
earthquakes in the design and construction of new or enhanced facilities.
Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as dam failures and landslides,
which could severely impact the county.
6.8 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
There are numerous crustal faults throughout the Columbia Plateau and in areas north and south. These
have not been mapped sufficiently for scientists to make any conclusions about the effect they can have on
earthquakes, but it is possible that a fault near Spokane County could rupture, causing an earthquake in the
County.
Any seismic activity of Magnitude 6.0 or greater on faults within the planning area would have significant
impacts. Earthquakes of this magnitude or higher could lead to significant structural failure of property on
unstable soils.
Damage would most likely occur to older structures in the downtown areas of some communities located
on softer (NEHRP D and E) soils. The majority of the area falls within the NEHRP soils B and C, with the
unincorporated areas of Spokane County and the City of Spokane having a fair amount of type D. Review
of the NEHRP soils data indicates no land with an E soils classification, and 4 percent of D-E. The County
does have a significant number of unreinforced masonry structures, which would also increase
vulnerability.
Injuries may occur from debris, such as parapets and chimneys that could topple or be shaken loose and fall
on those walking or driving below. With existing areas of the floodplain in the planning area, liquefaction
impacts could be more widespread in those areas, as could landslide danger. An earthquake may also cause
landslides along unstable slopes. This would be even more likely if the earthquake occurred during the
rainy or snowy winter and early spring months.
Potential warning systems could give 40 seconds notice that a major earthquake is about to occur; this
would not provide adequate time for preparation, but would allow for some immediate actions to help
reduce impact, such as shutting off machinery, location of an area to drop, cover and hold, etc.
Impact to first responders could include unavailability of equipment if facilities were damaged and response
vehicles were not accessible. Roadways may be impassable, further hampering response capabilities.
Review of Hazus data for a 100-year probabilistic earthquake (2015 run) indicates that approximately 93
percent of critical facilities incorporated into the analysis would be functional on day 1. Table 6-12
identifies the Consequence Analysis for the Earthquake hazard.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-27 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 6-12.
Consequence Analysis
L ML M MH H VH
Likelihood / Probability X
Geographic Boundary X
Population X
Vulnerable Population X
Built Environment X
Critical Infrastructure X
Facilities X
First Responders X
Economic Consequences X
Environmental Impact X
X
L=Low; ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium; MH=Medium-High; H=High; VH=Very High
6.9 RESULTS
Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that the Spokane M5.5 event,
such as that utilized as one of the scenarios modeled for this update, has a medium probability of occurring
within the region.
The losses related to earthquake scenarios are largely due to the proximity to the faults. The lack of study
in the region does leave questions concerning potential impact, which has yet to be determined to a large
extent.
There is a fair amount (~40 percent) of dated construction (pre-1972) which would increase vulnerability,
even from a fairly small earthquake. Falling debris from older buildings would increase the potential for
risk to citizens and first responders required to assist in evacuations from older structures. Current building
codes are of a higher caliber than previous construction standards.
Review of Hazus outputs show that the majority of critical facilities would receive no-to-slight damage,
with only 0.10% sustaining moderate damage, and 0.01% sustaining extensive damage. Of the critical
infrastructure identified, ~93% would be fully functional at day 1 of the earthquake occurring. It should be
noted that such assessment is for planning purposes only, and no engineered study to determine structural
integrity of any facilities was completed in this review. As such, no life-safety measures should be based
on such analysis as much of the data within Hazus is default data, and not based on engineered reviews.
Spokane County is in a low-risk area with respect to PGA, with a 2 percent probability in a 50-year period
of ground shaking from a seismic event exceeding 0.15 g. Limited area falls within the high-hazard soils
classifications, with the majority of the area falling in soils types B, or C, with limited D soils type. This
equates to very low to a few areas of low-to moderate liquefaction susceptibility, and only a relatively small
area in the moderate area, mostly along waterbodies, river valleys, and streams, etc., which would also be
more likely to landslide occurring as a result of earthquakes.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-28 April 2020
EARTHQUAKE
Concern within the planning area also includes impact from the Cascadia M9.0 earthquake scenario, which
generates the largest amount of damage on the west side of the mountains. While the earthquake itself is
not anticipated to impact the county, the influx of residents evacuating the west side to Spokane, which is
the second or third largest populated municipality in the state, is expected. Likewise, citizens traveling
through Spokane to other parts of the country would also tax local resources. The interruption to commodity
flow from a Cascadia-type event, when coupled with increased calls for assistance for mutual aid and impact
to local-area commodities is of significant concern to the planning partnership.
Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 2.85, with overall
vulnerability determined to be a medium level.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-29 April 2020
CHAPTER 7.
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
.
7.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
DEFINITIONS
DamAny artificial barrier and/or any
Floods are one of the most common natural hazards in
controlling works, together with appurtenant
the U.S. They can develop slowly over a period of days
works, that can or does impound or divert
water.(Washington Administrative Code,
or develop quickly, with disastrous effects that can be
Title 173, Chapter 175.)
local (impacting a neighborhood or community) or
regional (affecting entire river basins, coastlines and
Dam FailureAn uncontrolled release of
multiple counties or states) (FEMA, 2010). Most
impounded water due to structural
deficiencies in dam.
communities in the U.S. have experienced some kind
of flooding, after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms,
FloodThe inundation of normally dry land
coastal storms, or winter snow thaws. Floods are one
resulting from the rising and overflowing of a
body of water.
of the most frequent and costly natural hazards in
terms of human hardship and economic loss,
FloodplainThe land area along the sides
particularly to communities that lie within flood-prone
of a river that becomes inundated with water
areas or floodplains of a major water source. during a flood.
100-Year FloodplainThe area flooded by
This chapter will profile the flood and dam failure
a flood that has a 1-percent chance of being
hazards within the planning area; however, it will not
equaled or exceeded each year. This is a
assess the dam failure risk due to the unavailability of
statistical average only; a 100-year flood
can occur more than once in a short period
dam failure inundation data. This information was not
of time. The 1-percent annual chance flood
made available to this planning process for security
is the standard used by most federal and
purposes
state agencies.
Return PeriodThe average number of
7.1.1 Flood
years between occurrences of a hazard
Flooding is a general and temporary condition of (equal to the inverse of the annual likelihood
of occurrence).
partial or complete inundation on normally dry land
from the following:
Riparian ZoneThe area along the banks
of a natural watercourse.
Riverine flooding, including overflow from a
High Hazard DamDams where failure or
river channel, flash floods, alluvial fan floods,
operational error will probably cause loss of
dam-break floods, and ice jam floods;
human life. (FEMA 333)
Significant Hazard DamDams where
Local drainage or high groundwater levels;
failure or operational error will result in no
probable loss of human life but can cause
Fluctuating lake levels;
economic loss, environmental damage or
disruption of lifeline facilities, or can impact
Coastal flooding;
other concerns. Significant hazard dams are
often located in rural or agricultural areas but
could be located in areas with population and
Coastal erosion;
significant infrastructure. (FEMA 333)
Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of
surface waters from any source;
Mudflows (or mudslides);
Bridgeview Consulting 7-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or similar body of water that result in
a flood, caused by erosion, waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated levels
(Floodsmart.gov, 2012);
Sea level rise;
Climate Change (USEPA, 2012).
A floodplain is the area adjacent to a river, creek or lake that becomes inundated during a flood. Floodplains
may be broad, as when a river crosses an extensive flat landscape, or narrow, as when a river is confined in
a canyon.
When floodwaters recede after a flood event, they leave behind layers of rock and mud. These gradually
build up to create a new floor of the floodplain. Floodplains generally contain unconsolidated sediments
(accumulations of sand, gravel, loam, silt, and/or clay), often extending below the bed of the stream. These
sediments provide a natural filtering system, with water percolating back into the ground and replenishing
groundwater. These are often important aquifers, the water drawn from them being filtered compared to the
water in the stream. Fertile, flat reclaimed floodplain lands are commonly used for agriculture, commerce
and residential development.
Connections between a river and its floodplain are most apparent during and after major flood events. These
areas form a complex physical and biological system that not only supports a variety of natural resources
but also provides natural flood and erosion control. When a river is separated from its floodplain with levees
and other flood control facilities, natural, built-in benefits can be lost, altered, or significantly reduced.
7.1.2 Flooding Types
Many floods fall into one of three categories: riverine, coastal, or shallow (FEMA, 2005). Other types of
floods include alluvial fan floods, dam failure floods, and floods associated with local drainage or high
groundwater. For this hazard mitigation plan and as deemed appropriate by the County, riverine/stormwater
flooding are the main flood types of concern for the planning area.
Riverine
Riverine floods are the most common flood type. They occur along a channel, and include overbank and
flash flooding. Channels are defined ground features that carry water through and out of a watershed. They
may be called rivers, creeks, streams, or ditches. When a channel receives too much water, the excess water
flows over its banks and inundates low-lying areas (FEMA, 2005).
Flash Floods
A flash flood is a rapid, extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or a rapid water level rise in
a stream or creek above a predetermined flood level, beginning within six hours of the causative event (e.g.,
intense rainfall, dam failure, ice jam). The time may vary in different areas. Ongoing flooding can intensify
to flash flooding in cases where intense rainfall results in a rapid surge of rising floodwaters (NWS, 2009).
Coastal Flooding
Coastal flooding is the flooding of normally dry, low-lying coastal land, primarily caused by severe weather
events along the coast, estuaries, and adjoining rivers. These flood events are some of the more frequent,
costly, and deadly hazards that can impact coastal communities.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-2 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
Measuring Floods and Floodplains
The frequency and severity of flooding are measured using a discharge probability, which is a statistical
tool used to define the probability that a certain river discharge (flow) level will be equaled or exceeded
within a given year. Flood studies use historical records to determine the probability of occurrence for the
different discharge levels. The flood frequency equals 100 divided by the discharge probability. For
example, the 100-year discharge has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
The annual flood is the greatest flood event expected to occur in a typical year. These measurements
reflect statistical averages only; it is possible for two or more floods with a 100-year or higher recurrence
interval to occur in a short time period. The same flood can have different recurrence intervals at different
points on a river.
The extent of flooding associated with a 1-percent annual probability of occurrence (the base flood or 100-
year flood) is used as the regulatory boundary by many agencies. Also referred to as the special flood hazard
area (SFHA), this boundary is a convenient tool for assessing vulnerability and risk in flood-prone
communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of flooding for the base
flood. Corresponding water-surface elevations describe the elevation of water that will result from a given
discharge level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage.
Floodplain Ecosystems
Floodplains can support ecosystems that are rich in quantity and diversity of plant and animal species. A
floodplain can contain 100 or even 1000 times as many species as a river. Wetting of the floodplain soil
releases an immediate surge of nutrients: those left over from the last flood, and those that result from the
rapid decomposition of organic matter that has accumulated since then. Microscopic organisms thrive and
larger species enter a rapid breeding cycle. Opportunistic feeders (particularly birds) move in to take
advantage. The production of nutrients peaks and falls away quickly; however the surge of new growth
endures for some time. This makes floodplains particularly valuable for agriculture. Species growing in
floodplains are markedly different from those that grow outside floodplains. For instance, riparian trees
(trees that grow in floodplains) tend to be very tolerant of root disturbance and very quick-growing
compared to non-riparian trees.
Effects of Human Activities
Because they border water bodies, floodplains have historically been popular sites to establish settlements.
Human activities tend to concentrate in floodplains for a number of reasons: water is readily available; land
is fertile and suitable for farming; transportation by water is easily accessible; and land is flatter and easier
to develop. But human activity in floodplains frequently interferes with the natural function of floodplains.
It can affect the distribution and timing of drainage, thereby increasing flood problems. Human
development can create local flooding problems by altering or confining drainage channels. This increases
flood potential in two ways: it reduces the streams capacity to contain flows, and it increases flow rates or
velocities downstream during all stages of a flood event. Human activities can interface effectively with a
floodplain as long as steps are taken to mitigate the activities adverse impacts on floodplain functions.
7.1.3 National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes federally backed flood insurance available to
homeowners, renters and business owners in participating communities. For most participating
communities, FEMA has prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study. The study presents water surface
elevations for floods of various magnitudes, including the 1-percent annual chance flood and the 0.2-percent
annual chance flood (the 500-year flood). Base flood elevations and the boundaries of the 100- and 500-
year floodplains are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which are the principle tool for
identifying the extent and location of the flood hazard. FIRMs are the most detailed and consistent data
Bridgeview Consulting 7-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
source available, and for many communities they represent the minimum area of oversight under their
floodplain management program.
Participants in the NFIP must, at a minimum, regulate development in floodplain areas in accordance with
NFIP criteria. Before issuing a permit to build in a floodplain, participating jurisdictions must ensure that
three criteria are met:
New buildings and those undergoing substantial improvements must, at a minimum, be
elevated to protect against damage by the 100-year flood.
New floodplain development must not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage
to other properties.
New floodplain development must exercise a reasonable and prudent effort to reduce its
adverse impacts on threatened salmonid species.
Spokane County entered the NFIP on May 17, 1988. Structures permitted or built in the county before then
are called pre-FIRM structures, and structures built afterwards are called post-FIRM. The insurance
rate is different for the two types of structures. The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is July
6, 2010DFIRM (digital flood insurance rate map). As of this 2020 update,
there are three Letters of Map Amendments issued by FEMA for removal of properties previously identified
as being within the floodplain.
7.1.4 NFIP Program Overview
Nine communities within Spokane County participate in the NFIP, as shown in Table 7-1. According to the
Washington Department of Ecology, the county and cities are in good standing with the provisions of the
NFIP as of this plan update. Program compliance is monitored by the Department of Ecology through
Community Assistance Visits (CAV). Specific CAV information, as applicable, is contained within each
jurisdictional annex document.
Maintaining compliance under the NFIP is an important component of flood risk reduction. All planning
partners that participate in the NFIP have identified initiatives to maintain their compliance and good
standing and are committed to doing so through enforcement of programs that at a minimum, meet the NFIP
participation requirements. Such enforcement may include items such as restricting development in the
floodplain or requiring structures to be built at a higher elevation to avoid impact from flood waters, among
other enforcement regulations.
For Spokane County, the Public Works Department - Environmental Programs and Special Projects is
tasked with management of the NFIP program. The County does have a dedicated floodplain manager. As
a brief overview, in some cases, development is allowed in the floodplain; however, it is subject to the
requirements of the Spokane County Flood Ordinance and the NFIP. Developing property, all or a portion
of which is in a regulated floodplain, requires a Floodplain Development Permit. This permit identifies the
specific requirements for each proposed project. Prior to Floodplain Permit release, all plans must be
reviewed to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Spokane County Flood Ordinance. For purposes
of development, development includes, but is not limited to: buildings, homes, manufactured and mobile
homes, other structures, bridges, culverts, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, docks, boat lifts,
seawalls, bulkheads, etc. Structures may also require floodproofing under the ordinance, which requires
that residential homes be elevated above the level of the base flood elevation (BFE) and commercial
structures have the option to flood proof above the BFE. A licensed engineer or landscape architect must
design the flood proofing. Elevation Certifies. The purpose
Bridgeview Consulting 7-4 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
for an Elevation Certificate is to document compliance with permit conditions as Elevation Certificates are
the only official document used by FEMA to determine whether a structure is inside or outside a floodplain,
and are also used to determine the proper rate when purchasing flood insurance. Elevation Certificates
must be completed and stamped by a surveyor licensed in the State of Washington. Additional information
https://www.spokanecounty.org/Faq.aspx?QID=293
Table 7-1.
NFIP Status of Spokane County and Incorporated Municipalities
City CID Date of Entry into the NFIP Current FIRM Effective Date
Cheney 530175 11/06/1979 7/06/2010 (M)
Deer Park 530176 12/26/1979 0//06/2010 (M)
Fairfield 530177 10/16/1979 07/06/2010 (M)
Liberty Lake Pending Anticipated
November 2020
Millwood 530180 06/15/1979 (C)
Rockford 530181 10/02/1979 07/06/2010
Spangle 530182 09/18/1979 07/06/2010 (M)
Spokane County 530174 05/17/1988 07/06/2010
Spokane Valley 530342 04/01/2004 07/06/2010
Spokane 530183 08/01/1980 07/06/2010
(M) = No elevations determined; All Zone A, C and X.
(C) = No Special Flood Hazard Area - All Zone C
Within the NFIP is the Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is a voluntary program that encourages
expanded floodplain management activities, requiring increased compliance by participating jurisdictions
beyond the minimum NFIP requirements. If jurisdictions exceed the minimum requirements, flood
insurance premiums are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk.
At present, Spokane County nor any of its municipalities are part of the CRS program. The majority of the
municipalities do not have the capacity to support the CRS activities without adding additional staff and
resources.
Flood Insurance Statistics
Table 7-2 lists flood insurance statistics that help identify vulnerability in Spokane County. During the 2015
plan, ten communities in the planning area (including Spokane County) participated in the NFIP, with 420
flood insurance policies in force providing $86.5 million in coverage.
The Town of Latah and City of Liberty Lake do not participate in the NFIP, although flood maps (dated
July 6, 2010) do exist for the communities.
Review of data for the 2020 update, the number of policies in force declined to 335, providing $82.34
million in coverage. According to FEMA statistics, a total of 56 flood insurance claims were paid between
January 1, 1978 and September 30, 2018 (most recent as of 4/9/19), for a total of $786,034, an average of
$14,036 per claim.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 7-2.
Flood Insurance Statistics for Spokane County
New
Date of Entry # of Flood Claims, Claims, Value of Claims
Initial FIRM Insurance Policies Insurance In 1/1/1978 to 12/31/2013 paid, 1/1/1978
Jurisdiction Effective Date as of 3/28/19 Force 12/31/2013 to 9/30/18 to 9/30/18
Cheney 11/06/1979 3 $770,000 1 0 $0
Deer Park 12/26/1979 1 $350,000 0 0 $0
Fairfield 10/16/1979 2 $256,100 0 0 $0
Medical Lake 07/06/2010 0 1
Millwood 06/15/1979 (NSFHA) 0 0
Rockford 10/02/1979 2 $51,800 0 0 $0
Spangle 09/18/1979 2 $364,300 4 4 $276,767
Spokane County 05/17/1988 186 $49,049,000 20 11 $387,652
Spokane Valley 04/01/2004 65 $14,066,400 0 2 $8,636
Spokane City 08/01/1980 74 $17,437,200 12 1 $112,978
Total 335 $80,968,700 37 19 $786,033
Properties constructed after a FIRM has been adopted are eligible for reduced flood insurance rates. Such
structures are less vulnerable to flooding since they were constructed after regulations and codes were
adopted to decrease vulnerability. Properties built before a FIRM is adopted are more vulnerable to flooding
because they do not meet code or are located in hazardous areas. The first FIRMs in Spokane County were
available in 1981.
Repetitive Loss
A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as an NFIP-insured property that has experienced any of the
following since 1978, regardless of any changes in ownership:
Four or more paid losses in excess of $1,000
Two paid losses in excess of $1,000 within any rolling 10-year period
Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property.
Repetitive loss properties make up only 1 to 2 percent of flood insurance policies in force nationally, yet
they account for 40 percent of the nations flood insurance claim payments.
FEMA-sponsored programs, such as the CRS, require participating communities to identify repetitive loss
areas. A repetitive loss area is the portion of a floodplain holding structures that FEMA has identified as
meeting the definition of repetitive loss. Identifying repetitive loss areas helps to identify structures that are
at risk but are not on FEMAs list of repetitive loss structures because no flood insurance policy was in
force at the time of loss. FEMAs list of repetitive loss properties identifies three (3) such properties in the
Spokane County planning area as of May 8, 2019. One property in Spangle has been identified as severe
repetitive loss according to FEMA criteria.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-6 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
The breakdown of the properties by jurisdiction is presented in Table 7-3. It should be noted that the
Spokane loss is dated 1996; the Spangle losses were in 2014. All three structures are residential in nature.17
No new structures have been identified as repetitive or severe repetitive structures during the time period
2015-2020.
Table 7-3.
Repetitive and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties in Spokane County
Severe Repetitive SRL Propertiesthat
Repetitive Loss RL Properties That Loss (SRL) Have Been
Jurisdiction (RL) Properties Have Been Mitigated Properties Mitigated
Spangle (2014 losses) 2 0 1 0
Spokane (1996 loss) 1 0 0 0
Total 3 0 1 0
Based on FEMA Report of Repetitive Losses 05/08/2019 provided by WA DOE Risk Map.
7.1.5 Dam Failure
Causes of Dam Failure
Dam failures in the United States typically occur in one of four ways:
Overtopping of the primary dam structure, which accounts for 34 percent of all dam failures,
can occur due to inadequate spillway design, settlement of the dam crest, blockage of spillways,
and other factors.
Foundation defects due to differential settlement, slides, slope instability, uplift pressures, and
foundation seepage can also cause dam failure. These account for 30 percent of all dam failures.
Failure due to piping and seepage accounts for 20 percent of all failures. These are caused by
internal erosion due to piping and seepage, erosion along hydraulic structures such as spillways,
erosion due to animal burrows, and cracks in the dam structure.
Failure due to problems with conduits and valves, typically caused by the piping of
embankment material into conduits through joints or cracks, constitutes 10 percent of all
failures.
The remaining 6 percent of U.S. dam failures are due to miscellaneous causes. Many dam failures in the
United States have been secondary results of other disasters. The prominent causes are earthquakes,
landslides, extreme storms, massive snowmelt, equipment malfunction, structural damage, foundation
failures, and sabotage. The most likely disaster-related causes of dam failure in Spokane County are
earthquakes.
Poor construction, lack of maintenance and repair, and deficient operational procedures are preventable or
correctable by a program of regular inspections. Terrorism and vandalism are serious concerns that all
operators of public facilities must plan for.
17 Information provided via personal communication with John Schelling, FEMA Region X Mitigation Section.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Regulatory Oversight
The potential for catastrophic flooding due to dam failures led to passage of the National Dam Safety Act
(Public Law 92-367). The National Dam Safety Program requires a periodic engineering analysis of every
major dam in the country. The goal of this FEMA-monitored effort is to identify and mitigate the risk of
dam failure so as to protect the lives and property of the public.
Washington Department of Ecology Dam Safety Program
The Dam Safety Office (DSO) of the Washington Department of Ecology regulates over 1,000 dams in the
state that impound at least 10 acre-feet of water. The DSO has developed dam safety guidelines to provide
dam owners, operators, and design engineers with information on activities, procedures, and requirements
involved in the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of dams in Washington. The
authority to regulate dams in Washington and to provide for public safety is contained in the following
laws:
State Water Code (1917)RCW 90.03
Flood Control Act (1935)RCW 86.16
Department of Ecology (1970)RCW 43.21A.
Where water projects involve dams and reservoirs with a storage volume of 10 acre-feet or more, the laws
provide for the Department of Ecology to conduct engineering review of the construction plans and
specifications, to inspect the dams, and to require remedial action, as necessary, to ensure proper operation,
maintenance, and safe performance. The DSO was established within Ecologys Water Resources Program
to carry out these responsibilities.
The DSO provides reasonable assurance that impoundment facilities will not pose a threat to lives and
property, but dam owners bear primary responsibility for the safety of their structures, through proper
design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The DSO regulates dams with the sole purpose of
reasonably securing public safety; environmental and natural resource issues are addressed by other state
agencies. The DSO neither advocates nor opposes the construction and operation of dams.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for safety inspections of some federal and non-federal
dams in the United States that meet the size and storage limitations specified in the National Dam Safety
Act. The Corps has inventoried dams; surveyed each state and federal agencys capabilities, practices and
regulations regarding design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dams; and developed
guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state
agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. There are 3,036 dams that are part of regulated hydroelectric
projects in the FERC program. Two-thirds of these are more than 50 years old. As dams age, concern about
their safety and integrity grows, so oversight and regular inspection are important. FERC staff inspects
hydroelectric projects on an unscheduled basis to investigate the following:
Potential dam safety problems
Complaints about constructing and operating a project
Safety concerns related to natural disasters
Bridgeview Consulting 7-8 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
Issues concerning compliance with the terms and conditions of a license.
Every five years, an independent engineer approved by the FERC must inspect and evaluate projects with
dams higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters) or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre-feet.
FERC staff monitors and evaluates seismic research and applies it in investigating and performing structural
analyses of hydroelectric projects. FERC staff also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods
on the safety of dams. During and following floods, FERC staff visits dams and licensed projects,
determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee
must undertake. The FERC publication Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects
guides the FERC engineering staff and licensees in evaluating dam safety. The publication is frequently
revised to reflect current information and methodologies.
The FERC requires licensees to prepare emergency action plans and conducts training sessions on how to
develop and test these plans. The plans outline an early warning system if there is an actual or potential
sudden release of water from a dam due to failure. The plans include operational procedures that may be
used, such as reducing reservoir levels and reducing downstream flows, as well as procedures for notifying
affected residents and agencies responsible for emergency management. These plans are frequently updated
and tested to ensure that everyone knows what to do in emergency situations.
7.2 HAZARD PROFILE
7.2.1 Extent and Location - Flood
The major floods in Spokane County have resulted from intense weather rainstorms or the combination of
rain on snow events between November and March. The flooding that has occurred in portions of the county
has been extensively documented by gage records, high water marks, damage surveys and personal
accounts. This documentation was the basis for the June 6, 2010 FIRMs generated by FEMA for Spokane
County. The 2010 Flood Insurance Study is the sole source of data used in this risk assessment to map the
extent and location of the flood hazard, as shown in Figure 7-1.
The principal cause of flooding in Spokane County is heavy rainfall brought in with warm Chinook winds,
usually in combination with snowmelt over a frozen impermeable ground during the winter or early spring.
The sudden increase in runoff overwhelms rivers and creeks, which typically overtop. The Spokane River,
for instance, has an average annual discharge of 7,946 cfs, but can experience peak flows of 49,000cfs.
Floods can also be intensified by ice jams against low clearance railroad and road bridges. Floods in
Spokane County are typically of short duration, usually less than one day, and flood stages rise and fall
rapidly.
Erosion and transported sediment are major secondary hazards of flooding. The intense runoff can strip
away topsoil and deposit it elsewhere, usually where it is impeded, such as at bridge abutments. Sediment
deposits have been a major effect of flooding in Pullman. The erosion can deposit sediment in river and
creek beds, decreasing their capacity to transport water.
The Spokane River, which derives most of its flow from snowmelt in Idaho, is influenced by Coeur dAlene
Lake, resulting in a relatively stabilized flow condition free from the extreme peaks that would result if the
lake did not exist; however, damaging floods have occurred. Climate and stream flow records for the
Spokane River basin indicate that the region experiences spring snowmelt and winter rain floods. Winter
rain floods are caused by warm temperatures and rainfalls that accompany intense Pacific Ocean storms
which sometimes move eastward across Washington and Idaho. In such cases, rainfall, snowmelt, and
occasionally frozen soil conditions combine to produce short-duration, intense runoff. In most cases, peaks
Bridgeview Consulting 7-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
on the lower Spokane River are reduced by the large storage volume normally available in Coeur dAlene
Lake. The large size of the upper Spokane River basin also tends to moderate the effect of winter floods.
Hangman Creek normally experiences its greatest flood peaks during winter storms.
Statistical analysis of stream flow records shows that the 1% annual chance flood discharge on the Spokane
River at Spokane is 52,000 cfs. Several historical floods of record have approached this magnitude,
including the flood of January 1974, which had a peak discharge of 45,600 cfs. The largest flood for which
water-surface data are available is the flood of December 1933, which had a peak discharge of 47,800 cfs.
Flooding along the Little Spokane River is similar to that on Hangman Creek. Statistical analysis of the
lower gage on the Little Spokane River gives a 1% annual chance flood flow of 4,355 cfs; the drainage area
covered by this gage is 665 square miles. The flood of record was recorded on February 17, 1970, and had
a peak discharge of 3,170 cfs. The record flow at the gage located further upstream, at Elk, was 205 cfs on
January 16, 1974. The drainage area covered by the upstream gage is 115 square miles.
Extremely high peak flows can be generated on Hangman Creek with little advance warning. The soils in
the Hangman Creek valley provide essentially no ground water to sustain flow when there is no precipitation
or snowmelt. Also, there are no artificial impoundments. The net result is a stream characterized by
extremes. Most of Hangman Creek flows through rural areas where encroachment on the flood plain is
minimal.
Flood problems experienced in 1974 are typical of flood damage on Hangman Creek throughout the urban
area. Problems in the City of Spokane extended from the vicinity of the 11th Street bridge upstream to a
point approximately 1,500 feet south of U.S. Highway 195 and consisted of limited inundation of individual
residences and failure of poorly constructed levees subjected to high stream flow velocities. In addition, the
Hangman Valley Golf Course, which was constructed with full knowledge of flood problems, suffered
extensive damage in 1974. Silt was deposited on fairways, and two pedestrian bridges were destroyed.
Flooding problems on Hangman Creek involve bank erosion and undercutting as well as inundation. The
flood of record was recorded at 20,600 cfs in February 1963.
Urban flooding can also occur within Spokane County. This type of flooding occurs outside of mapped
floodplains, where rainfall/snowmelt runoff exceeds the design capacity of stormwater conveyance
facilities or flows overland when no conveyance facilities are available. Urban drainage issues are often
exacerbated by increases in impervious areas that can increase runoff rates, or when the ground becomes
frozen, allowing for no ground infiltration rainfall runoff. Urban drainage flooding can have significant
impacts on the built environment and this hazard can be difficult to assess because of the lack of hazard
mapping.
7.2.2 Previous Occurrence
Since 1971 every county within Washington State has received a federal disaster declaration for flooding.
Spokane County has declared federal disasters for flooding 10 times since 1964. Table 7-4 list these events
since 1964.
Table 7-4.
Spokane County Flood Events 1964-2018
a
Date Declaration # Type of event Estimated Damage
1/30/2017 4309 Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides N/A
Bridgeview Consulting 7-10 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
Table 7-4.
Spokane County Flood Events 1964-2018
a
Date Declaration # Type of event Estimated Damage
11/12/2015 4249 Severe Storms, Straight-Line Winds, Flooding N/A
a
6/1/2011 -- Flooding
$200,000
a
5/19/2008 -- Flooding
$1,000,000
a
3-2-1999 -- Flooding
$700,000
3/18/1997 DR-1172 Storms/Flooding/Landslides/Mudslides N/A
Severe Winter Storms/Flooding
1/17/1997 DR-1159 N/A
2/9/1996 DR-1100 Severe Storms/Flooding $33.7 Million for the state
5/20/1986 DR-769 Washington Severe Storms, Flooding N/A
12/29/1964 DR-185 Heavy Rains & Flooding N/A
a. Data obtained from Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States
N/A = Information is not available
The following is an overview of the more significant events during this timeframe in Spokane County.
March 1963Flooding occurred in the counties of Columbia, Garfield, Grant, Whitman, and
Spokane. Federal disaster number 146 was assigned for the event.
February 1996Heavy rains caused flooding in the several counties including Spokane.
Snowfall beginning January 26, 1996, followed by heavy rain in February, mild temperatures,
and mountain snow melt caused severe flooding throughout the entire northwest. Record floods
occurred on Latah Creek. Federal disaster number 1100 was assigned for the event.
December 1996 - January 1997Rain, ice, and snow caused flooding. Federal disaster number
1159 was assigned for several counties including Spokane. The Town of Rockford experienced
damage to 11 buildings with their sanitary sewer line and streets sustaining $367,860 worth of
damage.
7.2.3 Frequency
Spokane County experiences episodes of river flooding almost every winter. Large floods that can cause
property damage typically occur every three to seven years. Urban portions of the county annually
experience nuisance flooding related to drainage issues. The Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2010) lists Spokane County among the counties with the most frequent flooding in eastern Washington.
Major flooding in Spokane County can be expected on average every six to seven years. Figure 7-2 shows
the frequency of flooding in Washington by county based on the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2013).
7.2.4 Severity
The principal factors affecting flood damage are flood depth and velocity. The deeper and faster flood flows
become, the more damage they can cause. Shallow flooding with high velocities can cause as much damage
as deep flooding with slow velocity. This is especially true when a channel migrates over a broad floodplain,
Bridgeview Consulting 7-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
redirecting high velocity flows and transporting debris and sediment. Flood severity is often evaluated by
examining peak discharges; Table 7-5 lists peak flows used by FEMA to map the floodplains of Spokane
County.
Warning Time
Floods are the number one natural disaster in the United States in terms of loss of life and property. Floods
are generally classed as either slow-rise or flash floods. Slow-rise may be preceded by a warning time from
several hours, to days, to possibly weeks. Evacuation and sandbagging for a slow-rise flood may lessen
flood damage. Flash floods are the most difficult to prepare for, due to the extremely short warning time, if
any is given at all. Flash flood warnings usually require evacuation within an hour.
Each watershed has unique qualities that affect its response to rainfall. A hydrograph, which is a graph or
chart illustrating stream flow in relation to time (see Figure 7-3), is a useful tool for examining a streams
response to rainfall. Once rainfall starts falling over a watershed, runoff begins and the stream begins to
rise. Water depth in the stream channel (stage of flow) will continue to rise in response to runoff even after
rainfall ends. Eventually, the runoff will reach a peak and the stage of flow will crest. It is at this point that
the stream stage will remain the most stable, exhibiting little change over time until it begins to fall and
eventually subside to a level below flooding stage.
The potential warning time a community has to respond to a flooding threat is a function of the time between
the first measurable rainfall and the first occurrence of flooding. The time it takes to recognize a flooding
threat reduces the potential warning time to the time that a community has to take actions to protect lives
and property. Another element that characterizes a communitys flood threat is the length of time
floodwaters remain above flood stage.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-12 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
Figure 7-1. FEMA DFIRM Flood Hazard Areas
Bridgeview Consulting 7-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 7-2. Frequency of Major Flooding in Washington by County
Figure 7-3. Spokane River Hydrograph at Spokane (USGS Station 12424000)
Table 7-5.
Summary of Peak Discharges within Spokane County
Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year
Argone Drainage
At North Boeing Rd 80 140 173 214
Bridgeview Consulting 7-14 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
Table 7-5.
Summary of Peak Discharges within Spokane County
Discharge (cubic feet/second)
Source/Location10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year
At East Upriver Drive 102 180 222 274
Chester Creek
Near 24th Ave 14 26 34 44
Near Schafer Road 113 137 147 169
Near Thorpe Road 75 104 116 144
Chester Creek Golf Course Overflow
At Chester Creek 30 54 64 88
Country Homes Drainage
At Highland Road At Hawthorne Road 165 311 370 551
aaaa
At Hawthorne Road
138 249 293 349
At Cascade Way 142 284 293 408
Hangman Creek
At USGS Gage 14,300 22,200 26,000 36,300
At Hatch Road 12,100 18,800 22,000 37,000
bbbb
Little Spokane River Near Mouth
2,366 3,491 3,884 5,009
At USGS Gage Near Dartford 2,589 3,487 4,288 5,563
Above Confluence with Deep Creek 2,545 3,761 4,194 5,454
Below Confluence with Dragoon Creek 2,054 3,011 3,372 4,452
Below Chatteroy 1,001 1,436 1,611 2,166
Below Confluence with Eloika Lake 892 1,260 1,415 1,917
At Milan 727 1,006 1,137 1,590
Saltese Creek
At Steen Road 65 215 -- 531
At Baker Road 31 66 -- 101
Spokane River
At USGS Gage Near Otis Orchard 37,500 47,000 -- 65,000
Forker Draw
At Bigelow Gulch Road 49 88 109 135
Below East Jacob Road 60 108 134 166
At Chursh Driveway 117 209 259 321
Rock Creek
Below Confluence with Mica Creek 5,190 9,590 11,500 15.900
Above Confluence with Mica Creek 4,410 8,060 9,640 12,990
Mica Creek
At its mouth 1,190 2,290 -- 3,840
Unnamed Tributary to Chester Creek
At Storage Area 10 14 16 20
At Pines Road 12 24 30 46
At E. 46th Ave. 11 22 28 45
At S. Tolbert Lane 7 14 18 28
a.
Decrease Due to Ponding, Pervious Soils, and Storage in Overbanks
b.
Not Calculated
The Spokane County flood threat recognition system consists of a network of precipitation gages
throughout the watershed and stream gages at strategic locations on the Spokane River that constantly
Bridgeview Consulting 7-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
monitor and report stream levels. This information is fed into a USGS forecasting program, which assesses
the flood threat based on the amount of flow in the stream (measured in cubic feet per second as
demonstrated in Figure 7-3 above). In addition to this program, data and flood warning information is
provided by the National Weather Service. All of this information is analyzed to evaluate the flood threat
and possible evacuation needs.
Due to the sequential pattern of meteorological conditions needed to cause serious flooding, it is unusual
for a flood to occur without warning. Warning times for floods can be between 24 and 48 hours. Flash
flooding can be less predictable, but potential hazard areas can be warned in advanced of potential flash
flooding danger.
Secondary Hazards
The most problematic secondary hazard for flooding is bank erosion, which in some cases can be more
harmful than actual flooding. This is especially true in the upper courses of rivers with steep gradients,
where floodwaters may pass quickly and without much damage, but scour the banks, edging properties
closer to the floodplain or causing them to fall in. Flooding is also responsible for hazards such as landslides
when high flows over-saturate soils on steep slopes, causing them to fail. Hazardous materials spills are
also a secondary hazard of flooding if storage tanks rupture and spill into streams, rivers or storm sewers.
Climate Change Impacts
Use of historical hydrologic data has long been the standard of practice for designing and operating water
supply and flood protection projects. For example historical data are used for flood forecasting models and
to forecast snowmelt runoff for water supply. This method of forecasting assumes that the climate of the
future will be similar to that of the period of historical record. However, the hydrologic record cannot be
used to predict changes in frequency and severity of extreme climate events such as floods. Going forward,
model calibration or statistical relation development must happen more frequently, new forecast-based tools
must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly considers climate change must be adopted.
Climate change is already impacting water resources, and resource managers have observed the following:
Historical hydrologic patterns can no longer be solely relied upon to forecast the water future.
Precipitation and runoff patterns are changing, increasing the uncertainty for water supply and
quality, flood management and ecosystem functions.
Extreme climatic events will become more frequent, necessitating improvement in flood
protection, drought preparedness and emergency response.
The amount of snow is critical for water supply and environmental needs, but so is the timing of snowmelt
runoff into rivers and streams. Rising snowlines caused by climate change will allow more mountain area
to contribute to peak storm runoff. High frequency flood events (e.g. 10-year floods) will likely increase
with a changing climate. Along with reductions in the amount of the snowpack and accelerated snowmelt,
scientists project greater storm intensity, resulting in more direct runoff and flooding. Changes in watershed
vegetation and soil moisture conditions will likewise change runoff and recharge patterns. As stream flows
and velocities change, erosion patterns will also change, altering channel shapes and depths, possibly
increasing sedimentation behind dams, and affecting habitat and water quality. With potential increases in
the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to climate change, there is potential for more floods following
fire, causing increased sediment loads and other water quality impacts.
As hydrology changes, what is currently considered a 100-year flood may strike more often, leaving many
communities at greater risk. Planners will need to factor a new level of safety into the design, operation,
and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams, floodways, bypass channels and levees, as well
Bridgeview Consulting 7-16 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
as the design of local sewers and storm drains. The planning areas location on the western flank of the
Rocky Mountains gives the area a temperate climate. Summer is mostly warm and dry, interspersed with a
few cool, damp days. Winter weather is often damp and foggy, with below-freezing temperatures,
characteristic of maritime Polar air mass. Generally, the prime growing season is from mid-April to mid-
October.
Annual precipitation in Spokane County ranges from less than 15 inches in the semiarid western edge of
the County to more than 25 inches in the hills and mountains on the east side of the County. The annual
precipitation in the planning area is approximately 17 to 21 inches.
7.2.5 Extent and Location Dam Failure
The run-of-the-river dams along the main stem of the Spokane River are Post Falls Dams, Spokane Dam,
Upper Falls Dam, Monroe Street Dam,
Upriver Dam, Nine Mile Falls Dam
and Little Falls Dam. With the
exception of Upriver Dam (pictured
right), which is operated by the City of
Spokanertment, these
facilities are operated by Avista
Utilities.
Of these dams, the Post Falls Dam
located downstream from the outlet of
Lake Coeur dAlene has the greatest
effect on the river hydrograph. Flow
through the dam regulates Spokane
River flow for four to six months a
year during the low flow period. The
Figure 7-4 City of Spokane Upriver Dam
dam regulates flow to maintain the
level of Lake Coeur dAlene at the agreed upon ordinary high water mark of 2,128 feet. Storing water that
would have naturally drained from the lake during the summer modifies the flow characteristics of the river.
The current hydrograph shows minimum flows occurring in late August or early September compared to
the pre dam hydrograph where minimum occurred in late September of early October. Long Lake Dam,
located downstream of the study area also has a storage reservoir adequate to allow minor effects on flow.
The Spokane River flows 112 miles from Post Falls Dam in Idaho to Lake Roosevelt (the Upper Columbia
River) in Washington. The river basin encompasses over 6,000 square miles in Washington and Idaho.
There are two major tributaries, Latah (Hangman) Creek and the Little Spokane River. There are seven
municipal and industrial dischargers with permits to put wastewater into the Spokane River. Water
conservation measures have been studied to preserve stream flows for fish, habitat, and recreation.
The Dam Safety Office (DSO) oversees 31 dams in Spokane County. Three are operated by federal
agencies, and the rest are under the jurisdiction of the state. Eleven of the dams are listed as high or
significant hazard, which means there are lives at risk downstream of the dam. The rest of the dams are
ranked as low risk, with no lives at risk downstream of the dam. Table 7-6 lists these high and significant
hazard dams within Spokane County.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 7-6.
Dams in Spokane County
Crest Surface Drainage
Dam Hazard
National Year Length Height Area area
a b
Name Water Course Owner
ID #Built Type(feet) (feet) (acres) (sq. mi.) Class
Deer Park WA00303 Tr-Dragoon Deer Park 1984 RE 1340 14 21 0.01 2
Sewage Creek
Treatment
Lagoon
Deer Park WA01468 Tr-Dragoon Deer Park 1984 RE 3300 14 176.0 0.07 1C
Wastewater Creek
Storage
Lagoon
Deer Park WA0065 Tr-Dragoon Deer Park 1996 RE 1300 13 3.0 0.00 1C
Wastewater Creek
Storage
Lagoon #3
Fairfield WA01849 -- Fairfield 2003 RE 726 14 2.0 0.00 2
Waste
Treatment
Aerated
Lagoon
Hog Lake WA00056 Fishtrap Washington 1957 RE 330 20 40.0 48 1B
Dam Creek State
Lower Pine WA00317 Rock Creek U.S. Dept. of 1940 ER, RE 450 10 75.0 22.75 2
Lake Dam Interior
Nine Mile WA00068 Spokane WA Water 1908 PG 464 68 440 5110 1B
Dam River Power Co
Reflection WA00362 Sheets Creek Reflection Lake 1955 RE 200 8 58 0.54 2
Lake North Homeowners
Dam Association
Reflection WA00050 Sheets Creek Reflection Lake 1955 RE 710 28 58 0.54 1C
Lake South Comm. Inc.
Dam
Upper Falls WA00038 Spokane WA Water 1922 PG 366 30 135 4290 2
Dam River Power Co
Upriver WA00074 Spokane Spokane 1935 CN, PG, 725 54 160 4215 2
Station River RE
Control
Works
a. RE = Earth Fill Dam; CN, PG = Concrete Gravity Dam
b. See severity discussion for definition of hazard classes
7.2.6 Previous Occurrence
According to DSO records, 15 notable dam failure events have occurred in Washington between 1918 and
2003, which significantly impacted communities. None of those occurred within or
impacted Spokane County; however, in May 1986, the Upriver Dam located in the County near Spokane
failed by overtopping when lightning struck the system and the turbine shut down. Water continued to rise
behind the dam as officials tried to restart the turbine. The backup power systems also failed, and water
Bridgeview Consulting 7-18 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
could not be timely released from the spillway gates. The incident caused ~$11 million in damage to the
18
facility. No injuries were reported.
While not in Spokane County, as a result of the wildfires which impacted much of Eastern Washington in
2014, the Hawkins Dam in Okanogan County failed due to spillway erosion which was caused as a result
of the 2014 wildfires and ensuing heavy rains. The repair to the dam was made in 2017.
The most recent dam-related incident resulted from impact from the 2018 wildfire in Chelan County to the
Eightmile Lake Dam. DSO worked with the dam owners, who completed repairs in the summer of 2018.
7.2.7 Frequency
Dam failures are infrequent and usually coincide with events that cause them, such as earthquakes or
excessive rainfall. The probability of any type of dam failure is low in todays regulatory environment.
There is a residual risk associated with dams that remains after safeguards have been implemented. The
residual risk is associated with events beyond those that the facility was designed to withstand.
7.2.8 Severity
The DSO classifies dams and reservoirs in a hazard rating system based solely on the potential
consequences to downstream life and property that would result from a failure of the dam and sudden
release of water. The following codes are used as an index of the potential consequences in the downstream
valley if the dam were to fail and release the reservoir water:
1A = Greater than 300 lives at risk (High hazard)
1B = From 31 to 300 lives at risk (High hazard)
1C = From 7 to 30 lives at risk (High hazard)
2 = From 1 to 6 lives at risk (Significant hazard)
3 = No lives at risk (Low hazard).
The Corps of Engineers developed the hazard classification system for dam failures shown in Table 7-7.
The Washington and Corps of Engineers hazard rating systems are both based only on the potential
consequences of a dam failure; neither system takes into account the probability of such failures.
7.2.9 Warning Time
Warning time for dam failure varies depending on the cause of the failure. In events of extreme precipitation
or massive snowmelt, evacuations can be planned with sufficient time. In the event of a structural failure
due to earthquake, there may be no warning time. A dams structural type also affects warning time. Earthen
dams do not tend to fail completely or instantaneously. Once a breach is initiated, discharging water erodes
the breach until either the reservoir water is depleted or the breach resists further erosion. Concrete gravity
dams also tend to have a partial breach as one or more monolith sections are forced apart by escaping water.
The time of breach formation ranges from a few minutes to a few hours (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1997).
18 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrdocs/WaterRights/wrwebpdf/damfailure-ws.pdf
Bridgeview Consulting 7-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Spokane County and its planning partners have established protocols for flood warning and response to
imminent dam failure in the flood warning portion of adopted emergency operations plans. These protocols
are tied to emergency action plans created by the dam owners. Not all dams have emergency action plans;
only those rated as high hazard are mandated to do so by state and federal regulations.
Secondary Hazards
Dam failure can cause severe downstream flooding, depending on the magnitude of the failure. Other
potential secondary hazards of dam failure are landslides around the reservoir perimeter, bank erosion on
the rivers, and destruction of downstream habitat. The hazard descriptions in Table 7-7 include secondary
hazards of dam failures.
Table 7-7.
Corps of Engineers Hazard Potential Classification
Hazard Environmental
a b c d e
CategoryDirect Loss of LifeLifeline LossesProperty LossesLosses
Low None (rural location, no No disruption of Private agricultural Minimal incremental
permanent structures for services (cosmetic or lands, equipment, and damage
human habitation) rapidly repairable isolated buildings
damage)
Significant Rural location, only transient Disruption of essential Major public and Major mitigation
or day-use facilities facilities and access private facilities required
High Certain (one or more) Disruption of essential Extensive public and Extensive mitigation
extensive residential, facilities and access private facilities cost or impossible to
commercial, or industrial mitigate
development
a. Categories are assigned to overall projects, not individual structures at a project.
b. Loss of life potential based on inundation mapping of area downstream of the project. Analyses of loss of life
potential should take into account the population at risk, time of flood wave travel, and warning time.
c. Indirect threats to life caused by the interruption of lifeline services due to project failure or operational
disruption; for example, loss of critical medical facilities or access to them.
d. Damage to project facilities and downstream property and indirect impact due to loss of project services, such
as impact due to loss of a dam and navigation pool, or impact due to loss of water or power supply.
e. Environmental impact downstream caused by the incremental flood wave produced by the project failure,
beyond what would normally be expected for the magnitude flood event under which the failure occurs.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995
Climate Change Impacts
Potential changes to the hydrographs used to design dams due to the impacts of climate change are a
growing concern for the safety of our nations dams. Dams are designed partly based on assumptions about
a rivers flow behavior, expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects
on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. If the hygrograph changes, it is conceivable that the dam
can lose some or all of its designed margin of safety, also known as freeboard. If freeboard is reduced, dam
operators may be forced to release increased volumes earlier in a storm cycle in order to maintain the
required margins of safety. Such early releases of increased volumes can increase flood potential
downstream. Throughout the west, communities downstream of dams are already experiencing increases
in stream flows from earlier releases from dams.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-20 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
Dams are constructed with safety features known as spillways. Spillways are put in place on dams as a
safety measure in the event of the reservoir filling too quickly. Spillway overflow events, often referred to
as design failures, result in increased discharges downstream and increased flooding potential. Although
climate change will not increase the probability of catastrophic dam failure, it may increase the probability
of design failures.
7.3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
To understand risk, a community must evaluate what assets are exposed or vulnerable in the identified
hazard area. For this planning purpose, the flood hazard areas identified include the 1-percent (100-year)
and 0.2 % (500-year) floodplains. These events are generally those considered by planners and evaluated
under federal programs such as the NFIP. The following text evaluates and estimates the potential impact
of flooding in Spokane County.
7.3.1 Overview
All types of flooding can cause widespread damage throughout rural and urban areas, including but not
limited to: water-related damage to the interior and exterior of buildings; destruction of electrical and other
expensive and difficult-to-replace equipment; injury and loss of life; proliferation of disease vectors;
disruption of utilities, including water, sewer, electricity, communications networks and facilities; loss of
agricultural crops and livestock; placement of stress on emergency response and healthcare facilities and
personnel; loss of productivity; and displacement of persons from homes and places of employment.
Methodology
The following sections assess the vulnerability to the flood hazard only. This assessment did not include
data for dam failure due to the unavailability of dam failure inundation mapping for dams within the
planning area. Readers should consider the flood hazard areas near the dam when attempting to identify the
impact potential for dam failure. Flood exposure numbers were generated using 2019 Spokane County
Assessor and parcel data, overlaid with the adopted NFIP flood maps.
was also utilized to identify exposure to those facilities. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable
for planning purposes.
7.3.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
The impact of flooding on life, health, and safety is dependent upon several factors, including the severity
of the event and whether or not adequate warning time is provided to residents. Exposure represents the
population living in or near floodplain areas that could be impacted should a flood event occur.
Additionally, exposure should not be limited to only those who reside in a defined hazard zone, but
everyone who may be affected by the effects of a hazard event (e.g., people are at risk while traveling in
flooded areas, or their access to emergency services is compromised during an event). The degree of that
impact will vary and is not measurable. Of additional concern within the planning area is the number of
tourists who can be impacted during periods of flooding, particularly in high-capacity structures (e.g.,
Northern Quest Casino) or events which have high turnout, such as Hoopfest. There are also residential
structures in the path of potential waterflow with respect to the various dams throughout the County.
While existing data identifies structures at risk, impact to businesses in the area are also of concern, as some
businesses have a large number of employees in attendance on a daily basis, such as the Northern Quest
Casino and the Amazon Fulfillment Center which will be completed during the life cycle of this plan.
Therefore, consideration should also be given to employees working in those potential inundation areas
who would also be at potential risk.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Of the population exposed, the most vulnerable include the economically disadvantaged and those over 65
years of age. Economically disadvantaged populations are more vulnerable because they are likely to
evaluate risk and make decisions to evacuate based on familial net economic impact. The population over
the age of 65 is more vulnerable because they are more likely to seek or need medical attention which may
not be available due to isolation during a flood event and they may have more difficulty evacuating.
The number of injuries and casualties resulting from flooding is generally limited based on advance weather
forecasting, blockades, and warnings. Therefore, injuries and deaths generally are not anticipated if proper
warning and precautions are in place. Ongoing mitigation efforts should help to avoid the most likely cause
of injury, which results from persons trying to cross flooded roadways or channels during a flood.
Population counts of those living in the floodplain were generated by analyzing County assessor and parcel
data that intersect with the 100-year and 500-year floodplains identified on FIRMs. Using GIS, residential
structures that intersected the floodplain were identified. An estimate of population was calculated as
identified in the footer of Table 7-8. (Note: Tables 7-9 and 7-10 below provide a breakdown of all structure
types, including residential.)
Table 7-8.
Populations Based on Residential Structures within Flood Hazard Areas*
Number of Residential Types within 100-Year Flood Hazard Number of Residential Types within
500-Year Flood Hazard
)
e
d
ee
r
cy
ss
o
hh
a
r
y y
t
n
l
tt
ee
ll
-
eo
lal
iain
a
l
ss
ada
nn
ss
mme
hY
u
titi
ii
F
tt
mm
n
ii
t t
iociov
oo
n
aa)
u
nn
nnnne
nn
dld
n
r
0
HH
eoe
-F-F
oo
a
nna
a
U U e
0
UiUi-
d d
2e2e
u
tte
oBo
c
ee
1
lili
ll
44
aa
ini
(
ss
n
%
++
ClClY
d
gg
bnb
ee
ta
2
55
uu
o
nn.
a
oo
nh
0
RR
ii
pp
o
0
ec
0
l
SS
oo
MM
v
%
5
F
PP
(
e
1
0 0
Airway Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0
Cheney 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0
Fairfield 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
2 0
Latah 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Liberty Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Medical Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0
Millwood 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
32 0
Rockford 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0
27 0
Spangle 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0
192 4,994
Spokane 1 1 3 0 40 95 9 18 0 1450
481 882
Spokane Valley 15 0 0 0 138 5 2 0 0 333
0 0
Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,645 556
Unincorporated 5 0 1 3 644 18 0 0 0 157
Total Population* 214 24 97 7 2,063 2,406 1,147 134 437 0 4,714 6,432
*Based on residential structures within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains and an estimate of 2.43 persons per residential structure.
* Single family residences and Mobile Homes at 2.43 persons per house; 2-4 plexes were 9.72 (2.43 * 4) persons per 2-4 plex, 5+ units
were 12.15 (5*2.43) persons per 5+ unit and condominiums were 24.3 (10*2.43) persons per condominium unit.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-22 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
7.3.3 Impact on Property
Structures in the Floodplain
Table 7-9 and Table 7-10 summarize the total area and number of structures in the floodplain by
municipality. Table 7-11 and Table 7-12 summarize the estimated value of exposed buildings in the
planning area at over $545 million worth of building-and-contents exposed to the 100-year flood,
representing 0.72 percent of the total assessed value of the planning area, and $762 million worth of
building-and-contents exposed to the 500-year flood, representing 1.0 percent of the total.
Table 7-9.
Area and Structures Within the 100-Year Floodplain
Area in
Number of Structures
in Floodplain
Floodplain
Total
(Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Other*
Airway Heights 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Cheney 28.40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 01
Deer Park 4.34 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 01
Fairfield 31.44 4 9 0 7 0 0 0 222
Latah 21.38 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 25
Liberty Lake 31.71 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12
Medical Lake 22.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Millwood 8.83 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 03
Rockford 71.19 9 19 0 0 0 5 0 033
Spangle 28.82 11 4 0 5 0 1 0 021
Spokane 1,040.23 45 24 1 1 0 52 2 7132
Spokane Valley 619.66 153 4 1 0 1 6 1 1167
Waverly 14.45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 01
Unincorporated
27,352.47 653 36 2 210 5 39 1 13 959
29,275.7 880 99 4 225 6 103 4 26 1,347
Total
*Other category includes transportation and utilities; Wholesale and Professional Services categories were included in Commercial.
Table 7-10.
Area and Structures Within the 500-Year Floodplain
Area in
Number of Structures
in Floodplain
Floodplain
Total
(Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Other
Airway Heights 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Cheney 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Deer Park 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Fairfield 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Latah 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Liberty Lake 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Bridgeview Consulting 7-23 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 7-10.
Area and Structures Within the 500-Year Floodplain
Area in
Number of Structures
in Floodplain
Floodplain
Total
(Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Other
Medical Lake 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Millwood 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Rockford 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Spangle 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Spokane 865.18 1,572 103 1 0 5 39 3 61,729
Spokane Valley 206.69 340 10 0 0 0 0 1 0351
Waverly 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Unincorporated 1,169.97 175 1 0 4 0 2 0 3185
2,241.84 2,087 114 1 4 5 41 4 92,265
Total
Table 7-11.
Value of Exposed Buildings Within the 100-Year Floodplain
Estimated Flood Exposure Percent of Total
Total Assessed Value
Structure Contents
$0
Airway Heights $0$0 0.00%
$205,815
Cheney $137,210$68,605 0.00%
$86,895
Deer Park $57,930$28,965 0.00%
$4,819,350
Fairfield $3,212,900$1,606,450 0.01%
$362,415
$241,610$120,805 0.00%
Latah
$7,700,505
$5,133,670$2,566,835 0.01%
Liberty Lake
$0
Medical Lake $0$0 0.00%
$1,964,985
Millwood $1,309,990$654,995 0.00%
$4,268,370
Rockford $2,845,580$1,422,790 0.01%
$2,500,935
$1,667,290$833,645 0.00%
Spangle
$91,779,900
$61,186,600$30,593,300 0.12%
Spokane
$51,561,570
Spokane Valley $34,374,380$17,187,190 0.07%
$100,470
Waverly $66,980$33,490 0.00%
Unincorporated $379,760,543
$253,173,695$126,586,848 0.50%
$363,407,835 $181,703,918 $545,111,753 0.72%
Total
* Methodology for determining value: Utilized assessed amount field to determine structure value, contents was calculated at
50% of the structure value, for the 173,416 parcels that were included in the analysis the total of the assessed value is
$50,614,614,129 using 50% of this value as content brings the total structure and content value for the county to
$75,921,921,914. 1,374 parcel points were calculated within the 100-year floodplain for this analysis with the totals for structure
value calculated from the assessed amount field for these 1,374 parcels.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-24 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
Table 7-12.
Value of Exposed Buildings Within the 500-Year Floodplain
Estimated Flood Exposure
% of Total
Total
Structure Contents Assessed Value
$0$0 $0 0.00%
Airway Heights
$0$0 $0 0.00%
Cheney
Deer Park $0$0 $0 0.00%
Fairfield $0$0 $0 0.00%
Latah $0$0 $0 0.00%
$0$0 $0 0.00%
Liberty Lake
$0$0 $0 0.00%
Medical Lake
Millwood $0$0 $0 0.00%
Rockford $0$0 $0 0.00%
Spangle $0$0 $0 0.00%
$401,245,380$200,622,690 $601,868,070 0.79%
Spokane
$65,204,780$32,602,390 $97,807,170 0.13%
Spokane Valley
Waverly $0$0 $0 0.00%
Unincorporated $41,934,890$20,967,445 $62,902,335 0.08%
$508,385,050 $254,192,525 $762,577,575 1.00%
Total
*Methodology for determining value: Utilized the assessed amount field to determine structure value, contents was calculated
at 50% of the structure value, for the 173,416 parcels that were included in the analysis the total of the assessed value is
$50,614,614,129 using 50% of this value as content brings the total structure and content value for the county to
$75,921,921,914. 2,264 parcel points were calculated within the 500-year floodplain for this analysis with the totals for
structure value calculated from the assessed amount field for these 2,264 parcels.
7.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Table 7-13 through Table 7-16 summarize the critical facilities and infrastructure in the 100-year and
500-year floodplains of Spokane County. In cases where short-term functionality is impacted by a hazard,
other facilities of neighboring municipalities may need to increase support response functions during a
disaster event. Mitigation planning should consider means to reduce impact on critical facilities and ensure
sufficient emergency and school services remain when a significant event occurs. Details are provided in
the following sections.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-25 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 7-13.
Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain
Medical and Government Hazardous
Total
Jurisdiction Health Services Function Protective Materials Schools Other
0
Airway Heights 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
Cheney 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
Fairfield 0 0 1 0 0 0
0
Latah 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Liberty Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Medical Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Millwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
Rockford 0 0 1 0 0 0
1
Spangle 0 0 0 1 0 0
0
Spokane 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
Spokane Valley 0 0 0 0 1 0
0
Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 2 1 1 0 4
Table 7-14.
Critical Infrastructure in the 100-Year Floodplain
Water
Total
Jurisdiction Bridges* Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other**
0
Airway Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Cheney 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Fairfield 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Latah 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Liberty Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Medical Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Millwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
Rockford 0 0 1 0 0 0
0
Spangle 0 0 0 0 0 0
11
Spokane 8 0 0 0 0 3
3
Spokane Valley 3 0 0 0 0 0
0
Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0
24
Unincorporated 15 0 0 0 0 9
Total 26 0 1 0 0 12 39
*Bridges include both highway and railway bridges; **Other Infrastructure includes dams and natural gas facilities
Bridgeview Consulting 7-26 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
Table 7-15.
Critical Facilities in the 500-Year Floodplain
Medical and Government Hazardous
Total
Jurisdiction Health Services Function Protective Materials Schools Other
0
Airway Heights 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
Cheney 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Fairfield 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Latah 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Liberty Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Medical Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Millwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Rockford 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Spangle 0 0 0 0 0 0
5
Spokane 0 0 1 2 2 0
3
Spokane Valley 0 0 0 1 2 0
0
Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
Unincorporated 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total 0 0 2 3 4 0 9
Table 7-16.
Critical Infrastructure in the 500-Year Floodplain
Water
Total
Jurisdiction Bridges* Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other**
Airway Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cheney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fairfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Latah 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Liberty Lake 0
Medical Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Millwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rockford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Spangle 0
2 0 0 1 0 0
Spokane 3
Spokane Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 0 0 1 0 0 3
Bridgeview Consulting 7-27 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 7-16.
Critical Infrastructure in the 500-Year Floodplain
Water
Total
Jurisdiction Bridges* Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other**
*Bridges include both highway and railway bridges; **Other Infrastructure includes dams and natural gas facilities
Utilities and Infrastructure
Roads
The following major roads in Spokane County pass through 100-year floodplains:
Interstate 90 State Route 902
State Route 27 State Route 904
State Route 206 U.S. Route 2
State Route 290 U.S. Route 195
State Route 291 U.S. Route 395
Some of these roads are built above the flood level, and others function as levees to prevent flooding. Still,
in severe flood events these roads can be blocked or damaged, preventing access to some areas.
Bridges
Flooding events can significantly impact road bridges. These are important because often they provide the
only ingress and egress to some neighborhoods. An analysis showed that there are four bridges that are in
or cross over the 100-year floodplain and five bridges in the 500-year floodplain.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Water and sewer systems can be affected by flooding. Floodwaters can back up drainage systems, causing
localized flooding. Culverts can be blocked by debris from flood events, also causing localized urban
flooding. Floodwaters can get into drinking water supplies, causing contamination. Sewer systems can be
backed up, causing wastewater to spill into homes, neighborhoods, rivers and streams.
7.3.5 Impact to the Economy
Impact on the economy related to a flood event in Spokane County would include loss of property and
associated tax revenue, as well as potential loss of businesses. Depending on the duration between onset of
the event and recovery, businesses within the area may not be able to sustain the economic loss of their
business being disrupted for an extended period of time. Historical data has demonstrated that those
businesses impacted by a disaster are less likely to reopen after an event. Flooding also has impacts on
agricultural and forestland. Agricultural land in the County are subject to flooding. Likewise, inundation
frequently affects croplands, something on which the County relies as a source of income. Forestland is
also vulnerable to floods due to erosion when river and stream banks fail and overflow.
The County has a large amount of commercial and industrial development disbursed countywide. This
includes a major rail line traveling across the United States, through Spokane to other areas of the State.
transportation and communication infrastructure also falls within in the floodplain
in certain areas in order to serve the needs of the community. A flood could impact infrastructure supporting
Bridgeview Consulting 7-28 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
the commercial and industrial areas, causing impact not only within Spokane, but statewide if rail lines or
major transportation routes are impacted.
7.3.6 Impact on the Environment
Flooding is a natural event, and floodplains provide many natural and beneficial functions. Nonetheless,
with human development factored in, flooding can impact the environment in negative ways. Migrating
fish can wash into roads or over dikes into flooded areas, with no possibility of escape. Pollution from
roads, such as oil, and hazardous materials can wash into rivers and streams. During floods, these can settle
onto normally dry soils, polluting them for agricultural uses. Human development such as bridge abutments
and levees, and logjams from timber harvesting can increase stream bank erosion, causing rivers and
streams to migrate into non-natural courses.
7.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Spokane County and its planning partner cities are subject to the provisions of the Washington GMA, which
regulates identified critical areas. County critical areas regulations include frequently flooded areas, defined
as the FEMA 100-year mapped floodplain. The GMA establishes programs to monitor the densities at
which commercial, residential and industrial development occurs under local GMA comprehensive plans
and development regulations.
As participants in the NFIP, Spokane County and the partner cities have adopted flood damage prevention
ordinances pursuant to the participation requirements. While these ordinances do not prohibit new
development within the floodplain, they include new development provisions that account for the risk
inherent to the floodplain.
The combination of the GMA provisions, critical areas regulations and NFIP flood damage prevention
provisions equips the municipal planning partners with adequate tools to address new development inthe
floodplain. As pressures mount for growth into areas with flood risk, these tools could be enhanced with
higher regulatory standards to increase the level of risk reduction on new development.
7.5 ISSUES
Homes located in flood plains, are vulnerable to flood damage. Adding to this vulnerability is new growth
creating pressure to develop marginal land located near flood plains. As development increases, drainage
basins are built-out, and the volume of storm water runoff and the area that it floods will increase. As a
result, homes that were once outside mapped flood plains face a threat of flooding. Currently, 35-40 percent
of the National Flood Insurance claims come from outside the mapped flood plains. Human-made
developments within flood plains should be limited to non-structures such as parks, golf courses, and farms.
These facilities have the least potential for damage, but maximize land use.
The public should be made aware of hazardous areas and given information on flood insurance, mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery. Local jurisdiction emergency management plans should establish
warning, evacuation, housing, and other emergency procedures.
The National Weather Service has an extensive river and weather monitoring system and provides flood
watch and warning information to the public via radio, television, Internet, Teletype, and telephone.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers, under PL 84-99, has the authority to assist public entities in
flood fighting and rescue operations and to protect, repair, and restore federally constructed flood control
works threatened, damaged, or destroyed by a flood.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-29 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
The planning team has identified the following flood-related issues relevant to the planning area:
The accuracy of the existing flood hazard mapping produced by FEMA in reflecting the true
flood risk within the planning area is questionable. Flood maps need to be updated utilizing the
best available data, science and technology
The extent of flood-protection provided by flood control facilities (dams, dikes and levees) is
not known due to the lack of an established national policy on flood protection standards.
The risk associated with the flood hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards such
as earthquake, landslide and fishing losses. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation
alternatives with multiple objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards.
There is no consistency of land-use practices within the planning area or the scope of regulatory
floodplain management beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP.
Potential climate change could alter flood conditions in Spokane County.
More information is needed on flood risk to support the concept of risk-based analysis of capital
projects.
There needs to be a sustained effort to gather historical damage data, such as high water marks
on structures and damage reports, to measure the cost-effectiveness of future mitigation
projects.
Ongoing flood hazard mitigation will require funding from multiple sources.
There needs to be a coordinated hazard mitigation effort between jurisdictions affected by flood
hazards in the county.
Floodplain residents need to continue to be educated about flood preparedness and the
resources available during and after floods.
The concept of residual risk should be considered in the design of future capital flood control
projects and should be communicated with residents living in the floodplain.
The promotion of flood insurance as a means of protecting private property owners from the
economic impacts of frequent flood events should continue.
Existing floodplain-compatible uses such as agricultural and open space need to be maintained.
There is constant pressure to convert these existing uses to more intense uses within the
planning area during times of moderate to high growth.
The economy affects a jurisdictions ability to manage its floodplains. Budget cuts and
personnel losses can strain resources needed to support floodplain management.
A buildable-lands analysis that looks at vacant lands and their designated land use would be a
valuable tool in helping decision-makers make wise decisions about future development.
Dam Failure inundation data needs to be obtained to support future risk assessments of the
Dam Failure hazard.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-30 April 2020
FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE
7.6 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
The primary water courses in Spokane County have the potential to flood at irregular intervals, generally
in response to a succession of intense winter rainstorms. Storm patterns of warm, moist air usually occur
between early November and late March. A series of such weather events can cause severe flooding in the
planning area.
The worst-case scenario is a series of storms that flood numerous drainage basins in a short time. This could
overwhelm the response and floodplain management capability within the planning area. Major roads could
be blocked, preventing critical access for many residents and critical functions. High in-channel flows could
cause water courses to scour, possibly washing out roads and creating more isolation problems. In the case
of multi-basin flooding, the County may not be able to make repairs quickly enough to restore critical
facilities and infrastructure.
Areas within the floodplain are limited in nature when compared to other jurisdictions. Much of the
flooding within the urban areas is due to issues with storm drains and culvert capacity.
Citizens customarily are forewarned of severe weather events such as potential heavy rains which could
lead to flooding. The county does have plans in place to address response to such events. Historically,
impact to structures has been somewhat limited in nature, but events have risen to the level of disaster
declarations. Impact to roadways is of concern, potentially impacting first responders, although in most
instances, alternate routes are available. While travel time may increase, in most instances, responders
would still be able to respond to the call(s), unless secondary hazards such as landslides have also occurred
which further block ingress and egress. Table 7-17 identifies the Consequence Analysis for the Flood
hazard.
Table 7-17.
Consequence Analysis
L ML M MH H VH
Likelihood / Probability X
Geographic Boundary X
Population X
Vulnerable Population X
Built Environment X
Critical Infrastructure X
Facilities X
First Responders X
Bridgeview Consulting 7-31 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 7-17.
Consequence Analysis
L ML M MH H VH
Economic Consequences X
Environmental Impact X
X
L=Low; ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium; MH=Medium-High; H=High; VH=Very High
7.7 RESULTS
Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that theprobability for impact
from flood throughout the area is highly likely. The area experiences some level of flood annually, albeit
not necessarily to the level of a disaster declaration, and in many instances, creates more of a nuisance
flooding than a significant hazard. While structural damage may vary due to flood depths and existing
floodplain management regulations, the actual area within the floodplain is limited in nature, with fewer
structures exposed; however, there is a fairly high rate of property ownership that does not have flood
insurance. Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 3.0, with
overall vulnerability determined to be a medium level.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-32 April 2020
CHAPTER 8.
LANDSLIDE
8.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
DEFINITIONS
A landslide is a mass of rock, earth or debris moving down a slope.
LandslideThe sliding
Landslides may be minor or very large, and can move at slow to very
movement of masses of
high speeds. They can be initiated by storms, earthquakes, fires,
loosened rock and soil down a
volcanic eruptions or human modification of the land.
hillside or slope. Such failures
occur when the strength of the
Mudslides (or mudflows or debris flows) are rivers of rock, earth,
soils forming the slope is
organic matter and other soil materials saturated with water. They
exceeded by the pressure,
such as weight or saturation,
develop in the soil overlying bedrock on sloping surfaces when water
acting upon them.
rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall or
rapid snowmelt. Water pressure in the pore spaces of the material
Mass MovementA
increases to the point that the internal strength of the soil is drastically
collective term for landslides,
weakened. The soils reduced resistance can then easily be overcome
debris flows, falls and
by gravity, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or slurry.
sinkholes.
A debris flow or mudflow can move rapidly down slopes or through
channels, and can strike with little or no warning at avalanche speeds.
Mudslide (or Mudflow or
The slurry can travel miles from its source, growing as it descends,
Debris Flow)A river of rock,
picking up trees, boulders, cars and anything else in its path.
earth, organic matter and
Although these slides behave as fluids, they pack many times the
other materials saturated with
water.
hydraulic force of water due to the mass of material included in them.
They can be some of the most destructive events in nature.
All mass movements are caused by a combination of geological and climate conditions, as well as the
encroaching influence of urbanization. Vulnerable natural conditions are affected by human residential,
agricultural, commercial and industrial development and the infrastructure that supports it.
8.2 HAZARD PROFILE
Landslides are caused by one or a combination of the following factors: change in slope of the terrain,
increased load on the land, shocks and vibrations, change in water content, groundwater movement, frost
action, weathering of rocks, and removing or changing the type of vegetation covering slopes. In general,
landslide hazard areas are where the land has characteristics that contribute to the risk of the downhill
movement of material, such as the following:
19
A slope greater than 30 percent
A history of landslide activity or movement during the last 10,000 years
Stream or wave activity, which has caused erosion, undercut a bank or cut into a bank to cause the
surrounding land to be unstable
The presence or potential for snow avalanches
19
https://www.spokanecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/20132/CAO-2018-final?bidId=
Bridgeview Consulting 8-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
The presence of an alluvial fan, indicating vulnerability to the flow of debris or sediments
The presence of impermeable soils, such as silt or clay, which are mixed with granular soils such
as sand and gravel.
Flows and slides are commonly categorized by the form of initial ground failure. Figure 8-1 through Figure
8-4 show common types of slides. The most common is the shallow colluvial slide, occurring particularly
in response to intense, short-duration storms. The largest and most destructive are deep-seated slides,
although they are less common than other types.
Figure 8-1. Deep Seated Slide Figure 8-2. Shallow Colluvial Slide
Figure 8-3. Bench Slide Figure 8-4. Large Slide
Slides and earth flows can pose serious hazard to property in hillside terrain. They tend to move slowly and
thus rarely threaten life directly. When they movein response to such changes as increased water content,
earthquake shaking, addition of load, or removal of downslope supportthey deform and tilt the ground
surface. The result can be destruction of foundations, offset of roads, breaking of underground pipes, or
overriding of downslope property and structures.
8.2.1 Extent and Location
The best available predictor of where movement of slides and earth flows might occur is the location of
past movements. Past landslides can be recognized by their distinctive topographic shapes, which can
remain in place for thousands of years. Most landslides recognizable in this fashion range from a few acres
to several square miles. Most show no evidence of recent movement and are not currently active. A small
proportion of them may become active in any given year, with movements concentrated within all or part
of the landslide masses or around their edges.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-2 April 2020
LANDSLIDES
The recognition of ancient dormant mass movement sites is important in the identification of areas
susceptible to flows and slides because they can be reactivated by earthquakes or by exceptionally wet
weather. Also, because they consist of broken materials and frequently involve disruption of groundwater
flow, these dormant sites are vulnerable to construction-triggered sliding.
Identifying unstable slopes to aid in
mitigating landslide hazards is an
integral part of land management and
regulation in Washington through the
Landslide Hazard Zonation Project
prepared by the Forest Practices Division
of the Washington Department of
Natural Resources. Permanent rules
adopted by the Washington Forest
Practices Board in 2001 address
landslide hazards from specific
landforms across the state (WAC 222-
16-050 (1)(d)). This methodology was
developed to provide standardized
methods for landslide inventories and for
producing hazard maps to identify
unstable slopes in support of forest practices rules. It also provides a framework for monitoring the success
of new forest practices related to unstable slopes. At present, due, in part, to the lack of LiDAR data, there
are no Landslide Hazard Zonation maps for the Spokane County planning area. The County has identified
the collection of LiDAR data as a mitigation strategy to support future development of Landside Hazard
Zonation areas within Spokane County. Once collected, future landslide risk assessments should use this
data as it becomes available.
While no landslide hazard zonation maps exist, as of this 2020 update, Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, in conjunction with USGS (and others) has begun capturing some landslide information
for Spokane County, although the data is limited. Review of the Washington Geological Information Portal
Natural Hazards Layer indicates the collection of data began in 2017. Readers may wish to continue to
check this website as data is updated. https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/#natural_hazards
Landslide hazard areas were defined as all areas with slopes of 30 percent or more in accordance with DNR
. Figure 8-5 shows those hazard areas. For
illustration purposes, the landslide map also identifies those soils type that are more prone to increased
landslides, NEHRP Soil Types D or E.
8.2.2 Previous Occurrence
While landslide events do occur, there is little recorded information regarding landslides in Spokane
County. The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) has a record of
one landslide event in Spokane County since 1960on December 10, 1977. This event coincided with a
presidential disaster declaration for severe storms and flooding.
During the January 30, 2017 severe weather (flood) event which resulted in a Presidential Declaration (DR
4309), the County experienced a landslide event which impacted two residential structures. Impact in large
part was due to the fact that the structures were not affixed to the foundation, causing the houses to slide
off of their foundations.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
In April 2019, a Mead-area home (which had been previously abandoned for several years) was partially
destroyed by a small landslide occurring along a steep hillside behind the residence. At the time that event
occurred, it was not as a result of ground saturation. The incident was reported by an Avista employee who
was inspecting gas meters in the area.
During this update process, there was one small landslide event which occurred as a result of the May 16,
2019 thunderstorm event, but no property was damaged. There are no records in the county of fatalities
attributed to mass movement. However, deaths as a result of slides and slope collapses have occurred across
the west coast.
8.2.3 Frequency
Landslides are often triggered by other natural hazards such as earthquakes, heavy rain, floods or wildfires,
so landslide frequency is often related to the frequency of these other hazards. In Spokane County,
landslides typically occur during and after major storms, so the potential for landslides largely coincides
with the potential for sequential severe storms that saturate steep, vulnerable soils. Landslide events
occurred during the winter storms of 2009, 2011, 2016, 2017 and 2019. According to SHELDUS records,
the planning area has been impacted by severe storms at least once every other year since 1960, although
most have not reached the level of a disaster declaration. Until better data is generated specifically for
landslide hazards, this severe storm frequency is appropriate for the purpose of ranking risk associated with
the landslide hazard.
In general, landslides are most likely during periods of higher than average rainfall. The ground must be
saturated prior to the onset of a major storm for significant landsliding to occur. Most local landslides occur
in January after the water table has risen during the wet months of November and December. Water is
involved in nearly all cases; and human influence has been identified in more than 80 percent of reported
slides.
8.2.4 Severity
Landslides range from shallow debris flows to deep-seated slumps. They typically occur where there is a
presence of elevated slopes and fine-grade soil such as sand, which has been oversaturated by heavy rains
or flooding. They destroy homes, businesses, and public buildings, undermine bridges, derail railroad cars,
interrupt transportation infrastructure, damage utilities, and take lives. Sinkholes, a type of landslide, affect
roads and utilities. Losses often go unrecorded because of no claims to insurance companies, no report to
emergency management, no media coverage, or the transportation damages which are recorded as
maintenance. Landslides destroy property and infrastructure and can take the lives of people. Slope failures
in the United States result in an average of 25 lives lost per year and an annual cost to society of about
$1.5 billion.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-4 April 2020
LANDSLIDES
Figure 8-5. Landslide Probability
Bridgeview Consulting 8-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8.2.5 Warning Time
Mass movements can occur suddenly or slowly. The velocity of movement may range from a slow creep
of inches per year to many feet per second, depending on slope angle, material and water content. Some
methods used to monitor mass movements can provide an idea of the type of movement and the amount of
time prior to failure. It is also possible to determine what areas are at risk during general time periods.
Assessing the geology, vegetation and amount of predicted precipitation for an area can help in these
predictions. However, there is no practical warning system for individual landslides. The current standard
operating procedure is to monitor situations on a case-by-case basis, and respond after the event has
occurred. Generally accepted warning signs for landslide activity include:
Springs, seeps, or saturated ground in areas that have not typically been wet before
New cracks or unusual bulges in the ground, street pavements or sidewalks
Soil moving away from foundations
Ancillary structures such as decks and patios tilting and/or moving relative to the main house
Tilting or cracking of concrete floors and foundations
Broken water lines and other underground utilities
Leaning telephone poles, trees, retaining walls or fences
Offset fence lines
Sunken or down-dropped roadbeds
Rapid increase in creek water levels, possibly accompanied by increased turbidity (soil content)
Sudden decrease in creek water levels though rain is still falling or just recently stopped
Sticking doors and windows, and visible open spaces indicating jambs and frames out of plumb
A faint rumbling sound that increases in volume as the landslide nears
Unusual sounds, such as trees cracking or boulders knocking together.
8.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Landslides can cause several types of secondary effects, such as blocking access to roads, which can isolate
residents and businesses and delay commercial, public and private transportation. This could result in
economic losses for businesses. Other potential problems resulting from landslides are power and
communication failures. Vegetation or poles on slopes can be knocked over, resulting in possible losses to
power and communication lines. Landslides also have the potential of destabilizing the foundation of
structures, which may result in monetary loss for residents. They also can damage rivers or streams,
potentially harming water quality, fisheries and spawning habitat.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-6 April 2020
LANDSLIDES
8.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Climate change may impact storm patterns, increasing the probability of more frequent, intense storms with
varying duration. Increase in global temperature could affect the snowpack and its ability to hold and store
water. Warming temperatures also could increase the occurrence and duration of droughts, which would
increase the probability of wildfire, reducing the vegetation that helps to support steep slopes. All of these
factors would increase the probability for landslide occurrences.
8.5 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
8.5.1 Overview
Landslides have the potential to cause widespread damage throughout both rural and urban areas. While
some landslides are more of a nuisance-type event, even the smallest of slides has the potential to injure or
kill individuals and damage infrastructure.
8.5.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
A population estimate was made using the structure count of residential buildings
buffer within the landslide hazard areas, and applying the census value of 2.43 persons per household for
Spokane County. Using this approach, the population living in the landside risk area is identified in Table
8-1. It should be noted that areas identified within this document were based on existing data; no
geotechnical or scientific analyses were conducted for development of this hazard mitigation plan as such
analyses far exceed the intent of this document; therefore, no data should not be relied upon for life safety
measures, or anything other than informing emergency managers of potential risk for planning purposes.
Also to be taken into account when determining affected population are the area-wide impacts on
transportation systems and the isolation of residents who may not be directly impacted but whose ability to
ingress and egress is restricted, or areas which have a high transient population of tourists, especially during
summertime months. Finally, Spokane -
responder requirements for residents whose structures were not directly impacted but who were affected by
power outages, lack of logistical support, etc. Landslides can also damage water treatment facilities,
potentially harming water quality consumed by residents.
Table 8-1.
Populations and Residential Structure Impact in Landslide Risk Area*
Jurisdiction Residential Building Count Population Exposed**
Airway Heights 0 0
Cheney 0 0
Deer Park 0 0
Fairfield 0 0
Latah 0 0
Liberty Lake 0 0
Medical Lake 0 0
Millwood 0 0
Rockford 0 0
Spangle 0 0
Spokane 4,004 13,292
Bridgeview Consulting 8-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 8-1.
Populations and Residential Structure Impact in Landslide Risk Area*
Jurisdiction Residential Building Count Population Exposed**
Spokane Valley 14 34
Waverly 0 0
Unincorporated 1,131 2,770
Total 5,149 16,096
teep slope
of 30% and above, and areas identified within WADNR mapped historic landslides.
**Population is based on Single family residences at 2.43 persons per house; 2-4 plexes were 9.72 (2.43 * 4) persons per 2-4 plex, 5+
units were 12.15 (5*2.43) persons per 5+ unit and condominiums were 24.3 (10*2.43) persons per condominium unit
8.5.3 Impact on Property
Landslides affect private property and public infrastructure and facilities. The predominant land use in the
planning area is single-family residential, much of it supporting multiple families. In addition, there are
many small businesses in the area as well as large commercial industries and government facilities.
Development in landslide hazard area is guided by building code and the critical area ordinance to prevent
the acceleration of manmade and natural geological hazards, and to neutralize or reduce the risk to the
property owner or adjacent properties from development activities.
Due to population density and desire of people to have a home with a view, an increasing number of
structures are built on top of or below slopes subject to land sliding. Inconsistent slope mapping and land
use regulations in landslide areas make the public unaware of the risk associated in building in potentially
vulnerable areas. Land is not stable indefinitely. People believe that if a bluff has remained stable for the
last 50 years, it will remain so for the next 50 years regardless of the development or maintenance.In
addition, the different types of soil further increase the danger.
Loss estimations for the landslide hazard are not based on modeling utilizing damage functions, because
no such damage functions have been generated. For mitigation planning purposes only, the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources Landslide Dataset was utilized to identify areas of historic events.
In addition, slopes identified as being 30 percent or steeper
were included in this analysis. The area and percent of the total planning area exposed to the landslide
hazard in the planning area are summarized in Table 8-2.
percent slope allows assessment of the potential structures within the landslide hazard areas as identified in
Table 8-3. Data presented in these maps and tables are not a substitute for site-specific investigations by
qualified practitioners.
Table 8-2.
Percent of Land Area in Landslide Risk Area
Area in Landslide Risk
Jurisdiction (Acres) % of Total Planning Area
Airway Heights 9.34 0.0008%
Cheney 0.00 0.00%
Deer Park 0.00 0.00%
Fairfield 0.00 0.00%
Bridgeview Consulting 8-8 April 2020
LANDSLIDES
Table 8-2.
Percent of Land Area in Landslide Risk Area
Area in Landslide Risk
Jurisdiction (Acres) % of Total Planning Area
Latah 0.00 0.00%
Liberty Lake 1.16 0.0001%
Medical Lake 0.00 0.00%
Millwood 0.00 0.00%
Rockford 0.00 0.00%
Spangle 0.00 0.00%
Spokane 2,205.76 0.19%
Spokane Valley 28.29 0.0025%
Waverly 0.00 0.00%
Unincorporated 30,265.10 2.66%
Total 32,509.65 2.85%
*
**Population is based on factor of 2.43 per person/household per residential structure
Planning area for Spokane County calculated at 1,139,204.76 acres
Table 8-3.
Spokane County Structures in Landslide Hazard Areas*
Assessed Value
Buildings
Total
Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents
Airway Heights 0 $0 $0 $0
Cheney 0 $0 $0 $0
Deer Park 0 $0 $0 $0
Fairfield 0 $0 $0 $0
Latah 0 $0 $0 $0
Liberty Lake 0 $0 $0 $0
Medical Lake 0 $0 $0 $0
Millwood 0 $0 $0 $0
Rockford 0 $0 $0 $0
Spangle 0 $0 $0 $0
Spokane 4,748 $1,529,479,230 $764,739,615 $2,294,218,845
Spokane Valley 18 $3,116,320 $1,558,160 $4,674,480
Waverly 0 $0 $0 $0
Unincorporated 2,062 $515,224,460 $257,612,230 $772,836,690
Total 6,828 $2,047,820,010 $1,023,910,005 $3,071,730,015
Bridgeview Consulting 8-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
8.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
-5 identifies the facilities exposed to landslide hazard. Figure 8-6
illustrates the proximity of the critical facilities and infrastructure to the established landslide areas. No
dollar loss estimation of these facilities was performed due to the lack of established damage functions for
the landslide hazard.
There are 30 critical facilities potentially exposed to the landslide hazard to some degree. A more in-depth
analysis of the mitigation measures taken by these facilities to prevent damage from mass movements
should be done to determine if they could withstand impacts of a mass movement.
Several types of infrastructure are exposed to mass movements, including transportation, water and sewer
and power infrastructure. Highly susceptible areas of the county include transportation infrastructure. At
this time all infrastructure and transportation corridors identified as exposed to the landslide hazard are
considered vulnerable until more information becomes available.
A significant amount of infrastructure can be exposed to mass movements:
Roads
Access to major roads is crucial to life-safety after a disaster event and to response
and recovery operations. Landslides can block egress and ingress on roads, causing isolation
for neighborhoods, traffic problems and delays for public and private transportation. This can
result in economic losses for businesses.
Bridges
Landslides can significantly impact road bridges. Mass movements can knock out
abutments or significantly weaken the soil supporting them, making them hazardous for use.
Power Lines
Power lines are generally elevated above steep slopes; but the towers
supporting them can be subject to landslides. A landslide could trigger failure of the soil under
a tower, causing it to collapse and ripping down the lines. Power and communication failures
due to landslides can create problems for vulnerable populations and businesses.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-10 April 2020
LANDSLIDES
Table 8-4.
Critical Facilities Exposed to Landslide Hazards
Number of Exposed Critical
Facility Type Facilities in Risk Area
Medical and Health Services 3
Government Function 0
Protective Function 1
Schools 5
Hazmat 6
Other Critical Function 0
Bridges 14
Water 1
Wastewater 0
Power 0
Communications 0
Total 30
* Note: Bridges includes both highway and railway bridges.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 8-6. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure within Landslide Hazard Area
Bridgeview Consulting 8-12 April 2020
LANDSLIDES
8.5.5 Impact on Economy
A landslide can have catastrophic impact on both the private sector and governmental agencies. Economic
losses include damage costs as well as lost revenue and taxes. Damaged bridges, roadways, marinas, boat
docks, municipal airports all can have a significant impact on the economy. Damages in this capacity could
have a significant economic impact on not only Spokane County, but also other areas of the state particularly
as a major transportation corridor between Washington and Idaho, and as a result of the major rail line
connecting Washington to other parts of the country for any types of commodities, both importing and
exporting.
The impact on commodity flow from a significant landslide shutting down major access routes would not
the area. Debris could impact cargo staging areas and lands needed for business operations. With Interstate
90 (among other major roadways) serving as a primary transportation routes, use of the major highways
reduces travel times and serves as more direct access. Impacts would also significantly reduce the tourism
industry not only within Spokane County, but also vehicles traveling to Pend Oreille County (and others),
Idaho, and Canada.
8.5.6 Impact on Environment
Environmental problems as a result of mass movements can be numerous. Landslides that fall into streams
may significantly impact fish and wildlife habitat, as well as affecting water quality. Hillsides that provide
wildlife habitat can be lost for prolong periods of time due to landslides.
8.6 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Landslide hazard areas are included in geologically hazardous areas, one category of critical areas
regulated under the state GMA for Spokane County. They are defined as follows:
Landslide hazard areas means areas potentially subject to mass earth movement based on a
combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors, with a vertical height of 10 feet
or more. These include the following:
Areas of historical landslides as evidenced by landslide deposits, avalanche tracks, and areas
susceptible to basal undercutting by streams, rivers or waves
Areas with slopes steeper than 30 percent that intersect geologic contacts with a relatively
permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock, and which
contain springs or groundwater seeps
Areas located in a canyon or an active alluvial fan, susceptible to inundation by debris flows
or catastrophic flooding.
Spokane County and its planning partners appear to be well equipped to deal with future growth and
development within the planning area. The landslide hazard portions of the planning area are regulated by
County Code as well as by the International Building Code. Development will occur in landslide hazards
within the planning area, but it will be regulated such that the degree of risk will be reduced through building
standards and performance measures.
By studying the effects of landslides in slide prone areas we can plan for the future. More needs to be done
to educate the public and to prevent development in vulnerable areas. WAC 365-190-080 states that
Bridgeview Consulting 8-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
geologically hazardous areas pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible
development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Some hazards can be mitigated by engineering, design,
or construction so that risks are acceptable. When technology cannot reduce the risk to acceptable levels,
building in hazardous areas should be avoided. The least expensive and most effective landslide loss
reduction measure is by avoidance.
8.7 ISSUES
Important issues associated with landslides in Spokane County include the following:
There are existing homes in landslide risk areas throughout the county. The degree of
vulnerability of these structures depends on the codes and standards to which the structures
were constructed. Information at this level of detail is not currently available.
Future development could lead to more homes in landslide risk areas.
Mapping and assessment of landslide hazards are constantly evolving. As new data and science
become available, assessments of landslide risk should be reevaluated.
The impact of climate change on landslides is uncertain. If climate change impacts atmospheric
conditions, then exposure to landslide risks is likely to increase.
Landslides may cause negative environmental consequences, including water quality
degradation.
The risk associated with the landslide hazard overlaps the risk associated with other hazards
such as earthquake, flood and wildfire. This provides an opportunity to seek mitigation
alternatives with multiple objectives that can reduce risk for multiple hazards.
8.8 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
Major landslides in Spokane County could occur as a result of soil conditions that have been affected by
severe storms, groundwater or human development. The worst-case scenario for landslide hazards in the
planning area would generally correspond to a severe storm that had heavy rain and caused flooding.
Landslides are most likely during late winter when the water table is high. After heavy rains from November
to December, soils become saturated with water. As water seeps downward through upper soils that may
consist of permeable sands and gravels and accumulates on impermeable silt, it will cause weakness and
destabilization in the slope. A short intense storm could cause saturated soil to move, resulting in landslides.
As rains continue, the groundwater table rises, adding to the weakening of the slope. Gravity, poor drainage,
a rising groundwater table and poor soil exacerbate hazardous conditions.
Mass movements are becoming more of a concern as development moves outside of city centers and into
areas less developed in terms of infrastructure. Most mass movements would be isolated events affecting
specific areas. It is probable that private and public property, including infrastructure, will be affected. Mass
movements could affect bridges that pass over landslide prone ravines and knock out rail service through
the county. Road obstructions caused by mass movements would create isolation problems for residents
and businesses in sparsely developed areas. Property owners exposed to steep slopes may suffer damage to
property or structures. Landslides carrying vegetation such as shrubs and trees may cause a break in utility
lines, cutting off power and communication access to residents.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-14 April 2020
LANDSLIDES
Continued heavy rains and flooding will complicate the problem further. As emergency response resources
are applied to problems with flooding, it is possible they will be unavailable to assist with landslides
occurring all over Spokane County. Table 8-5 identifies the Consequence Analysis for the Landslide hazard.
Table 8-5.
Consequence Analysis
L ML M MH H VH
Likelihood / Probability X
Geographic Boundary X
Population X
Vulnerable Population X
Built Environment X
Critical Infrastructure X
Facilities X
First Responders X
Economic Consequences X
Environmental Impact X
X
L=Low; ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium; MH=Medium-High; H=High; VH=Very High
8.9 RESULTS
Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that the probability for impact
from a landslide throughout the area is highly likely. The area experiences some level of landslide activity
annually, although in many instances, there is no structural impact. Thankfully, no injuries have been
fair number of residential structures whose access could b
restrictions with respect to development within the critical area does help reduce the exposure to citizens
significantly by limiting construction in high hazard areas.
Customarily, landslide events occur in conjunction with other weather events, such as flooding, earthquake,
or other severe weather. As emergency response resources may be applied to the primary issue causing
Bridgeview Consulting 8-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
the landslide, it is possible that first responders may be taxed, with response times impacted. Likewise,
impact from a landslide to roadways could also increase response times due to related issues with ingress
and egress to areas. Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be
3.1, with overall vulnerability determined to be a medium level.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-16 April 2020
CHAPTER 9.
SEVERE WEATHER
DEFINITIONS
9.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
Freezing RainThe result of rain occurring
Severe weather refers to any dangerous meteorological
when the temperature is below the freezing
phenomena with the potential to cause damage, serious social
point. The rain freezes on impact, resulting
disruption, or loss of human life. It includes thunderstorms,
in a layer of glaze ice up to an inch thick. In
downbursts, tornadoes, waterspouts, snowstorms, ice storms,
a severe ice storm, an evergreen tree 60
and dust storms. Severe weather can be categorized into two
feet high and 30 feet wide can be burdened
groups: those that form over wide geographic areas are
with up to six tons of ice, creating a threat to
power and telephone lines and
classified as general severe weather; those with a more
transportation routes.
limited geographic area are classified as localized severe
weather. Severe weather, technically, is different from
Severe Local StormMicroscale
extreme weather, which refers to unusual weather events are
atmospheric systems, including tornadoes,
at the extremes of the historical distribution for a given area.
thunderstorms, windstorms, ice storms and
snowstorms. These storms may cause a
9.1.1 Damaging Winds
great deal of destruction and even death,
but their impact is generally confined to a
Damaging winds are classified as those exceeding 60 mph.
small area. Typical impacts are on
Damage from such winds accounts for half of all severe
transportation infrastructure and utilities.
weather reports in the lower 48 states and is more common
than damage from tornadoes. Wind speeds can reach up to
ThunderstormA storm featuring heavy
100 mph and can produce a damage path extending for
rains, strong winds, thunder and lightning,
hundreds of miles. There are seven types of damaging winds:
typically about 15 miles in diameter and
lasting about 30 minutes. Hail and
tornadoes are also dangers associated with
Straight-line winds
Any thunderstorm wind that is not
thunderstorms. Lightning is a serious threat
associated with rotation; this term is used mainly to
to human life. Heavy rains over a small area
differentiate from tornado winds. Most thunderstorms
in a short time can lead to flash flooding.
produce some straight-line winds as a result of outflow
generated by the thunderstorm downdraft.
TornadoFunnel clouds that generate
winds up to 500 miles per hour. They can
Downdrafts
A small-scale column of air that rapidly
affect an area up to three-quarters of a mile
sinks toward the ground.
wide, with a path of varying length.
Tornadoes can come from lines of
Downbursts
A strong downdraft with horizontal
cumulonimbus clouds or from a single storm
dimensions larger than 2.5 miles resulting in an outward
cloud. They are measured using the Fujita
burst or damaging winds on or near the ground. Scale, ranging from F0 to F5.
Downburst winds may begin as a microburst and spread
WindstormA storm featuring violent
out over a wider area, sometimes producing damage
winds. Southwesterly winds are associated
similar to a strong tornado. Although usually associated
with strong storms moving onto the coast
with thunderstorms, downbursts can occur with showers
from the Pacific Ocean. Southern winds
too weak to produce thunder.
parallel to the coastal mountains are the
strongest and most destructive winds.
Microbursts
A small concentrated downburst that
Windstorms tend to damage ridgelines that
produces an outward burst of damaging winds at the
face into the winds.
surface. Microbursts are generally less than 2.5 miles
across and short-lived, lasting only 5 to 10 minutes, with
Winter StormA storm having significant
maximum wind speeds up to 168 mph. There are two
snowfall, ice, and/or freezing rain; the
quantity of precipitation varies by elevation.
kinds of microbursts: wet and dry. A wet microburst is
Bridgeview Consulting 9-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
accompanied by heavy precipitation at the surface. Dry microbursts, common in places like the
high plains and the intermountain west, occur with little or no precipitation reaching the ground.
Gust front
A gust front is the leading edge of rain-cooled air that clashes with warmer
thunderstorm inflow. Gust fronts are characterized by a wind shift, temperature drop, and gusty
winds out ahead of a thunderstorm. Sometimes the winds push up air above them, forming a shelf
cloud or detached roll cloud.
Derecho
A derecho is a widespread thunderstorm wind caused when new thunderstorms form
along the leading edge of an outflow boundary (the boundary formed by horizontal spreading of
thunderstorm-cooled air). The word derecho is of Spanish origin and means straight ahead.
Thunderstorms feed on the boundary and continue to reproduce. Derechos typically occur in
summer when complexes of thunderstorms form over plains, producing heavy rain and severe wind.
The damaging winds can last a long time and cover a large area.
Bow Echo
A bow echo is a linear wind front bent outward in a bow shape. Damaging straight-
line winds often occur near the center of a bow echo. Bow echoes can be 200 miles long, last for
several hours, and produce extensive wind damage at the ground.
9.1.2 Tornado
A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between, and in contact with, a cloud and the
surface of the earth. Tornadoes are often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud. Tornadoes are rated by
their intensity and damage to vegetation and property. There are two common rating scales, the Fujita scale
(F-Scale) and the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale). The Fujita scale is a tornado scale introduced in 1971
by Tetsuya Fujita and the scale evaluates total damage. In the United States the Fujita scale was replaced
with the Enhanced Fujita scale, which is now the primary scale used the United Sites and Canada. The
Enhanced Fujita scale not only considers damage, but also takes into account wind speed. Figure 9-1
illustrates the two tornado rating scales.
On a local-scale, tornadoes are the most intense of all atmospheric circulations and wind can reach
destructive speeds of more than 300 mph. A tornados vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter,
and damage paths can be up to 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Figure 9-2, adapted from FEMA, illustrates
the potential impacts and damage from tornadoes of different magnitudes. Tornadoes can occur throughout
the year at any time of day but are most frequent in the spring during the late afternoon. As shown in Figure
9-3, Washington has a relatively low risk compared to states in the Midwestern and Southern U.S.; however,
the County does have recorded Tornadoes. The Wind Zone Map illustrated in Figure 9-4 illustrates the
variations in wind speeds, which correlate to the building code requirements.
Figure 9-1. Tornado Ratings
Bridgeview Consulting 9-2 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
Figure 9-2. Potential Impact and Damage from a Tornado
Bridgeview Consulting 9-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 9-3. Tornado Risk Areas in the United States
Figure 9-4. Wind Zone Map of U.S.
Bridgeview Consulting 9-4 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
9.1.3 Blizzards and Snowstorms
The National Weather Service defines a winter storm as having significant snowfall, ice and/or freezing
rain; the quantity of precipitation varies by elevation. Heavy snowfall is 4 inches or more in a 12-hour
period, or 6 inches or more in a 24-hour period in non-mountainous areas; and 12 inches or more in a 12-
hour period or 18 inches or more in a 24-hour period in mountainous areas. There are three key ingredients
to a severe winter storm:
Cold AirBelow-freezing temperatures in the clouds and near the ground are necessary to make
snow and/or ice.
MoistureMoisture is required in order to form clouds and precipitation. Air blowing across a
body of water, such as a large lake or the ocean, is an excellent source of moisture.
LiftLift is required in order to raise the moist air to form the clouds and cause precipitation. An
example of lift is warm air colliding with cold air and being forced to rise over the cold dome. The
boundary between the warm and cold air masses is called a front. Another example of lift is air
flowing up a mountain side.
Strong storms crossing the North Pacific sometimes slam into the coast from California to Washington. The
Pacific provides a virtually unlimited source of moisture for storms. If the air is cold enough, snow falls
over Washington and Oregon and sometimes in California. As the moisture rises into the mountains, heavy
snow closes the mountain passes and can cause avalanches. Cold air from the north has to filter through
mountain canyons into the basins and valleys to the south. If the cold air is deep enough, it can spill over
the mountain ridge. As the air funnels through canyons and over ridges, wind speeds can reach 100 mph,
damaging roofs and taking down power and telephone lines. Combining these winds with snow results in
a blizzard.
Heavy snow can immobilize a region and paralyze a city, stranding commuters, stopping the flow of
supplies, and disrupting emergency and medical services. Accumulations of snow can collapse buildings
and knock down trees and power lines. In rural areas, homes and farms may be isolated for days, and
unprotected livestock may be lost. In the mountains, heavy snow can lead to avalanches. The cost of snow
removal, repairing damages, and loss of business can have large economic impacts on cities and towns.
Areas most vulnerable to winter storms are those affected by convergence of dry, cold air from the interior
of the North American continent, and warm, moist air off the Pacific Ocean. Typically, significant winter
storms occur during the transition between cold and warm periods.
9.1.4 Ice Storms
Ice storms occur when rain falls from a warm, moist, layer of atmosphere into a below freezing, drier layer
near the ground. The rain freezes on contact with the cold ground and exposed surfaces causing damage to
trees, utility wires, and structures.
With an average elevation over 1,800 feet, Spokane is located on the edge of the Columbia Basin in eastern
Washington State. Its location, between the Cascades Range to the west and Rocky Mountains to the east
and north, allows cold air to settle into the basin, frequently creating prime conditions for winter weather.
November 19, 1996, produced one of the regions worst ice storms in 60 years. Before the freezing rain hit,
there was already between 2 and 4 inches of snow on the ground around the city. Later that day, up to an
inch and a half of freezing rain fell, coating trees, roads, buildings, vehicles, and power lines in a dense
slippery glaze. The official weather station for the city at Spokane International Airport recorded a high
temperature of only 33°F and 1.24 inches of precipitation, which fell in the form of rain, freezing rain,
Bridgeview Consulting 9-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
freezing drizzle (which are smaller drops than those of rain), snow, and mist. The station also reported
freezing fog in the city that day.
Trees came crashing down everywhere under the immense weight of the ice. The mayor of Spokane
declared a state of emergency as over half the citys residents lost electricitytheir worst power outage in
108 years. Three days after the storm, 100,000 people in the surrounding county were without power, and
six days after the storm, 20,000 were still without power. Some area residents were without electricity for
up to two weeks following the record-breaking storm.
Throughout the devastating ice storm and its aftermath, four people lost their lives in and around Spokane
and Kootenai counties, and total damages were estimated at over $22 million in 1996 dollars$33 million
in 2013 dollars. This ice storm remains one of the most severe on record for the area.
9.1.5 Dust Storms
Dust storms occur east of the Cascades. Wind, following dry periods, blows dirt and light debris aloft.
Haboobs are dramatic dust storms produced by strong winds that are generally associated with thunderstorm
gust fronts or very strong cold fronts. Haboobs are getting less frequent in eastern Washington as farmers
practice better soil conservation approaches, but they still occur if strong winds arise at the end of a hot dry
summer.
9.1.6 Thunderstorms
A thunderstorm is a rain event that includes thunder and lightning. A thunderstorm is classified as severe
when it contains one or more of the following: hail with a diameter of three-quarter inch or greater, winds
gusting in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph), or tornado.
Three factors cause thunderstorms to form: moisture, rising unstable air (air that keeps rising when
disturbed), and a lifting mechanism to provide the disturbance. The sun heats the surface of the earth, which
warms the air above it. If this warm surface air is forced to rise (hills or mountains can cause rising motion,
as can the interaction of warm air and cold air or wet air and dry air) it will continue to rise as long as it
weighs less and stays warmer than the air around it. As the air rises, it transfers heat from the surface of the
earth to the upper levels of the atmosphere (the process of convection). The water vapor it contains begins
to cool and it condenses into a cloud. The cloud eventually grows upward into areas where the temperature
is below freezing. Some of the water vapor turns to ice and some of it turns into water droplets. Both have
electrical charges. Ice particles usually have positive charges, and rain droplets usually have negative
charges. When the charges build up enough, they are discharged in a bolt of lightning, which causes the
sound waves we hear as thunder.
Thunderstorms have three stages (see Figure 9-5):
developing stage
The of a thunderstorm is marked by a cumulus cloud that is being pushed
upward by a rising column of air (updraft). The cumulus cloud soon looks like a tower (called
towering cumulus) as the updraft continues to develop. There is little to no rain during this
stage but occasional lightning. The developing stage lasts about 10 minutes.
mature stage
The thunderstorm enters the when the updraft continues to feed the storm, but
precipitation begins to fall out of the storm, and a downdraft begins (a column of air pushing
downward). When the downdraft and rain-cooled air spread out along the ground, they form a
gust front, or a line of gusty winds. The mature stage is the most likely time for hail, heavy
rain, frequent lightning, strong winds, and tornadoes. The storm occasionally has a black or
dark green appearance.
Bridgeview Consulting 9-6 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
Eventually, a large amount of precipitation is produced and the updraft is overcome by the
dissipating stage
downdraft beginning the . At the ground, the gust front moves out a long
distance from the storm and cuts off the warm moist air that was feeding the thunderstorm.
Rainfall decreases in intensity, but lightning remains a danger.
Figure 9-5. The Thunderstorm Life Cycle
There are four types of thunderstorms:
Single-Cell Thunderstorms
Single-cell thunderstorms usually last 20 to 30 minutes. A true
single-cell storm is rare, because the gust front of one cell often triggers the growth of another.
Most single-cell storms are not usually severe, but a single-cell storm can produce a brief severe
weather event. When this happens, it is called a pulse severe storm.
Multi-Cell Cluster Storm
A multi-cell cluster is the most common type of thunderstorm. The
multi-cell cluster consists of a group of cells, moving as one unit, with each cell in a different phase
of the thunderstorm life cycle. Mature cells are usually found at the center of the cluster and
dissipating cells at the downwind edge. Multi-cell cluster storms can produce moderate-size hail,
flash floods and weak tornadoes. Each cell in a multi-cell cluster lasts only about 20 minutes; the
multi-cell cluster itself may persist for several hours. This type of storm is usually more intense
than a single cell storm.
Multi-Cell Squall Line
A multi-cell line storm, or squall line, consists of a long line of storms
with a continuous well-developed gust front at the leading edge. The line of storms can be solid, or
there can be gaps and breaks in the line. Squall lines can produce hail up to golf-ball size, heavy
rainfall, and weak tornadoes, but they are best known as the producers of strong downdrafts.
Occasionally, a strong downburst will accelerate a portion of the squall line ahead of the rest of the
line. This produces what is called a bow echo. Bow echoes can develop with isolated cells as well
as squall lines. Bow echoes are easily detected on radar but are difficult to observe visually.
Super-Cell Storm
A super-cell is a highly organized thunderstorm that poses a high threat to life
and property. It is similar to a single-cell storm in that it has one main updraft, but the updraft is
extremely strong, reaching speeds of 150 to 175 miles per hour. Super-cells are rare. The main
characteristic that sets them apart from other thunderstorms is the presence of rotation. The rotating
updraft of a super-cell (called a mesocyclone when visible on radar) helps the super-cell to produce
Bridgeview Consulting 9-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
extreme weather events, such as giant hail (more than 2 inches in diameter), strong downbursts of
80 miles an hour or more, and strong to violent tornadoes.
9.2 HAZARD PROFILE
9.2.1 Extent and Location
The entire planning area is susceptible to the impacts of severe weather. Severe weather events customarily
occur during the months of October to April, although they have occurred year-round. The County has been
impacted by strong winds, rain, snow, or other precipitation, and often are accompanied by thunder or
lightening. While considerable snowfall does not customarily occur throughout the region, it does occur on
a regular basis, and has resulted in significant accumulations on some occasions.
Communities in low-lying areas next to rivers, streams, or lakes are more susceptible to flooding. Wind
events are most damaging to areas of Spokane County, and have had a significant impact on the planning
region. For the planning region as a whole, wind events are one of the most common weather-related
incidents to occur, often times leaving areas without power, although typically not for long, extended
periods, particularly in the more densely or heavily wooded areas. Severe storms and weather affect
transportation and utilities.
9.2.2 Previous Occurrence
Table 9-1 summarizes severe weather events in Spokane County since 1993, as recorded by FEMA, NOAA,
SHELDUS, and the Tornado History Project (2019).20
Table 9-1.
Severe Weather Events Impacting Planning Area Since 1993
Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage
7/22/2016 Tornado 0 $50,000 (Crop) plus five mobile
homes destroyed from fire--
Not Declared.
Description: A Canadian cold front moved across northeast Washington during the early afternoon hours of the 12th
of August. There were a few embedded thunderstorms with the front that brought severe weather to Spokane,
Whitman and Lincoln counties. In Spokane County, a severe thunderstorm dropped 3/4 inch diameter hail across
eastern Spokane County. The severe thunderstorm also brought damaging winds to most of the county that same
evening. There were at least 29 fires started in Spokane county. An estimated 10,000 customers were without power
along with numerous accidents due to visibilities reduced to less than a quarter of a mile in blowing dust. Numerous
trees fell due to the severe wind causing property damage and a few injuries. The severe wind caused a fire to start in
a mobile home Park near Silver Lake destroying five homes. Property damage throughout the county was estimated
to be one hundred thousand dollars. In Whitman county, the severe storm caused numerous power outages along with
some property damage due to fallen trees. Crop damage was estimated to be around $50,000 due to the severe
caused property damage. The wind also caused some crop damage. The width was estimated to be approximately 50
yards wide at its widest path. No injuries or fatalities were reported.
8/09/2016 Tornado 0 --
Not Declared.
20
Tornado Project. Accessed 30 July 2019. Available at: http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornado/Washington/Spokane
Bridgeview Consulting 9-8 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
Table 9-1.
Severe Weather Events Impacting Planning Area Since 1993
Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage
Description: A tornado was reported at approximately 6:35 on the evening of August 9 th. The width was estimated to
be approximately 25 yards wide, at its widest path, with its length of travel approximately 0.2 tenths of a mile long.
No injuries or fatalities were reported. The tornado did not have a rating on the Fujita scale.
11/12/15 Severe storms, winds, Flooding, 2 deaths (Spokane +$33M statewide ; $5m Spokane
Landslide and Cheney of which $2m was for damaged
DR 4249
falling trees) / 3 utilities
later died from
hypothermia due to
lack of power/heat
Description: This storm brought the highest wind recorded in Spokane from a large Pacific cyclone, the type of storm
that customarily prevails from early autumn through early spring, reaching wind gusts of 71 mph, slightly below the
hurricane speed of 75 mph. Only a gust from the thunderstorms in 2005 had a stronger gust at 77 mph. Previously,
the highest non-thunderstorm wind at Spokane had been 67 mph in January 1972. What made the 2015 windstorm so
damaging was the persistence of the lashing winds. The duration allowed damage to pile on top of damage. More
than 250,000 customers lost electrical power from Spokane into North Idaho. Many were without power for a week or
more. Avista alone reported 180,000 outages. Below the high winds, a low-pressure system developed off the British
Columbia coast and tracked inland. High winds cresting over the Cascades gained momentum as they crested the
eastern slopes.Mild temperatures in the Columbia Basin allowed warm air to rise from the ground, creating a
vacuum to draw the already ferocious winds swooping down from aloft.
9/15/2013 Thunderstorm Wind 0 --
Description: Numerous reports of trees falling onto power lines resulting in over a thousand customers losing power.
Damage was reported in Cheney, to Spokane, to Mead and in Deer Park. A large tree toppled over at 21st Street and
High Drive in Spokane on South Hill. Other trees reported down or snapped off resulting in damage to homes and/or
vehicles. Many tents at the Spokane County Interstate Fair were damaged or flipped over due to the strong winds
from the gust front.
8/25/2012 Thunderstorm Wind 0 $80,000
Description: The Spokane NWS clocked a wind gust of 62 mph. Numerous trees, some large, were downed in Nine
Mile Falls area, especially along West Charles Road. Some trees were uprooted and others were snapped halfway up
the trunk. Trees fell on a combination of roofs, outbuildings, fences and power lines resulting in multiple power
outages. A large tree was uprooted along Highway 2 in the Deep Creek community. A large tree fell on a power line
in Chattaroy leading to 178 power outages.
12/12/2008 Severe Winter Storm 0 $770,000
DR 1825
Description: Heavy snow and winter storm condition blanketed the Spokane area for 4 days causing damage. Known
as the start of the snowiest winter on record, the four day accumulation equaled the same amount of snow that is
typical for an average winter in the area. Approximately 24 inches of snow fell within a 24 hour period. Spokane
Public Schools and the Spokane Transit Authority shut down operations, as did most businesses.
8/31/2007 Hail 0 $10,000
Description: Data from SHELDUS, No narrative available.
12/15/2006 High Winds 0 $207,000
Description: Data from SHELDUS, No narrative available.
8/12/2005 Thunderstorm 0 $100,000
Bridgeview Consulting 9-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 9-1.
Severe Weather Events Impacting Planning Area Since 1993
Date Type Deaths or Injuries Property Damage
Description: A Canadian cold front moved across northeast Washington during the early afternoon hours of the 12th
of August. There were a few embedded thunderstorms with the front that brought severe weather to Spokane,
Whitman and Lincoln counties. In Spokane County, a severe thunderstorm dropped 3/4 inch diameter hail across
eastern Spokane County. The severe thunderstorm also brought damaging winds to most of the county that same
evening. There were at least 29 fires started in Spokane county. An estimated 10,000 customers were without power
along with numerous accidents due to visibilities reduced to less than a quarter of a mile in blowing dust. Numerous
trees fell due to the severe wind causing property damage and a few injuries. The severe wind caused a fire to start in
a mobile home Park near Silver Lake destroying five homes. Property damage throughout the county was estimated
to be one hundred thousand dollars. In Whitman county, the severe storm caused numerous power outages along with
some property damage due to fallen trees. Crop damage was estimated to be around fifty thousand dollars due to the
trees caused property damage. The wind also caused some crop damage.
9/16/2003 Hail 0 $50,000
Description: During the afternoon of September 19th an isolated rain shower with small hail moved over the Spokane
area. On the westbound lane of Interstate 90 drivers were blinded by the low sun shining in their eyes while small
hail created slippery conditions. Over 50 cars and trucks were involved in numerous accidents and pileups along a
four mile stretch of westbound I-90 in the city of Spokane.
7/7/2002 Lightning 0 $18,000
Description: Lightning struck the roof of an apartment building north of the intersection of Sprague and Argonne,
igniting a fire that burned a 6-by-22 foot hole in the roof of the apartment. The residents of the apartment escaped
without injury.
4/4/2000 Thunderstorm Wind 0 $80,000
Description: Data from SHELDUS, No narrative available.
2/2/1999 High Winds 0 $360,000
Description: Data from SHELDUS, No narrative available.
5/31/1997 Tornado 0 $350,000
Description:NWS survey team concluded that an F1 tornado touched down and pulled up numerous times as it
traveled from Pruffer and Walbridge in SE Stevens county to near Riverside in Spokane county
12/26/1996 Severe Storm Unknown Unknown
DR 1159
Description:. After up to a foot of snow fell on the day after Christmas, heavy rains came a few days later that caused
epic slush and flooding.
11/19/1996 Ice Storm 1 $1.3 million
DR 1152
Description:. Ranked as one of the worst storms in modern memory, a significant ice storm plummeted most of the
-worst outage event with connections cut to
100,000-plus homes and businesses.
11/28/1993 Ice Storm 0 $500,000
Description: Data from SHELDUS, No narrative available.
Bridgeview Consulting 9-10 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
Figure 9-6. Tornado History in Washington 1950-2018
Source: NOAA National Weather Service as cited in the Seattle Times 21
Figure 9-7. November 2015 Windstorm Damage to Spokane County Resident
22
Source: Spokesman-Review.
21
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/weather/tornado-touches-down-on-kitsap-peninsula-rips-roof-off-home-weather-
service-says/
22
Colin Mulvany / Spokesman-Review. Accessed July 2, 2019. Available online at:
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/nov/17/2015-windstorm-whipped-up-by-a-convergence-of-even/
Bridgeview Consulting 9-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
9.2.3 Frequency
The severe weather events for Spokane County shown in Table 9-1 are
often related to high winds associated with winter storms and
thunderstorms. The planning area can expect to experience exposure to
some type of severe weather event at least annually. According to the
Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013), Spokane
County has a winter storm recurrence rate of 125 percent, which means
that historically, the county experiences at least one damaging winter
storm every year. The National Weather Service reports that Washington
state averages 2.5 tornadoes per year, which ranks in the bottom ten
23
states. Since 1950, Spokane has experienced 13 tornadoes.
9.2.4 Severity
The most common problems associated with severe storms are immobility
and loss of utilities. Fatalities are uncommon, but can and have occurred
as a result of severe weather incidents. Roads may become impassable
due to flooding, downed trees, ice or snow, or a landslide. Power lines
may be downed due to high winds or ice accumulation, and services such
as water or phone may not be able to operate without power.24 Lightning
can cause severe damage and injury.
Figure 9-8. Downed Power Lines -
November 2015 Windstorm
Windstorms can be a frequent problem in the planning area and have
been known to cause damage to utilities. The predicted wind speed given in wind warnings issued by the
National Weather Service is for a one-minute average; gusts may be 25 to 30 percent higher. Under most
conditions the Countys highest winds come from the south or southwest.
Tornadoes are potentially the most dangerous of local storms, but large events are not common in the
planning area, although they have occurred. While unusual, tornadoes that occur in the winter, like the 2018
Port Orchard, Washington Tornado, tend to be more dangerous because they statistically move faster than
during the traditional tornado season. The majority of tornadoes occur in May, which historically has been
the most active month for tornadoes. Approximately 80 percent of tornadoes in the United States are either
25
EF0 or EF1, with less than 1 percent reading an EF4 or stronger.
If a major tornado were to strike within the populated areas of the county, damage could be widespread.
Businesses could be forced to close for an extended period or permanently, fatalities could be high, many
people could be homeless for an extended period, and routine services such as telephone or power could be
disrupted. Buildings may be damaged or destroyed.
23
http://mynorthwest.com/1220169/common-tornadoes-washington-state/
24
http://mynorthwest.com/1220169/common-tornadoes-washington-state/
25 https://www1.wsrb.com/blog/tornadoes-in-washington-how-common-are-they
Bridgeview Consulting 9-12 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
Figure 9-9. National Weather Service Weather Fatalities 2018
9.2.5 Warning Time
Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe storm. This can give several days of warning
time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of the storm. Some storms
may come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time. As in the case of tornadoes, there
may be little warning time, and due to the rare nature in Washington, are not something which citizens
would be particularly aware of until the tornado is upon them.
9.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
The most significant secondary hazards associated with severe local storms are floods, falling and downed
trees, landslides and downed power lines. Rapidly melting snow combined with heavy rain can overwhelm
both natural and man-made drainage systems, causing overflow and property destruction. Landslides occur
when the soil on slopes becomes oversaturated and fails.
9.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Climate change presents a significant challenge for risk management associated with severe weather. The
frequency of severe weather events has increased steadily over the last century. The number of weather-
related disasters during the 1990s was four times that of the 1950s, and cost 14 times as much in economic
losses. Historical data shows that the probability for severe weather events increases in a warmer climate
(see Figure 9-10). The changing hydrograph caused by climate change could have a significant impact on
the intensity, duration and frequency of storm events. All of these impacts could have significant economic
consequences.
Bridgeview Consulting 9-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 9-10. Severe Weather Probabilities in Warmer Climates
9.5 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
9.5.1 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
No loss estimation of critical facilities was performed due to the lack of established damage functions for
the severe weather hazard. Therefore, it should be assumed that all critical facilities are vulnerable to some
degree. As many of the severe weather events include multiple hazards, information such as that identifying
facilities exposed to flooding or landslides (see Flood and Landslide profiles) are also likely exposed to
severe weather.
All critical facilities exposed to flooding are also likely exposed to severe weather. Additional facilities on
higher ground may also be exposed to wind damage or damage from falling trees. The most common
problems associated with severe weather are loss of utilities. Downed power lines can cause blackouts,
leaving large areas isolated. Phone, water and sewer systems may not function. Roads may become
impassable due to ice or snow or from secondary hazards such as landslides.
Bridgeview Consulting 9-14 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
Within the planning region, power generation on the dams produce a significant amount of power to areas
well outside of the planning area. Major power lines travel from the various dams through a large swath of
the County. As such, wind events occurring also have the potential to impact power supplies in large
metropolitan areas well outside of the County.
Incapacity and loss of roads are the primary transportation failures, most of which are associated with
secondary hazards. Landslides that block roads are caused by heavy prolonged rains. In addition to power
generation, high winds can cause significant damage to trees, further impacting local-area power lines, with
obstructing debris blocking roads, incapacitating transportation, isolating population, and disrupting ingress
and egress. Snowstorms at higher elevations can impact the transportation system and the availability of
public safety services. Of particular concern are roads providing access to isolated areas and to the elderly.
Severe windstorms, downed trees, and ice can create serious impacts on above-ground communication
lines. Freezing of power and communication lines can cause them to break, disrupting both electricity and
communication for households. Loss of electricity and phone connection would result in isolation because
some residents will be unable to call for assistance.
9.5.2 Impact on Economy
Prolonged obstruction of major routes due to severe weather can disrupt the shipment of goods and other
commerce. Severe windstorms, downed trees, and ice can create serious impacts on power and above-
ground communication lines. Freezing rain/snow on power and communication lines can cause them to
break, disrupting electricity and communication, further impacting business within the region. Prolonged
outages would impact consumer and tax base as a result of lost revenue, (food) spoilage, lack of production,
etc. Large, prolonged storms can have negative economic impacts for an entire region. All severe weather
events have the potential to also impact tourism.
entertainment and recreation account for 1.82 percent of the economy; transportation and warehousing
accounts for 2.53 percent; manufacturing composes 5.81 percent of the economy, with construction at 5.61;
agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting account for 1.34 percent; health care and social assistance 15.24
percent, while wholesale and retail trade accounts for 14.93 percent (OFM).26 Combined, these occupation
are highly vulnerable to impacts from severe weather events.
9.5.3 Impact on Environment
The environment is highly exposed to severe weather events. Natural habitats such as streams and trees are
exposed to the elements during a severe storm and risk major damage and destruction. Prolonged rains can
saturate soils and lead to slope failure. Flooding events caused by severe weather or snowmelt can produce
river channel migration or damage riparian habitat.
26 https://washington.reaproject.org/analysis/industry-structure/industries_by_region/employment/reports/530063/
Accessed 23 July 2019.
Bridgeview Consulting 9-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 9-2.
Loss Potential to Severe Weather Hazard
Estimated Loss Potential
Total Exposed Values
(Structure and
Content) 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage
$759,713,040$75,971,304.0$227,913,912.0$379,856,520.0
Airway Heights
$1,427,171,370$142,717,137.0$428,151,411.0$713,585,685.0
Cheney
$564,187,650$56,418,765.0$169,256,295.0$282,093,825.0
Deer Park
$55,034,250$5,503,425.0$16,510,275.0$27,517,125.0
Fairfield
$15,171,552$1,517,155.2$4,551,465.6$7,585,776.0
Latah
$2,307,789,015$230,778,901.5$692,336,704.5$1,153,894,507.5
Liberty Lake
$538,564,950$53,856,495.0$161,569,485.0$269,282,475.0
Medical Lake
$383,999,655$38,399,965.5$115,199,896.5$191,999,827.5
Millwood
$45,632,205$4,563,220.5$13,689,661.5$22,816,102.5
Rockford
$24,005,460$2,400,546.0$7,201,638.0$12,002,730.0
Spangle
$30,818,695,125$3,081,869,512.5$9,245,608,537.5$15,409,347,562.5
Spokane
$14,006,485,725$1,400,648,572.5$4,201,945,717.5$7,003,242,862.5
Spokane Valley
$9,443,730$944,373.0$2,833,119.0$4,721,865.0
Waverly
Unincorporated $25,161,471,812$2,516,147,181.2 $7,548,441,543.5 $12,580,735,905.8
Total $76,117,365,539$7,611,736,553.85 $22,835,209,661.55 $38,058,682,769.25
9.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
9.6.1 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
A lack of data separating severe weather damage from other types of hazards damage (e.g., flooding,
landslide, etc.) prevent a detailed analysis for exposure and vulnerability. However, it can be assumed that
the entire planning area is exposed to severe weather events to some extent, as these events can occur
sporadically. Certain areas are more exposed due to geographic location and local weather patterns.
Populations living at higher elevations with large stands of trees or power lines may be more susceptible to
wind damage and black out, while populations in low-lying areas are at risk for possible flooding.
Vulnerable populations include the elderly, low income or linguistically isolated populations, people with
life-threatening illnesses, and residents living in areas that are not served by major roads. Power outages
can be life threatening to those dependent on electricity for life support. Isolation of these populations is a
significant concern. These populations face isolation and exposure during severe weather events and could
suffer more secondary effects of the hazard. Demographic data does illustrate that the County has a higher-
than-average population of retirees, as well as individuals with disabilities, increasing vulnerability of the
population.
Bridgeview Consulting 9-16 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
9.6.2 Impact on Property
According to the Spokane County assessor, there are well over 200,000 buildings of all types (including
separate garage units, sheds, lean-tos, etc.) within the census tracts that define the planning area. Most of
these buildings are residential, and all are considered to be exposed to the severe weather hazard. Properties
in poor condition or in particularly vulnerable locations may risk the most damage. The age of the structure
is also significant, with a large number of structures being built prior to more effective building codes being
in place. Structures in higher elevations and on ridges may also be more prone to wind damage. Those that
are located under or near overhead lines or near large trees may be vulnerable to falling ice or may be
damaged in the event of a collapse.
For planning purposes, all properties and buildings within the planning area are considered to be exposed
to the severe weather hazard and at risk for damage. The frequency and degree of damage will depend on
specific locations and severity of the weather pattern impacting the region. It is improbable to determine
the exact number of structures susceptible to a weather event, and therefore emergency managers and public
officials should establish a maximum threshold, or worst-case scenario, of susceptible structures.
Loss estimations for severe weather hazards are not based on modeling utilizing damage functions, as no
such functions have been generated. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing 10 percent, 30
percent and 50 percent of the assessed value of exposed structures and contents. This allows emergency
managers to select a range of economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage to the general
building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most building codes and
typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 9-2 lists the loss estimates to the general
building stock inclusive of all types of buildings (structure and content).
9.7 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
All future development will be affected by severe storms. The ability to withstand impacts lies in sound
land use practices and consistent enforcement of codes and regulations for new construction. The planning
partners have adopted the International Building Code in response to Washington mandates. This code is
equipped to deal with the impacts of severe weather events such as wind and snow loads. Land use policies
identified in comprehensive plans within the planning area also address many of the secondary impacts
(flood and landslide) of the severe weather hazard. With these tools, the planning partnership is well
equipped to deal with future growth and the associated impacts of severe weather.
9.8 SCENARIO
Severe weather could occur during the winter when Chinook winds accompanied by heavy rains drop
precipitation over frozen snow and cause heavy runoff and eventually flooding. This scenario could also
generate freezing rain that can cause the accumulation of ice on power lines and other ice-related issues.
The heavy rain may also knock down ice covered power lines. Also during the winter, Spokane County
may experience a blizzard that causes white-out conditions, blocking roads and isolating scattered rural
homes and communities. During the summer, an isolated thunderstorm can produce a tornado that occurs
near a population center and cause significant damage to property. Lightning strikes during the dry, hot
summer can cause wildfires that may spread out of control. Wind events can knock down power and phone
lines, cutting off communication and electricity.
9.9 ISSUES
Severe weather cannot be prevented, but measures can be taken to mitigate the effects. Critical
infrastructure and utilities can be hardened to prevent damage during an event. The secondary effect of
Bridgeview Consulting 9-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
flooding can be addressed through decreasing runoff and water velocity. Important issues associated
with a severe weather in the Spokane County planning area include the following:
Older building stock in the planning area is built to low code standards or none at all. These
structures could be highly vulnerable to severe weather events such as windstorms.
Redundancy of power supply must be evaluated.
The capacity for backup power generation is limited.
The County has numerous isolated population centers.
Public education on dealing with the impacts of severe weather needs to be provided
Snow removal measures are required.
Debris management (downed trees, etc.) must be addressed.
9.10 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
Severe storms have the potential to impact every area of the county in various ways. In areas of steeper
slopes, landslides could occur as a result of soil conditions that have been affected by severe storms,
groundwater, or human development.
The worst-case scenario for the severe weather hazard in the planning area would generally correspond to
a severe storm that had heavy rain, which caused flooding and landslides, followed by a strong wind event.
As landslides are most likely during late winter when the water table is high, a short intense storm could
cause saturated soil to move. As rains continue, the groundwater table rises, flash flooding could occur,
causing roadways to flood and potentially wash out, restricting ingress and egress to areas, including
response capabilities by first responders.
Strong winds can occur any time of the year, but after heavy rains, when soils become more saturated with
water and the potential for trees to still maintain a canopy, there is increased potential for risk and damage.
The area has experienced tornadoes, although impact has been minimal, with no loss of life or injury
reported, although property damage has occurred as a result of tornadoes.
The power distributors maintain excellent records for low incidents of long-term power outages, but the
possibility does exist. While snow does occur, it customarily does not snow beyond the capacity of the
County to maintain roadways, although there is the potential for increased traffic accidents and calls for
service by responders. Impact from a power outage during a snow or cold weather event would exacerbate
the issue, increasing potential vulnerability of citizens.
The County is equipped with both cooling and warming shelters, although temperatures customarily are not
so significant or of such a long duration that the potential for death increases. The County has a robust
public information network that distributes public safety broadcasts to citizens in advance of severe weather
events, allowing for preparedness measures by citizens at least to some extent.
Road obstructions caused by mass movements or flooding could create isolation problems for residents and
businesses in sparsely developed areas. Property owners may suffer damage to property or structures due
to severe weather events impacting trees, while landslides carrying vegetation such as shrubs and trees may
Bridgeview Consulting 9-18 April 2020
SEVERE WEATHER
cause a break in utility lines, cutting off power and communication access to residents. Severe weather
events and the associated secondary hazards could also affect bridges or overpasses, knocking out rail
service or other transportation routes. Commodity flow may be impacted for a short duration due to water
over roadways or a landslide event, but historically, no event has ever lasted to such an extent that supplies
were not available.
Severe weather events, if they stall, could affect only specific areas, but it is probable that private and public
property, including infrastructure, will be affected; however, the degree to that impact is unknown. Table
9-3 identifies the Consequence Analysis for the Severe Weather hazard.
Table 9-3.
Consequence Analysis
L ML M MH H VH
Likelihood / Probability X
Geographic Boundary X
Population X
Vulnerable Population X
Built Environment X
Critical Infrastructure X
Facilities X
First Responders X
Economic Consequences X
Environmental Impact X
X
L=Low; ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium; MH=Medium-High; H=High; VH=Very High
9.11 RESULTS
Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that theprobability for impact
from a severe weather event throughout the area is highly likely, as the area experiences some severe storm
vent annually, but the impact is more limited with respect to geographic extent when removing resulting
flood and landslide events from the severe weather category. While snow and ice do occur, impact is
Bridgeview Consulting 9-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
somewhat limited. The more significant issue would be a severe storm which causes a landslide or flood
event, isolating areas or blocking ingress and egress. Wind is also a significant factor, which can cause
power outages, although historically such power outages have not been for a significant period of time.
Based on the potential impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 3.4, with overall
vulnerability determined to be a high level.
Bridgeview Consulting 9-20 April 2020
CHAPTER 10.
VOLCANO
10.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
DEFINITIONS
Hazards related to volcanic eruptions are distinguished by
the different ways in which volcanic materials and other
LaharA rapidly flowing mixture of
debris are emitted from the volcano. The molten rock that
water and rock debris that originates
erupts from a volcano (lava) forms a hill or mountain
from a volcano. While lahars are most
around the vent. The lava may flow out as a viscous liquid,
commonly associated with eruptions,
or it may explode from the vent as solid or liquid particles.
heavy rains, and debris accumulation,
Ash and fragmented rock material can become airborne
earthquakes may also trigger them.
and travel far from the erupting volcano to affect distant
Lava FlowThe least hazardous
areas.
threat posed by volcanoes. Cascades
volcanoes are normally associated with
Washington State has five active volcanoes: Mount Baker,
slow moving andesite or dacite lava.
Glacier Peak, Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and
Mount Adams. These volcanoes are all capable of
StratovolcanoTypically steep-sided,
generating destructive lahars, ash fall, lava, pyroclastic
symmetrical cones of large dimension
flows, and debris avalanches. The phenomena that pose the
built of alternating layers of lava flows,
greatest threat are ash fall and lahars. Mount Hood in
volcanic ash, cinders, blocks, and
Oregon also poses a threat to communities along the
bombs, rising as much as 8,000 feet
Washington side of the Columbia River. All of these
above their bases. The volcanoes in
volcanoes pose a high to very high threat to life, property,
the Cascade Range are all
stratovolcanoes.
the environment, and civil and military aviation in areas
more than a few miles from the mountains slopes.
TephraAsh and fragmented rock
material ejected by a volcanic
10.2 HAZARD PROFILE
explosion
10.2.1 Extent and Location
VolcanoA vent in the planetary crust
from which magma (molten or hot rock)
Figure 10-1 shows the location of Cascade Range
and gas from the earths core erupts.
volcanoes, most of which have the potential to produce a
significant eruption, as well as probabilities of tephra
accumulation from Cascade volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest. Spokane County is outside the area with
more than a 0.01-percent annual probability of 10 centimeters or more accumulation of tephra.
10.2.2 Previous Occurrence
Figure 10-2 and Table 10-1 summarize past eruptions in the Cascades. In the 1980 Mount St. Helens
eruption, 23 square miles of volcanic material buried the North Fork of the Toutle River and there were 57
human fatalities. Due to its great distance, and location across the crest of the Cascades, the lava and lahar
flow from this eruption did not (and could not) affect Spokane County. The County though is almost directly
downwind from the volcano, and thus saw about 3/4-inch of tephra (ash) fall. This tephra fall was more of
a curiosity than a hazard. Schools and businesses were closed for day or so, but no major disruptions or
harm were done to the County, especially after it was cleaned up within a few days.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 10-1. Probability of Tephra Accumulation in Pacific Northwest
Figure 10-2. Past Eruptions in the Cascade Range
Bridgeview Consulting 10-2 April 2020
VOLCANO
Table 10-1.
Past Eruptions in Washington
Volcano Number of Eruptions Type of Eruptions
Mount Adams 3 in the last 10,000 years, most recent between 1,000 and Andesite lava
2,000 years ago
Mount Baker 5 eruptions in past 10,000 years; mudflows have been more Pyroclastic flows,
common (8 in same time period) mudflows, ash fall in 1843.
Glacier Peak 8 eruptions in last 13,000 years Pyroclastic flows and lahars
Mount Rainier 14 eruptions in last 9000 years; also 4 large mudflows Pyroclastic flows and lahars
Mount St Helens 19 eruptions in last 13,000 years Pyroclastic flows,
mudflows, lava, and ash fall
10.2.3 Frequency
Many Cascade volcanoes have erupted in the recent past and will be active again in the foreseeable future.
Given an average rate of one or two eruptions per century during the past 12,000 years, these disasters are
not part of our everyday experience; however, in the past hundred years, Californias Lassen Peak and
Washingtons Mount St. Helens have erupted with terrifying results. The U.S. Geological Survey classifies
Glacier Peak, Mt. Adams, Mt. Baker, Mt. Hood, Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Rainier as potentially active
volcanoes in Washington State. Mt. St. Helens is by far the most active volcano in the Cascades, with four
major explosive eruptions in the last 515 years.
10.2.4 Severity
The explosive disintegration of Mount St. Helens north flank in 1980 vividly demonstrated the power that
Cascade volcanoes can unleash. A 1-inch deep layer of ash weighs an average of 10 pounds per square foot,
causing danger of structural collapse. Ash is harsh, acidic and gritty, and it has a sulfuric odor. Ash may
also carry a high static charge for up to two days after being ejected from a volcano. When an ash cloud
combines with rain, sulfur dioxide in the cloud combines with the rain water to form diluted sulfuric acid
that may cause minor, but painful burns to the skin, eyes, nose and throat.
10.2.5 Warning Time
Constant monitoring of all active volcanoes means that there will be more than adequate time for evacuation
before an event. Since 1980, Mount St. Helens has settled into a pattern of intermittent, moderate and
generally non-explosive activity, and the severity of tephra, explosions, and lava flows have diminished.
All episodes, except for one very small event in 1984, have been successfully predicted several days to
three weeks in advance. However, scientists remain uncertain as to whether the volcanos current cycle of
explosive activity ended with the 1980 explosion. The possibility of further large-scale events continues for
the foreseeable future.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
10.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Secondary hazards associated with volcanic eruptions are mud flows and landslides as well as traffic
disruptions. The mudflow and landslide hazards are not typical for Spokane County, but there could be
traffic disruption caused by tephra accumulation.
10.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Large-scale volcanic eruptions can reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earths surface,
lowering temperatures in the lower atmosphere and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. The massive
outpouring of gases and ash can influence climate patterns for years. Sulfuric gases convert to sub-micron
droplets containing about 75 percent sulfuric acid. These particles can linger three to four years in the
stratosphere. Volcanic clouds absorb terrestrial radiation and scatter a significant amount of incoming solar
radiation, an effect that can last from two to three years following a volcanic eruption.
10.5 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
10.5.1 Overview
Spokane County is only moderately exposed to an eruption of a volcano. The County is generally downwind
of four volcanoes, and could experience the impacts of a tephra fall from any of these. Using the latest
eruption of Mount St. Helens as an indicator, a tephra fall in Spokane County would be anywhere from a
half-inch to an inch. Nonetheless, some people, property and elements of the environment are vulnerable
to the effects of a tephra fall, as discussed below.
Ash falls, also called tephra, are from explosive eruptions that blast fragments of rock and ash into the
air. Large fragments fall to the ground close to the volcano. Small fragments and ash can travel thousands
of miles downwind and rise thousands of feet into the air. The most serious tephra hazard in the region is
from Mount St. Helens, the most prolific producer of tephra in the Cascades during the past few thousand
years. Figure 10-1 provides estimates of the annual probability of tephra fall of 10 centimeters (about 4
inches) or greater affecting the region from all volcanoes. Probability zones extend farther to the east of the
range than to the west because prevailing winds are from the west most of the time.
10.5.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
The whole population of Spokane County is exposed to the effects of a tephra fall. The populations most
vulnerable to the effects of the tephra hazard are the elderly, the very young and those already experiencing
ear, nose and throat problems. Homeless people, who may lack adequate shelter, are also vulnerable to the
effects of a tephra fall, and would require shelter or assistance during an event.
10.5.3 Impact on Property
All of the County would be exposed to tephra accumulation in the event of a volcanic eruption. Impact
would be determined by varying factors such as the level of eruption, amount of ash, wind direction, and
other weather-related events. Property vulnerable to the effects of a tephra fall includes equipment and
machinery left out in the open, such as combines, whose parts can be clogged by the fine dust. Since
Spokane County receives snow every year, and roofs are built to withstand snow loads, most roofs are not
vulnerable and would be able to withstand the potential load of ash. Infrastructure such as drainage systems
is also potentially vulnerable to the effects of a tephra fall, since the fine ash can clog pipes and culverts.
This may be more of a problem if an eruption occurs during winter or early spring when precipitation is
highest and floods are most likely.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-4 April 2020
VOLCANO
Loss estimations for the volcano hazard are not based on Hazus or GIS modeling utilizing damage
functions, as no such functions have been generated. Instead, loss estimates were developed representing
10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the assessed value of exposed structures and contents. This allows
emergency managers to select a range of economic impact based on an estimate of the percent of damage
to the general building stock. Damage in excess of 50 percent is considered to be substantial by most
building codes and typically requires total reconstruction of the structure. Table 10-2 lists the loss estimates
to the general building stock inclusive of all types of buildings (structure and content).
Table 10-2.
Estimated Loss Potential for Volcano Hazard
Estimated Loss Potential
Total Exposed Values
(Structure and
Content) 10% Damage 30% Damage 50% Damage
$759,713,040$75,971,304.0$227,913,912.0$379,856,520.0
Airway Heights
$1,427,171,370$142,717,137.0$428,151,411.0$713,585,685.0
Cheney
$564,187,650$56,418,765.0$169,256,295.0$282,093,825.0
Deer Park
$55,034,250$5,503,425.0$16,510,275.0$27,517,125.0
Fairfield
$15,171,552$1,517,155.2$4,551,465.6$7,585,776.0
Latah
$2,307,789,015$230,778,901.5$692,336,704.5$1,153,894,507.5
Liberty Lake
$538,564,950$53,856,495.0$161,569,485.0$269,282,475.0
Medical Lake
$383,999,655$38,399,965.5$115,199,896.5$191,999,827.5
Millwood
$45,632,205$4,563,220.5$13,689,661.5$22,816,102.5
Rockford
$24,005,460$2,400,546.0$7,201,638.0$12,002,730.0
Spangle
$30,818,695,125$3,081,869,512.5$9,245,608,537.5$15,409,347,562.5
Spokane
$14,006,485,725$1,400,648,572.5$4,201,945,717.5$7,003,242,862.5
Spokane Valley
$9,443,730$944,373.0$2,833,119.0$4,721,865.0
Waverly
Unincorporated $25,161,471,812$2,516,147,181.2 $7,548,441,543.5 $12,580,735,905.8
$76,117,365,539
Total $7,611,736,553.85 $22,835,209,661.55 $38,058,682,769.25
10.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities
All critical facilities would be exposed to tephra accumulation in the event of a volcanic eruption.
Transportation routes in the direction of wind would be vulnerable to tephra accumulations. Water treatment
plants and wastewater treatment plants are vulnerable to contamination from ash fall.
10.5.5 Impact on Economy
Impact to the economy would include agricultural losses due to crops being damaged, disruption of
commodity flow through the area, decreased spending throughout the County, and the lost tax revenue from
the sales of goods and services. Loss of equipment and machinery due to damage would also have the
potential to impact agricultural and commercial industry in the planning area. While a doubtful occurrence
given the increased snow-load capacity for structures in the County, buildings which collapse from the
Bridgeview Consulting 10-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
weight of ash accumulations could also impact the property-tax base. Such impact would more likely than
not be on older structures. Additional economic impact would include the agricultural element because of
the potential acidic nature of ash. Review of Spokane County 2012 Census of Agriculture data (most recent
available for 2020 update), the County ranks among the top five producers statewide in production of lentils,
hay, wheat, sheep (including goats, wool mohair, and milk), horses (including ponies, mules, burros and
donkeys).27 The acidic nature of ash could potentially impact the agricultural production for several years
depending on the amount of ash accrual.
10.5.6 Impact on Environment
The environment is highly exposed to the effects of a volcanic eruption. Even if the related ash fall from a
volcanic eruption were to fall elsewhere, it could still be spread throughout the County by the surrounding
rivers and streams. A volcanic blast would expose the local environment to many effects such as lower air
quality, and many other elements that could harm local vegetation and water quality. Much of the treeless,
rolling landscape of Spokane County leaves the environment, particularly animals, exposed to a tephra fall
from a volcanic eruption. Spokane County, however, does not serve as a major habitat for any protected
species, so it is unlikely for any animal populations to be adversely affected. Tephra runoff can also
potentially damage stream habitats, although this was not observed in Spokane County after the Mount St.
Helens eruption in 1980. The sulfuric acid contained in volcanic ash could be very damaging to area
vegetation, waters, wildlife and air quality. Ash could also be distributed by wind. Clean-up of the ash
could cause high water usage, which would be problematic during summer months when water tables are
low.
10.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
All future development within the planning area will be susceptible to the potential impacts from volcanic
eruptions within the region. While this potential impact on the built environment is not considered to be
significant, the economic impact on industries that rely on machinery and equipment such as agriculture or
civil engineering projects could be significant. Since the extent and location of this hazard is difficult to
gauge because it is dependent upon many variables, the ability to institute land use recommendations based
on potential impacts of this hazard is limited. While the impacts of volcanic hazards are sufficient to warrant
risk assessment for emergency management purposes, the impacts are not considered to be sufficient to
dictate land use decisions.
10.7 ISSUES
Presently, volcanic eruptions are not a major hazard issue in Spokane County. There are proper warning
time and awareness mechanisms in place. The major issues that would come about, as with other disaster
events, are clean-up costs.
Since volcanic episodes have been fairly predictable in the recent past, there is not much concern about loss
of life, but there is concern about loss of property and infrastructure and severe environmental impacts.
10.8 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
Any eruption of Washingtons five Cascade Range volcanoes would likely produce significant amounts of
ash fall that could impact the planning area. This impact is dependent upon the prevailing wind direction
27
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Washington/cp53063.pdf
Accessed 8 July 2019.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-6 April 2020
VOLCANO
during and after the event. No one in the planning area would likely be injured or killed from these events,
but businesses and non-essential government would be closed until the cloud passes. People and animals
without shelter would be affected. Structures would most likely be safe due to the existing load capacities
in place for both wind and snow, which would be similar in nature to that needed for ash accumulation, but
public and private property left out in the open, such as equipment, vehicles, HAVC systems, etc., might
be damaged by the fine ash dust. Clean-up from such an event could be costly, depending upon the
magnitude of the event. Depending on the density of the ash, vehicle travel may be limited, including for
first responders. Table 5-1 identifies the Consequence Analysis for the Volcano hazard.
Table 10-3.
Consequence Analysis
L ML M MH H VH
Likelihood / Probability X
Geographic Boundary X
Population X
Vulnerable Population X
Built Environment X
Critical Infrastructure X
Facilities X
First Responders X
Economic Consequences X
Environmental Impact X
X
L=Low; ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium; MH=Medium-High; H=High; VH=Very High
10.9 RESULTS
Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that theprobability for impact
from a volcanic eruption throughout the area is low based on historic events. The impact is also limited in
nature, but is dependent on prevailing winds and the magnitude of the eruption. Based on the potential
impact, the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 1.75, with overall vulnerability determined to
be a low level.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-7 April 2020
CHAPTER 11.
WILDFIRE
DEFINITIONS
11.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
Brush fire
A fast-moving fire that ignites grass,
shrubs, bushes, scrub oak, chaparral, marsh
A wildfire is any uncontrolled
grass (cattails), and grain fields. This is the type
fire on undeveloped land that
of wildfire most likely to affect Whitman County.
requires fire suppression.
Conflagration
A fire that grows beyond its
Wildfires can be ignited by
original source area to engulf adjoining regions.
lightning or by human activity such as smoking,
Wind, extremely dry or hazardous weather
campfires, equipment use and arson. Wildfires occur
conditions, excessive fuel buildup and explosions
when all of the necessary elements of a fire come
are usually the elements behind a wildfire
together in a wooded or grassy area: an ignition source
conflagration.
is brought into contact with a combustible material
such as vegetation that is subjected to sufficient heat
Firestorm
A fire that expands to cover a large
area, often more than a square mile, when many
and has an adequate supply of oxygen from the ambient
individual fires grow together. Temperatures may
air.
exceed 1000°C. Superheated air and hot gases
of combustion rise over the fire zone, drawing
A wildfire front is the portion of a wildfire sustaining
surface winds in from all sides, often at velocities
continuous flaming combustion, where unburned
approaching 50 miles per hour. Although
material meets active flames. As the front approaches,
firestorms seldom spread because of the inward
the fire heats both the surrounding air and woody
direction of the winds, once started there is no
known way of stopping them. Lethal
material through convection and thermal radiation.
concentrations of carbon monoxide, combined
First, wood is dried as water in it is vaporized at a
with the intense heat, poses a serious life threat
temperature of 212ºF. Next, the wood releases
to responding fire forces. In very large events, the
flammable gases at 450ºF. Finally, wood can smolder
rising column of heated air carries enough
at 720ºF, and ignite at 1,000ºF. Before the flames of a
particulate matter into the upper atmosphere to
wildfire arrive at a particular location, heat transfer
cause cloud nucleation, creating a thunderstorm
and the hazard of lightning strikes.
from the wildfire front can warm the air to 1,470ºF,
which pre-heats and dries flammable materials, causing
Interface Area
An area where vegetation
them to ignite faster and allowing the fire to spread
susceptible to wildfires and urban or suburban
faster. High temperature and long-duration surface
development occur together.
wildfires may encourage flashover or torching: the
drying of tree canopies and their subsequent ignition
Wildfire
Fires that result in uncontrolled
from below.
destruction of forests, brush, field crops,
grasslands, and real and personal property in
non-urban areas. Because of their distance from
Large wildfires may affect air currents by the stack
firefighting resources, they can be difficult to
effect: air rises as it is heated, so large wildfires create
contain and can cause a great deal of
powerful updrafts that draw in new, cooler air from
destruction.
surrounding areas in thermal columns. Great vertical
differences in temperature and humidity encourage
fire-created clouds, strong winds and fire whirls with
the force of tornadoes at speeds of more than 50 mph. Rapid rates of spread, prolific crowning or spotting,
the presence of fire whirls, and strong convection columns signify extreme conditions.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11.1.1 Wildland-Urban Interface Areas
The wildland urban-interface (WUI) is the area where development meets wildland areas. This can mean
structures built in or near natural forests, or areas next to active timber and rangelands. The federal
definition of a WUI communityis an area where development densities are at least three residential,
business, or public building structures per acre. For less developed areas, the wildland-intermix community
has development densities of at least one structure per 40 acres. Spokane County does have identified WUI
Communities.
In 2001, Congress mandated the establishment of a Federal Register which identifies all urban wildland
interface communities within the vicinity of Federal lands, including Indian trust and restricted lands that
are at high-risk from wildfire. The list assimilated information provided from States and Tribes, and is
intended to identify those communities considered at risk. Review of the Federal Registry lists several
communities within Spokane County at high-risk within the vicinity of Federal lands.28
When identifying areas of fire concern, in addition to the Federal Register, the Washington Department of
Natural Resources and its federal partners also determine communities at risk based on fire behavior
potential, fire protection capability, and risk to social, cultural and community resources. These risk factors
include areas with fire history, the type and density of vegetative fuels, extreme weather conditions,
topography, number and density of structures and their distance from fuels, location of municipal
watersheds, and likely loss of housing or business. The criteria for making these determinations are the
NFPA 299 Standard for Protection of Life
and Property from Wildfire. Based on these criteria, Spokane County has some areas considered to be at
high risk as identified in Figure 11-1.
28 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/04/01-52/urban-wildland-interface-communities-within-the-
vicinity-of-federal-lands-that-are-at-high-risk-from
Bridgeview Consulting 11-2 April 2020
WILDFIRE
Figure 11-1. Wildland Urban Interface and Level of Risk (DNR, 2018)
Bridgeview Consulting 11-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
11.1.2 Wildfire Types
Wildfires generally can be characterized by their fuels as follows:
Ground fires
are fed by subterranean roots, duff and other buried organic matter. This fuel
type is especially susceptible to ignition due to spotting. Ground fires typically burn by
smoldering, and can burn slowly for days to months.
Crawlingsurface fires
or are fueled by low-lying vegetation such as leaf and timber litter,
debris, grass, and low-lying shrubbery.
Ladder
fires consume material between low-level vegetation and tree canopies, such as small
trees, downed logs and vines. Invasive plants that scale trees may encourage ladder fires.
Crown, canopy aerial fires
or burn suspended material at the canopy level, such as tall trees,
vines and mosses. The ignition of a crown fire, termed crowning, is dependent on the density
of the suspended material, canopy height, canopy continuity, and sufficient surface and ladder
fires to reach the tree crowns.
11.1.3 Identifying Wildfire Risk
Risk to communities is generally determined by the number, size and types of
wildfires that have historically affected an area; topography; fuel and weather;
suppression capability of local and regional resources; where and what types of
structures are in the WUI; and what types of pre-fire mitigation activities have
been completed. Identifying areas most at risk to fire or predicting the course a
fire will take requires precise science. The following are most useful in assessing
risk in the area:
Topography
Topography can have a powerful influence on wildfire behavior. The movement
of air over the terrain tends to direct a fires course. Gulches and canyons can funnel air and act as a
chimney, intensifying fire behavior and inducing faster rates of spread. Saddles on ridge tops offer lower
resistance to the passage of air and will draw fires. Solar heating of drier, south-facing slopes produces
upslope thermal winds that can complicate behavior.
Slope is an important factor. If the percentage of uphill slope doubles, the rate of spread of wildfire will
likely double. On steep slopes, fuels on the uphill side of the fire are closer physically to the source of heat.
Radiation preheats and dries the fuel, thus intensifying fire behavior. Fire travels downslope much more
slowly than it does upslope, and ridge tops often mark the end of wildfires rapid spread.
Fuels
Fuels are classified by weight or volume (fuel loading) and by type. Fuel loading, often expressed in tons
per acre, can be used to describe the amount of vegetative material available. If fuel loading doubles, the
energy released also can be expected to double. Each fuel type is given a burn index, which is an estimate
of the amount of potential energy that may be released, the effort required to contain a fire in a given fuel,
and the expected flame length. Different fuels have different burn qualities. Some fuels burn more easily
or release more energy than others. Grass, for instance, releases relatively little energy, but can sustain very
high rates of spread.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-4 April 2020
WILDFIRE
Continuity of fuels is expressed in terms of horizontal and vertical dimensions. Horizontal continuity is
what can be seen from an aerial photograph and represents the distribution of fuels over the landscape.
Vertical continuity links fuels at the ground surface with tree crowns via ladder fuels.
Another essential factor is fuel moisture. Fuel moisture is expressed as a percentage of total saturation and
varies with antecedent weather. Low fuel moistures indicate the probability of severe fires. Given the same
weather conditions, moisture in fuels of different diameters changes at different rates. A 1,000-hour fuel,
which has a 3- to 8-inch diameter, changes more slowly than a 1- or 10-hour fuel.
Weather
Of all the factors influencing wildfire behavior, weather is the most variable. Extreme weather leads to
extreme events, and it is often a moderation of the weather that marks the end of a wildfires growth and
the beginning of successful containment. High temperatures and low humidity can produce vigorous fire
activity. The cooling and higher humidity brought by sunset can dramatically quiet fire behavior.
Fronts and thunderstorms can produce winds that are capable of radical and sudden changes in speed and
direction, causing similar changes in fire activity. The rate of spread of a fire varies directly with wind
velocity. Winds may play a dominant role in directing the course of a fire. The radical and devastating
effect that wind can have on fire behavior is a primary safety concern for firefighters. The most damaging
firestorms are usually marked by high winds.
11.1.4 Historical Fire Regime and Current Condition Classification
Land managers need to understand historical fire regimes (that is, fire frequency and fire severity prior to
significant human settlement) to be able to define ecologically appropriate goals and objectives for an area.
This understanding must include knowledge of how historical fire regimes vary across the landscape. Five
historical fire regimes are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) and
the severity of the fire (amount of replacement) on the dominant overstory vegetation:
0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less than 75
percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced)
0- to 35-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of the
dominant overstory vegetation replaced)
35- to 100-year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory
vegetation replaced)
35- to 100-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of the
dominant overstory vegetation replaced)
>200-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity.
Understanding ecosystem departures (how ecosystems have changed over time) provides a context for
managing sustainable ecosystems. Broad-scale alterations of historical fire regimes and vegetation
conditions have occurred in many landscapes in the U.S. through the combined influence of land
management practices, fire prevention, livestock grazing, insect and disease outbreaks, climate change, and
invasion of non-native plant species. These departures result in changes to one or more of the following
ecological components:
Bridgeview Consulting 11-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure
and mosaic pattern)
Fuel composition
Fire frequency, severity, and pattern
Associated disturbances (e.g. insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought).
Characteristic vegetation and fuel conditions are those that occurred within the historical fire regime.
Uncharacteristic conditions are those that did not occur within the historical fire regime, such as invasive
species (e.g. weeds, insects, and diseases), high graded forest composition and structure (e.g. large trees
removed in a frequent surface fire regime), or repeated annual grazing that reduces grassy fuels across
relatively large areas to levels that will not carry a surface fire.
The fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a classification of a given areas amount of departure from the
historical fire regime. The classifications categorize wildland vegetation and fuel conditions into one of the
three condition classes, based on the degree of departure. The three classes indicate low (FRCC 1), moderate
(FRCC 2) and high (FRCC 3) departure from the historical fire regime. Low departure is considered to be
within the historical range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside. Determination of
the amount of departure is based on comparison of a composite measure of fire regime attributes to the
central tendency of the historical fire regime. The amount of departure is then classified to determine the
fire regime condition class. Table 11-1 presents a simplified description of the fire regime condition classes
and associated potential risks.
Table 11-1.
Fire Regime Condition Class Definitions
Description Potential Risks
Fire Regime Condition Class 1
Within the Fire behavior, effects and other associated disturbances are similar to those that
historical range of occurred prior to fire exclusion (suppression) and other types of management that do
variability. not mimic the natural fire regime and associated vegetation and fuel characteristics.
Composition and structure of vegetation and fuels are similar to the natural (historical)
regime.
Risk of loss of key ecosystem components (e.g. native species, large trees and soil) is
low.
Fire Regime Condition Class 2
Moderate Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances are moderately departed
departure from the (more or less severe).
historical regime Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are moderately altered.
of variability. Uncharacteristic conditions range from low to moderate.
Risk of loss of key ecosystem components is moderate.
Fire Regime Condition Class 3
High departure Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances are highly departed (more or
from the historical less severe).
regime of Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are highly altered.
variability. Uncharacteristic conditions range from moderate to high.
Risk of loss of key ecosystem components is high.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-6 April 2020
WILDFIRE
Firewise USA program encourages local solutions for safety by involving
homeowners in taking individual responsibility for preparing their homes from the risk of
wildfire. Firewise is a key component of Fire Adapted Communities a collaborative
approach that connects all those who play a role in wildfire education, planning and action
with comprehensive resources to help reduce risk. The following list identifies the Firewise
Communities throughout Spokane County. This list is continually updated, and readers
should review the cite referenced for updated information.29
Bridlewood HOA, Spokane
Flowery Trail, Spokane
Four Mound Community, Spokane
Glenrose, Spokane
Latah Bluff Natural Area, Spokane
Little Spokane River Estates, Colbert
Manito Place, Spokane
Mullen Hill Terrace Mobile Home Park, Spokane
Pine Bluff, Nine Mile Falls, Spokane County
Ridge at Hangman HOA, Spokane
Ridge Park Estates, Cheney
River Bluff Ranch, Spokane
Wilderness Lake HOA, Spokane
11.2 HAZARD PROFILE
Spokane Countys fire history is a mixture of events of varying size, severity and frequency. In the dry
ponderosa pine forests dominant in the lower elevations, on south aspect slopes, and along the Spokane
River, fire regimes have changed from frequent, low-severity fires to less frequent, high severity or stand
replacing fires. In the more mixed conifer forests (Douglas fir, grand fir, ponderosa and lodgepole pine,
larch, cedar, hemlock) typical of the higher elevations, on north slopes, and dominating much of the
northeastern portion of Spokane County, fires were historically less frequent, but much larger. Fire severity
in these landscapes was varied with infrequent stand replacing fires.
Population growth rates have been steadily increasing throughout the County and the region. The growing
appreciation for seclusion has led to significant development in the most accessible forestland areas,
particularly along the river and around several of the lakes. Frequently, this development is in the dry
ponderosa/Douglas-fir forest types where grass, needle and brush surface litter create forest fuel conditions
that are at a high propensity for fire occurrence. Human use is strongly correlated with fire frequency, with
increasing numbers of fires as use increases. Discarded cigarettes, tire fires and hot catalytic converters
increase the potential for fire starts along roadways. Careless and unsupervised use of fireworks also
contributes to unwanted and unexpected wildland fires. Further contributing to ignition sources are the
debris burners (burn barrels) and sport burners who use fire to rid ditches of weeds and other burnable
materials. Farming and logging equipment have also been a source of accidental ignitions. The increased
29 NFPA State Listing of Participants. Accessed 4 July 2019. Available online at: http://www.firewise.org/usa-
recognition-program/state-listing-of-partcipants.aspx
Bridgeview Consulting 11-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
potential for fire starts and the fire- prone landscapes in which homes have been constructed greatly
increases the potential for fires in interface areas.
11.2.1 Extent and Location
Three types of mapping to identify the location of the wildfire hazard are produced by the U.S. Forest
Service and LANDFIRE (a shared program between the wildland fire management programs of the U.S.
Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior, under the direction of the Wildland Fire Leadership
Council): fire regime mapping, burn probability mapping and vegetation/flame length mapping.
Fire Behavior Fuel Model Classifications
Thirteen standard fire behavior fuel models (FBFM), referred to as Anderson 13, serve as input to a
mathematical model of surface fire behavior and spread. The fire behavior fuel model layer (FBFM13)
represents the distribution of fuel loading among live and dead surface fuel components, size classes, and
fuel types. The fuel models are described by the most common fire-carrying fuel type (grass, brush, timber
litter, or slash), loading and surface area-to-volume ratio by size class and component, fuel bed depth, and
moisture of extinction. The FBFM13 layer was produced by fire and fuels specialists based on vegetation
type, cover and height. The 13 classes, shown on Figure 11-2, are defined as follows:
FBFM 1Surface fires that burn fine herbaceous fuels, cured and curing fuels, little shrub or
timber present, primarily grasslands and savanna.
FBFM 2Burns fine, herbaceous fuels, stand is curing or dead, may produce fire brands on
oak or pine stands.
FBFM 3Most intense fire of grass group, spreads quickly with wind, one third of stand dead
or cured, stands average 3 feet tall.
FBFM 4Fast spreading fire, continuous overstory, flammable foliage and dead woody
material, deep litter layer can inhibit suppression.
FBFM 5Low intensity fires, young, green shrubs with little dead material, fuels consist of
litter from understory.
FBFM 6Broad range of shrubs, fire requires moderate winds to maintain flame at shrub
height, or will drop to the ground with low winds.
FBFM 7Foliage highly flammable, allowing fire to reach shrub strata levels, shrubs generally
2 to 6 feet high.
FBFM 8Slow, ground burning fires, closed canopy stands with short needle conifers or
hardwoods, litter consisting mainly of needles and leaves, with little undergrowth, occasional
flares with concentrated fuels.
FBFM 9Longer flames, quicker surface fires, closed canopy stands of long-needles or
hardwoods, rolling leaves in fall can cause spotting, dead-down material can cause occasional
crowning.
FBFM 10Surface and ground fire more intense, dead-down fuels more abundant, frequent
crowning and spotting causing fire control to be more difficult.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-8 April 2020
WILDFIRE
FBFM 11Fairly active fire, fuels consist of slash and herbaceous materials, slash originates
from light partial cuts or thinning projects, fire is limited by spacing of fuel load and shade
from overstory.
FBFM 12Rapid spreading and high intensity fires, dominated by slash resulting from heavy
thinning projects and clear-cuts, slash is mostly 3 inches or less.
FBFM 13Fire spreads quickly through smaller material and intensity builds slowly as large
material ignites, continuous layer of slash larger than 3 inches in diameter predominates,
resulting from clear-cuts and heavy partial cuts, active flames sustained for long periods of
time, fire is susceptible to spotting and weather conditions.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 11-2. LANDFIRE Fire Behavior Fuel Model - Anderson 13 Fuel Classes
Bridgeview Consulting 11-10 April 2020
WILDFIRE
11.2.2 Previous Occurrence
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) database used in this analysis includes ignition
and extent data from 2008 through June 2019 for wildfires occurring on DNR-protected lands. An analysis
of the DNR-reported wildfire ignitions in Spokane County reveals that during this period approximately
36,256.49 acres burned as a result of 1,685 wildfire ignitions. The Miscellaneous ignition source category
resulted in the highest number of ignitions, but the Recreation category resulted in the most acres burned
for the period analyzed. Comparatively, the Children and Lightning categories contributed to a significant
number of ignitions, but account for a fairly low percentage of the total acres burned. An average of 153
fires per year was recorded during this period. Fire statistics for the period from 2008 to (June) 2019 are
shown in Table 11-2 as provided by the Washington State DNR database. Location of previous wildfires
and landownership are identified in Figure 11-3.
Table 11-2.
Summary of Ignitions in Spokane County 2008-2019
Cause Acres Burned Percent Number of Ignitions Percent
Arson 235.70 0.7 95 5.64%
Children 92.86 0.26 133 7.89%
Debris Burning 306.45 0.85 232 13.77%
Lightning 293.06 0.81 192 11.39%
Logging 0.63 0.00 5 0.30%
Miscellaneous 33,316.59 91.89 578 34.30%
Railroad 32.50 0.09 17 1.01%
Recreation 1141.44 3.15 198 11.75%
Smoking 43.52 0.12 41 2.43%
Under Investigation 181.29 0.50 39 2.31%
Undetermined
612.45 1.69 155 9.20%
Total 36,256.49 100.00 1,685 100.00%
Bridgeview Consulting 11-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 11-3. Historic Wildland Fires 2008-2019 and Land Ownership
Bridgeview Consulting 11-12 April 2020
WILDFIRE
11.2.3 Frequency
The LANDFIRE Project produces maps of simulated historical fire regimes and vegetation conditions using
the LANDSUM landscape succession and disturbance dynamics model. The LANDFIRE Project also
produces maps of current vegetation and measurements of current vegetation departure from simulated
historical reference conditions. These maps support fire and landscape management planning outlined in
the goals of the National Fire Plan, Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, and the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act.
The simulated historical mean fire return interval data layer quantifies the average number of years between
fires under the presumed historical fire regime. This data is derived from simulations using LANDSUM.
LANDSUM simulates fire dynamics as a function of vegetation dynamics, topography, and spatial context,
in addition to variability introduced by dynamic wind direction and speed, frequency of extremely dry
years, and landscape-level fire characteristics. The historical fire regime groups simulated in LANDFIRE
categorize mean fire return interval and fire severities into five regimes defined in the Interagency Fire
Regime Condition Class Guidebook:
Regime 1: 0-35 year frequency, low to mixed severity
Regime II: 0-35 year frequency, replacement severity
Regime III: 35-200 year frequency, low to mixed severity
Regime IV: 35 -200 year frequency, replacement severity
Regime V: 200+ year frequency, any severity
Natural fire rotation is defined as the number of years necessary for fires to burn over an area equal to that
of the study area. Natural fire rotation is calculated from the historical record of fires by dividing the length
of the record period in years by the percentage of total area burned during that period. It represents the
average period between fires under a presumed historical fire regime.
Figure 11-4 shows the Fire Regimes for the planning area. Since 2008, Spokane County has seen an average
of 153 wildfires per year, totaling 36,256 acres burned.
Figure 11-5 identifies the Vegetation Condition Class (VCC). VCC represents a simple categorization of
the associated Vegetation Departure layer and indicates the general level to which current vegetation is
different from the simulated historical vegetation. The classes of variation range are low, medium and high.
The variation of vegetation class directly influences fire through type of fuel, and the frequency at which
such vegetation burns.
Vegetative Associations
Vegetative structure and composition in Spokane County are closely related to elevation, aspect, and
precipitation. Relatively mild and dry environments characterize the undulating topography of the region
which transitions from the forestland in the northern region to agricultural in the middle and eastern regions
to scablands left over from the Missoula floods in the southwestern region. The higher elevation forest
ecosystems in the north and northeast regions typically contain higher fuel accumulations that have the
potential to burn at moderate to high intensities. The highly variable topography coupled with limited access
is likely to make suppression difficult. The patchy forests occurring along the Spokane River and many of
its tributaries as well as in the scabland areas are very different. These forests are much less productive due
to the lack of soil. Scattered, lower density stands of primarily ponderosa pine and a minor component of
Douglas fir are found in many of the sheltered drainages or where there are accumulations of loess due to
Bridgeview Consulting 11-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
topographic features. Under natural conditions, this type of forestland would burn at frequent intervals
keeping brush and other ladder fuels to a minimum.
At higher elevation mountainous regions (Mt. Spokane being the highest point in the area at just over 5,000
feet), moisture becomes less limiting due to a combination of higher precipitation and reduced solar
radiation. Therefore, vegetative patterns shift based on the elevation of the area and creates specific
conditions which impact fuels and fire speed. In some instances, forested conditions possess a greater
quantity of both dead and down fuels as well as live fuels. Rates of fire spread tend to be lower than those
in the grasslands; however, intensities can escalate dramatically, especially under the effect of slope and
wind. These conditions can lead to control problems and potentially threaten lives, structures and other
valued resources.
As elevation and aspect increase available moisture, forest composition transitions to moister habitat types.
Increases in moisture keep forest fuels unavailable to burn for longer periods during the summer. This
increases the time between fire events, resulting in varying degrees of fuel accumulation. When these fuels
do become available to burn, they typically burn in a mosaic pattern at mid elevations, where accumulations
of forest fuels result in either single or group tree torching, and in some instances, short crown fire runs. At
the highest elevations, fire events are typically stand replacing as years of accumulation fuel large, intense
wildfires.
Insects and disease can cause widespread mortality of forest stands in a very short amount of time. Pine
bark beetle populations have continued to increase at epidemic levels throughout Eastern Washington State;
however, mortality increases are most pronounced in eastern Washington. Ponderosa pine and lodgepole
pine seem to be the most affected species at all elevations in Spokane County. In general bark beetle are
not causing widespread mortality of forest stands, but are generally causing pockets of mortality. The pine
bark beetle is currently at an endemic level in Spokane county. The occurrence of Ips Pini , western pine
beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, Douglas-fir tussock moth, and root disease have also been recorded in eastern
Washington (Washington Department of Natural Resources 2006). All of these disease and insects are
currently in Spokane County. Insects and disease often focus and cause the most mortality in forest stands
that are overcrowded or otherwise stressed by drought, recent fires, or other factors. Large areas of dead
trees are a significant fire hazard. Often, dry, dead needles hang on the killed trees for several years making
them prime for a potential ignition and subsequent crown fire. Thinning overcrowded stands can help
reduce stress on individual trees allowing them to better withstand insect attacks. Planting of appropriate
species for the site and continual management can also help ward off future outbreaks.
Many lower elevation forested areas throughout Spokane County are highly valued for their scenic qualities
as well as for their proximity to travel corridors and city services. These attributes have led to increased
recreational home development and residential home construction in and around forest fuel complexes. The
combination of highly flammable forest types and rapid home development will continue to challenge the
ability to manage wildland fires in the wildland-urban interface.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-14 April 2020
WILDFIRE
Figure 11-4. LandFire Fire Regime Groups (2017)
Bridgeview Consulting 11-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Figure 11-5 Vegetation Class
Bridgeview Consulting 11-16 April 2020
WILDFIRE
11.2.4 Severity
The severity of a fire season can usually be determined in the spring by how much precipitation is received,
which in turn, determines how much fine fuel growth there is and how long it takes this growth to cure out.
These factors, combined with annual wind events in late summer, drastically increase the chance a fire start
will grow and resist suppression activities. Furthermore, harvest is also occurring at this time. Occasionally,
harvesting equipment causes an ignition that can spread into populated areas and timberlands.
Wildfires in Spokane County tend to be small and usually confined to remote areas. There is no record of
property or infrastructure being damaged by wildfires in the County. More than 99 percent of the fires
recorded during a 10-year period covered 1 acre or less.
Given the fast response times to fires, the likelihood of injuries and casualties is minimal. Smoke and air
pollution from wildfires can be a health hazard, especially for sensitive populations including children, the
elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Wildfire may also threaten the health and
safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to the dangers from the initial incident and
after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke. In addition, wildfire can lead to ancillary impacts such
as landslides in steep ravine areas and flooding due to the impacts of silt in local watersheds.
11.2.5 Warning Time
Wildfires are often caused by humans, intentionally or accidentally. There is no way to predict when one
might break out. Since fireworks often cause brush fires, extra diligence is warranted around the Fourth of
July when the use of fireworks is highest. Dry seasons and droughts are factors that greatly increase fire
likelihood. Dry lightning may trigger wildfires. Severe weather can be predicted, so special attention can
be paid during weather events that may include lightning. Reliable National Weather Service lightning
warnings are available on average 24 to 48 hours prior to a significant electrical storm. If a fire does break
out and spread rapidly, residents may need to evacuate within days or hours. Once a fire has started, fire
alerting is reasonably rapid in most cases. The spread of cellular and two-way radio communications has
contributed to a significant improvement in warning time.
11.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Wildfires can generate a range of secondary effects, which in some cases may cause more widespread and
prolonged damage than the fire itself. Fires can cause direct economic losses in the reduction of harvestable
timber and indirect economic losses in reduced tourism. Wildfires cause the contamination of reservoirs,
destroy transmission lines and contribute to flooding. They strip slopes of vegetation, exposing them to
greater amounts of runoff. This in turn can weaken soils and cause failures on slopes. Major landslides can
occur several years after a wildfire. Most wildfires burn hot and for long durations that can bake soils,
especially those high in clay content, thus increasing the imperviousness of the ground. This increases the
runoff generated by storm events, thus increasing the chance of flooding.
11.4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Fire in western ecosystems is determined by climate variability, local topography and human intervention.
Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions,
fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk. Increased temperatures
may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation. When climate alters fuel loads and
fuel moisture, forest susceptibility to wildfires changes. Climate change also may increase winds that spread
fires. Faster fires are harder to contain, and thus are more likely to expand into residential neighborhoods.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Historically, drought patterns in the West are related to large-scale climate patterns in the Pacific and
Atlantic oceans. The El NiñoSouthern Oscillation in the Pacific varies on a 5- to 7-year cycle, the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation varies on a 20- to 30-year cycle, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation varies on a
65- to 80-year cycle. As these large-scale ocean climate patterns vary in relation to each other, drought
conditions in the U.S. shift from region to region. El Niño years bring drier conditions to the Pacific
Northwest and more fires.
Climate scenarios project summer temperature increases between 2ºC and 5°C and precipitation decreases
of up to 15 percent. Such conditions would exacerbate summer drought and further promote high-elevation
wildfires, releasing stores of carbon and further contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases. Forest
response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxidethe so-called fertilization effectcould also
contribute to more tree growth and thus more fuel for fires, but the effects of carbon dioxide on mature
forests are still largely unknown. High carbon dioxide levels should enhance tree recovery after fire and
young forest regrowth, as long as sufficient nutrients and soil moisture are available, although the latter is
in question for many parts of the western United States because of climate change.
11.5 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
11.5.1 Overview
Structures, above-ground infrastructure, critical facilities and natural environments are all vulnerable to the
wildfire hazard.
Methodology
There is currently no validated damage function available to support wildfire mitigation planning because
no such damage functions have been generated. Instead, dollar loss estimates were developed by calculating
the assessed value of exposed structures identified utilizing the various LANDFIRE Fire Regime (1-5)
datasets. Population impact also utilized the various Fire Regimes, with population estimated using the
exposed structure count of buildings in each Fire Regime area and applying the census value of 2.43 persons
per household for Spokane County.
11.5.2 Impact on Life, Health, and Safety
Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard, especially for sensitive populations,
including children, the elderly and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Smoke generated by
wildfire consists of visible and invisible emissions that contain particulate matter (soot, tar, water vapor,
and minerals), gases (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and toxics (formaldehyde,
benzene). Emissions from wildfires depend on the type of fuel, the moisture content of the fuel, the
efficiency (or temperature) of combustion, and the weather. Public health impacts associated with wildfire
include difficulty in breathing, odor, and reduction in visibility.
Wildfire may also threaten the health and safety of those fighting the fires. First responders are exposed to
the dangers from the initial incident and after-effects from smoke inhalation and heat stroke.
Population impact could not be examined directly by wildfire regime zones because census blocks do not
coincide with the zones. However, population was estimated using the residential building count in each of
the Fire Regimes applying the 2017 census value of 2.43 persons per household for Spokane County. The
results are shown in Table 11-3.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-18 April 2020
WILDFIRE
Table 11-3.
Population Estimates Within Fire Regimes
Fire Regime I Fire Regime II Fire Regime III Fire Regime IV Fire Regime V
Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential
Jurisdiction
Population Population Population Population Population
Buildings Buildings Buildings Buildings Buildings
Airway
0 0 0 0 2 5 94 243 1,106 3,273
Heights
Cheney 9 22 0 0 93 377 191 1,351 1,736 6,233
Deer Park 1,051 4,892 13 126 518 4,206 1 2 0 0
Fairfield 91 323 65 165 0 0 46 119 0 0
Latah 27 66 33 80 0 0 23 56 0 0
Liberty Lake 2,461 6,444 127 391 493 1,358 12 29 0 0
Medical Lake 8 18 0 0 428 1,373 353 940 626 1,801
Millwood 11 27 0 0 0 0 511 1,392 161 420
Rockford 9 22 123 316 0 0 53 129 0 0
Spangle14 34 6 15 0 0 92 238 0 0
Spokane 15,486 43,572 719 1,798 782 2,700 28,729 93,042 21,38858,624
Spokane
10,335 30,598 84 204 4,626 13,528 3,673 11,300 8,683 27,112
Valley
Waverly 2 5 2 5 0 0 49 119 0 0
Unincorporated 16,270 41,932 2,804 6,978 7,158 19,265 10,783 30,295 9,742 27,199
Total 45,774 127,955 3,976 10,078 14,100 42,812 44,610 139,256 43,442124,661
* Single family residences at 2.43 persons per house; 2-4 plexes were 9.72 (2.43 * 4) persons per 2-4 plex, 5+ units were 12.15 (5*2.43) persons per 5+
unit and condominiums were 24.3 (10*2.43) persons per condominium unit
11.5.3 Impact on Property
Loss estimations for the wildfire hazard are not based on damage functions, because no such damage
functions have been generated. Property damage from wildfires can be severe and can significantly alter
entire communities. The number and value of homes exposed in the various Fire Regimes within the
planning area are summarized in Table 11-3 (above). Density and the age of building stock in Spokane
County are contributing factors in assessing property vulnerability to wildfire. Many of the buildings in the
planning area are of significant age, with many being constructed with wood frames and shingle roofs.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation activities in and around cultural sites has the potential to affect historic places. In all cases, the
mitigation work will be intended to reduce the potential of damaging the site. Areas where ground
disturbance will occur will need to be inventoried depending on the location. Ground-disturbing actions
may include, but are not limited to, constructed fire lines (hand line, mechanical line, etc.), new roads to
creeks to fill water tankers, mechanical treatments, etc. Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) will also
need to be identified. Potential impact to TCPs will depend on what values make the property important
and will be assessed on an individual basis.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Park Service maintains the National Register of Historical Places as a repository of
information on significant cultural locale. These may be buildings, roads or trails, places where historical
events took place, or other noteworthy sites. As of 2019, there are 149 properties and districts listed
Bridgeview Consulting 11-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
throughout the planning region. A total of 126 of those properties are located within the City of Spokane,
while the remaining 23 properties and districts are located elsewhere in the County. In addition, there are
also other cultural resources in Spokane County that are not currently listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, such as the Spokane House Interpretive Center and the Indian Painted Rocks, both in the
Nine Mile area.30
Table 11-4.
Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 1
Assessed Value
Buildings
Total
Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents % of AV
Airway Heights 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Cheney 11 $3,627,350 $1,813,675 $5,441,0250.03%
Deer Park 1,209 $235,987,300 $117,993,650 $353,980,9501.64%
Fairfield 139 $16,792,590 $8,396,295 $25,188,8850.12%
Latah 51 $3,976,640 $1,988,320 $5,964,9600.03%
Liberty Lake 2,582 $1,118,117,670 $559,058,835 $1,677,176,5057.75%
Medical Lake 11 $11,842,170 $5,921,085 $17,763,2550.08%
Millwood 12 $3,526,020 $1,763,010 $5,289,0300.02%
Rockford 14 $1,870,430 $935,215 $2,805,6450.01%
Spangle 20 $2,000,040 $1,000,020 $3,000,0600.01%
Spokane 16,310 $3,736,907,620 $1,868,453,810 $5,605,361,43025.90%
Spokane Valley 11,115 $3,490,971,010 $1,745,485,505 $5,236,456,51524.19%
Waverly 6 $237,590 $118,795 $356,3850.00%
Unincorporated 40.23%
20,595 $5,804,939,461 $2,902,469,731 $8,707,409,192
Total 52,075 $14,430,795,891 $7,215,397,946 $21,646,193,837 100%
Table 11-5.
Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 2
Assessed Value
Buildings
Total
Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents % of AV
Airway Heights 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Cheney 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Deer Park 13 $1,385,260 $692,630 $2,077,8900.15%
Fairfield 65 $9,810,600 $4,905,300 $14,715,9001.10%
Latah 33 $2,973,876 $1,486,938 $4,460,8140.33%
Liberty Lake 127 $33,226,750 $16,613,375 $49,840,1253.72%
Medical Lake 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
30 "National Register of Historic Places: Weekly List Actions". National Park Service, United States Department of
the Interior. Retrieved on July 8, 2019.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-20 April 2020
WILDFIRE
Table 11-5.
Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 2
Assessed Value
Buildings
Total
Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents % of AV
Millwood 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Rockford 23 $13,789,200 $6,894,600 $20,683,8001.54%
Spangle 6 $691,930 $345,965 $1,037,8950.08%
Spokane 719 $126,236,251 $63,118,126 $189,354,37714.12%
Spokane Valley 84 $15,170,600 $7,585,300 $22,755,9001.70%
Waverly 2 $77,600 $38,800 $116,4000.01%
Unincorporated 77.25%
2,804 $690,625,687 $345,312,844 $1,035,938,531
Total 3,876 $893,987,754 $446,993,877 $1,340,981,631 100%
Table 11-6.
Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 3
Assessed Value
Buildings
Total
Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents % of AV
Airway Heights 2 $166,600 $83,300 $249,9000.01%
Cheney 93 $39,196,540 $19,598,270 $58,794,8101.34%
Deer Park 518 $65,109,748 $32,554,874 $97,664,6222.23%
Fairfield 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Latah 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Liberty Lake 493 $186,879,360 $93,439,680 $280,319,0406.41%
Medical Lake 428 $62,867,874 $31,433,937 $94,301,8112.15%
Millwood 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Rockford 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Spangle 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Spokane 782 $185,669,434 $92,834,717 $278,504,1516.36%
Spokane Valley 4,626 $858,414,411 $429,207,206 $1,287,621,61729.42%
Waverly 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Unincorporated 7,158 $1,519,123,756 $759,561,878 $2,278,685,63452.07%
Total 14,100 $2,917,427,723 $1,458,713,862 $4,376,141,585 100%
Bridgeview Consulting 11-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 11-7.
Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 4
Assessed Value
Buildings
Total
Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents % of AV
Airway Heights 94 $16,577,300 $8,288,650 $24,865,9500.21%
Cheney 191 $37,030,660 $18,515,330 $55,545,9900.47%
Deer Park 1 $37,220 $18,610 $55,8300.00%
Fairfield 46 $5,115,300 $2,557,650 $7,672,9500.06%
Latah 23 $1,606,180 $803,090 $2,409,2700.02%
Liberty Lake 12 $4,324,600 $2,162,300 $6,486,9000.05%
Medical Lake 353 $55,614,315 $27,807,158 $83,421,4730.71%
Millwood 511 $73,031,162 $36,515,581 $109,546,7430.93%
Rockford 53 $5,763,310 $2,881,655 $8,644,9650.07%
Spangle 92 $7,085,637 $3,542,819 $10,628,4560.09%
Spokane 28,729 $4,638,465,037 $2,319,232,519 $6,957,697,55658.83%
Spokane Valley 3,673 $561,516,405 $280,758,203 $842,274,6087.12%
Waverly 49 $4,469,750 $2,234,875 $6,704,6250.06%
Unincorporated 10,783 $2,474,386,519 $1,237,193,260 $3,711,579,77931.38%
Total 44,610 $7,885,023,395 $3,942,511,698 $11,827,535,093 100%
Table 11-8.
Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 5
Assessed Value
Buildings
Total
Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents % of AV
Airway Heights 1,106 $158,835,395 $79,417,698 $238,253,0932.05%
Cheney 1,736 $365,567,372 $182,783,686 $548,351,0584.71%
Deer Park 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Fairfield 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Latah 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Liberty Lake 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Medical Lake 626 $94,810,194 $47,405,097 $142,215,2911.22%
Millwood 161 $20,245,419 $10,122,710 $30,368,1290.26%
Rockford 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Spangle 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Spokane 21,388 $3,848,395,604 $1,924,197,802 $5,772,593,40649.61%
Spokane Valley 8,683 $1,314,810,658 $657,405,329 $1,972,215,98716.95%
Waverly 0 $0 $0 $00.00%
Unincorporated 25.20%
9,742 $1,954,457,618 $977,228,809 $2,931,686,427
Bridgeview Consulting 11-22 April 2020
WILDFIRE
Table 11-8.
Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 5
Assessed Value
Buildings
Total
Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents % of AV
Total 43,442 $7,757,122,260 $3,878,561,130 $11,635,683,390 100%
11.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities of wood frame construction are especially vulnerable during wildfire events. In the event
of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to most infrastructure. Most roads and railroads would be
without damage except in the worst scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk from wildfire because most
poles are made of wood and susceptible to burning. Fires can create conditions that block or prevent access
and can isolate residents and emergency service providers. Wildfire typically does not have a major direct
impact on bridges, but it can create conditions in which bridges are obstructed. Many bridges in areas of
high to moderate fire risk are important because they provide the only ingress and egress to large areas and
in some cases to isolated neighborhoods.
Table 11-9 identifies critical facilities exposed to the wildfire hazard in the county. During a wildfire event,
these materials could rupture due to excessive heat and act as fuel for the fire, causing rapid spreading and
escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In the event of wildfire, there would likely be little damage to
the majority of infrastructure. Most road and railroads would be without damage except in the worst
scenarios. Power lines are the most at risk to wildfire because most are made of wood and susceptible to
burning. In the event of a wildfire, pipelines could provide a source of fuel and lead to a catastrophic
explosion. Combined, there are approximately 900 critical facilities exposed to the wildfire hazard.
Table 11-9.
Critical Facilities Exposed to Wildfire Regimes
Regime 1 Regime 2 Regime 3 Regime 4 Regime 5 Barren Water*
Medical and Health 1 0 0 6 2 0 0
Services
Government 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Function
Schools 50 5 13 64 62 1 0
Protective Function 23 6 16 38 33 0 0
Hazmat 67 5 22 126 77 0 0
Potable Water 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wastewater 1 3 1 1 1 0 0
Power 1 0 0 2 1 0 0
Communications 11 4 15 4 3 0 0
Transportation** 87 15 42 228 31 0 4
Other*** 8 1 5 16 2 0 9
250 39 114 486 213 1 13
Total
Bridgeview Consulting 11-23 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 11-9.
Critical Facilities Exposed to Wildfire Regimes
Regime 1 Regime 2 Regime 3 Regime 4 Regime 5 Barren Water*
Facilities and Infrastructure located over water such as a structure or pier (i.e. ports or marinas)
*
** Includes bridges
***Other Critical Facility types include Dams and Natural Gas Facilities
Transportation & Infrastructure
The transportation system within the County is comprised of a significant number of roads, several airports,
a rail line and an extensive trail system. Access is an important component in hazard mitigation planning.
Interstate 90 runs through the heart of Spokane County traveling through the major population and
economic hubs of Spokane and Spokane Valley. Additionally, U.S. Highways 2, 195, and 395 and State
Highways 27, 278, 290, 291, 902, and 904 provide paved linkages to many of the more rural communities
throughout the County. There are also numerous county and city maintained routes accessing much of the
unincorporated areas of the County. These routes are generally paved as well.
Primary and secondary access routes were identified by committee members and amended by the public
during meetings. These routes identify the primary access routes into and out of the county that are relied
on during emergencies. As such, they often receive prioritized treatment when allocating resources for
hazard abatement. There are approximately 123 miles of interstate highway and 239 miles of state highways
in Spokane County.
The Spokane International Airport is located between Highway 2 and I-90 just west of the City of Spokane.
The Spokane Airport supports 10 passenger carrier airlines as well as four air cargo carriers. There are also
numerous municipal airports serving many of the smaller communities in rural Spokane County.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific maintain several active railroad lines in Spokane County.
These lines form a hub in Spokane with tracks running north along Highway 395, east towards Coeur
Highway 395. AmTrack also offers
passenger services on their Chicago, St. Paul, Portland/Seattle route.
Communication Sites
A list of names and locations of communication sites throughout Spokane and neighboring counties is
available in the Spokane County Field Operations Guide.
Hazardous Materials Sites
During a wildfire event, hazardous material storage containers could rupture due to excessive heat and act
as fuel for the fire, causing rapid spreading and escalating the fire to unmanageable levels. In addition the
materials could leak into surrounding areas, saturating soils and seeping into surface waters, having a
disastrous effect on the environment.
11.5.5 Impact on Economy
Wildfire impact on the economy can be far reaching, ranging from damage to transportation routes to non-
use of park facilities and campsites impacting tourism, to loss of structures influencing tax base from lost
revenue. Secondary hazards associated with wildfire, such as increased landslides and flooding potential,
would further impact the economy.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-24 April 2020
WILDFIRE
11.5.6 Impact on Environment
Fire is a natural and critical ecosystem process in most terrestrial ecosystems, dictating in part the types,
structure and spatial extent of native vegetation. However, wildfires can cause severe environmental
impacts:
Damaged FisheriesCritical fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures,
sedimentation and changes in water quality.
Soil ErosionThe protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is
removed, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion
occurs, causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats.
Spread of Invasive Plant SpeciesNon-native woody plant species frequently invade burned
areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad
landscapes, and become difficult and costly to control.
Disease and Insect InfestationsUnless diseased or insect-infested trees are swiftly removed,
infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active
management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees.
Destroyed Endangered Species HabitatCatastrophic fires can have devastating consequences
for endangered species.
Soil SterilizationTopsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil
nutrients may be lost. It can take decades or even centuries for ecosystems to recover from a
fire. Some fires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil.
Many ecosystems are adapted to historical patterns of fire occurrence. These patterns, called fire regimes,
include temporal attributes (e.g., frequency and seasonality), spatial attributes (e.g., size and spatial
complexity), and magnitude attributes (e.g., intensity and severity), each of which have ranges of natural
variability. Ecosystem stability is threatened when any of the attributes for a given fire regime diverge from
its range of natural variability.
11.6 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
The highly urbanized portions of the planning area have little or no wildfire risk exposure. Urbanization
tends to alter the natural fire regime, and can create the potential for the expansion of urbanized areas into
wildland areas. The expansion of the wildland urban interface can be managed with strong land use and
building codes. The planning area is well equipped with these tools, and this planning process has asked
each planning partner to assess its capabilities with regards to the tools. The update of the Spokane County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan has significantly enhanced the capability of the planning area to deal
with future development as it interfaces with wildfire risk areas.
11.7 ISSUES
The major issues for wildfire are the following:
There is a need for better hazard mapping within the planning area. Mapping assessments such
as the National Fire Protection Administration 299 risk assessment program would be a
significant enhancement to the wildfire risk assessment for the County.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-25 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Public education and outreach to people living in or near fire hazard zones should include
information about and assistance with mitigation activities such as defensible space and
advance identification of evacuation routes and safe zones.
Wildfires could cause landslides as a secondary natural hazard.
Climate change could affect the wildfire hazard.
Future growth into interface areas should continue to be managed.
Area fire districts need to continue to train on wildland-urban interface events.
Vegetation management activities should include enhancement through expansion of the target
areas as well as additional resources.
Regionally consistent higher building code standards are needed, such as residential sprinkler
requirements and prohibitive combustible roof standards.
Fire department water supply must be maintained in high-risk wildfire areas.
Certifications and qualifications for fire department personnel should be expanded. All
firefighters should be trained in basic wildfire behavior and basic fire weather, and all company
officers and chief level officers should be trained to the wildland command and strike team
leader level.
11.8 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
The worst-case scenario would include an active fire season throughout the American west, spreading
resources thin. Firefighting teams would be exhausted or unavailable. Many federal assets would be
responding to other fires that started earlier in the season. While local fire districts would be extremely
useful in the urban interface areas, they have limited wildfire capabilities, and they would have a difficult
time responding to the ignition zones. Even though the existence and spread of the fire is known, it may not
be possible to respond to it adequately, so an initially manageable fire can become out of control before
resources are dispatched.
A wildfire in Spokane County can occur at any time, but would most likely occur during the spring/summer
months, when it is hot and dry, perhaps during a period of prolonged drought. There could be numerous
causes: people playing with fireworks, sparks from machinery, such as farm equipment or automobiles, or
a lightning strike during a summer thunderstorm. Whatever the cause, a small local brush fire, fanned by
heavy winds, could disperse embers, triggering more fires that could eventually merge into one or many
large fires that dont burn out on their own. These brush fires could eventually reach scattered homes and
farms, or even spread to some of the small communities in the area, such as Latah or Rockford. These fires
could overwhelm emergency responders and resources and could lead to the evacuation of towns and
possibly to some structures being destroyed.
To further complicate the problem, heavy rains could follow, causing flooding and landslides and releasing
tons of sediment into rivers, permanently changing floodplains and damaging sensitive habitat and riparian
areas. Such a fire followed by rain could release millions of cubic yards of sediment into streams for years,
creating new floodplains and changing existing ones. With the forests removed from the watershed, stream
flows could easily double. Floods that could be expected every 50 years may occur every couple of years.
With the streambeds unable to carry the increased discharge because of increased sediment, the floodplains
and floodplain elevations would increase.
Table 11-10 identifies the Consequence Analysis for the Wildfire hazard.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-26 April 2020
WILDFIRE
Table 11-10.
Consequence Analysis
L ML M MH H VH
Likelihood / Probability X
Geographic Boundary X
Population X
Vulnerable Population X
Built Environment X
Critical Infrastructure X
Facilities X
First Responders X
Economic Consequences ` X
Environmental Impact X
X
L=Low; ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium; MH=Medium-High; H=High; VH=Very High
11.9 RESULTS
Based on review and analysis of the data, the Planning Team has determined that theprobability for impact
from Wildfire throughout the area is highly likely. The area experiences a significant number of wildfires
annually. While for the most part the acreage burned has, thankfully, been more limited in nature due in
large part to response activities, wildfires can spread quickly. With the increased number of fires throughout
not only the planning area, but the state as a whole, resources may become more limited in nature if an
active wild season were to again occur, such as those within the last few years. That, when coupled with
the existing drought situations occurring statewide, and the continued impact from climate change, it is
anticipated that the wildfire risk will only continue to increase with time.
Over the life cycle of this plan, there are two new housing areas which have been identified within the
unincorporated areas of the County below the City of Cheney for potential development. While currently
not identified as a WUI area by State DNR, once those developments occur, they will undoubtedly be
identified as such when the County updates its existing CWPP. While the full aspect of the land use
development is still being determined and under review, one area of concern with respect to emergency
management is the potential impact to citizens with respect to first responders being able to gain access to
those areas.
Major rail lines travel through the area, delivering and picking up grain on a daily basis. The trains pull a
significant number of cars. As the trains travel along the tracks, they regularly stop traffic along the major
arterials, sometimes for extended periods of time. Should a wildfire occur within the intended areas of
development, the potential exists for ingress and egress to be limited while rail cars pass. Likewise, the
grain elevators or train cars themselves, which carry fertilizers and oil, are also of concern for combustion,
and potential toxic smoke plumes.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-27 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Limitations along the roadways could not only restrict first responders from gaining access to those areas,
but also impact evacuation of the area by the citizens. While the County is currently attempting to work
with developers to identify potential solutions to this issue, for risk planning purposes, this has caused the
Planning Team to elevate wildfire rank to #1 (along with Severe Weather). Based on the potential impact,
the Planning Team determined the CPRI score to be 3.30, with overall vulnerability determined to be a high
level.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-28 April 2020
CHAPTER 12.
HAZARD RANKING
12.1 CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX
In ranking the hazards, the Planning Team utilized the Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) to complete
the Risk Ranking Workbook for each hazard identified, enabling the scoring of the hazards based on impact
criteria (see Chapter 4, Figures 4-1 and 4-2 for samples).
The CPRI examines five criteria for each hazard as discussed in detail in Chapter 4 (probability,
magnitude/severity, extent/location, warning time, and duration), defines a risk value for eachaccording to
four levels (e.g., 1-4), and then applies a weighting factor based on the significance of the criteria. The
result is a score that has been used to rank the hazards equitably countywide.
In order to complete this process, the Planning Team is provided the hazard profiles, a loss matrix for the
various hazards which identify impact to people, property, economy and environment at the local level, and
the critical facilities list which was developed by the Planning Partners, and which identifies impact to each
facility for each hazard of concern.
All planning partners completed their own hazard rankings, using the same process. Table 12-1 presents
the results of the Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring for all hazards impacting Spokane County. Table
12-2 is a summary of the hazard ranking results for the planning partners. Each jurisdictional annex
contains the individual scores established.
Table 12-1.
County Calculated Priority Risk Index Ranking Scores
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 4 2 2 1 4 2.75
Earthquake 3 3 2 4 1 2.85
Flood 4 2 3 2 2 3.0
Landslide 4 2 2 4 2 3.1
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 2 3 1 4 1.75
Wildfire 4 3 2 4 2 3.30
st
hazardous situation.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
4 ¡«¤ ΐΑȃΑȁ
#®´³¸¶¨£¤ #®¬¡¨¤£ # «¢´« ³¤£ 0±¨®±¨³¸ 2¨²ª )£¤· 3¢®±¤
Entity Drought Earthquake Flood/ Landslide Severe Volcano Wildfire
Dam Weather
County 2.75 2.85 3.0 3.1 3.4 1.75 3.3
Airway Heights 2.4 2.25 0 0 2.55 2.20 2.3
Cheney 2.75 2.85 2.45 1.45 3.6 1.75 3.55
Deer Park 1.95 2.45 2.7 1.05 3.25 1.15 2.95
Fairfield 2.35 2.6 2.45 1.85 3.45 2 2.3
Liberty Lake 1.95 2.85 1.2 2.7 3.4 1.55 2.3
Medical Lake 2.75 2.65 3.2 2.10 3.4 1.55 3.55
Spokane Valley 2.8 2.7 3.2 2.7 3.4 1.6 3.6
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸
2.75 2.85 2.1 1.65 3.15 2.05 3.65
#®²¤±µ ³¨® $¨²³±¨¢³
3¯®ª ¤ 6 ««¤¸ &¨±¤
2.75 2.85 3 3.1 3.4 1.75 3.3
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Β
2.95 2.85 3.05 2.05 3.4 2.15 4
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Γ
2.55 2.85 2.45 1.65 3.5 1.55 2.9
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Δ ΑȁΒΔ ΑȁΓΔ ΑȁΕ ΑȁΖ ΒȁΓ ΐȁΖΔ ΒȁΒ
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Η ΑȁΔΔ ΑȁΕΔ ΑȁΓ ΑȁΖ ΒȁΓ ΐȁΖ ΒȁΒΔ
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Θ ΑȁΖΔ ΑȁΔΔ ΑȁΕΔ ΑȁΕ ΒȁΑΔ ΒȁΏ ΒȁΔΔ
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ ΐΏ ΒȁΐΔ ΑȁΗΔ ΒȁΏ ΑȁΖ ΒȁΓ ΐȁΖΔ ΒȁΖ
.¤¶¬ , ª¤ &«®®£ ΐȁΘΏ ΑȁΑΔ ΑȁΓ ΐȁΕΔ ΑȁΓ ΐȁΖΔ ΑȁΘ
#®³±®« :®¤ $¨²³±¨¢³
12.2 RISK RANKING
Once the CPRI calculations were determined, the Planning Team then prioritized the hazards of concern
based on a numeric value. During this risk ranking process, Planning Team members were asked to
consider their experience and knowledge in identifying items which are relevant, but not necessarily
captured in other areas of the hazard profiles such as local capabilities, or gaps that may exist within their
communities.
During the ranking process, in some cases, the hazards ranked equally even though their CPRI scores were
different based on the application of subjectivity on the part of the team members. This provided an
opportunity for the inclusion of information and detail that otherwise may not be included in the risk
assessment. Each Planning Team Member identified those variations in their respective annex. The results
of the analysis are contained in Table 12-3.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-2 April 2020
PLANNING AREA RISK RANKING
4 ¡«¤ ΐΑȃΒȁ
#®´³¸¶¨£¤ ( ¹ ±£ 2 ª¨¦
Entity Drought Earthquake Flood/ Landslide Severe Volcano Wildfire
Dam Weather
County 4 3 2 2 1 5 1
Airway Heights* 2 3 NH NH 1 4 3
Cheney* 5 4 7 9 1 8 2
Deer Park 5 4 3 8 1 7 2
Fairfield 4 3 2 7 1 6 5
Liberty Lake 5 2 7 3 1 6 4
Medical Lake 4 5 3 6 2 7 1
Spokane Valley 4 3 2 2 1 5 1
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸
6 3 4 5 1 8 2
#®²¤±µ ³¨® $¨²³±¨¢³ȴ
3¯®ª ¤ 6 ««¤¸ &¨±¤
6 5 4 3 1 7 2
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Βȴ
4 5 3 9 2 8 1
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Γ
4 3 5 6 1 7 2
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Δ Γ Β Α Α ΐ Δ ΐ
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Η Δ Γ Ε Β ΐ Ζ Α
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ Θ Γ Ζ Δ Ε Α Β ΐ
3¯®ª ¤ #®´³¸ &$ ΐΏȴ Γ Β Α Α ΐ Δ ΐ
.¤¶¬ , ª¤ &«®®£ Δ Γ Α Ζ Β Ε ΐ
#®³±®« :®¤ $¨²³±¨¢³
NR = Not Ranked / NH= No Hazard /
*Included Additional Hazards Identified within Jurisdictional Annex which impact ranking
The hazards ranked as being of highest concern countywide are severe weather and wildfire. Hazards ranked
as being of medium concern are landslide, flood, earthquake and drought. The hazard ranked as being of
lowest concern is volcano.
The final step in the process provided for the application of a qualitative rating based on a priority of high,
medium or low, etc. to allow for ease in application in identifying and prioritizing not only the hazards, but
also when considering strategies. The Planning Team felt this summary was particularly beneficial when
discussing the hazards of concern with the public, as it provided a manner in which to define the risk
associated with the hazards in simple terminology.
The Planning Team established the following descriptors for application:
Extremely LowThe occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very
minimal to nonexistent.
LowMinimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and
property is minimal.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
MediumModerate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and
less costly than a more widespread disaster.
HighWidespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past.
Extremely HighVery widespread with catastrophic impact.
The end result of the process is illustrated in Table 12-4. This information was presented at various public
outreach efforts to help identify risk countywide. Utilizing a process such as this is beneficial when
discussing risk with the public and while attempting to gain their perspective of risk as it provides a means
for the planning team to describe risk in a manner which is easily applied and understood, while also
providing a mechanism of determining how citizens view risk to help validate the information established
throughout the planning process from the view of the citizens, further validated by the surveys completed,
which utilize a high/medium/low priority.
4 ¡«¤ ΐΑȃΓȁ
#®´³¸¶¨£¤ 2¨²ª 3´¬¬ ±¸
Jurisdiction Drought Earthquake Flood Landslide Severe Volcano Wildfire
Weather
County Medium Medium Medium Medium High Low High
Airway Heights Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Cheney Medium Medium Low Ex Low High Low High
Deer Park Low Medium Medium Ex Low High Ex Low High
Fairfield Medium Medium Medium Low High Med/Low Medium
Liberty Lake Low Medium Low Medium High Low Medium
Medical Lake Medium Medium High Medium-High Low High
Low
Spokane Valley Medium Medium High Medium High Low High
Spokane County Medium Low High Low High Low High
Conservation District
Spokane Valley Fire Medium Medium Medium Medium High Low High
Spokane County FD 3 Medium Medium Medium Low High Low High
Spokane County FD 4 Medium High Medium Medium High Medium High
Spokane County FD 5 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Low Ex. High
Spokane County FD 8 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Low High
Spokane County FD 9 Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High
Spokane County FD 10 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Low High
Newman Lake Flood Low Medium High Low Medium Low High
Control Zone District
Bridgeview Consulting 12-4 April 2020
CHAPTER 13.
MITIGATION STRATEGY
The development of a mitigation strategy allows the community to create a vision for preventing future
disasters. This is accomplished by establishing a common set of mitigation goals and objectives, a common
method to prioritize actions, and evaluation of the success of such actions. Specific mitigation goals,
objectives and projects were developed for Spokane County and its planning partners by the Planning Team
in their attempt to establish an overall mitigation strategy by which the jurisdictions would enhance
resiliency of the planning area.
The CRS program credits NFIP communities points for setting goals which help reduce the
impact of flooding and other known natural hazards; identifying mitigation projects that
include activities for prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, emergency
services, structural control projects, and public information. Establishing goals in such a manner was a
primary focus of the Planning Team.
13.1 HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
During the kick-off meeting, the Planning Team reviewed the 2015 existing goals and objectives. The
planning team felt the 2015 goals and objectives as stated support the countywide effort of enhanced
capabilities which supports resilience through protection of life, property, the economy and the
environment, and confirmed the goals and objectives for use in the 2020 update. The goals as written
accurately describe the overall direction that Spokane County and its planning partners can take to work
toward mitigating risk from natural hazards and avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the hazards of concern.
Mitigation goals for this plan are listed below.
13.1.1 Guiding Principle, Goals and Objectives
Guiding Principle
The following principle guided the planning partnership in selecting the initiatives contained in this plan
update:
Utilizing community partnerships and planning, reduce the vulnerability to natural hazards in
order to protect the health, safety, welfare, environment and economy of the greater Spokane
area within Spokane County.
Goals
The planning partnership again confirmed the goals for the plan update:
1. Ensure effective and efficient emergency response and recovery capabilities to reduce the loss
of life and property during and after a disaster through mitigation.
2. Protect property including critical public facilities and infrastructure from possible damage due
to hazards.
3. Protect the continuity of local government to ensure no significant disruption of services during
or due to a natural disaster.
4. Build and support local capacity to enable the whole community to prepare, respond, mitigate
and recover from the impact of natural hazards.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
5. Encourage the development and implementation of sustainable, cost-effective and
environmentally sound mitigation projects.
6. Improve communication and information sharing within the community to support the planning
for, response to, mitigation of and recovering from, the impacts of disasters.
Objectives
The following objectives were identified that meet multiple goals, acting as a bridge between the mitigation
goals and actions and helping to establish priorities:
Objective
Number Objective Statement Applicable Goals
O-1
Sustain continuity of local emergency and government operations, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
including the operation of identified critical facilities, during and after a
disaster.
O-2
Reduce natural hazard-related risks to potentially isolated/vulnerable 1, 3, 4, 5, 6
populations within the planning area.
O-3
Improve/protect systems that provide warning and emergency 2, 3, 4, 6
communications.
O-4
Utilizing the best available data and science, continually share updated 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
information on hazards, risk and ways to reduce risk with all stakeholders
within the planning area.
O-5
All
Strengthen codes, land use planning and their enforcement, so that new
construction can avoid or withstand the impacts of natural hazards.
O-6
Provide/improve flood protection with flood mitigation measures and 1, 2, 5
drainage system maintenance plans.
O-7
Provide/improve fire protection thru proactive fuels management 1, 2, 5
programs.
O-8
Assure coordination between participating \[jurisdictions\] and adjoining 1, 4, 6
communities.
O-9
Work to lower emergency service response times, including through 1, 3, 4, 6
improvement to transportation facilities.
O-10
Retrofit, purchase or relocate structures based on one or more of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
following criteria: level of exposure, repetitive loss history, and previous
damage from natural hazards.
O-11
Seek mitigation projects that minimize environmental impacts, improve All
ways to mitigate their impacts on the environment.
O-12
Encourage mitigation of private property through programs such as the 2, 4, 6
Community Rating System, Firewise and Storm Ready programs.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-2 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
13.2 HAZARD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
After the goals and objectives were established, the Planning Team developed specific action items to
Catalog of Mitigation Ideas was presented to the Planning Team
to provide ideas and concepts of possible action items. This document includes a broad range of alternatives
to be considered for use in the planning area, in compliance with 44 CFR (Section 201.6.c.3.ii), and can be
applied to both existing structures and new construction. The catalog provides a baseline of mitigation
objectives, and are within the capabilities of the partners to implement. It presents alternatives that are
categorized in two ways:
By what the alternative would do:
Manipulate a hazard
Reduce exposure to a hazard
Reduce vulnerability to a hazard
Increase the ability to respond to or be prepared for a hazard
By who would have responsibility for implementation:
Individuals
Businesses
Government.
Hazard mitigation initiatives recommended in this plan were selected from among the alternatives presented
in the catalogs, as well as projects identified by the planning partners and interested stakeholders specific
to their jurisdiction. Some were carried over from the previous plan. Some may not be feasible based on
the selection criteria identified for this plan, but are included nonetheless as the Planning Team felt they are
viable actions to be taken to reduce hazard influence in some manner.
13.3 SELECTED MITIGATION INITIATIVES
For the 2020 update, particular attention was given to new and existing buildings and infrastructure, and
developing appropriate mitigation strategies for these facilities. The Planning Team determined that some
initiatives from the mitigation catalogs could be implemented to provide hazard mitigation benefits
countywide. Table 13-1 lists the recommended countywide initiatives. Many of these initiatives are also
identified by other planning partners who support the effort. Table 13-2 identifies County-specific
initiatives.
13.4 ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
In addition to identifying potential funding sources available for each project, the Planning Team also
developed strategies/action items that are categorized and assessed in several ways:
By what the alternative would impact new or existing structures, to include efforts which:
Bridgeview Consulting 13-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Manipulate/mitigate a hazard;
Reduce exposure to a hazard;
Reduce vulnerability to a hazard;
By who would have responsibility for implementation:
Individuals;
Businesses;
Government (County, Local, State and/or Federal).
By the timeline associated with completion of the project, based on the following parameters:
Short Term = to be completed in 1 to 5 years
Long Term = to be completed in greater than 5 years
Ongoing = currently being funded and implemented under existing programs.
By who benefits from the initiative, as follows:
A specific structure or facility;
A local community;
County-level efforts;
Regional level benefits.
Table 13-1.
Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
If in
New or Previous
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Plan, # Initiative
assets Mitigated Met Agency* Cost Sources Timeline Identified Type Who Benefits?
CW-1 Continue data gathering such as with LiDAR as well as additional facility information to continue to improve the
risk assessment countywide, and to help support Hazus modeling used to develop plan updates.
New/ All 1, 4, 10 EM, All Low HLS/EMPG, Ongoing Yes Structural Regional
Existing planning PDM, (2015 Projects,
partners HMGP, #CW-5) Property
HUD, Protection
General
Funds
Bridgeview Consulting 13-4 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table 13-1.
Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
If in
New or Previous
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Plan, # Initiative
assets Mitigated Met Agency* Cost Sources Timeline Identified Type Who Benefits?
CW-2 Work with County and state agencies to establish a protocol and advance permitting for transporting of hazardous
materials for identification during an incident. Establish a countywide hazardous materials incident response team.
New Hazardous 1, 3, 4, 8, PH, Fire, High General Long-No Prevention, Regional
Materials 9, 10 EM, PW, Funds, HLS Term Public
WSDOT, (EMPG), Information
WDOE CDC grants and
Education,
Natural
Resource
Protection,
Emergency
Services/
Response
CW-3 Work on identifying points of distribution in areas of potential isolation.
New All 1, 2, 3, 4, PH, EM, Low EMPG, HUD Short-No Public Regional
6, 7, 8, 11, PW, Local Term Information
12 EMs and
Education,
Emergency
Services /
Response,
Recovery
CW-4 Work with other county departments and local planning partners to capture historic hazard information utilized for
future risk assessments, planning, grant and mitigation actions, including high water marks, extent and location of hazard,
loss information.
New All 1, 2, 3, 4, PH, EM, Low Health and Long-Yes Public Community
5, 6, 8, 10, HS Human Term (2015 #s Information Level
11 Service CW-4 and
Grants, HUD, and 6) Education,
HMGP Emergency
Services /
Response,
Recovery
CW-5 Coordinating with
more building-specific information which may be utilized within the GIS and Hazus programs for enhanced risk
assessments to provide a detailed loss estimation.
New All 1, 4, 5, 6, Medium General Short-Yes Structural County and
and 10, 11 Office; GIS; Fund, HMGP Term (2015 Projects, Local
Existing PW, EM; #CW-5 Property
CD Protection,
Recovery
Bridgeview Consulting 13-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 13-1.
Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
If in
New or Previous
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Plan, # Initiative
assets Mitigated Met Agency* Cost Sources Timeline Identified Type Who Benefits?
CW-6 Coordinate among all jurisdictions to seek out and apply for grants for site hardening of facilities. This includes
back-up power at critical facilities and resource locations.
New/ E, EQ, F, 1, 4, 5, 6, EM Medium Earthquake Long-Partial Structural Facility
Existing LS, SW 7, 8, 9, 10, and Tsunami Term Projects, Specific
11 Program, Property
HMGP, Protection,
PDM, HUD, Natural
DOT, EPA Resource
Protection
CW-7 Maintain and regularly update fire hydrant layer countywide.
New/ WF 7, 8 EM, GIS, Low HMGP, Long-No Property Countywide
Existing Fire HUD, Term Protection,
SAFER Emergency
Services/
Response
CW-8 Continue implementation of public information program within Spokane County to inform citizens about the
hazards faced and the appropriate preparedness and response measures, including, but not limited to, Severe Weather,
Wildfire/Fire Wise, NFIP, Earthquake and landslide information, insurance information, and structural projects which
homeowners can undertake, such as affixing chimneys, foundations, fire-proof roofing materials, etc. This outreach
program includes maintaining a Hazard Mitigation Plan website where the final plan and risk maps are presented.
New/ All All EM and Low EMPG, Ongoing Yes Prevention, County and
Existing Local EM, General Fund (CW-1 Public Community
Local and and 3, Information
County SC-11) and
Land Use Education
Planning,
Spokane
County
Engineering
& Roads,
private
industry.
CW-9 Continue to expand CERT training, involving local teams in exercises and training with first responders.
New/ All 1, 2, 3, 4, EM, Local Low EMPG Ongoing Yes Prevention, County and
Existing 7, 8, 12 EM, County Public Community
Citizen Information
Corps and
Groups, Education,
Emergency
Services,
Response,
Recovery
Bridgeview Consulting 13-6 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table 13-1.
Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
If in
New or Previous
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Plan, # Initiative
assets Mitigated Met Agency* Cost Sources Timeline Identified Type Who Benefits?
CW-10 Identify and designate emergency shelter structural and utility readiness for occupancy after a significant incident.
New/ All All EM Medium PDM, Short-Yes Prevention, Regional
Existing HMGP, Term Public
General Information
Funds Emergency
Services/
Response
CW-11
Encourage owners to reduce woodland fuel loads on their property.
New/ D, WF 7, 11, 12 EM, Local Low Fire Grants, Ongoing No Property Local
Existing EM, Fire PDM, HMGP Protection,
Natural
Resource
Protection,
Prevention
CW-12 Work with local jurisdiction and planning partners to develop various emergency planning efforts to help ensure
continuity of business and resiliency, and to develop mechanisms to ensure recovery efforts exist. This includes pre-
identifying solid waste staging areas which can be utilized during disaster incidents.
New/ All 1, 3, 4, 7, EM, Local Medium EMPG Long-Partial Recovery County, Local
Existing 8, 9, 11, EM, ED, Funds, Term
12 Chamber General
Funds
CW-13 Continue to promote and establish a countywide emergency management actions, projects, and programs, working
with the cities and special purpose districts, to enhance resiliency and maintain consistency in mitigation activities,
emergency management programs, and capabilities. This includes seeking grant funding to support such initiatives.
New/ All 1, 3, 4, 8, EM, Local Medium General Long-No Prevention, County and
Existing 9, 11 EM, Fire, Funds, Grant Term Public Local
Hospitals Opportunities Information/
as they arise Education,
Emergency
Services/
Response,
Recovery
CW-14 Strive to capture time-sensitive, perishable data such as high water marks, extent and location of hazard, and loss
information following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment and in support of future grant
applications to demonstrate impact.
New/ All 1, 3, 4, 5, EM and Medium General Long-No Emergency County and
Existing 6, 8, 10, Local EMs Funds Term Services/ Local
11 Response,
Recovery
Bridgeview Consulting 13-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 13-1.
Countywide Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
If in
New or Previous
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Plan, # Initiative
assets Mitigated Met Agency* Cost Sources Timeline Identified Type Who Benefits?
CW-15 Continue to enhance local emergency planning committee (LEPC) involvement with private industry and local
jurisdictions throughout the County with the goal of monthly meetings.
Existing WF 1, 2, 3, 8, EM, Local Low General Ongoing No Prevention, County and
EM, Fire, Funds Emergency Local
Private Services/
Industry Response,
Recovery
CW-16 Seek grant funding to develop a countywide mass care and evacuation exercise, which includes all fire and police
departments, Hospitals, Public Health, County Transit, Emergency Management and search-and-rescue, as well as other
planning partners as identified during exercise design.
New All 8, 9, 10, EM, Local High EMPG, DOJ Long-No Emergency County and
and 11 EM, Fire, Grants, Fire Term Services/ Local
Existing Hospitals, Training Response,
PH, PW, Grants, Recovery
WSDOT; EMPG
Sheriff, LE
CW-17 Continue to integrate mitigation planning data into ongoing land-use planning to assist in providing information
necessary to enforce existing building codes, floodplain and critical areas ordinances, and shoreline protection.
New F, E. EQ, 4, 5, 6, 7 EM, PW Low FEMA Short-Yes Prevention, Local and
and LS, SW Term Emergency County
Existing Services,
Planning,
Response,
Recovery
CW-18 Continue to develop and maintain countywide mutual aid agreements with both public and private agencies in
support of preparedness and response activities.
New All 1, 3, 8, 9 EM Medium General Ongoing No Emergency County and
Funds Services/ Local
Response,
Recovery
CW-19 Work with local school districts to study and retrofit school facilities to better withstand damage from earthquake,
flood, severe weather, erosion and landslide events.
New/ All All DEM, Local High HLS/EMPG, Ongoing No Structural, Facility,
Existing DEM, PDM, Property County,and
School HMGP, Dept. Projection, Local
Districts of Education, Emergency
Earthquake/ Services/
Tsunami Response,
Program Recovery
* CD=Community Development; ED=Economic Development; EM= Emergency Management; Fire=Districts and Depts.; HS=Human
Services; LE=Law Enforcement; PH=Public Health; PW=Public Works; WSDOT=Washington State Dept. of Transportation;
WDOH=Washington State Dept. of Health; WDNR=Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources; WDOE=Washington Dept. of
Ecology
Bridgeview Consulting 13-8 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table 13-2.
County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
New or In
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Previous Initiative Who
assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Sources Timeline Plan? Type Benefits?
SC-1 Seek out and apply for grant funding for an EOC facility outside of the flood zone and away from the railway
tracks which carry hazardous materials, and also delay response activities due to long chain of rail cars blocking
ingress and egress to facility.
Existing All 1, 2, 3, 4 5, Emergency High HLS/EMPG, Short-No Structural Regional
7, 8, 9 Management,PDM, Term Projects,
Facilities, HMGP, Property
County HUD, Protection
Officials
SC-2 Reorganize the Roads Department, adding additional satellite shops to reduce response times during severe
weather.
New/ SW 1, 2, 8, 9 Spokane High Local/Grant Long-Yes Property County
Existing County, Term Protection,
(SC-1)
Engineering Structural
& Roads Projects,
Natural
Resource
Protection
SC-3 Consider participation in the Community Rating System.
New and F, SW 2, 4 5, 6, 8, Spokane Low Local Short-Yes Property County
Existing 12, County, Term Protection,
(SC-4)
Engineering Structural
& Roads Projects,
Natural
Resource
Protection
SC-4. Seek grant funding for acquisition of properties in high-hazard areas, with special attention to repetitive or
severe loss properties.
Existing All 2, 10, 11 Spokane High PDM, Long-Yes Property Facility
County, HMGP, FMA Term Protection, and
Engineering Structural County
& Roads, and Projects,
Emergency
Natural
Management
Resource
Protection
SC-5. Support and implement as appropriate wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County
CWPP.
New/ WF 1, 2, 3, 4, Emergency Medium Local, Fire Ongoing Yes Protection, Local and
Existing 5, 7, 8, 9, Management Grants, Response, County
(SC-17)
10, 11, 12 FEMA Recovery,
Hazard Natural
Mitigation Resource
Grants Protection
Bridgeview Consulting 13-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 13-2.
County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
New or In
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Previous Initiative Who
assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Sources Timeline Plan? Type Benefits?
SC-6. Develop an inventory of culverts that includes identification of existing conditions such as: fish passage,
vegetation status, evidence of scour, physical condition (i.e. rusted, crushed, split), etc. Further analysis to include
identifying which can convey the 100-year flood, and which are not. And, with this information, develop a culvert
ranking system that results in a culvert replacement priority list for future planning.
Existing F, LS, 2, 4, 5, 8, Spokane Medium General Long-Yes Prevention, County
/New SW, WF, 11 County, Fund, DOE, Term Response, and Local
(SC-10)
Engineering WSDOT, Recovery,
& Roads; PDM, Natural
GIS HMGP, FMA Resource
Protection
SC-7 Study bridges within floodplain areas to identify which are capable of conveying the100-year flood, and
determine what can be done to mitigate those that are not. Develop a bridge ranking and priority replacement list /
process / program.
New/ F, SW 2, 4, 5, 8, Spokane Medium General Fund Long-Yes Prevention, County
Existing 11 County, Term Mitigation
(SC-9)
Engineering
& Roads
SC-8 Continue to design and build facilities to meet or exceed seismic and code standards, including redundant
essential equipment. Apply current seismic and wind load standards to all renovation or replacement of existing
facilities, and/or equipment.
New/ EQ, LS, 1, 2, 3, 4, Planning, PW High LOCAL Ongoing Partial Structural County
Existing SW 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Possible Projects,
Grants Property
Protection
SC-9 Study floodplain areas that currently do not have detailed studies, using more current models, resulting in more
accurate mapping for planning and design of future County Capital Projects, as well as private development.
New and F, SW 2, 4, 5 , 8, Spokane Medium General Long Yes Structural County,
Existing 11 County, Fund, various Term Projects, Facility,
(SC-8)
Engineering grants. Public Local
& Roads Information
and
Education,
Natural
Resource
Protection
SC-10
Existing F/SW 1, 2, 6, 10, Spokane High General Short-Yes Prevention, Regional
11 County, Funds, Grants Term Property
(SC-7)
Engineering Protection,
& Roads Emergency
Services
Bridgeview Consulting 13-10 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table 13-2.
County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
New or In
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Previous Initiative Who
assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Sources Timeline Plan? Type Benefits?
SC-11 Update the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual for compliance with the recently updated 2019 Washington
State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington. Ensuring that regional design
thresholds and guidance are current with respect to State adopted regulations means that development is more
consistent, structures and the environment have a higher degree of protection from flooding.
New/ F, LS, 2, 4, 5, 6, Spokane Low Local / Short No Structural County
SW, 8, 11 County Ecology (or Term Projects,
Public Works other) Grant Property
Funding Protection,
Natural
Resource
Protection
SC-12 Assess the segment of the Country Homes Drainage between the Price and Wall Regional Stormwater Facility,
through and beyond Whitworth University, for updated floodplain and floodway mapping boundaries; anticipate the
need for both a CLOMR and LOMR to complete the mapping revisions. Once completed, seek grant funding to
replace two weight-restricted bridges at Jay Avenue and Holland Avenue, which will require redesign and construction
to incorporate large squash-pipe culverts to pass the appropriate 100-year flood flow.
New/ All All Spokane Medium Local / Short-No Structural County
Existing County Ecology/ Term Projects,
Public Works WSDOT / Property
Grant Protection,
Funding Response,
Recovery
SC-area includes a confluence of three waterways Little
Spokane River, Deadman Creek, and Little Deep Creek, and is a very challenging area to predict flood boundaries and
determining flood-related impacts due to the many unknowns in this vicinity.
New/ EQ, F, 2, 4, 5 , 6, Spokane Medium Local / Short-No Property County
Existing LS, SW 11 County Ecology (or Term Protection,
Public Works other) Grant Structural
Program, Projects,
PDM, HMGP Natural
Resource
Protection
SC-14 Formulate a plan to research and identify those areas of Spokane County that are located within the rural/urban
corridor where there is a high potential for flood debris flow during a flash flood after wildfire scarring. Once
identified, consider a pro-active plan for both pre-development (i.e. locate away from hazard-prone debris flow areas)
and post-development (structures that are already existing within flow path) mitigation.
New/ F, LS, 1, 2, 3, 4, Spokane High Local / Long-No Property County
Existing SW, WF 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 County Ecology, Term Protection,
10, 11 Public PDM, Structural
Works, HMGP, Fire Project,
Emergency Grants Natural
Management, Resource
Spokane Protection,
County Response,
Conservation Recovery
District
Bridgeview Consulting 13-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 13-2.
County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
New or In
Existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Funding Previous Initiative Who
assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Sources Timeline Plan? Type Benefits?
SC-15 Replace the following undersized culverts (under the forenamed roads) where repeated flooding occurs; where
in one case, is the only access to 10-15 residential properties, and in all cases, would cause significant inconvenience
(time, terrain, road surface conditions, etc.) to traverse the detour route to reach their homes: Burroughs Road, Ballard
Road (four culverts), Crosscut Road, Antler Road, Parker Road, Herman Road, and Bernhill Road.
New All All Spokane Medium Ecology, Long No Property County
County HMGP, Term Protection,
Public EMPG and Response,
Works, General Recovery,
Emergency Funds Natural
Management Resource
Protection
SC-16 An emphasis will be placed on pre-project identification of natural drainage systems relative to the preservation
of same systems during the process of updating County-wide watershed plans, reviewing private and commercial
development projects/plans, and the design of new, or the repair/replacement of, County roads/bridges/culverts.
New/ F, LS, 2, 4, 5, 6, Spokane Low Ecology, Long -No Structural, County
Existing SW 11 County Grant Term Response,
Public Works Funding Recovery,
Natural
Resource
Protection
SC-17 Replace Valley Chapel Road Bridge #3301 over Latah Creek. Reanalyze hydraulics for 100-year flood flow;
design and install suitable engineered scour repair to address scour at Pier 3, with goal to protect foundation and
exposed piling.
Existing EQ, F, 2, 6, 9, 10 Spokane High PDM, Short-No Structural, County
SW County HMGP, Term Emergency
Public Works WSDOT Services,
Response
SC-18 Replace Cheney Plaza Road Bridge #2101 over Bonnie Creek. Reanalyze hydraulics, dredge and/or replace to
adequately convey 100-year flood flows, as roadway and bridge are frequently overtopped due to silt buildup and
potential under-sizing of bridge.
New/ EQ, F, 2, 4, 9, 10 Spokane High PDM, Short-No Structural, County
Existing SW County HMGP, Term Emergency
Public Works WSDOT Services,
Response,
Recovery
SC-19 Replace Valley Chapel Road Bridge #3308 over California Creek. Remove aggregated material in front of
Abutment 2 and repair scour at Abutment 1. Bridge is assumed to not have been sized to convey the 00-year flood
flow, and will be re-analyzed as part of the replacement process.
Structural,
Existing EQ, F, 2,6, 9, 10 Spokane High PDM, Short-No County
Emergency
SW County HMGP, Term
Services,
Public Works WSDOT
Response
and
Recovery
Bridgeview Consulting 13-12 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
13.5 ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Each Planning Partner further reviewed its recommended initiatives to classify them based
on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. This analysis incorporated,
among others, the Community Rating System scale, identifying each mitigation action item
by type. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows.
Prevention - Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and
buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. This includes planning and zoning, floodplain
laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management
regulations.
Public Information and Education - Public information campaigns or activities which inform
citizens and elected officials about hazards and ways to mitigate them a public education or
awareness campaign, including efforts such as: real estate disclosure, hazard information
centers, and school-age and adult education, all of which bring awareness of the hazards of
concern.
Structural Projects Efforts taken to secure against acts of terrorism, manmade, or natural
disasters. Types of projects include levees, reservoirs, channel improvements, or barricades
which stop vehicles from approaching structures to protect.
Property Protection Actions taken that protect the properties. Types of efforts include:
structural retrofit, property acquisition, elevation, relocation, insurance, storm shutters, shatter-
resistant glass, sediment and erosion control, stream corridor restoration, etc. Protection can be
at the individual homeowner level, or a service provided by police, fire, emergency
management, or other public safety entities.
Emergency Services / Response Actions that protect people and property during and
immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and
the protection of essential facilities (e.g., sandbagging).
Natural Resource Protection Wetlands and floodplain protection, natural and beneficial uses
of the floodplain, and best management practices. These include actions that preserve or restore
the functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor
restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland
restoration and preservation.
Recovery Actions that involve the construction or re-construction of structures in such a way
as to reduce the impact of a hazard, or that assist in rebuilding or re-establishing a community
after a disaster incident. It also includes advance planning to address recovery efforts which
will take place after a disaster. Efforts are focused on re-establishing the planning region in
such a way as enhance resiliency and reduce impacts to future incidents. Recovery differs from
response, which occurs during, or immediately after an incident. Recovery views long-range,
sustainable efforts.
13.6 BENEFIT/COST REVIEW
Once the general analysis was completed for each mitigation initiative, 44 CFR requires the prioritization
of the initiatives or action items according to a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed projects and their
associated costs (Section 201.6.c.3iii). The benefit/cost analysis conducted during this planning process is
Bridgeview Consulting 13-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
not of the detailed variety required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. Rather, parameters were established
for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to the costs and benefits of these projects. Cost
ratings were defined as follows:
High
Existing funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require
new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases).
Medium
The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-
apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to
be spread over multiple years.
Low
The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be
part of an ongoing existing program.
Benefit ratings were defined as follows:
High
Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property.
Medium
Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and
property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.
Low
Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term.
Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over
medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly.
Prioritization of the projects in such a manner serves as a guide for choosing and funding projects.
13.7 PRIORITIZATION OF INITIATIVES
The method for prioritizing initiatives for the 2018 update differs from the method used for the previous
mitigation initiatives. While the factors involved in the ranking remain similar, there is now a consistent
category or level (high/medium/low) assigned with those identified factors to ensure consistency. Table 13-
3 lists the priority of each countywide initiative. Table 13-4 lists the priority for each county-specific
initiative. A qualitative benefit-cost review as described above was performed for each of these initiatives.
Table 13-3.
Prioritization of Countywide Mitigation Initiatives
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant Funded under Existing Priority (High,
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Programs/ Budgets? Med., Low)
1 3 H L Y Y Y H
2 6 H H Y Y Y H
3 9 H L Y Y Y H
4 9 H L Y Y Y H
5 6 H M Y N Y M
6 9 H M Y N Y M
7 2 M L Y N Y M
Bridgeview Consulting 13-14 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table 13-3.
Prioritization of Countywide Mitigation Initiatives
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant Funded under Existing Priority (High,
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Programs/ Budgets? Med., Low)
8 12 H L Y Y Y H
9 7 H L Y Y Y H
10 12 H M Y Y Y H
11 3 M L Y Y N L
12 8 M M Y Y Y M
13 6 M M Y Y N M
14 8 H M Y N N M
15 4 H L Y Y N H
16 4 M L Y N Y M
17 4 H H Y Y N M
18 4 L M N Y N L
19 12 H M Y N Y M
Table 13-4.
Prioritization of County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant Funded under Existing Priority (High,
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Programs/ Budgets? Med., Low)
1 8 H H Y Y N H
2 4 M H Y Y PARTIAL H
3 6 H L Y N Y H
4 3 H H Y Y N H
5 11 H M Y Y PARTIAL H
6 5 H M Y Y PARTIAL H
7 5 H M Y N PARTIAL H
8 9 H H Y SOME PARTIAL H
9 5 H M Y N Y H
10 5 H H Y SOME PARTIAL H
11 6 M L Y SOME Y M
12 12 M M Y SOME PARTIAL M
13 5 H M Y SOME PARTIAL H
14 11 H H Y SOME PARTIAL M
15 12 H M Y Y PARTIAL H
16 5 H L Y Y N H
17 4 H H Y N Y H
Bridgeview Consulting 13-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 13-4.
Prioritization of County-Specific Hazard Mitigation Initiatives
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant Funded under Existing Priority (High,
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Programs/ Budgets? Med., Low)
18 4 H H Y N Y H
19 4 H H Y N Y H
The priorities are defined as follows:
High Priority
A project that meets multiple objectives (i.e., multiple hazards), has benefits
that exceed cost, has funding secured or is an ongoing project and meets eligibility
requirements for the HMGP or PDM grant program. High priority projects can be completed
in the short term (1 to 5 years).
Medium Priority
A project that meets goals and objectives, that has benefits that exceed
costs, and for which funding has not been secured but that is grant eligible under HMGP, PDM
or other grant programs. Project can be completed in the short term, once funding is secured.
Medium priority projects will become high priority projects once funding is secured.
Low Priority
A project that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, that has benefits that do not
exceed the costs or are difficult to quantify, for which funding has not been secured, that is not
eligible for HMGP or PDM grant funding, and for which the time line for completion is long
term (1 to 10 years). Low priority projects may be eligible for other sources of grant funding
from other programs.
For many of the strategies identified in this action plan, the partners may seek financial assistance under
the HMGP or PDM programs, both of which require detailed benefit/cost analyses. These analyses will be
performed on projects at the time of application using the FEMA benefit-cost model. For projects not
seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require detailed analysis, the partners reserve the right
ding to parameters that meet the goals and objectives of this plan.
Because this is a multi-jurisdictional plan, the prioritization of initiatives specific to the remaining
jurisdictions must also be done at the individual level based on the needs and programs of that body, and
accomplished as resources can be secured. Funding to complete any initiative will likely be acquired from
a variety of sources, with the lack of funding alone preventing an initiative from being implemented. As
such, the less formal approach used during this process is more appropriate because some projects may not
be implemented for up to 10 years, and associated costs and benefits could change dramatically in that time.
The method of prioritization utilized also allows for the inclusion of new projects throughout the life cycle
of this plan without having to numerically re-value each of the projects based on an assigned value of 1, 2,
3, etc. Further, it supports the plan maintenance strategy for review, addition, and reprioritization of
initiatives on an annual basis, reducing the level of effort involved in a numeric system of ranking, and
enhancing the likelihood that the annual review will occur as a reduced level of effort will be required.
13.8 2015 ACTION PLAN STATUS
A comprehensive review of the 2015 action plan was performed to determine which countywide actions
were completed, which should carry over to the updated plan, and which were no longer feasible and should
Bridgeview Consulting 13-16 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
be removed from the plan. On review, the County identified that six of the seven previous strategies were
such in nature that they would be carried forward as indicated in Table 13-5. The one exception was for
CW-7, relating to continuity of operation planning, which was completed. All the remaining items have
been incorporated and indicated as a carry-over.
With respect to the 2015 County-specific mitigation strategies (previously contained in the Unincorporated
Annex portion of the plan), their current status is identified in Table 13.6.
respective annex update contains information concerning their previous strategies.
Table 13-5.
Action PlanCountywide Mitigation Initiatives
a
2020 Status
Hazards Addressed Lead Agency Possible Funding Sources or Resources Time LineObjectives
On-going,
CW-1Maintain a Hazard Mitigation Plan website where this final plan will be housed and planning partners as well as
carried over
members of the public will be able to monitor plan implementation.
Now CW-8
All Hazards DEM DEM General Fund Ongoing 4,8
On-going,
CW-2Continue to support the use, development and enhancement of County-wide citizen notification system
carried over
Combined
All Hazards DEM General Fund, Department of Homeland Ongoing 1,2,3,8
with CW-8
Security/Emergency Management
Performance Grants
On-going
CW-3Continue to leverage ongoing, regional public education and awareness programs as a method to educate the public
on risk and community resilience.
Now CW-8
All Hazards All Planning Partners Existing program funds Ongoing 4,8
Carried
CW-4Strive to capture perishable data such as: high water marks, extent and location of hazard, and loss information;
over
following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment.
Now CW-4
All Hazards All Planning Partners Existing Program funds, FEMA post Short Term 4, 8
disaster (PA) funding
On-going,
CW-5Continue the use and maintenance of the HAZUS-MH model that was developed to support this plan update.
carried over
Maintenance includes periodic updates of inventory, and hazard data. Use of this tool will be available to all planning
partners.
Now CW-1
Flood, Earthquake, DEM DEM General Fund Short term 4,8
and CW-5
Dam Failure
On-going,
CW-6Utilize DEM as a repository for historic information on hazard events. This information can be utilized by the
carried over
planning partners to support future risk assessments, planning and mitigation actions within the planning area. On-going
Now CW-4
Now CW-4
All Hazards DEM DEM general Fund Short-term 4,8
Completed
CW-7Support the development and maintenance of continuity of operation planning with a consistent guidance package
that will promote regional consistency within the planning area.
All Hazards All Planning Partners Existing program funds, Grant funding Long term 1,3,4,8
Bridgeview Consulting 13-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 13-6.
2020 Status of Spokane County-Specific 2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategies
2020
Included
Status*
Applies to new in
or existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous
Timeline
assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Plan?
Initiative #SC-1
Reorganize the Roads Department, adding additional satellite shops to reduce response times during severe weather.
New and Severe Weather 1, 2, 8, 9 Spokane $1,000,000 Local/Grant Long Term No Carry Over
Existing County, High Now SC-2
Engineering
& Roads
2020 Update: The Rockford, WA. satellite shop (with new crew room) still needs to be constructed; target goal for construction is
anticipated to be within the life-cycle of this plan update.
Initiative #SC-2
Rebuild Bruce Road Bridge. Bridge floods and is structurally unsound.
Existing Flood, Seismic 2, 6, 10 Spokane $980,000 Local/Federal Short Term Yes Completed
County, Grant
High F-4
Engineering
& Roads
2020 Update: Bruce Road Bridge was constructed in 2014.
Initiative #SC-3
ReplaceElliot Road Culvert. Culvert passes Deadman Creek and is undersized; it will be sized to pass 100-year
flood and fish passage.
New and Flood 2, 6, 10 Spokane $1,000,000 Local Short Term No Completed
Existing County,
High
Engineering
& Roads
2020 Update: Elliot Road Bridge Culvert was replaced/constructed in 2016.
Initiative #SC-4
Consider participation in the Community Rating System program
New and Flood 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, Spokane $25,000 Local Short Term Yes Carry Over
existing 12 County, Low Now SC-3
Engineering
& Roads
2020 Update: Spokane County would like to participate in the CRS Program, but due to lack of staff and available resources, we have
been unable to implement. Once in the CRS Program, we would need designated staff to maintain the status which is a very intense
record-keeping endeavor. We would like to keep this in the Plan, and work toward it during this next cycle.
Initiative #SC-5
Rehabilitate and maintainCountry Homes Blvd. storm drain system.
Existing Flood/Severe 2, 6, 11 Spokane $750,000 Local/Grant Short Term No Completed
Weather County,
High
Engineering
& Roads
2020 Update: Country Homes Boulevard Restoration Project was complete (Phase I) in 2014, and (Phase II) in 2016. Long-term
maintenance of these large regional stormwater facilities is tasked to Spokane County Stormwater Utility.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-18 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table 13-6.
2020 Status of Spokane County-Specific 2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategies
2020
Included
Status*
Applies to new in
or existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous
Timeline
assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Plan?
Initiative #SC-6
DevelopLID manual for stormwater disposal.
Existing New Flood/Severe 1, 4, 6, 8, Spokane $100,000 Local/Grant Long Term No Completed
Weather 11, 12 County,
Medium
Stormwater
Utility
2020 Update: The Eastern Washington LID Guidance Manual was finalized in 2013. This Manual no longer exists as a separate
manual, as it has been incorporated into the updated Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington in spring 2019.
Initiative #SC-7
Existing Flood/Severe 1, 2, 6, 10, Spokane $250,000 Local/Grant Short Term No On-Going
Weather 11 County, High Now SC-10
Engineering
& Roads
2020 Update
Initiative #SC-8 Study floodplain areas that are of concern for future development. Use more current models to determine flood
levels.
New and Flood 2, 4, 5, 8, Spokane $20,000, Local/Grant Long Term No Carried
Existing 11 County, Medium forward but
Engineering modified.
& Roads Now SC-9
2020 Update: Carried forward, but reworded for 2020 update.
Initiative #SC-9
Study floodplain areas that have bridges and culverts that were never sized to pass the 100-year flood. Identify
which structures are sized appropriately and determine what can be done to mitigate those that are not.
Existing Flood/Severe 2, 4, 5, 8, Spokane $75,000, Local/Grant Long Term No Carried
NewWeather 11 County, Medium forward but
Engineering modified.
& Roads Now SC-7
2020 Update: Carried forward, but reworded for 2020 update.
Initiative #SC-10
. Develop inventory of culverts, which would include fish barrier culverts and floodplain culverts. Inventory would
include condition and sizing requirements. Develop a culvert replacement priority.
Existing/ New Flood 2, 4, 5, 8, Spokane $30,000, Local/Grant Long Term No On-Going
11 County, Medium Now SC-6
Engineering
& Roads
2020 Update: Carried forward, but reworded for 2020 update.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 13-6.
2020 Status of Spokane County-Specific 2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategies
2020
Included
Status*
Applies to new in
or existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous
Timeline
assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Plan?
Initiative #SC-11
Continue work on website development for severe weather alerts. Notifications of roadway hazards, snow
removal, road closures, and other natural hazards that may affect the traveling public.
Existing Severe Weather 1, 3, 8 Spokane $20,000, Local/Grant Long Term No On-Going
County, Low Now CW-8
New
Engineering
& Roads
2020 Update: Spokane County continues to try and find new and improved ways to provide fast and reliable information via County
website to alert the traveling public. \[This initiative was combined with all-hazards public service/public information initiative for
2020 update.\]
Initiative #SC-12
Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This will be
accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, will meet the minimum
requirements of the NFIP, which include the following:
Enforcement of the adopted Spokane County Flood Damage Code (ordinance)
Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates
Providing public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
New and Flood 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, Engineering Low Local Ongoing No Remove
Existing 12 and Roads
2020 Update: The County continues to address the standards and regulations of the NFIP under normal operations; as such, this has
been removed as a strategy because it functions in a normal course of operations.
Initiative #SC-13
Continue to support the countywide initiatives identified in this plan.
New and All Hazards 1, 3, 4, 8 DEM Low Local Ongoing No Remove
Existing
2020 Update: Removed. The planning team determined that this was not an actionable strategy as phrased, and elected to remove the
initiative.
Initiative #SC-14
Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan.
New and All Hazards 1, 4, 8 DEM Low Local Short term No Remove
Existing
2020 Update: The planning team elected to remove this as a strategy as this is the focus of the plan maintenance section of the 2020
HMP, and is redundant in efforts.
Initiative #SC-15
Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard-prone areas to
protect structures from future damage, with properties that are exposed to repetitive losses as a priority.
Existing All Hazards 2, 10, 11 Spokane High FEMA Grant Long term No On-Going
County, funding/ Local Now SC-4
Engineering contributions (Reworded)
& Roads
2020 Update: The County will continue to maintain this initiative moving forward.
Initiative #SC-16
Integrate the Hazard Mitigation Plan into other plans, ordinances or programs to dictate land uses within the
jurisdiction.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-20 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table 13-6.
2020 Status of Spokane County-Specific 2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategies
2020
Included
Status*
Applies to new in
or existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous
Timeline
assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Plan?
New and All Hazards 2, 3, 4, 5, Spokane Low Local Short term No On-Going
Existing 11 County Now CW-17
Planning
2020 Update:
adoption. Incorporating the HMP into other planning efforts will be an on-going effort, as integration of planning efforts is a primary
focusof mitigation planning to help reduce the impacts of disasters.
Initiative #SC-17
Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP.
New and Wildfire 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Spokane Medium Local, Fire Short term No Completed;
Existing 7, 8, 9, 10, Conservation Grants, FEMA carried
11, 12 District, all Hazard forward.
County Fire Mitigation Now SC-5.
Districts Grants
2020 Update: Several initiatives were completed since the 2015 was adopted. The County will
to implement the mitigation recommendations identified annually by the CWPP development team.
*2020 Status:
CO= Carried over to 2020 HMP still a valid project but not completed
R=Removed, no longer relevant
C=Completed
OG= On-going in nature, carried over
Bridgeview Consulting 13-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
13.9 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
In addition to the mitigation action items previously identified, the County
and its planning partners also undertook additional initiatives which
provided assistance in reducing the potential impact of disaster events on
the planning area, as follows:
1) As a result of a culvert enhancement project (shore-up), Deer Park
conducted enhanced outreach efforts concerning potential flooding,
issuing a letter to the community, which resulted in a significant increase in registering for ALERT
Spokane emergency notifications, as well as increasing flood-awareness and safety.
2) Public-private partners came together when Avista Utilities, a primary utility provider in the
county, conducted a dam exercise in 2018 to test policies and procedures in place, as well as
response capabilities. Planning partners from many different industries took part in the exercise.
3) The County acquired an updated Mass Notification system in 2016 which has enhanced capabilities
for alert and warning, including the use of the Federal IPAWS (integrated Public Alert & Warning
System).
4) The County, working with all of the municipal planning partners, is working to further develop and
expand the critical facilities list currently in place. That list, when completed, will be utilized for
future hazard mitigation plan updates, as well as in conjunction with other exercise, training and
planning activities.
13.10 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Although a number of the mitigation projects listed may not be eligible for FEMA funding, Spokane County
and its planning partners may secure alternate funding sources to implement these projects in the future
including federal and state grant programs, and funds made available through the county. In order to be
eligible for some of those grant funds, completion of a hazard mitigation plan may be required. Table 13-7
identifies some of those grant requirements. Additional funding sources identified in Table 13-8 are also
available which support various types of mitigation efforts on a countywide basis.
Alternate funding sources which may further support mitigation efforts of various types include, but are not
limited to, the following:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG)
The CDBG program is a flexible program that provides communities with
resources to address a wide range of community development needs. CDBG money can be
used to match FEMA grant money. More information:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceRural Fire Assistance Grants
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USF&W) provides Rural Fire Assistance grants to fire departments to enhance local
wildfire protection, purchase equipment, and train volunteer firefighters. USF&W staff also
assist with community projects. These efforts reduce the risk to human life and better permit
US F&W firefighters to interact with community fire organizations when fighting wildfires.
The Department of the Interior receives a budget each year for the Rural Fire Assistance grant
program. The maximum award per grant is $20,000. The assistance program targets rural and
volunteer fire departments that routinely help fight fire on or near Department of Interior lands.
More information: http://www.fws.gov/fire/ living_with_fire/rural_fire_assistance.shtml
Bridgeview Consulting 13-22 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Table 13-7.
Grant Opportunities
Hazard Mitigation
Plan Requirement
Program Enabling Funding
Legislation Authorization Grantee Sub-Grantee
Public Assistance, Categories A-B (e.g., Stafford Act Presidential Disaster
debris removal, emergency protective Declaration
measures)
Public Assistance, Categories C-G (e.g., Stafford Act Presidential Disaster
repair of damaged infrastructure, Declaration
publicly owned buildings)
Individual Assistance (IA) Stafford Act Presidential Disaster
Declaration
Fire Management Assistance Grants Stafford Act Fire Management
Assistance Declaration
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Stafford Act Presidential Disaster
(HMGP) Planning Grant Declaration
HMGP Project Grant Stafford Act Presidential Disaster
Declaration
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Planning Stafford Act Annual Appropriation
Grant
PDM Project Grant Stafford Act Annual Appropriation
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) National Flood Annual Appropriation
Insurance Act
Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) National Flood Annual Appropriation
Insurance Act
Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) National Flood Annual Appropriation
Insurance Act
Homeland Security Dept. of Homeland Annual Appropriation
Security
= Hazard Mitigation Plan Required
= No Hazard Mitigation Plan Required
Table 13-8.
Countywide Fiscal Capabilities which Support Mitigation Efforts
Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Y
Capital Improvements Project Funding Y
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Y
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Y
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Y
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Y
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Y
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Y
State Sponsored Grant Programs Y
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Y
Bridgeview Consulting 13-23 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Enhances the ability of states, local and tribal
jurisdictions, and other regional authorities in the preparation, prevention, and response to
terrorist attacks and other disasters, by distributing grant funds. Localities can use grants for
planning, equipment, training and exercise needs. These grants include, but are not limited to
areas of critical infrastructure protection, equipment and training for first responders, and
homeland security. More information: http://www.dhs.gov/
FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
The HMGP provides grants to states,
Indian tribes, local governments, and private non-profit organizations to implement long-term
hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to
reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures
to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. More information:
http://www.fema.gov/ government/grant/hmgp/
FEMA, Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Competitive Grant Program
The PDM program
provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and
universities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior
to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and
structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. PDM
grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations,
quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds. More information:
http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/index.shtm
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Community Assistance Program
BLM
provides funds to communities through assistance agreements to complete mitigation projects,
education and planning within the wildland urban interface. More information:
http://www.blm.gov/nifc/st/en/prog/fire/community_assistance.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture Community Facilities Loans and Grants
Provides grants
(and loans) to cities, counties, states and other public entities to improve community facilities
for essential services to rural residents. Projects can include fire and rescue services. Funds
have been provided to purchase fire-fighting equipment for rural areas. No match is required.
General Services Administration Sale of Federal Surplus Personal Property
This
program sells property no longer needed by the federal government. The program provides
individuals, businesses and organizations the opportunity to enter competitive bids for purchase
of a wide variety of personal property and equipment. Normally, there are no restrictions on
the property purchased. More information: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21045
FEMA Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate, Fire Management Assistance
Grant Program
Program provides grants to states, tribal governments and local
governments for the mitigation, management and control of any fire burning on publicly (non-
federal) or privately owned forest or grassland that threatens such destruction as would
constitute a major disaster. The grants are made in the form of cost sharing with the federal
share being 75 percent of total eligible costs. Grant approvals are made within 1 to 72 hours
from time of request. More information is available at: http://www.fema.gov/
government/grant/fmagp/index.shtm
Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants
Grant funds are passed through to
local emergency management offices and Hazmat teams having functional and active local
emergency planning committees. More information: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/grants
Bridgeview Consulting 13-24 April 2020
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Bridgeview Consulting 13-25 April 2020
CHAPTER 14.
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
14.1 LAWS AND ORDINANCES
Existing laws, ordinances and plans at the federal, state and local level can support or impact hazard
mitigation initiatives identified in this plan. Hazard mitigation plans are required by 44 CFR to include a
review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information as
part of the planning process (Section 201.6.b(3)). Pertinent federal and state laws are described below, as
. In addition, Section 2.9.1 further identifies plans in place which support
Hazard Mitigation Planning and risk reduction. Each planning partner has also individually reviewed
existing local plans, studies, reports, and technical information as referenced and identified in their specific
jurisdictional annexes presented in Volume 2.
14.1.1 Federal
Disaster Mitigation Act
The DMA is the current federal legislation addressing hazard mitigation planning. It emphasizes planning
for disasters before they occur. It specifically addresses planning at the local level, requiring plans to be in
place before Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds are available to communities. This plan is designed
to meet the requirements of DMA, improving t
funds.
Endangered Species Act
The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted to conserve species facing depletion or extinction
and the ecosystems that support them. The act sets forth a process for determining which species are
threatened and endangered and requires the conservation of the critical habitat in which those species live.
The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are listed as threatened or
endangered. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of
critical habitat. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may
jeopardize listed species. It is the enabling legislation for the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for violations of
the ESA and the Convention. Federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species.
The ESA defines three fundamental terms:
Endangered
include subspecies and distinct population segments.)
Threatened
Critical habitat
The following are critical sections of the ESA:
Section 4: Listing of a Species
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for listing marine species; the U.S. Fish and
Bridgeview Consulting 14-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Wildlife Service is responsible for listing terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The
agencies may initiate reviews for listings, or citizens may petition for them. A listing must be
has been proposed, agencies receive comment and conduct further scientific reviews, after
which they must decide if the listing is warranted. Economic impacts cannot be considered in
this decision, but it may include an evaluation of the adequacy of local and state protections.
Section 7: Consultation
Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund,
or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or proposed species
or adversely modify its critical habitat. This includes private and public actions that require a
federal permit. Once a final listing is made, non-federal actions are subject to the same review,
rejects these, the action cannot proceed.
Section 9: Prohibition of Take
killing or injuring it or modifying its habitat in a way that interferes with essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
Section 10: Permitted Take
Through voluntary agreements with the federal government
that provide protections to an endangered species, a non-federal applicant may commit a take
that would otherwise be prohibited as long as it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity
(such as de
Section 11: Citizen Lawsuits
Civil actions initiated by any citizen can require the listing
et the requirements of the
consultation process.
With the listing of certain species listed as threatened or endangered, the Pacific Coast states have been
impacted by mandates, programs and policies based on the presumed presence of listed species. Most West
Coast jurisdictions must now take into account the impact of their programs on habitat.
Coastal Zone Management Act
All states with federally approved coastal programs delineate a coastal zone consistent with the general
standards act set forth in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). According to the CZMA,
the coastal zone area should encompass all important coastal resources including transitional and intertidal
areas, salt marshes, beaches, coastal waters, and adjacent shorelines where activities could have the
potential to impact the coastal waters. Federal land is excluded from the state coastal zone by the CZMA.
Washington State has established the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program, which was
approved by the federal government in 1976, making it the first to be approved, applying to 15 coastal
counties which front on saltwater.
The Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) employs regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant
discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff.
These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical,
Bridgeview Consulting 14-2 April 2020
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has included a shift from a program-by-program, source-
by-source, and pollutant-by-pollutant approach to more holistic watershed-based strategies. Under the
watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. A
full array of issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of
stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining
water quality and other environmental goals is a hallmark of this approach.
National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally backed flood insurance in exchange for
communities enacting floodplain regulations. Participation and good standing under NFIP are prerequisites
to grant funding eligibility under the Robert T. Stafford Act. Spokane County and its cities and towns
participate in the NFIP and have adopted regulations that meet the NFIP requirements. Existing flood maps
annex document.
Presidential Disaster Declarations
Presidentially declared disasters are disaster events that cause more damage than state and local
governments/resources can handle without federal assistance. There is not generally a specific dollar
threshold that must be met. A Presidential Major Disaster Declaration puts into motion long-term federal
recovery programs, some of which are matched by state programs, and designed to help disaster victims,
businesses, and public entities. A Presidential Emergency Declaration can also be declared, but assistance
is limited to specific emergency needs.
14.1.2 State-Level Planning Initiatives
Washington State Enhanced Mitigation Plan
The Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA in 2013 provides guidance
for hazard mitigation throughout Washington. The plan identifies hazard mitigation goals, objectives,
actions and initiatives for state government to reduce injury and damage from natural hazards. By meeting
federal requirements for an enhanced state plan (44 CFR parts 201.4 and 201.5), the plan allows the state
to seek significantly higher funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program following presidential
declared disasters (20 percent of federal disaster expenditures versus 15 percent with a standard plan).
Growth Management Act
The 1990 Washington State Growth Management Act (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter
36.70A) mandates that local jurisdictions adopt land use ordinances protect the following critical areas:
Wetlands
Critical aquifer recharge areas
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
Frequently flooded areas
Geologically hazardous areas.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) regulates development in these areas, and therefore has the potential
to affect hazard vulnerability and exposure at the local level.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Coastal Zone Management Program
Washington State has established the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program in conjunction
with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, which was approved by the federal government in 1976,
making it the first to be approved, applying to 15 coastal counties which front on saltwater.
Shoreline Management Act
The 1971 Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) was enacted to manage and protect the shorelines of
the state by regulating development i
the Pacific Ocean shoreline and the shorelines of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and rivers, streams
and lakes above a certain size. It also regulates wetlands associated with these shorelines.
Wild and Scenic River
A federal designation that is intended to protect the natural character of rivers and their habitat without
adversely affecting surrounding property.
Zero-Rise Floodway
- of a flood without raising the base flood
elevation. Some communities have chosen to implement zero-rise floodways because they provide greater
flood protection than the floodway described above, which allows a one foot rise in the base flood
elevation.
Washington State Building Code
The Washington State Building Code Council adopted the 2015 editions of national model codes, with
some amendments. The Council also adopted changes to the Washington State Energy Code and Ventilation
-developed codes are mandatory statewide for residential
and commercial buildings.
Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning
to ensure that preparations of the state will be adequate to deal with disasters, to ensure the administration
of state and federal programs providing disaster relief to individuals, to ensure adequate support for search
and rescue operations, to protect the public peace, health and safety, and to preserve the lives and property
of the people of the state. It achieves the following:
Provides for emergency management by the state, and authorizes the creation of local
organizations for emergency management in political subdivisions of the state.
Confers emergency powers upon the governor and upon the executive heads of political
subdivisions of the state.
Provides for the rendering of mutual aid among political subdivisions of the state and with
other states and for cooperation with the federal government with respect to the carrying out of
emergency management functions.
Provides a means of compensating emergency management workers who may suffer any injury
or death, who suffer economic harm including personal property damage or loss, or who incur
expenses for transportation, telephone or other methods of communication, and the use of
personal supplies as a result of participation in emergency management activities.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-4 April 2020
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Provides programs, with intergovernmental cooperation, to educate and train the public to be
prepared for emergencies.
It is policy under this law that emergency management functions of the state and its political subdivisions
be coordinated to the maximum extent with comparable functions of the federal government and agencies
of other states and localities, and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective
preparation and use may be made of manpower, resources, and facilities for dealing with disasters.
Washington Administrative Code 118-30-060(1)
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 118-30-060 (1) requires each political subdivision to base its
comprehensive emergency management plan on a hazard analysis, and makes the following definitions
related to hazards:
Hazards are conditions that can threaten human life as the result of three main factors:
Natural conditions, such as weather and seismic activity
Human interference with natural processes, such as a levee that displaces the natural flow
of floodwaters
Human activity and its products, such as homes on a floodplain.
The definitions for hazard, hazard event, hazard identification, and flood hazard include related
concepts:
A hazard may be connected to human activity.
Hazards are extreme events.
Hazards generally pose a risk of damage, loss, or harm to people and/or their property
Washington State Floodplain Management Law
-158) states that
prevention of flood damage is a matter of statewide public concern and places regulatory control with the
Department of Ecology. RCW 86.16 is cited in floodplai
national assessment, as one of the first and strongest in the nation. A major challenge to the law in 1978,
Maple Leaf Investors v. Ecology, is cited in legal references to floodplain management issues. The court
upheld the law, declaring that denial of a permit to build residential structures in the floodway is a valid
exercise of police power and did not constitute a taking. RCW Chapter 86.12 (Flood Control by Counties)
authorizes county governments to levy taxes, condemn properties and undertake flood control activities
directed toward a public purpose.
Flood Control Assistance Account Program
Control Maintenance Program (FCMP). In 1984, RCW 86.26 (State Participation in Flood Control
Maintenance) established the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP), which provides
funding for local flood hazard management. FCAAP rules are found in WAC 173-145. Ecology distributes
FCAAP matching grants to cities, counties and other special districts responsible for flood control. This is
one of the few state programs in the U.S. that provides grant funding to local governments for floodplain
management. The program has previously been funded for $4 million per biennium, with additional
Bridgeview Consulting 14-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
amounts provided after severe flooding events; however, those amounts can be modified by the state
Legislature.
To be eligible for FCAAP assistance, flood hazard management activities must be approved by Ecology in
consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). A comprehensive flood
hazard management plan must have been completed and adopted by the appropriate local authority or be in
the process of being prepared in order to receive FCAAP flood damage reduction project funds. This policy
evolved through years of the FCMP and early years of FCAAP in response to the observation that poor
management in one part of a watershed may cause flooding problems in another part.
Local jurisdictions must participate in the NFIP and be a member in good standing to qualify for an FCAAP
grant. Grants up to 75 percent of total project cost are available for comprehensive flood hazard
management planning. Flood damage reduction projects can receive grants up to 50 percent of total project
cost, and must be consistent with the comprehensive flood hazard management plan. Emergency grants are
available to respond to unusual flood conditions. FCAAP can also be used for the purchase of flood prone
properties, for limited flood mapping and for flood warning systems.
14.1.3 Local Programs
Each planning partner has prepared a jurisdiction-specific annex to this plan contained in Volume 2, which
identifies its regulatory, technical and financial capability to carry out proactive mitigation efforts.
Additional jurisdiction-specific information is available for review within each of those annexes. The
following sections present additional regulatory information that applies to the planning partnership.
Comprehensive Land Use Plans
Comprehensive plans are long-range in nature and serve as policy guides for how a jurisdiction plans to
manage growth and development with respect to the natural environment and available resources.
Washington State law (36.70A.040 RCW) requires that jurisdictions operating under the Growth
Management Act develop comprehensive plans and development regulations that are consistent withthe
comprehensive plans and implement them (36.70A RCW).
The GMA requires that comprehensive plans consist of the following elements: land use, housing, capital
facilities, utilities, rural (for counties), transportation, economic development, and park and recreation
(RCW 36.70A.070). A comprehensive plan may also include additional optional elements that relate to
physical development, such as conservation, historic preservation, and subarea plans (RCW 36.70A.080).
Spokane County last completed an update to its Comprehensive Land Use Plan as required under the
GMA was made in 2019. Since the original plan was written, amendments to various elements of the
comprehensive plan have been made on an almost-annual basis as allowed by law
(RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)). The GMA requires that jurisdictions periodically review their comprehensive
plans and implementing development regulations in their entirety and revise them if needed. Opportunities
for public participation in this process will be provided (see RCW 36.70A.035).
Critical Areas Ordinance
important fish and wildlife habitat areas, wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas,
and geologically hazardous areas, such as bluffs. Spokane
to that law; they regulate how development and redevelopment can safely occur on lands that contain critical
Bridgeview Consulting 14-6 April 2020
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
areas. Chapter 11 of the Spokane County Code identifies the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) of Spokane
31
County.
landowners
to maintain certain land classifications through property and income tax advantages, as well as making the
transfer of development rights available for landowners wish to preserve, among others, wetlands.
14.2 MITIGATION-RELATED REGULATORY AUTHORITY
programmatic and planning
community planners, engineers, floodplain managers, GIS personnel, emergency managers, and financial,
legal and regulatory requirements (zoning, building codes, subdivision regulations, and floodplain
management ordinances). These resources have the responsibility to provide overview of past, current, and
ongoing pre- and post-disaster mitigation planning projects, including capital improvement programs,
wildfire mitigation programs, stormwater management programs, and NFIP compliance projects. The
varying types. Each planning partner also completed the same tables within their respective Annex
documents.
Building Codes
The Spokane County Building Division has adopted and enforces, as mandated by the State of Washington,
the current editions of the International Code Council's Building, Residential, Fire, Mechanical, Fuel Gas
and Existing Building codes the Washington State Energy Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code with State
and local amendments.
Spokane County has adopted the 2015 International and Uniform Building Codes. Title 3 (and others) of
the Spokane County Code includes the 2015 editions of the International Building, Residential, Mechanical,
Fire, Existing Building and Fuel Gas codes and the 2015 editions of the Uniform Plumbing Code and
Washington State Energy Code.
Washington State Farmland Preservation
Washington State, through the Department of Revenue, provides tax incentives for open space enrollment
of designated as farmlands. The program is one tool for making farmland more affordable, thus keeping it
out of development.
Current use classification lowers the taxable value of farm and agricultural lands and other resource lands
might be valued at perhaps $3,000 an acre as farmland. The effect of this lower valuation is to lower the
production.
Regulatory, Technical, Community Organizations, Programs and Social Systems
Regulatory capabilities currently available are summarized in Table 14-1. In addition, the County also
maintains administrative and technical capabilities, as identified in Table 14-2. These various programs
and capabilities support the efforts of not only the County, but also many of the local municipalities and
special purpose districts.
31 https://www.spokanecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/20132/CAO-2018-final?bidId=
Bridgeview Consulting 14-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
In addition, there are other programs available, some of which provide incentives for citizens. Such
programs further enhance resiliency throughout the County. Two such programs include the National Flood
Insurance Program, and the Community Rating System, both of which are discussed in detail in Chapter 7
Flood.
Social systems can be defined as community organizations and programs that provide social and
community-based services, such as health care or housing assistance, to the public. In planning for natural
hazard mitigation, it is important to know what social systems exist within the community because of their
existing connections to the public.
Table 14-1.
Spokane County Legal and Regulatory Capability
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes Yes Yes SCC, Title 3 adopts 2015 International
Building Code
Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes SCC, Title 4 - Updated as required under
GMA. Last review/update occurred
2019.
Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes SCC, Title 12 (1996) - Updated
regularly through Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes Yes FEMA Requirements Spokane County
CAO & Flood Damage Protection
Ordinance available at:
https://www.spokanecounty.org/616/Sho
reline-Master-Program
Transfer of Development Rights Yes No No
Section 11.20.080 of the Spokane County
Critical Areas Ordinance (2018)
Stormwater Management Yes No Yes
SCC, Title 3, Chapter 3.10, 2004
Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Statewide
Growth Management Yes Yes Updated 2016; partial update 2019.
Critical Areas Ordinance Yes Yes Spokane County Code Title 11 Critical
Areas identified and regulatory authority
established.
https://www.spokanecounty.org/726/Crit
ical-Areas-Ordinance
Site Plan Review Yes No Yes
SCC, Title 12, Chapter 12.05, 1996
Public Health and Safety Yes Yes Yes
SCC, Title 8, 1996
Climate Change Adaptation
Bridgeview Consulting 14-8 April 2020
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Table 14-1.
Spokane County Legal and Regulatory Capability
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Shoreline Master Program / Yes Adopted within Comp Plan. Available
Shoreline Management Plan at:
https://www.spokanecounty.org/616/Sho
reline-Master-Program
Natural Hazard Specific Yes Yes Reviewed and/or updated annually as
Ordinance (stormwater, steep needed.
slope, wildfire, etc.)
Environmental Protection Yes Yes Yes
SCC, Title 11, 1996. Administered
hrough various departments and with
t
other entities.
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive Plan Yes No Yes
Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan? Yes
Floodplain or Basin Plan Yes Yes Various plans in place maintained by
several departments throughout county
including channel migration zone
maps/plans, meander belts, etc..
Stormwater Plan Yes Yes No Various plans are in place
Capital Improvement Plan Yes Yes Yes Includes Roads, Stormwater, Facilities,
annually.
Habitat Conservation Plan Yes Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline
Master Plans.
Community Wildfire Protection Yes Yes 2015 Currently in update process.
Plan Components of this plan will be utilized
to support the CWPP.
Transportation Plan Yes Yes 2019 Update with Comprehensive Plan
Response/Recovery Planning
Comprehensive Emergency Yes Yes 2019 Update In-progress concurrent with
Management Plan HMP development.
Threat and Hazard Identification Yes Yes Spokane County DEM and Regional
and Risk Assessment Plan
Terrorism Plan Yes Law enforcement maintains
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan Yes No
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes Various departments identified as COG-
supporting or with essential services
maintain COOP plans.
Public Health Plans Yes Various public health plans are in place
both through the Health Department and
through the hospitals.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 14-1.
Spokane County Legal and Regulatory Capability
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Administration, Boards and Commission
Planning Commission Yes Yes
Mitigation Planning Committee Yes No Planning Team established for plan
development and annual maintenance.
Maintenance programs to reduce Yes Yes Various programs in place, including
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing tree trimming, drainage systems, etc.
drainage systems, chipping, etc.)
Table 14-2.
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land Y Planning & Community Services
development and land management practices
Professionals trained in building or Y Planning & Community Services; Public Works
infrastructure construction practices (building
officials, fire inspectors, etc.)
Engineers specializing in construction Y
practices?
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Y Floodplain Manager
natural hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Y
Surveyors Y
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Y
Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use N Available under contract basis.
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local Y The county has hazard-specific subject matter
area experts on staff in various departments, available via
contracting mechanisms, and available through state
resources.
Emergency Manager Y Emergency Management Department with trained
personnel and volunteers.
Grant writers Y Various County departments have internal personnel
who write grants; county staff monitors grants.
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, Y ALERT Spokane, powered by CodeRED Mass
outdoor warning signs or signals, flood or fire Notification Software. IPAWS also utilized. All
warning program, etc.?) Emergency Management Staff are trained on using
CodeRED and IPAWS.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-10 April 2020
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Table 14-2.
Administrative and Technical Capability
Staff/Personnel Resources Available? Department/Agency/Position
GIS maintains data for various departments which
Hazard data and information available to public Y
have knowledge of and responsibility for specific
types of hazards, such as flood, landslide and other
hazards of concern.
Maintain Elevation Certificates Y
Often, actions identified by the plan involve communicating with the public or specific subgroups within
the population (e.g. elderly, children, low income). The County and its planning partners can use existing
social systems as resources for implementing such communication-related activities because these service
providers already work directly with the public on a number of issues, one of which could be natural hazard
preparedness and mitigation.
The following highlights organizations and programs that are active within Spokane County, which may be
potential partners for implementing mitigation actions. The various tables include information on each
organization or program could be involved in natural hazard mitigation. The three involvement methods
are defined below.
Education and outreach organizations could partner with the community to educate the public or
provide outreach assistance on natural hazard preparedness and mitigation.
Information dissemination organizations could partner with the community to provide hazard-
related information to target audiences.
Plan/project implementation organizations may have plans and/or policies that may be used to
implement mitigation activities or the organization could serve as the coordinating or partner
organization to implement mitigation actions. Table 14-3 identifies several of the ongoing efforts
which assist in notification and social service programs, further enhancing the resilience of the
County.
Table 14-3.
Education and Outreach
AvailableDepartment/Agency/Position and Brief
Program/Organization ? Description
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations Y CERT and SAR trained personnel
focused on emergency preparedness?
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations Y Spokane County Conservation District
focused on environmental protection?
Organization focused on individuals with access Y The County works closely with local advocacy
and functional needs populations groups, Access 4 All, and the Accessible
Community Advisory Committee (ACAC)
Bridgeview Consulting 14-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Table 14-3.
Education and Outreach
AvailableDepartment/Agency/Position and Brief
Program/Organization ? Description
Ongoing public education or information
Y Various agencies at the county and state levels
program (e.g., responsible water use, fire safety,
which promote educational efforts such as Firewise,
household preparedness, environmental
Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act, and
education)
Fire Adapted Communities from the National
Cohesive Wildfire Strategy.
Natural disaster or safety related school Y Pursuant to the RCW, schools are required to
programs? develop and exercise hazard-specific response
plans.
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing Y Various public education outreach; provide
disaster-related issues? information and presentations; NFIP insurance;
outreach for Continuity Planning.
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Y The County maintains information on its website to
address specific hazards at issue; also, as situations
arise, the website, email lists and local area
broadcasting provides public service
announcements and information.
Other
14.3 WASHINGTON STATE RATING BUREAU LEVELS OF SERVICE
In Washington, the Washington State Rating Bureau (WSRB) helps determine standards on which
insurance rates are set. WSRB, like most other states, utilizes the Insurance Service Office, Inc. (ISO) to
determine levels of protection based on a prescribed level of service. Two such levels of services assessed
are the Public Protection Classification Program and the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule.
14.3.1 Public Protection Classification Program
The Public Protection Classification (PPC) program recognizes the efforts of communities to provide fire
protection services for citizens and property owners. A communitys investment in fire mitigation is a
proven and reliable predicator of future fire losses. Insurance companies use PPC information to help
establish fair premiums for fire insurance generally offering lower premiums in communities with better
protection. By offering economic benefits for communities that invest in their firefighting services, the
program provides an additional incentive for improving and maintaining public fire protection.
In order to establish appropriate fire insurance premiums for residential and commercial properties,
insurance companies utilize up-to-date information about the Communitys fire-protection services.
Through analysis of relevant data, communities are able to evaluate their public fire-protection services,
and secure lower fire insurance premiums for communities with better protection. This program provides
incentives and rewards in those areas with improved firefighting services. This program has gathered
extensive information on more than 46,000 fire-response jurisdictions. Once all of the data is reviewed and
analyzed, communities are assigned a PPC from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire
protection, while Class 10 indicates that the areas fire-suppression program is not as robust.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-12 April 2020
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The most significant benefit of the PPC program is its effect on losses. Statistical data on insurance losses
bears out the relationship between excellent fire protection as measured by the PPC program and low
fire losses. PPC helps communities prepare to fight fires effectively. The program also provides help for
fire departments and other public officials as they plan, budget for, and justify improvements.
Table 14-4 identifies the Public Protection Classification for Spokane County.
Table 14-4.
Countywide Public Protection Classification
Protection Class
Community Grade
Airway Heights4
5
Cheney
4
Deer Park
6
Fairfield
7
Latah
Liberty Lake2
Medical Lake6
Millwood2
Rockford6
6
Spangle
3
Spokane
N/A
Spokane County
3
Spokane County F.P.D. 1
Spokane County F.P.D. 105
Spokane County F.P.D. 116
Spokane County F.P.D. 127
Spokane County F.P.D. 136
7
Spokane County F.P.D. 2
5
Spokane County F.P.D. 3
5
Spokane County F.P.D. 4
8
Spokane County F.P.D. 5
4
Spokane County F.P.D. 8
Spokane County F.P.D. 94
Spokane Valley2
Waverly 7
Data effective as of April 2019
14.3.2 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule
The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) assesses building codes and amendments
adopted in a community and evaluates that communitys commitment to enforce them. The concept is
simple: Municipalities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes should demonstrate better loss experience, and
insurance rates can reflect that. The prospect of reducing damage and ultimately lowering insurance costs
Bridgeview Consulting 14-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
provides an incentive for communities to enforce their building codes rigorously. Table 14-5 identifies the
BCEGS for the planning partnership.
Table 14-5.
Countywide Building Code Effectiveness Grading
Community Commercial Dwelling
Airway Heights5 5
Cheney3 3
Deer Park4 4
Fairfield2 3
LatahNot Ranked Not Ranked
Liberty Lake3 4
Medical Lake4 4
Millwood2 3
Rockford2 3
Spangle2 3
Spokane3 4
Spokane County2 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 12 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 102 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 112 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 122 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 132 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 22 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 32 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 42 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 52 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 82 3
Spokane County F.P.D. 92 3
Spokane Valley3 3
Waverly5 5
Data effective as of April 2019
14.3.3 Public Safety Programs
Access and Functional Needs
One of the most important roles of local government is to protect their citizens from harm, including helping
people prepare for and respond to emergencies. Making local government emergency preparedness and
response programs accessible to people with special needs is a critical part of this responsibility. Spokane
County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) has the mission to assess and plan for all hazards
and emergencies, and works with other public safety and local government agencies to ensure public
welfare for all of its citizens.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-14 April 2020
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Spokane County Fire Departments and Districts
Spokane Countydistricts serve its citizens, in addition to
departments, there are a total of ____ fire stations which protect the county
during emergency situations. The purpose of Spokane County Fire Districts is
the provision of fire prevention services, fire suppression services, emergency
medical services, and for the protection of life and property. Fire prevention in
Spokane County is all-encompassing, including rural and wildland areas. The Firewise Community
Program is administered in coordination with the WA DNR and USFS (among others). Public outreach
efforts have also occurred throughout the County, including partnerships with the various school districts,
where Firewise information and mitigation-related projects are presented.
Spokane County is a StormReady® County
Spokane County is also a recognized StormReady® County under the National
Weather Service Program. Achieving such status requires a significant level of effort. Being part of a
is about preparing for your community's increasing vulnerability to extreme weather
Weather-Ready Nation
events. The program helps arm America's communities with the communication and safety skills needed to
save lives and property--before, during and after the event. StormReady helps community leaders and
emergency managers strengthen local safety programs.
Response Plans
Spokane County and its jurisdictions have developed various response
plans to be utilized during incident-specific events. Such plans provide
guidance to first responders and community members in what actions
need to be taken during such event. These plans go through a training
and exercise phase to help ensure quick response when the plans are
activated.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-15 April 2020
CHAPTER 15.
PLAN MAINTENANCE
A hazard mitigation plan must present a plan maintenance process that includes the following (44 CFR
Section 201.6.c.4):
A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the
mitigation plan over a 5-year cycle
A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into
other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when
appropriate
A discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance
process.
This chapter details the formal process that will ensure that the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan
remains an active and relevant document and that the planning partners maintain their eligibility for
applicable funding sources. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and
evaluating the plan annually and producing an updated plan every five years. This chapter also describes
how public participation will be integrated throughout the plan maintenance and implementation process.
It also explains how the mitigation strategies outlined in this Plan will be incorporated into existing planning
mechanisms and programs, such as comprehensive land-use planning processes, capital improvement
planning, and building code enforcement and implementation. The Plans format allows sections to be
reviewed and updated when new data become available, resulting in a plan that will remain current and
relevant.
15.1.1 Plan Implementation and Maintenance
The effectiveness of the hazard mitigation plan depends on its implementation and incorporation of its
action items into partner jurisdictions existing plans, policies and programs. Together, the action items in
the Plan provide a framework for activities that the Partnership can implement over the next 5 years. The
planning team and the steering committee have established goals and objectives and have prioritized
mitigation actions that will be implemented through existing plans, policies and programs.
Spokane County Emergency Management will have lead responsibility for overseeing the plan
implementation and maintenance strategy. Plan implementation and evaluation will be a shared
responsibility among all planning partnership members and agencies identified as lead agencies in the
mitigation action plans (see planning partner annexes in Volume 2 of this plan).
44 CFR requires that local hazard mitigation plans be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted for
approval in order to remain eligible for benefits under the DMA (Section 201.6.d.3). The Spokane County
partnership intends to update the hazard mitigation plan on a 5-year cycle from the date of initial plan
adoption. This cycle may be accelerated to less than 5 years based on the following triggers:
A presidential disaster declaration that impacts the planning area.
A hazard event that causes loss of life.
Bridgeview Consulting 15-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
It will not be the intent of future updates to develop a completely new hazard mitigation plan for the
planning area. The update will, at a minimum, include the following elements:
The update process will be convened through a Planning Team.
The hazard risk assessment will be reviewed and, if necessary, updated using best available
information and technologies.
The action plans will be reviewed and revised to account for any initiatives completed, dropped,
or changed and to account for changes in the risk assessment or new partnership policies
identified under other planning mechanisms (such as the comprehensive plan).
The draft update will be sent to appropriate agencies and organizations for comment.
The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the update prior to adoption.
The partnership governing bodies will adopt their portions of the updated plan.
15.1.2 Annual Review
The hazard mitigation plan will be reviewed annually and a progress report prepared. These reviews may
be more or less frequent, as deemed necessary by the Emergency Management Deputy Director, but there
will be a minimum of one review per year.
The minimum task of each planning partner will be the evaluation of the progress of its individual action
plan during a 12-month performance period. This review will include the following:
Summary of any hazard events that occurred during the performance period and the impact
these events had on the planning area.
Review of mitigation success stories.
Review of continuing public involvement.
Brief discussion about why targeted strategies were not completed.
Re-evaluation of the action plan to determine if the timeline for identified projects needs to be
amended (such as changing a long-term project to a short-term one because of new funding).
Recommendations for new projects.
Changes in or potential for new funding options (grant opportunities).
Impact of any other planning programs or initiatives that involve hazard mitigation.
A template to guide the planning partners in preparing a progress report has been created as part of this
planning process (see Appendix C). The Emergency Management Program Specialist will then prepare a
formal annual report on the progress of the plan. This report should be used as follows:
Posted on the Spokane County website page dedicated to the hazard mitigation plan.
Provided to the local media through a press release.
Bridgeview Consulting 15-2 April 2020
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Presented to planning partner governing bodies to inform them of the progress of actions
implemented during the reporting period.
Use of the progress report will be at the discretion of each planning partner. Annual progress reporting is
not a requirement spec
opportunities for funding. While failure to implement this component of the plan maintenance strategy will
e annual review will
reduce the level of effort involved in future plan updates, and is highly encouraged by FEMA.
15.1.3 Future Plan Updates
In addition to the annual review, three years after adoption of the hazard mitigation plan, the Deputy
Director may decide to apply for a planning grant through FEMA to start the 2025 update. Upon receipt of
funding, the County will solicit bids under applicable contracting procedures and hire a contractor to assist
with the project. The proposed schedule for completion of the plan update is one year from award of a
contract, to coincide with the five-year adoption date of the 2020 hazard mitigation plan update.
The Deputy Director will be responsible for the plan update. Before the end of the five-year period, the
updated plan will be submitted to FEMA for approval. When concurrence is received that the updated plan
complies with FEMA requirements, it will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, the local
jurisdiction councils, and the Special Purpose District Commissioners for adoption. The County will send
an e-mail to individuals and organizations on the stakeholder list to inform them that the updated plan is
available on the County website.
15.1.4 Implementation through Existing Programs
Spokane County will have the opportunity to implement hazard mitigation projects through existing
programs and procedures through plan revisions or amendments. The hazard mitigation plan will be
incorporated into the plans, regulations and ordinances as they are updated in the future or when new plans
are developed.
be integral parts of this plan. The County and its jurisdictional partners, through adoption of comprehensive
plans and zoning ordinances, have planned for the impact of natural hazards. The plan development process
provided the County and its cities with the opportunity to review and expand on policies contained within
these planning mechanisms. The planning partners used their comprehensive plans and the hazard
mitigation plan as complementary documents that work together to achieve the goal of reducing risk
exposure to the citizens of the County. An update to a comprehensive plan may trigger an update to the
hazard mitigation plan.
All planning partners are committed to creating a linkage between the hazard mitigation plan and their
individual comprehensive and other plans by identifying a mitigation initiative to do so and giving that
initiative a high priority. Other planning processes and programs to potentially be coordinated with the
recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan include the following:
Partners emergency response plans
Capital improvement programs
Municipal codes
Building codes
Bridgeview Consulting 15-3 July 2018
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
Critical areas regulation
Growth management
Water resource inventory area planning
Basin planning
Community design guidelines
Water-efficient landscape design guidelines
Stormwater management programs
Water system vulnerability assessments
Master fire protection plans
Landslide reports and planning
Evacuation planning
Transportation planning
Some action items do not need to be implemented through regulation. Instead, these items can be
implemented through the creation of new educational programs, continued interagency coordination, or
improved public participation. As information becomes available from other planning mechanisms that can
enhance this plan, that information will be incorporated via the update process.
15.1.5 Continued Public Involvement
Spokane County is dedicated to involving the public directly in review and updates of the hazard mitigation
plan.
annual progress reports that will be provided to the media.
All planning partners have agreed to provide links to the Hazard Mitigation Plan website on their websites
to increase avenues of public access to the plan. The Spokane Department of Emergency Management has
agreed to maintain the hazard mitigation plan website. This site will not only house the final plan, it will
become the one-stop shop for information regarding the plan, the partnership and plan implementation.
Upon initiation of future update processes, a new public involvement strategy will be initiated. This strategy
will be based on the needs and capabilities of the planning partnership at the time of the update. At a
minimum, this strategy will include the use of social media and local media outlets within the planning
area.
Bridgeview Consulting 15-4 April 2020
REFERENCES
Advanced National Seismic System. 2012. http://www.quake.geo.berkeley.edu/anss/catalog-search.html
Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 2012. Dam Failures and Incidents. Website accessed October
27, 2012. http://www.damsafety.org/news/?p=412f29c8-3fd8-4529-b5c9-8d47364c1f3e#FailureCauses
15, 1981.
FEMA. 2001. Understanding Your Risks; Identifying Hazards and Determining your Risks. FEMA (386-
2). August 2001
FEMA. 2002. Getting Started; Building support for Mitigation Planning; FEMA (386-1). September 2002
FEMA. 2003. Developing the Mitigation Plan; Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing
Strategies. FEMA (386-3). April 2003
FEMA. 2004. Using HAZUS-MH for Risk Assessment, How to Guide, FEMA (433). August 2004
Manual FIA-15/2007 OMB No. 1660-0022
FEMA. 2012a. The Disaster Process & Disaster Aid Programs. Federal Emergency Management Agency
Website Accessed December 10, 2012: http://www.fema.gov/disaster-process-disaster-aid-programs
FEMA. 2012b. FEMA Disaster Declaration SummaryOpen Government Dataset. Spreadsheet Data
Accessed December 10, 2012 from Federal Emergency Management Agency Website:
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6292
HistoryLink.org. 2012. Spokane County Thumbnail History. HistoryLink.org Essay 7686. Accessed
online December 7, 2012: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=7686
Hurand, F. 2004. Hurand, Fred A. 2004. Population Change and Forecasts for Spokane, County
Washington and Kootenai, County, Idaho. Cheney, WA: Institute for Public Policy and Economics,
Eastern Washington University.
Management Practices: Critical Elements for Adaptation to Climate
McColl, C. and A. Gabriel. 2007. Keeping Communities Safe from Wildfire, Land Bulletin of the
National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations. November 2007.
NASA, 2004. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25145 NASA Earth Observatory
News Web Site Item, dated August 2, 2004.
NOAA. 2010. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms. NOAA, National
Climatic Data Center website, accessed 2010
Bridgeview Consulting A-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
OTA (Congressional Office of Technology Assessment). 1993. Preparing for an Uncertain Climate, Vol.
I. OTAO567. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
SCS. 1983. Soil Survey of Chelan Area, Washington, Parts of Chelan and Spokane County Area,
Washington. Soil Interpretation Table for Spokane County. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service. June 1983.
Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States maintained by the University of South
Spokane County Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, December 1996
Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, December 2011
Spokane County Wildfire Protection Plan, February 2009
Spokane County. 2012a. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan On-Line. Accessed December 10, 2012
at: http://www.spokanecounty.org/bp/data/Documents/CompPlan/TOC.pdf
Spokane County. 2012b. Spokane County History. Accessed December 7, 2012 at Spokane County
website: http://www.spokanecounty.org/content.aspx?c=1170#Historical_Dates_and_Maps
U. S. Fire Administration. 2000a. 2000 Wildland Fire Season, Topical Fire Research Series, Vol. 1, No.
2. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Fire Administration.
U. S. Fire Administration. 2000b. Wildfires: A Historical Perspective. Topical Fire Research Series, Vol.
1, No. 3. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Fire Administration.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012a. State and County Quick Facts. Accessed December 7, 2012 at U.S. Census
Bureau Website: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53063.html
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012b. 3-Year American Community Survey (2009-2011) for Spokane County.
Accessed December 10, 2012 at U.S. Census Bureau Website:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
US Dept. of Transportation. 2013. Federal Highway Administration. Available at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/county09c.cfm#wa. Accessed August 20, 2013.
USGS. 2009. http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/wgmt/pacnw/lifeline/eqhazards.html U.S. Geological Survey
accessed in 2009.
Washington Department of Ecology, Inventory of Dams in the State of WA. December 2011
Washington Emergency Management Division. WA State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan, October
2010
Washington Employment Security Department. 2012. Data accessed online December 10, 2012 at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports-publications/regional-reports/labor-area-summaries
Washington Office of Financial Management. 2011. Local Government and Special Districts 2011 Data
Book.
Bridgeview Consulting R-2 April 2020
REFERENCES
Washington Office of Financial Management. 2012a. 2012 Population Trends. Prepared by the
Washington Office of Financial Management Forecasting Division. September 2012.
Washington Office of Financial Management. 2012b. Population Decennial Census Series 1890 2010
Spreadsheet. Prepared by the Washington Office of Financial Management. Last Modified December 4,
2012. Accessed at: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/hseries/pop_decennial_census_series_1890-
2010.xlsx
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX A.
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX A.
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
ACRONYMS
ASHRAEAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
CFRCode of Federal Regulations
cfscubic feet per second
CIPCapital Improvement Plan
CRSCommunity Rating System
CWPPCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan
DEMSpokane Department of Emergency Management
DFIRMDigital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
DMA Disaster Mitigation Act
DNAWashington Department of Natural Resources
DSODam Safety Office
EPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESAEndangered Species Act
FBFMFire Behavior Fuel Model
FCAAPFlood Control Assistance Account Program
FEMAFederal Emergency Management Agency
FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
FIRMFlood Insurance Rate Map
FRCCFire regime condition class
GISGeographic Information System
GMAGrowth Management Act
HAZUS-MHHazards, United States-Multi Hazard
HMGPHazard Mitigation Grant Program
IBCInternational Building Code
IRCInternational Residential Code
MMModified Mercalli Scale
NEHRPNational Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NFIPNational Flood Insurance Program
NOAANational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWSNational Weather Service
PDMPre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program
PGAPeak Ground Acceleration
RCWRevised Code of Washington
SCSU.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
SFHASpecial Flood Hazard Area
SHELDUSSpecial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the US
THIRA Threat and hazard identification and risk assessment
UBCUniform Building Code
USGSU.S. Geological Survey
WACWashington Administrative Code
WRIAWater Resource Inventory Area
Bridgeview Consulting A-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
DEFINITIONS
100-Year Flood
: The term 100-year flood can be misleading. The 100-year flood does not necessarily
occur once every 100 years. Rather, it is the flood that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded
in any given year. Thus, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines it as the 1 percent annual chance flood,
which is now the standard definition used by most federal and state agencies and by the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Acre-Foot
: An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. This measure
is used to describe the quantity of storage in a water reservoir. An acre-foot is a unit of volume. One acre
foot equals 7,758 barrels; 325,829 gallons; or 43,560 cubic feet. An average household of four will use
approximately 1 acre-foot of water per year.
Asset
: An asset is any man-made or natural feature that has value, including, but not limited to, people;
buildings; infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, sewers, and water systems; lifelines, such as electricity and
communication resources; and environmental, cultural, or recreational features such as parks, wetlands, and
landmarks.
Base Flood:
The flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also known as
the 100-year or 1% chance flood. The base flood is a statistical concept used to ensure that all properties
subject to the National Flood Insurance Program are protected to the same degree against flooding.
Basin
: A basin is the area within which all surface waterwhether from rainfall, snowmelt, springsor
other sourcesflows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by
natural topography, such as hills, mountains and ridges. Basins are also referred to as watersheds and
drainage basins.
Benefit
: A benefit is a net project outcome and is usually defined in monetary terms. Benefits may include
direct and indirect effects. For the purposes of benefit-cost analysis of proposed mitigation measures,
benefits are limited to specific, measurable, risk reduction factors, including reduction in expected property
losses (buildings, contents and functions) and protection of human life.
Benefit/Cost Analysis
: A benefit/cost analysis is a systematic, quantitative method of comparing projected
benefits to projected costs of a project or policy. It is used as a measure of cost effectiveness.
Building
: A building is defined as a structure that is walled and roofed, principally aboveground, and
permanently fixed to a site. The term includes manufactured homes on permanent foundations on which
the wheels and axles carry no weight.
Capability Assessment
: A capability assessment provides a description and analysis of a communitys
current capacity to address threats associated with hazards. The assessment includes two components: an
inventory of an agencys mission, programs and policies, and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out.
A capability assessment is an integral part of the planning process in which a communitys actions to reduce
losses are identified, reviewed, and analyzed, and the framework for implementation is identified. The
following capabilities were reviewed under this assessment:
Legal and regulatory capability
Administrative and technical capability
Fiscal capability
Bridgeview Consulting A-2 April 2020
APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
Community Rating System (CRS)
: The CRS is a voluntary program under the National Flood Insurance
Program that rewards participating communities (provides incentives) for exceeding the minimum
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and completing activities that reduce flood hazard
risk by providing flood insurance premium discounts.
Critical Area:
An area defined by state or local regulations as deserving special protection because of
unique natural features or its value as habitat for a wide range of species of flora and fauna. A
sensitive/critical area is usually subject to more restrictive development regulations.
Critical Facility:
Facilities and infrastructure that are critical to the health and welfare of the population.
These become especially important after any hazard event occurs. For the purposes of this plan, critical
facilities include:
Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or
water reactive materials;
Hospitals, nursing homes and housing likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently
mobile to avoid death or injury during a hazard event.
Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations
centers that are needed for disaster response before, during, and after hazard events, and
Public and private utilities, facilities and infrastructure that are vital to maintaining or restoring
normal services to areas damaged by hazard events.
Government facilities.
Cubic Feet per Second:
Common measurement for stream discharge or river flow. One cubic foot is about
7.5 gallons of liquid.
Dam:
Any artificial barrier or controlling mechanism that can or does impound 10 acre-feet or more of
water.
Dam Failure
: Dam failure refers to a partial or complete breach in a dam (or levee) that impacts its integrity.
Dam failures occur for a number of reasons, such as flash flooding, inadequate spillway size, mechanical
failure of valves or other equipment, freezing and thawing cycles, earthquakes, and intentional destruction.
Debris Avalanche:
Volcanoes are prone to debris and mountain rock avalanches that can approach speeds
of 100 mph.
Debris Flow:
Dense mixtures of water-saturated debris that move down-valley; looking and behaving much
like flowing concrete. They form when loose masses of unconsolidated material are saturated, become
unstable, and move down slope. The source of water varies but includes rainfall, melting snow or ice, and
glacial outburst floods.
Debris Slide:
Debris slides consist of unconsolidated rock or soil that has moved rapidly down slope. They
occur on slopes greater than 65 percent.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA);
The DMA is Public Law 106-390 and is the latest federal
legislation enacted to encourage and promote proactive, pre-disaster planning as a condition of receiving
financial assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The DMA emphasizes planning for disasters before
Bridgeview Consulting A-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
they occur. Under the DMA, a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national
post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program were established.
Drainage Basin:
A basin is the area within which all surface water- whether from rainfall, snowmelt,
springs or other sources- flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is
defined by natural topography, such as hills, mountains and ridges. Drainage basins are also referred to as
watershedsbasins
or .
Drought
: Drought is a period of time without substantial rainfall or snowfall from one year to the next.
Drought can also be defined as the cumulative impacts of several dry years or a deficiency of precipitation
over an extended period of time, which in turn results in water shortages for some activity, group or
environmental function. A hydrological drought is caused by deficiencies in surface and subsurface water
supplies. A socioeconomic drought impacts the health, well-being and quality of life or starts to have an
adverse impact on a region. Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate and occurs almost everywhere.
Earthquake
: An earthquake is defined as a sudden slip on a fault, volcanic or magmatic activity, and
sudden stress changes in the earth that result in ground shaking and radiated seismic energy. Earthquakes
can last from a few seconds to over 5 minutes, and have been known to occur as a series of tremors over a
period of several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of
injury or death. Casualties may result from falling objects and debris as shocks shake, damage, or demolish
buildings and other structures.
Exposure
: Exposure is defined as the number and dollar value of assets considered to be at risk during the
occurrence of a specific hazard.
Extent
: The extent is the size of an area affected by a hazard.
Fire Behavior
: Fire behavior refers to the physical characteristics of a fire and is a function of the
interaction between the fuel characteristics (such as type of vegetation and structures that could burn),
topography, and weather. Variables that affect fire behavior include the rate of spread, intensity, fuel
consumption, and fire type (such as underbrush versus crown fire).
Fire Frequency
: Fire frequency is the broad measure of the rate of fire occurrence in a particular area. An
estimate of the areas most likely to burn is based on past fire history or fire rotation in the area, fuel
conditions, weather, ignition sources (such as human or lightning), fire suppression response, and other
factors.
Flash Flood
: A flash flood occurs with little or no warning when water levels rise at an extremely fast rate
Flood Insurance Rate Map:
Flood Insurance Rate Maps are the official maps on which the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has delineated the Special Flood Hazard Area.
Flood Insurance Study:
A report published by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration for a
community in conjunction with the communitys Flood Insurance rate Map. The study contains such
background data as the base flood discharges and water surface elevations that were used to prepare the
Flood Insurance Rate Map. In most cases, a community Flood Insurance Rate Map with detailed mapping
will have a corresponding flood insurance study.
Floodplain
: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by flood waters from any source. A flood
insurance rate map identifies most, but not necessarily all, of a communitys floodplain as the Special Flood
Hazard Area.
Bridgeview Consulting A-4 April 2020
APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
Floodway:
Floodways are areas within a floodplain that are reserved for the purpose of conveying flood
discharge without increasing the base flood elevation more than 1 foot. Generally speaking, no development
is allowed in floodways, as any structures located there would block the flow of floodwaters.
Floodway Fringe
: Floodway fringe areas are located in the floodplain but outside of the floodway. Some
development is generally allowed in these areas, with a variety of restrictions. On maps that have identified
and delineated a floodway, this would be the area beyond the floodway boundary that can be subject to
different regulations.
Fog
: Fog refers to a cloud (or condensed water droplets) near the ground. Fog forms when air close to the
ground can no longer hold all the moisture it contains. Fog occurs either when air is cooled to its dew point
or the amount of moisture in the air increases. Heavy fog is particularly hazardous because it can restrict
surface visibility. Severe fog incidents can close roads, cause vehicle accidents, cause airport delays, and
impair the effectiveness of emergency response. Financial losses associated with transportation delays
caused by fog have not been calculated in the United States but are known to be substantial.
Freeboard
: Freeboard is the margin of safety added to the base flood elevation.
Frequency
: For the purposes of this plan, frequency refers to how often a hazard of specific magnitude,
duration and/or extent is expected to occur on average. Statistically, a hazard with a 100-year frequency is
expected to occur about once every 100 years on average and has a 1 percent chance of occurring any given
year. Frequency reliability varies depending on the type of hazard considered.
Fujita Scale of Tornado Intensity
: Tornado wind speeds are sometimes estimated on the basis of wind
speed and damage sustained using the Fujita Scale. The scale rates the intensity or severity of tornado events
using numeric values from F0 to F5 based on tornado wind speed and damage. An F0 tornado (wind speed
less than 73 miles per hour (mph)) indicates minimal damage (such as broken tree limbs), and an F5 tornado
(wind speeds of 261 to 318 mph) indicates severe damage.
Goal
: A goal is a general guideline that explains what is to be achieved. Goals are usually broad-based,
long-term, policy-type statements and represent global visions. Goals help define the benefits that a plan is
trying to achieve. The success of a hazard mitigation plan is measured by the degree to which its goals have
been met (that is, by the actual benefits in terms of actual hazard mitigation).
Geographic Information System (GIS)
: GIS is a computer software application that relates data regarding
physical and other features on the earth to a database for mapping and analysis.
Hazard
: A hazard is a source of potential danger or adverse condition that could harm people and/or cause
property damage.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
: Authorized under Section 202 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the program is administered by FEMA and provides grants to states,
tribes and local governments to implement hazard mitigation actions after a major disaster declaration. The
purpose of the program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to disasters and to enable mitigation
activities to be implemented as a community recovers from a disaster
Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) Loss Estimation Program
: HAZUS-MH is a GIS-based
program used to support the development of risk assessments as required under the DMA. The HAZUS-
MH software program assesses risk in a quantitative manner to estimate damages and losses associated with
natural hazards. HAZUS-MH is FEMAs nationally applicable, standardized methodology and software
Bridgeview Consulting A-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
program and contains modules for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods and wind hazards.
HAZUS-MH has also been used to assess vulnerability (exposure) for other hazards.
Hydraulics
: Hydraulics is the branch of science or engineering that addresses fluids (especially water) in
motion in rivers or canals, works and machinery for conducting or raising water, the use of water as a prime
mover, and other fluid-related areas.
Hydrology
: Hydrology is the analysis of waters of the earth. For example, a flood discharge estimate is
developed by conducting a hydrologic study.
Intensity
: For the purposes of this plan, intensity refers to the measure of the effects of a hazard.
Inventory
: The assets identified in a study region comprise an inventory. Inventories include assets that
could be lost when a disaster occurs and community resources are at risk. Assets include people, buildings,
transportation and other valued community resources.
Landslide:
Landslides can be described as the sliding movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down
a hillside or slope. Fundamentally, slope failures occur when the strength of the soils forming the slope
exceeds the pressure, such as weight or saturation, acting upon them.
Lightning
: Lightning is an electrical discharge resulting from the buildup of positive and negative charges
within a thunderstorm. When the buildup becomes strong enough, lightning appears as a bolt, usually
within or between clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning instantaneously reaches temperatures
approaching 50,000ºF. The rapid heating and cooling of air near lightning causes thunder. Lightning is a
major threat during thunderstorms. In the United States, 75 to 100 Americans are struck and killed by
lightning each year (see http://www.fema.gov/hazard/thunderstorms/thunder.shtm).
Liquefaction
: Liquefaction is the complete failure of soils, occurring when soils lose shear strength and
flow horizontally. It is most likely to occur in fine grain sands and silts, which behave like viscous fluids
when liquefaction occurs. This situation is extremely hazardous to development on the soils that liquefy,
and generally results in extreme property damage and threats to life and safety.
Local Government:
Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district,
special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments
is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or
agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other
public entity.
Magnitude:
Magnitude is the measure of the strength of an earthquake, and is typically measured by the
Richter scale. As an estimate of energy, each whole number step in the magnitude scale corresponds to the
release of about 31 times more energy than the amount associated with the preceding whole number value.
Mass movement:
A collective term for landslides, mudflows, debris flows, sinkholes and lahars.
Mitigation
: A preventive action that can be taken in advance of an event that will reduce or eliminate the
risk to life or property.
Mitigation Actions
: Mitigation actions are specific actions to achieve goals and objectives that minimize
the effects from a disaster and reduce the loss of life and property.
Bridgeview Consulting A-6 April 2020
APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
Objective
: For the purposes of this plan, an objective is defined as a short-term aim that, when combined
with other objectives, forms a strategy or course of action to meet a goal. Unlike goals, objectives are
specific and measurable.
Peak Ground Acceleration
: Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the highest amplitude of
ground shaking that accompanies an earthquake, based on a percentage of the force of gravity.
Preparedness
: Preparedness refers to actions that strengthen the capability of government, citizens and
communities to respond to disasters.
Presidential Disaster Declaration
: These declarations are typically made for events that cause more
damage than state and local governments and resources can handle without federal government assistance.
Generally, no specific dollar loss threshold has been established for such declarations. A Presidential
Disaster Declaration puts into motion long-term federal recovery programs, some of which are matched by
state programs, designed to help disaster victims, businesses and public entities.
Probability of Occurrence
: The probability of occurrence is a statistical measure or estimate of the
likelihood that a hazard will occur. This probability is generally based on past hazard events in the area and
a forecast of events that could occur in the future. A probability factor based on yearly values of occurrence
is used to estimate probability of occurrence.
Repetitive Loss Property
: Any National Flood Insurance Program-insured property that, since 1978 and
regardless of any changes of ownership during that period, has experienced:
Four or more paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00; or
Two paid flood losses in excess of $1000.00 within any 10-year period since 1978 or
Three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property.
Return Period (or Mean Return Period)
: This term refers to the average period of time in years between
occurrences of a particular hazard (equal to the inverse of the annual frequency of occurrence).
Riverine:
Of or produced by a river. Riverine floodplains have readily identifiable channels. Floodway
maps can only be prepared for riverine floodplains.
Risk
: Risk is the estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities and structures in
a community. Risk measures the likelihood of a hazard occurring and resulting in an adverse condition that
causes injury or damage. Risk is often expressed in relative terms such as a high, moderate or low likelihood
of sustaining damage above a particular threshold due to occurrence of a specific type of hazard. Risk also
can be expressed in terms of potential monetary losses associated with the intensity of the hazard.
Risk Assessment
: Risk assessment is the process of measuring potential loss of life, personal injury,
economic injury, and property damage resulting from hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability of
people, buildings and infrastructure to hazards and focuses on (1) hazard identification; (2) impacts of
hazards on physical, social and economic assets; (3) vulnerability identification; and (4) estimates of the
cost of damage or costs that could be avoided through mitigation.
Risk Ranking
: This ranking serves two purposes, first to describe the probability that a hazard will occur,
and second to describe the impact a hazard will have on people, property and the economy. Risk estimates
Bridgeview Consulting A-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-Wide Elements
for the City are based on the methodology that the City used to prepare the risk assessment for this plan.
The following equation shows the risk ranking calculation:
Risk Ranking = Probability + Impact (people + property + economy)
Robert T. Stafford Act
: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public
Law 100-107, was signed into law on November 23, 1988. This law amended the Disaster Relief Act of
1974, Public Law 93-288. The Stafford Act is the statutory authority for most federal disaster response
activities, especially as they pertain to FEMA and its programs.
Sinkhole:
A collapse depression in the ground with no visible outlet. Its drainage is subterranean. It is
commonly vertical-sided or funnel-shaped.
Special Flood Hazard Area:
The base floodplain delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. The special
flood hazard area is mapped as a Zone A in riverine situations and zone V in coastal situations. The special
flood hazard area may or may not encompass all of a communitys flood problems
Stakeholder:
Business leaders, civic groups, academia, non-profit organizations, major employers,
managers of critical facilities, farmers, developers, special purpose districts, and others whose actions could
impact hazard mitigation.
Stream Bank Erosion
: Stream bank erosion is common along rivers, streams and drains where banks have
been eroded, sloughed or undercut. However, it is important to remember that a stream is a dynamic and
constantly changing system. It is natural for a stream to want to meander, so not all eroding banks are bad
and in need of repair. Generally, stream bank erosion becomes a problem where development has limited
the meandering nature of streams, where streams have been channelized, or where stream bank structures
(like bridges, culverts, etc.) are located in places where they can actually cause damage to downstream
areas. Stabilizing these areas can help protect watercourses from continued sedimentation, damage to
adjacent land uses, control unwanted meander, and improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife.
Steep Slope:
Different communities and agencies define it differently, depending on what it is being
applied to, but generally a steep slope is a slope in which the percent slope equals or exceeds 25%. For this
study, steep slope is defined as slopes greater than 33%.
Sustainable Hazard Mitigation:
This concept includes the sound management of natural resources, local
economic and social resiliency, and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the
largest possible social and economic context.
Thunderstorm
: A thunderstorm is a storm with lightning and thunder produced by cumulonimbus clouds.
Thunderstorms usually produce gusty winds, heavy rains, and sometimes hail. Thunderstorms are usually
short in duration (seldom more than 2 hours). Heavy rains associated with thunderstorms can lead to flash
flooding during the wet or dry seasons.
Tornado
: A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between and in contact with a cloud
and the surface of the earth. Tornadoes are often (but not always) visible as funnel clouds. On a local scale,
tornadoes are the most intense of all atmospheric circulations, and winds can reach destructive speeds of
more than 300 mph. A tornados vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths
can be up to 1 mile wide and 50 miles long.
Vulnerability
: Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible an asset is to damage. Vulnerability
depends on an assets construction and contents and the economic value of its functions. Like indirect
Bridgeview Consulting A-8 April 2020
APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
damages, the vulnerability of one element of the community is often related to the vulnerability of another.
For example, many businesses depend on uninterrupted electrical power. Flooding of an electric substation
would affect not only the substation itself but businesses as well. Often, indirect effects can be much more
widespread and damaging than direct effects.
Watershed
: A watershed is an area that drains downgradient from areas of higher land to areas of lower
land to the lowest point, a common drainage basin.
Wildfire
: These terms refer to any uncontrolled fire occurring on undeveloped land that requires fire
suppression. The potential for wildfire is influenced by three factors: the presence of fuel, topographyand
air mass. Fuel can include living and dead vegetation on the ground, along the surface as brush and small
trees, and in the air such as tree canopies. Topography includes both slope and elevation. Air mass includes
temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation amount, duration, and
the stability of the atmosphere at the time of the fire. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning and, most
frequently, by human activity including smoking, campfires, equipment use and arson.
Windstorm
: Windstorms are generally short-duration events involving straight-line winds or gusts
exceeding 50 mph. These gusts can produce winds of sufficient strength to cause property damage.
Windstorms are especially dangerous in areas with significant tree stands, exposed property, poorly
constructed buildings, mobile homes (manufactured housing units), major infrastructure, and aboveground
utility lines. A windstorm can topple trees and power lines; cause damage to residential, commercial, critical
facilities; and leave tons of debris in its wake.
Zoning Ordinance
: The zoning ordinance designates allowable land use and intensities for a local
jurisdiction. Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning map.
Bridgeview Consulting A-9 April 2020
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX B.
STATUS UPDATE OF 2015 SPOKANE COUNTY ACTION ITEMS
ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
APPENDIX B.
PUBLIC OUTREACH MATERIALS AND RESULTS
Published as a separate document due to size.
Bridgeview Consulting B-1 April 2020
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX C.
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS
APPENDIX C.
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Annual Progress Report
Reporting Period:
(Insert reporting period)
Background:
Spokane County and participating cities and special purpose districts in the county
developed a hazard mitigation plan to reduce risk from all hazards by identifying resources, information,
and strategies for risk reduction. The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires state and local
governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. To
prepare the plan, the participating partners organized resources, assessed risks from natural hazards within
the county, developed planning goals and objectives, reviewed mitigation alternatives, and developed an
action plan to address probable impacts from natural hazards. By completing this process, these
jurisdictions maintained compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act, achieving eligibility for mitigation
grant funding opportunities afforded under the Robert T. Stafford Act. The plan can be viewed on-line at:
http://www.spokanecounty.org/emergencymgmt/content.aspx?c=2238
Summary Overview of the Plans Progress:
The performance period for the Hazard Mitigation
Plan became effective on February 27, 2015, with the final approval of the plan by FEMA. The initial
performance period for this plan will be 5 years, with an anticipated update to the plan to occur before
________ 2025. As of this reporting period, the performance period for this plan is considered to be __%
complete. The Hazard Mitigation Plan has targeted ______ hazard mitigation initiatives to be pursued
during the 5-year performance period. As of the reporting period, the following overall progress can be
reported:
__ initiatives (__%) reported ongoing action toward completion.
__ initiatives (__%) were reported as being complete.
__ initiatives (___%) reported no action taken.
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide an annual update on the implementation of the action
plan identified in the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The objective is to ensure that there is a
continuing and responsive planning process that will keep the Hazard Mitigation Plan dynamic and
responsive to the needs and capabilities of the partner jurisdictions. This report discusses the following:
Natural hazard events that have occurred within the last year
Changes in risk exposure within the planning area (all of Spokane County)
Mitigation success stories
Review of the action plan
Bridgeview Consulting C-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-
Changes in capabilities that could impact plan implementation
Recommendations for changes/enhancement.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan Planning Team:
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, made up
of planning partners and stakeholders within the planning area, reviewed and approved this progress report
at its annual meeting held on _____, 202_. It was determined through the plans development process that
a steering committee would remain in service to oversee maintenance of the plan. At a minimum, the
steering committee will provide technical review and oversight on the development of the annual progress
report. It is anticipated that there will be turnover in the membership annually, which will be documented
in the progress reports. For this reporting period, the steering committee membership is as indicated in
Table 1.
TABLE 1.
PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS
Name Title Jurisdiction/Agency
Natural Hazard Events within the Planning Area:
During the reporting period, there were
______ natural hazard events in the planning area that had a measurable impact on people or property. A
summary of these events is as follows:
__________________________
__________________________
Bridgeview Consulting C-2 April 2020
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Changes in Risk Exposure in the Planning Area:
(Insert brief overview of any natural hazard
event in the planning area that changed the probability of occurrence or ranking of risk for the hazards
addressed in the hazard mitigation plan)
Mitigation Success Stories:
(Insert brief overview of mitigation accomplishments during the
reporting period)
Review of the Action Plan:
Table 2 reviews the action plan, reporting the status of each initiative.
Reviewers of this report should refer to the Hazard Mitigation Plan for more detailed descriptions of each
initiative and the prioritization process.
Address the following in the status column of the following table:
Was any element of the initiative carried out during the reporting period?
If no action was completed, why?
Is the timeline for implementation for the initiative still appropriate?
If the initiative was completed, does it need to be changed or removed from the action plan?
TABLE 2.
ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Action Taken? Status (X,
(Yes or No) Time Line Priority Status O,)
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Bridgeview Consulting C-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-
TABLE 2.
ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Action Taken? Status (X,
(Yes or No) Time Line Priority Status O,)
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Initiative #________________________\[description\]
Completion status legend:
= Project Completed
O = Action ongoing toward completion
X = No progress at this time
Bridgeview Consulting C-4 April 2020
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Changes That May Impact Implementation of the Plan:
(Insert brief overview of any
significant changes in the planning area that would have a profound impact on the implementation of the
plan. Specify any changes in technical, regulatory and financial capabilities identified during the plans
development)
Recommendations for Changes or Enhancements:
Based on the review of this report by the
Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, the following recommendations will be noted for future
updates or revisions to the plan:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Public review notice: The contents of this report are considered to be public knowledge and have been
prepared for total public disclosure. Copies of the report have been provided to the governing boards of
all planning partners and to local media outlets and the report is posted on the Spokane County Hazard
Mitigation Plan website. Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be
directed to:
Gerry Bozarth
Disaster Mitigation & Recovery, PIO
Spokane Department of Emergency Management
1618 N. Rebecca Ave
Spokane, WA, 99217
Phone: 509-477-7613
FAX: (509) 477-5759
Email: GBOZARTH@spokanecounty.org
Bridgeview Consulting C-5 April 2020
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX D.
ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS FROM PLANNING PARTNERS
APPENDIX D
PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS
To Be Provided With Final Release
Bridgeview Consulting D-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1Planning-Area-
Spokane County
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VOLUME 2: PLANNING PARTNER ANNEXES
April 2020
Final Approved
Prepared for:
Spokane County Department of Emergency Management
1121 W. Gardner
Spokane, WA 99201
Prepared by:
"±¨£¦¤µ¨¤¶ #®²´«³¨¦Ǿ ,,#
ΘΐΔ .®±³§ , ´±¤« , ¤
4 ¢®¬ Ǿ 7 ²§¨¦³® ΘΗΓΏΕ
ΑΔΒȁΒΏΐȁΐΒΒΏ
i
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Planning Partner Participation ............................................................................1-1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 The Planning Partnership ..................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Annex-Preparation Process .................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.4 Compatibility with Previous Regional Hazard Plan ............................................................................ 1-6
1.4.12020 Level of Participation ................................................................................................. 1-6
Chapter 2. City of Airway Heights Annex .............................................................................2-1
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ........................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Community Profile ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Hazard Event History ........................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.6 National Flood Insurance Information ................................................................................................. 2-4
2.6.1Regulatory Capability ......................................................................................................... 2-5
2.6.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ......................................................................... 2-7
2.6.3Fiscal Capability ................................................................................................................. 2-8
2.6.4Community Classifications ................................................................................................. 2-9
2.7 Hazard Risk and Vulerability Ranking ................................................................................................ 2-9
2.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................ 2-10
2.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .......................................................................................................... 2-10
2.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................. 2-11
2.11 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives ................................................................................................... 2-12
Chapter 3. City of Cheney Annex Update .............................................................................3-1
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ........................................................................ 3-1
3.3 Community Profile ............................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Hazard Event History ........................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.5 Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.6 National Flood Insurance Information ................................................................................................. 3-3
3.6.1Regulatory Capability ......................................................................................................... 3-4
3.6.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ......................................................................... 3-6
3.6.3Fiscal Capability ................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.6.4Community Classifications ................................................................................................. 3-8
3.7 Hazard Risk and Vulerability Ranking ................................................................................................ 3-8
3.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................................... 3-9
3.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ............................................................................................................ 3-9
3.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................. 3-12
3.11 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives ................................................................................................... 3-13
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 4. City of Deer Park Annex ......................................................................................4-1
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ........................................................................ 4-1
4.3 Community Profile ............................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Hazard Event History ........................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.5 Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.6 National Flood Insurance Information ................................................................................................. 4-4
4.6.1Regulatory Capability ......................................................................................................... 4-4
4.6.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ......................................................................... 4-6
4.6.3Fiscal Capability ................................................................................................................. 4-7
4.6.4Community Classifications ................................................................................................. 4-8
4.7 Hazard Risk and Vulerability Ranking ................................................................................................ 4-8
4.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................ 4-10
4.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .......................................................................................................... 4-10
4.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................. 4-12
4.11 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives ................................................................................................... 4-13
Chapter 5. City of Liberty Lake Annex ..................................................................................5-1
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ........................................................................ 5-1
5.3 Community Profile ............................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.4 Hazard Event History ........................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.5 Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.6 National Flood Insurance Information ................................................................................................. 5-3
5.6.1Regulatory Capability ......................................................................................................... 5-4
5.6.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ......................................................................... 5-6
5.6.3Fiscal Capability ................................................................................................................. 5-7
5.6.4Community Classifications ................................................................................................. 5-8
5.7 Hazard Risk and Vulerability Ranking ................................................................................................ 5-8
5.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................ 5-10
5.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .......................................................................................................... 5-10
5.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................. 5-12
5.11 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives ................................................................................................... 5-13
5.12 Additional Comments ...................................................................................................................... 5-14
Chapter 6. City of Medical Lake Annex .................................................................................6-1
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning team point(s) of contact .......................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Community Profile ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.4 Hazard Event History ........................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.5 Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 6-3
6.5.1National Flood Insurance Information ................................................................................ 6-3
6.5.2Regulatory Capability ......................................................................................................... 6-4
6.5.3Administrative and Technical Capability ............................................................................ 6-6
6.5.4Fiscal Capability ................................................................................................................. 6-8
6.5.5Community Classifications ................................................................................................. 6-8
6.6 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .............................................................................................. 6-9
6.7 Mitigation Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................ 6-10
6.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan .......................................................................................................... 6-10
6.9 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................... 6-11
6.10 Hazard Area Extent and Location .................................................................................................... 6-11
iii
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Chapter 7. City of Spokane Valley Annex Update ................................................................7-1
7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ........................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Community Profile ............................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.4 Hazard Event History ........................................................................................................................... 7-4
7.5 Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 7-5
7.6 National Flood Insurance Information ................................................................................................. 7-5
7.6.1Regulatory Capability ......................................................................................................... 7-6
7.6.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ......................................................................... 7-8
7.7 Community Classifications ................................................................................................................ 7-10
7.9 Mitigation Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................ 7-12
7.10 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 7-12
7.11 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................. 7-15
7.13 Hazard Area Extent and Location .................................................................................................... 7-17
Chapter 8. Town of Fairfield Annex ......................................................................................8-1
8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning team point(s) of contact .......................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Community Profile ............................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.4 Hazard Event History ........................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.5 Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.6 National Flood Insurance Information ................................................................................................. 8-3
8.6.1Regulatory Capability ......................................................................................................... 8-4
8.6.2Administrative and Technical Capability ............................................................................ 8-5
8.6.3Fiscal Capability ................................................................................................................. 8-7
8.6.4Community Classifications ................................................................................................. 8-8
8.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .............................................................................................. 8-8
8.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................................... 8-9
8.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ............................................................................................................ 8-9
8.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................. 8-10
8.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/ Vulnerability .................................................................. 8-11
8.12 Hazard Area Extent and Location .................................................................................................... 8-11
Chapter 9. Newman Lake Flood Control Zone District Annex ............................................9-1
9.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact ........................................................................ 9-1
9.3 District Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 9-2
9.4 Hazard Event History ........................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans ........................................................................................................ 9-3
9.5.1Regulatory Capability ......................................................................................................... 9-4
9.5.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ......................................................................... 9-4
9.5.3Fiscal Capability ................................................................................................................. 9-6
9.5.4Community Classification ................................................................................................... 9-6
9.6 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .............................................................................................. 9-7
9.7 Mitigation Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................................... 9-9
9.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ............................................................................................................ 9-9
9.9 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ............................................................................................... 9-11
9.10 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives ................................................................................................... 9-12
Chapter 10. Spokane Conservation District Annex ........................................................... 10-1
10.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(S) of Contact ................................................................... 10-1
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.3 District Profile .................................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.4 Hazard Event History ....................................................................................................................... 10-4
10.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans.................................................................................................... 10-5
10.5.1Regulatory Capability ....................................................................................................... 10-5
10.5.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ....................................................................... 10-5
10.5.3Fiscal Capability ............................................................................................................... 10-7
10.6 Community Classification ............................................................................................................... 10-8
10.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .......................................................................................... 10-8
10.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 10-11
10.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ...................................................................................................... 10-11
10.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ......................................................................................... 10-12
Chapter 11. Spokane County Fire District #3 Annex ......................................................... 11-1
11.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(S) of Contact ................................................................... 11-1
11.2.10District Profile ................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.3 Hazard Event History ....................................................................................................................... 11-3
11.4 Applicable Regulations and Plans.................................................................................................... 11-3
11.4.1Regulatory Capability ....................................................................................................... 11-4
11.4.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ....................................................................... 11-4
11.4.3Fiscal Capability ............................................................................................................... 11-6
11.5 Community Classification ............................................................................................................... 11-6
11.6 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .......................................................................................... 11-7
11.7 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 11-9
11.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 11-9
11.9 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ........................................................................................... 11-10
11.10 Additional Comments .................................................................................................................. 11-11
Chapter 12. Spokane County Fire District #4 Annex ......................................................... 12-1
12.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(S) of Contact ................................................................... 12-1
12.3 District Profile .................................................................................................................................. 12-1
12.4 Hazard Event History ....................................................................................................................... 12-3
12.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans.................................................................................................... 12-4
12.5.1Regulatory Capability ....................................................................................................... 12-4
12.5.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ....................................................................... 12-5
12.5.3Fiscal Capability ............................................................................................................... 12-6
12.6 Community Classification ............................................................................................................... 12-7
12.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .......................................................................................... 12-8
12.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 12-9
12.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ...................................................................................................... 12-10
12.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ......................................................................................... 12-10
Chapter 13. Spokane County Fire District #5 Annex ......................................................... 13-1
13.3 District Profile .................................................................................................................................. 13-1
13.4 Hazard Event History ....................................................................................................................... 13-3
13.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans.................................................................................................... 13-3
13.5.1Regulatory Capability ....................................................................................................... 13-4
13.5.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ....................................................................... 13-5
13.5.3Fiscal Capability ............................................................................................................... 13-6
13.5.4Community Classification ................................................................................................. 13-7
13.6 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .......................................................................................... 13-7
v
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
13.7 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 13-9
13.8 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 13-9
13.9 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ........................................................................................... 13-11
13.10 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk ...................................................................................... 13-12
13.11 Additional Comments .................................................................................................................. 13-12
Chapter 14. Spokane County Fire District #8 Annex ......................................................... 14-1
14.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14-1
14.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(S) of Contact ................................................................... 14-1
14.3 District Profile .................................................................................................................................. 14-2
14.4 Hazard Event History ....................................................................................................................... 14-3
14.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans.................................................................................................... 14-4
14.5.1Regulatory Capability ....................................................................................................... 14-4
14.5.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ....................................................................... 14-5
14.5.3Fiscal Capability ............................................................................................................... 14-6
14.6 Community Classification ............................................................................................................... 14-7
14.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .......................................................................................... 14-7
14.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 14-10
14.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ...................................................................................................... 14-10
14.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ......................................................................................... 14-12
Chapter 15. Spokane County Fire District #10 Annex ....................................................... 15-1
15.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 15-1
15.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(S) of Contact ................................................................... 15-1
15.3 District Profile .................................................................................................................................. 15-2
15.4 Hazard Event History ....................................................................................................................... 15-5
15.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans.................................................................................................... 15-6
15.5.1Regulatory Capability ....................................................................................................... 15-6
15.5.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ....................................................................... 15-7
15.5.3Fiscal Capability ............................................................................................................... 15-8
15.6 Community Classification ............................................................................................................... 15-9
15.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking ........................................................................................ 15-10
15.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 15-12
15.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ...................................................................................................... 15-12
15.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ......................................................................................... 15-13
15.11 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/ Vulnerability .............................................................. 15-14
Chapter 16. Spokane Valley Fire Department Annex Update ............................................ 16-1
16.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 16-1
16.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Point(s) of Contact .................................................................... 16-1
16.3 District Profile .................................................................................................................................. 16-1
16.4 Hazard Event History ....................................................................................................................... 16-3
16.5 Applicable Regulations and Plans.................................................................................................... 16-3
16.5.1Regulatory Capability ....................................................................................................... 16-4
16.5.2Administrative and Technical Capabilities ....................................................................... 16-5
16.5.3Fiscal Capability ............................................................................................................... 16-6
16.6 Community Classification ............................................................................................................... 16-7
16.7 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking .......................................................................................... 16-7
16.8 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 16-9
16.9 Hazard Mitigation Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 16-9
16.10 Prioritization of Mitigation Initiatives ......................................................................................... 16-10
16.11 Status of Previous Plan Initiatives ............................................................................................... 16-11
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
16.12 Future Needs to Better Understand Risk/ Vulnerability .............................................................. 16-12
16.13 Additional Comments .................................................................................................................. 16-12
Appendices
A. Planning Partner Expectations
B. Procedures for Linking to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
vii
CHAPTER 1.
PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages multi-jurisdictional planning for hazard
mitigation. Such planning efforts require all participating jurisdictions to fully participate in the process and
formally adopt the resulting planning document. Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR)
states:
-jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as
(Section 201.6.a (4))
In the preparation of the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, a Planning Partnership was
formed to leverage resources and to meet requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
(DMA) for as many eligible local governments in Spokane County as possible. The DMA defines a local
government as follows:
district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of
governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate
government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or
authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural
There are two types of Planning Partners in this process, with distinct needs and capabilities:
Incorporated municipalities (cities and the County)
Special purpose districts.
1.2 THE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP
Initial Solicitation and Letters of Intent
The planning team solicited the participation of cities in the County and all County-recognized special
purpose districts at the outset of this project. A meeting was held on May 22, 2019 at Northern Quest Casino
Conference Facilities to introduce the planning process to jurisdictions in the County that could have a stake
in the outcome of the planning effort. All eligible local governments within the planning area were invited
to attend. Various agency and citizen stakeholders were also invited to this meeting. The goals of the
meeting were as follows:
Provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act.
Provide an update on the planning grant.
Outline work plan for the Spokane County hazard mitigation plan update.
Describe the benefits of multi-jurisdictional planning.
Solicit planning partners.
Confirm a Planning Team.
Bridgeview Consulting 1-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
All interested local governments were provided with a list of planning partner expectations developed by
the planning team and were informed of the obligations required for participation. Local governments
nd designate a point of contact for their
jurisdiction. In all, formal commitment was received from 22 planning partners (including the County), and
the Spokane County Planning Partnership was formed.
Planning Partner Expectations
The Planning Partnership developed the following list of Planning Partner Expectations, which were
confirmed at the kickoff meeting held on May 22, 2019:
Each partner will support and participate in the development of the update.
Each partner will provide support for the public involvement strategy in the form of mailing
lists, possible meeting space, and media outreach such as newsletters, newspapers or direct-
mailed brochures.
Each partner will participate in plan update development activities such as:
Planning Team meetings
Public meetings or open houses
Workshops and planning partner training sessions
Public review and comment periods prior to adoption.
Attendance at such activities will be tracked to document participation for each planning
partner. A minimum level of participation was established and identified in the Letters of Intent
to Participate team to ensure equitable involvement.
cal studies, plans,
and ordinances specific to hazards identified within the planning area to determine the
existence of plans, studies or ordinances not consistent with the equivalent documents reviewed
in preparation of the County plan. For example: if a planning partner has a floodplain
basin plans, that plan will need to be reviewed for probable incorporation into the plan for the
Each partner will be expected to review the risk assessment and identify hazards and
vulnerabilities specific to its jurisdiction. Contract resources will provide jurisdiction-specific
mapping and technical consultation to aid in this task, but the determination of risk and
vulnerability will be up to each partner.
Each partner will be expected to review the mitigation recommendations chosen for the overall
county and determine if they will meet the needs of its jurisdiction. Projects within each
jurisdiction consistent with the overall plan recommendations will need to be identified,
prioritized and reviewed to determine their benefits and costs.
Each partner will be required to create its own action plan that identifies each project, who will
oversee the task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur.
Each partner will be required to participate in at least one public meeting to present the draft
plan, in addition to participation in the public outreach strategy of identifying risk to the
community.
Bridgeview Consulting 1-2 April 2020
PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION
Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan.
Each planning partner agrees to the plan implementation and maintenance protocol established
in Volume 1.
Failure to meet these criteria may result in a partner being dropped from the partnership, and thus losing
eligibility under the scope of this plan.
Linkage Procedures
Eligible local jurisdictions that did not participate in development of this hazard mitigation plan update may
comply with DMA requirements in the future by linking to this plan following the procedures outlined in
Appendix B.
1.3 ANNEX-PREPARATION PROCESS
Templates
Templates were created to help the Planning Partners prepare their jurisdiction-specific annexes. Since
special purpose districts operate differently from incorporated municipalities, separate templates were
created for the two types of jurisdictions. The templates were created so that all criteria of Section 201.6 of
44
to participate in a technical assistance workshop during which key elements of the template were completed
by a designated point of contact for each partner and a member of the planning team. The templates were
set up to lead each partner through a series of steps that would generate the DMA-required elements that
are specific for each partner. Copies of the various templates and their associated instructions are available
from Spokane County Emergency Management.
Workshop
Workshops were held for Planning Partners to learn about the templates and the overall planning process.
Topics included the following:
DMA
Spokane County plan background
The templates
Risk ranking
Developing your action plan
Cost/benefit review.
The sessions provided technical assistance and an overview of the template completion process. Attendance
at this workshop was mandatory under the planning partner expectations established in the Letters of Intent
to Participate.
In the risk-ranking exercise, each planning partner was asked to rank each risk specifically for its
jurisdiction, based on the impact on its population or facilities. Cities were asked to base this ranking on
probability of occurrence and the potential impact on people, property and the economy. Special purpose
districts were asked to base this ranking on probability of occurrence and the potential impact on their
that used for the countywide risk ranking presented in Volume 1. A principal objective of this exercise was
Bridgeview Consulting 1-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
to familiarize the partnership with how to use the risk assessment as a tool to support other planning and
hazard mitigation processes. Tools utilized during these sessions included the following:
The risk assessment results developed for this plan;
Hazard maps for all hazards of concern;
Special district boundary maps that illustrated the sphere of influence for each special purpose
district partner;
Mitigation Catalog;
Federal funding and technical assistance catalogs; and
Prioritization
44 CFR requires actions identified in the action plan to be prioritized (Section 201.c.3.iii). The planning
team developed a methodology for prioritizing the action plans that meets the needs of the partnership and
the requirements of 44 CFR. The methodology followed that used for the countywide prioritization of
strategies/action items as presented in Volume 1 and include the following criteria:
High Priority
Project meets multiple plan objectives, benefits exceed cost, funding is secured
under existing programs, or is grant eligible, and project can be completed in 1 to 5 years (i.e., short
term project) once funded.
Medium Priority
Project meets at least 1 plan objective, benefits exceed costs, requires special
funding authorization under existing programs, grant eligibility is questionable, and project can be
completed in 1 to 5 years once funded.
Low Priority
Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not
been secured, project is not grant eligible, and timeline for completion is long term (5 to 10 years).
These priority definitions are dynamic and can change from one category to another based on changes to a
parameter such as availability of funding. For example, a project might be assigned a medium priority
because of the uncertainty of a funding source, but be changed to high once a funding source has been
identified. The prioritization schedule for this plan will be reviewed and updated as needed annually through
the plan maintenance strategy.
Benefit/Cost Review
44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan to emphasize a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed
actions. Because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, benefit/cost analysis was
qualitative and not of the detail required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. A review of the apparent
benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning
subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to costs and benefits as follows:
Cost ratings:
High
Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action;
implementation would require an increase in revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds,
grants, and fee increases).
Medium
The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re-
apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread
over multiple years.
Bridgeview Consulting 1-4 April 2020
PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION
Low
The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of
an existing, ongoing program.
Benefit ratings:
High
The action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and
property.
Medium
The action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and
property or will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.
Low
Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term.
Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over
medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly.
It should be noted that for many of the strategies identified in this action plan, funding might be sought
require detailed benefit/cost analysis as
part of the application process. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application
preparation, using the FEMA benefit-cost model. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant
pro
parameters that meet their needs and the goals and objectives of this plan.
Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives
Each planning partner reviewed its recommended initiatives to classify each initiative based on the hazard
it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as
follows:
Prevention
Government, administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and
buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses. Includes planning and zoning, floodplain laws,
capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management
regulations.
Property Protection
Modification of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard
or removal of structures from a hazard area. Includes acquisition, elevation, relocation,
structural retrofit, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass.
Public Education and Awareness
Actions to inform citizens and elected officials about
hazards and ways to mitigate them. Includes outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard
information centers, and school-age and adult education.
Natural Resource Protection
Actions that minimize hazard loss and preserve or restore the
functions of natural systems. Includes sediment and erosion control, stream corridor
restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland
restoration and preservation.
Emergency Services / Response
Actions that protect people and property during and
immediately after a hazard event. Includes warning systems, emergency response services, and
the protection of essential facilities.
Structural Projects
Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact
of a hazard. Includes dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe rooms.
Recovery
Actions that involve the construction or re-construction of structures in such a
way as to reduce the impact of a hazard, or that assist in rebuilding or re-establishing a
community after a disaster incident. It also includes advance planning to address recovery
Bridgeview Consulting 1-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
efforts which will take place after a disaster. Efforts are focused on re-establishing the planning
region in such a way as enhance resiliency and reduce impacts to future incidents. Recovery
differs from response, which occurs during, or immediately after an incident. Recovery views
long-range, sustainable efforts.
Benefit
: By who the strategy benefits:
A specific structure or facility;
A local community;
County-level efforts;
Regional level benefits.
1.4 COMPATIBILITY WITH PREVIOUS REGIONAL HAZARD PLAN
Three jurisdictions participated in the 2007 Spokane County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard Mitigation
planning effort: Spokane County, and the cities of Cheney, Spokane, and Spokane Valley. For the 2015
update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, an original 13 planning partners committed to completing their annex
template; however, only 10 and the County fully met the participation requirements identified.
1.4.1 2020 Level of Participation
For the 2020 Update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, 16 planning partners participated (including the
County), as identified in Volume 1, Table 2-1. The remaining jurisdictions will need to follow the linkage
procedures described in Appendix B of this volume.
Bridgeview Consulting 1-6 April 2020
CHAPTER 2.
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS ANNEX
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Airway Heights, a
participating jurisdiction to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended
to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base
plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural
requirements apply to and were met by the City of Airway Heights. For planning purposes, this Annex
provides additional information specific to the jurisdiction, with a focus on providing greater details on the
risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this community only. This document serves as an update to the
previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as
appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1.
2.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The City of Airway Heights followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In
City of Airway Heights also
formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting
in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Mitch Metzger, Fire Chief Meeting attendance, planning
1208 S Lundstrom St team facilitator; authoring of plan;
Primary Point of Contact
Airway Heights WA 99001 capturing of information; conduct
Telephone: 509 244-3322 public outreach with council and
e-mail: mmetzger@cawh.org citizens during Council meetings;
present final plan to Council for
adoption.
Nate Whannell, Deputy Chief Alternate Point of Contact Meeting attendance; author
1208 S Lundstrom St portions of plan; capture
Airway Heights WA 99001 information; assist with risk
Telephone: 509 244-3322 ranking and capabilities
e-mail: nwhannell@cawh.org
assessment.
2.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
Date of Incorporation
April 19, 1955
Current Population
9,200 as of October 2019 (estimate)
Bridgeview Consulting 2-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Population Growth
Growth in the city was spurred by the opening of the Airway
Heights Correction Center by the Washington State Department of Corrections in 1992
and the opening of the Northern Quest Resort & Casino by the Kalispel Indian Tribe
in 2000. More recently, with the addition of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter, several new
apartment buildings and housing developments, and the expansion of the Northern
Quest Casino, Airway Heights is continuing to grow. Also, the Spokane County
Raceway Park is located in Airway Heights, and features major automobile events,
including drag racing, stock car racing, and occasional monster truck shows. The recent
growth trend is approximately 4 percent per year.
Location and Description
Airway Heights is located at 47°3837N
117°3511W. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area
of 5.63 square miles, all of it land. The community lies in the northeastern corner of
the Columbia Plateau. While the plateau tends to be flat, the terrain locally is rugged
its location at a higher elevation than the city center of Spokane. Traveling into Airway
Heights along Highway 2, the main road into the city, from Downtown Spokane, one
will climb over 500 feet. Highway 2 is the main east-west thoroughfare in the city. It
connects Airway Heights with Fairchild to the west and Spokane to the east. Interstate
90 runs just a few miles south of the city.
Brief History
Airway Heights celebrated its 50-year history June 14, 2005. Carl
M. and Flora K. Lundstrom were the first to plat the land and donate parcels for initial
city building. They worked for incorporation in 1955. The Lundstroms worked in real
estate in Seattle and Electric City in the early 1940s and owned Rocket Investment
Company. Discussions with officials at Galena Air Depot (which later became
Fairchild Air Force Base) showed the need for local housing.
In the spring of 1942, they started installation of the electric and water systems in
Airway Heights and sold some parcels of land to build houses. The Lundstroms built
the first home at the corner of Lundstrom and 13th.
In 1942, Fritz Ziegler and his wife became the first residents. Their son, Les was the
first baby born in Airway Heights. Development was slow because availability of
building materials and financing was low, and occasional opposition was high. In
August 1946, the Lundstroms filed their plats for the Airway Heights first and second
addition and streets were named for town residents. In 1957, they filed the plat for the
third addition.
The first post office opened and Mollie Mitchell was postmistress from 1948 to 1969
when the new post office was dedicated. In 1946, the Lofflers built the Airway
Heights Motel - the first in town. The Lundstroms donated parcels of land over time
to help build the communityland for the first Sunset School in 1951, the Airway
Community Church in 1954, town hall in 1957 and the fire department in 1963. The
first Sunset School was east of town and is now an apartment building. Church,
community gatherings and dances were all held at the old school. The volunteer fire
department was organized in 1963 and the building housed the fire truck.
On April 15, 1955 after paying a $5 incorporation fee, and receiving a positive 50-8
vote, one square mile was incorporated as the City of Airway Heights, with 412
residents. The intersection of Lundstrom and 14th was the original town center for
Bridgeview Consulting 2-2 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
house numbering which was laid out by the Spokane County Planning Commission
who issued all building permits until incorporation.
Carl Lundstrom ran unopposed as the first mayor and held office for 7 years. Flora
Lundstrom served on city council for 7 years and helped at town hall. Council meetings
were held at the Sunset School and later a house on Lundstrom Street. In 1956, local
residents voted to purchase the water system from August Timm to operate the town
utility. In 1973, the 135-foot water tower was built, and in 1991, the state department
of corrections chose Airway Heights for a minimum and medium security prison.
Climate:
Average Daily High Temperature: 58.5ºF
Average Daily Low Temperature: 39.6ºF
Record High Temperature: 108ºF on 8/4/1961 and 7/26/1928
Record Low Temperature: 30ºF on 1/15-16/1888
Average Annual Precipitation: 21.32 inches
Record High Annual Precipitation: 26.07 inches in 1948
Record Low Annual Precipitation: 7.55 inches in 1929
Average Annual Snowfall: 51.8 inches
Record High Annual Snowfall: 132.6 inches in 2008
Earliest Recorded Freezing Date: 9/11/1889
Latest Recorded Freezing Date: 5/25/1964
Average wind speed: 8.3 mph
Highest wind speed: 48 mph
Highest gust speed: 58 mph
Governing Body Format
The citizens of Airway Heights voted change from a mayor-
council form of government to a council-manager form of government in November 2000.
Under this form of government, the mayor presides at meetings of the City Council. In addition
to the powers conferred upon him as mayor, he continues to have the rights, privileges and
immunities of a member of City Council. The mayor is recognized as the head of the city for
ceremonial purposes and by the governor for purposes of military law and has no regular
administrative duties.
Development Trends
Trends in development have been spurred by development of
supporting housing. Commercial growth has been slow with potential development to more
retail space next year.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Economy
The City ofAirway Heights economic base consists of retail sales and services;
and light manufacturing. The largest employers include: Exotic Metals; Zac Designs and
both tribes.
The jurisdiction boundaries are identified in the map below.
2.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the jurisdiction or there are hazards which are unique to the jurisdiction as follows. Table 2-
1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. If available, dollar loss data is also
included.
TABLE 2-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Severe Weather DR-1825 3/2/2009 $1000
2.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-capabilities with respect to
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
National Flood Insurance Information; regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative
and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going
mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation, and classifications under various community
programs.
2.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION
ational Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in
Table 2-2 the NFIP.
Repetitive flood loss records are as follows:
Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: 0
Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: 0
Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been
Mitigated: 0
Bridgeview Consulting 2-4 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
TABLE 2-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE
What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? None.
(department/position) N/A
Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? No
What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? N/A
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community N/A
Assistance Contact?
To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP No
compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes
community? (If no, please state why)
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support N/A
its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance/training is
needed?
Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, Yes, No, No
is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your
community interested in joining the CRS program?
2.6.1 Regulatory Capability
Table 2-3. This includes
planning and land management tools, typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation
activities and indicates those that are currently in place.
TABLE 2-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code X X AHMC, Title 15 adopts the WA State
Building Code
Zoning Ordinance X AHMC, Title 17, adopted 12/17/2012
Subdivision Ordinance X X AHMC, Title 16, adopted 4/2007
Floodplain Ordinance AHMC, Title 16, Chapter 16.08, adopted
2007
Stormwater Management X X AHMC, Title 16, Chapter 16.08
Real Estate Disclosure X WA State Disclosure Law (RCW 64.06)
Growth Management X AHMC Title 17, Chapter 17.02 adopts
City Comprehensive plan -2008
Site Plan Review X AHMC, Title 16, Chapter 16.06-2007
Bridgeview Consulting 2-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 2-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Public Health and Safety X AHMC, Title 8, Adopted 12/17/2012
Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance X AHMC, Title 18, adopted 12/17/2012
(stormwater, steep slope, wildfire,
etc.)
Environmental Protection AHMC, Title 15 adopts the WA State
Building Code, 12/17/2012
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive Plan
Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan?
No
Stormwater Plan County Plan
Capital Improvement Plan Yes
Habitat Conservation Plan As part of SEPA
Shoreline Management Plan N/A
Community Wildfire Protection Yes Countywide Plan
Plan
Transportation Plan County Plan
Response/Recovery Planning
Comprehensive Emergency Spokane County DEM
Management Plan
Threat and Hazard Identification Yes, through the County and HLS Region.
and Risk Assessment
Terrorism Plan Spokane County DEM
Continuity of Operations Plan X
Public Health Plans X
Boards and Commission
Planning Commission X
Mitigation Planning Committee Yes. The City of Airway Heights was
part of the 2020 Spokane County HMP
Update Planning Team, and will remain
an active participant during the lifecycle
of the plan.
Maintenance programs to reduce X
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing
drainage systems, chipping, etc.)
Mutual Aid Agreements / X
Memorandums of Understanding
Other
Bridgeview Consulting 2-6 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
2.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 2-4. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 2-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land YES Planning/ Dept Head
development and land management practices
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure YES Building / Dept Head/Fire Dept
construction practices (building officials, fire
inspectors, etc.)
Engineers specializing in construction practices? YES Public Works
Planners or engineers with an understanding of
natural hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis YES Clerk/Treasurer
Surveyors NO
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications NO
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area NO
Emergency Manager YES Fire Dept
Grant writers NO
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor YES County
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?)
Hazard data and information available to public YES The Mitigation Plan will be available via the
Maintain Elevation Certificates YES Public Works
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations NO
focused on emergency preparedness?
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations NO
focused on environmental protection?
Organization focused on individuals with access NO
and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program YES Fire Dept
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? YES Fire Dept
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing NO
disaster-related issues?
Bridgeview Consulting 2-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 2-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? YES Spokane County DEM has a multi-season awareness
program which is available to Airway Heights
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program NO
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other YES Code Enforcement
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils NO
Chipper program YES Spokane Conservation District
Defensible space inspections program YES Spokane Conservation District
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance NO
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program NO
Erosion or sediment control program NO
Address signage for property addresses YES Spokane Conservation District
Other
2.6.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 2-5. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 2-5
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or Eligible
Financial Resources to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Other Yes
Bridgeview Consulting 2-8 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
2.6.4 Community Classifications
hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 2-6. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community.
TABLE 2-6
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No or
Classification) Date Enrolled
Protection Class 4 July 2012
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 5 July 2012
(Commercial)
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 5 July 2012
(Dwelling)
Storm Ready Yes County
Firewise No
Tsunami Ready (if applicable) N/A
2.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULERABILITY RANKING
internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have
identified the hazards that affect the City ofAirway Heights, computing their Calculated Priority Risk Index
(CPRI) scores as follows:
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Climate Change 2 2 2 4 4 2.4
Drought 2 2 2 4 4 2.4
Earthquake 2 2 2 4 1 2.25
Flood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landslide 0 0 0 0 0 0
Severe Weather 3 3 3 1 3 2.7
Volcano 2 2 3 2 2 2.2
Wildfire 2 2 2 4 2 2.3
st
hazardous situation.
Table 2-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Bridgeview Consulting 2-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
TABLE 2-7
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Vulnerability
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Rank
1 Severe Weather 2.70 Medium
2 Climate Change 2.40 Medium
2 Drought 2.40 Medium
3 Wildfire 2.30 Medium
3 Earthquake 2.25 Low
4 Volcano 2.20 Low
5 Flood NR NR
6 Landslide NR NR
2.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City ofAirway Heights adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning
Team described in Volume 1.
2.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the jurisdiction identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, . Table 2-8 lists the
azard mitigation plan. Background information and
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-10 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
TABLE 2-8
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Previous Emergency Services,
Timeline
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE #1 Continue public outreach efforts to provide hazard information developed as a result of the HMP with
community members.
New All All Fire Low General Long-Term Yes Public Information, Local
Fund Emergency Service
INITIATIVE #2
Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan.
New & All 1, 4, 8 Fire Low General Short Term Yes Public Information, Local and
Existing Fund Emergency County
Services
INITIATIVE #3
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances or programs to dictate land uses within the
jurisdiction.
New & All 2, 3, 4, 5, Airway Low Local Short-Term Yes Preventive Local
Existing 11 Heights Activities
Planning
Department
INITIATIVE #4
Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP.
New & Wildfire 1, 2, 3, 4, Spokane Medium Local, Short-Term Yes Preventive Local,
Existing 5, 7, 8, 9, Conservation Fire Activities, County
10, 11, District, all Grants, Structural, Natural
12 County Fire HMGP, Resource
Districts PDM Protection
INITIATIVE #5
capability to enforce its codes and regulations that result in
decreased risk exposure of new development.
New All 4, 5, 11 Airway Low Local Short-Term Yes Preventive Local
Heights Activities,
Building Structural, Natural
Department Resource
Protection
2.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 2-9 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 2-9
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
1 All H L Y N Y H
2 3 H L Y N Y H
3 5 H L Y N Y H
4 11 H M Y Y Some H
5 3 H L Y N Y H
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
2.11 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES
Table 2-10 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
TABLE 2-10
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
1.
Continue to support the countywide
The City has continued to work with the x
initiatives identified in this plan.
County and local planning partners in
supporting the initiatives of this plan.
2.
Actively participate in the plan
The City was a planning team member for x x
maintenance strategy identified in this
the 2020 update, and completed its annex
template and all planning requirements to
plan.
maintain an active level of participation.
3.
Where appropriate, support retrofitting,
While the City feels this is a good initiative, x
purchase, or relocation of structures
at present, it lacks the funding to take such
actions, and therefore is removing it from
located in hazard-prone areas to protect
the 2020 update.
structures from future damage, with
properties with exposure to repetitive
losses as a priority.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-12 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
TABLE 2-10
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
4.
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into
Carried forward. As the City updates its x
other plans, ordinances or programs to
codes, etc., it does take the HMP risk
assessment into consideration.
dictate land uses within the jurisdiction.
5.
Implement wildfire mitigation
x
recommendations identified in the
Spokane County CWPP.
6.
Continue to maintain and/or enhance the
Carried forward. As the City updates its x
codes, etc., it does take the HMP risk
assessment into consideration.
regulations that result in decreased risk
exposure of new development.
7.
Consider, where appropriate, the adoption
x
of higher regulatory standards that will
result in an increase in the community
resilience of new development.
Bridgeview Consulting 2-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 2-14 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
Bridgeview Consulting 2-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 2-16 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
Bridgeview Consulting 2-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 2-18 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
Bridgeview Consulting 2-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 2-20 April 2020
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS
Bridgeview Consulting 2-21 April 2020
CHAPTER 3.
CITY OF CHENEY ANNEX UPDATE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Cheney, a participating
jurisdiction to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended to be a
standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan
document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural
requirements apply to and were met by the City of Cheney. For planning purposes, this Annex provides
additional information specific to the jurisdiction, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk
assessment and mitigation strategy for this community only. This document serves as an update to the
previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as
appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1.
3.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The City of Cheney followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to
internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex
development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Thomas Jenkins, Fire Chief
Meeting attendance, planning
Primary Point of Contact
611 4 th Street
Cheney, WA 99004
planning team; authoring of plan;
Telephone: (509) 498-9291
capturing of information; conduct
e-mail: tjenkins@cityocheney.org
public outreach with council and
citizens during Council meetings;
capturing of status of previous
plan initiatives; present final plan
to Council for adoption;
committee member for Spokane
County HMP Team.
Susan Beeman, Administrative
Meeting attendance; assistance
Alternate Point of Contact
Secretary
with authoring portions of plan;
112 Anderson Rd.
capture information; assist with
Cheney, WA 99004
risk ranking and capturing of
Telephone: (509) 498-9240
information for capabilities
e-mail:
assessment and strategy update.
sbeeman@cityofcheney.org
Update of profile.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
3.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
Date of Incorporation
November 28, 1883
Current Population
12,403 as of 2019 (est.)
Population Growth
The City of Cheney is predominantly urban, with a 12.5-percent
population increase between 2010-2019.
Location and Description
The City of Cheney is at the highest point on the railroads
between Spokane and Portland, and sits atop the route of gentlest gradient from the Spokane
Valley to the Columbia Plateau, which was the reason for much of its early growth and
railroad activity. The town is built on rolling Palouse hills overlooking channeled scablands
carved out by the pre-historic Missoula Floods to the south and east. These scablands now
host pothole lakes and wetlands and are home to Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge.
Numerous lakes, along with the Spokane River and Little Spokane River, are located within
20 miles of Cheney
Brief History
The name of the community, originally Section Thirteen, became Willow
Springs, then became Depot Springs, because of its ties to the railroad, then Billings, in honor
of a president of the Northern Pacific Company, and finally Cheney, in honor of Benjamin P.
Cheney, a Director of the Northern Pacific Railroad. In 1880, the railroad was graded through
the town, and in 1883, the town was incorporated with the streets laid out in the shape of a
triangle with the base parallel to the tracks. The railroad tracks were not in a true east-west
line, however, so the original town is askew with the map; the newer part of Cheney was built
more to the compass. Cheney was the county seat of Spokane County until 1886. The
continued history of Cheney revolves around the growth of the State Normal School, later
Eastern Washington College of Education, later Eastern Washington State College and finally
Eastern Washington University.
Climate
Cheney has a true four-season climate. Winter is cold, wet and snowy; spring
brings moderate temperatures and occasional rain. Summers are warm, with little
precipitation, and fall can be a very short transitional period between summer and winter with
moderate temperatures.
Governing Body Format
Cheney has a mayor-council/strong mayor governing body. The
council will assume responsibility for adoption and implementation of this plan.
Development Trends
The City of Cheney has no Business and Occupancy (B&O) taxes;
and has relatively affordable and competitive utility rates. There are currently over 200
employers /businesses operating in Cheney. This ranges from the very small entrepreneur to
the largest employer of over 2,000 employees (Eastern Washington University). The city
currently has lands available in both the commercial and industrial zones that are ready for
development. Public infrastructure is generally available to all developable property, with
some lots ready for on-site construction.
Economy
Although Cheney contains its own distinguishing characteristics, its fortunes are
closely tied to Spokane through economic, social and political linkages. Once a booming
railroad town and County seat, Cheney has become one of many small towns surrounding the
Bridgeview Consulting 3-2 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
recently become tied to expanding industrial development taking place in the West Plains -yet
another example of the regional nature of economic development in the Inland
Northwest. Outside of government, education and institutional employment, retail is the next
largest sector, as Cheney serves as the regional trade center for southwest Spokane County.
The jurisdiction boundaries are identified in the map below.
3.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the jurisdiction. Table 3-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
If available, dollar loss data is also included.
TABLE 3-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Winter Storm 1825-DR-WA 12/08-1/09 $53,978.08
3.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
National Flood Insurance Information; regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative
and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going
mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation, and classifications under various community
programs.
3.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION
Table 2-2
Repetitive flood loss records are as follows:
Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: None
Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None
Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been
Mitigated: None
Bridgeview Consulting 3-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 3-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE
What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Planning Dept
Public Works Manager
Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? Yes
What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? Unknown
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community N/A
Assistance Contact?
To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP None
compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes
community? (If no, please state why)
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support No
its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance/training is
needed?
Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, No
is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your
community interested in joining the CRS program?
3.6.1 Regulatory Capability
Table 3-3. This includes
planning and land management tools, typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation
activities and indicates those that are currently in place.
TABLE 3-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes No Yes City Code of Ordinances, 2019
Version
Year
Zoning Ordinance Yes No No CMC 21
Subdivision Ordinance Yes No No CMC 22
Floodplain Ordinance Yes No No CMC 19
Stormwater Management Yes No No Public Works Dept.
Post Disaster Recovery No Yes No County DEM CEMP
Real Estate Disclosure No Yes Yes RCW 64, 1996
Growth Management Yes No Yes Comp Plan, 2017
Site Plan Review Yes No No CMC 23
Bridgeview Consulting 3-4 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
TABLE 3-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Public Health and Safety Yes Yes No
Coastal Zone Management No No No N/A
Climate Change Adaptation No No No None
Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance No No Yes
(stormwater, steep slope, wildfire,
etc.)
Environmental Protection Yes No Yes City Code, Title 10
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive Plan
Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan?
Yes
Floodplain or Basin Plan Yes No No City Ord. 1989
Stormwater Plan Yes No No Public Works Dept.
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No Annual Up-date
Habitat Conservation Plan No No Yes Fish and Wildlife
Economic Development Plan No No Yes Comp Plan, 2017
Shoreline Management Plan No No No N/A
Community Wildfire Protection No Yes Yes County CWPP, 2009 and State DNR
Plan CWPP 10 year Strat Plan
Transportation Plan
Response/Recovery Planning
Comprehensive Emergency Yes No Yes City/State CEMP
Management Plan
Threat and Hazard Identification Yes City HMGP/2010
and Risk Assessment
Terrorism Plan Yes City/State CEMP
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No Yes Spokane County Plan, 2009
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes Yes Yes City COOP plan, DEM COOP
Public Health Plans Yes City Code, 1986
Boards and Commission
Planning Commission Yes Planning Dept
Mitigation Planning Committee No
Maintenance programs to reduce Yes
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing
drainage systems, chipping, etc.)
Mutual Aid Agreements / Yes Yes Spokane County, State DNR, and Local
Memorandums of Understanding
Bridgeview Consulting 3-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
3.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 3-4. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 3-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Public Works/City Planner, Engineer
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land Yes
development and land management practices
Public Works/City Planner, Engineer, City
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes
construction practices (building officials, fire
Building Inspector, Fire Marshall
inspectors, etc.)
Public Works/City Planner, Engineer
Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes
Public Works/City Planner, Engineer
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes
natural hazards
Public Works/City Planner, Engineer
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes
Public Works/City Planner, Engineer
Surveyors Yes
Public Works/City Planner, Engineer
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes
Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use Yes
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area Yes Eastern Washington University
Emergency Manager Yes City Fire Chief
Grant writers Yes City Staff
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor Yes City and County Alerting System
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?)
Hazard data and information available to public Yes City Fire Chief and Spokane County DEM
Maintain Elevation Certificates Yes Public Works/City Planner, Engineer
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations Yes Nextdoor Neighbor Social Media
focused on emergency preparedness?
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations Yes Nextdoor Neighbor Social Media
focused on environmental protection?
Organization focused on individuals with access Yes Spokane County DEM
and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program Yes Public Works, Fire and Police Departments, Eastern
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household Washington University
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? Yes Cheney Fire Department, Cheney School District
Bridgeview Consulting 3-6 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
TABLE 3-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing Yes DEM, Fire Department Social Media Sites
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? No
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program Yes Spokane County Noxious Weed Control Board
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes Spokane County Noxious Weed Control Board
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils No
Chipper program Yes DNR resources for unincorporated areas of the
county
Defensible space inspections program No Urban Development within City Limits
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance Yes Public Works Dept.
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program No
Erosion or sediment control program Yes Public Works Dept.
Address signage for property addresses Yes City Ordinance, IRC
Other
3.6.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 3-5. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 3-5
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or Eligible
Financial Resources to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Other
Bridgeview Consulting 3-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
3.6.4 Community Classifications
Table 3-6. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community.
TABLE 3-6.
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System No N/A
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3 Unknown
Commercial
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3 Unknown
Dwelling
Protection Class 5 Unknown
Storm Ready Yes Unknown
Firewise No N/A
3.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULERABILITY RANKING
internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have
identified the hazards that affect the City of Cheney, computing their Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)
scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 3 2 4 1 4 2.75
Earthquake 3 3 2 4 1 2.85
Flood 3 2 2 2 3 2.45
Landslide 1 1 1 4 1 1.45
Severe Weather 4 3 4 3 3 3.60
Volcano 1 2 3 1 4 1.75
Wildfire 4 3 3 4 3 3.55
Train Derailment 2 4 4 4 4 3.20
Active Shooter 2 4 1 4 2 2.50
The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4.
hazardous situation.
Table 3-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Bridgeview Consulting 3-8 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
TABLE 3-7.
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Vulnerability
Hazard Type CPRI Score
Rank Rank
1 Severe Weather 3.6 High
2 Wildfire 3.55 High
3 Train Derailment 3.2 High
4 Earthquake 2.85 Moderate
5 Drought 2.75 Moderate
6 Active Shooter 2.5 Low
7 Flood 2.45 Low
8 Volcano 1.75 Low
9 Landslide 1.45 Very Low
3.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Cheney adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team
described in Volume 1.
3.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the jurisdiction identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
. Table 3-8 lists the
Bridgeview Consulting 3-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
TABLE 3-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
Lead Agency
Support adequate public fire protection.
INITIATIVE #1
New and All 1, 7, 9 Fire Medium Local Long Yes Local,
Preventive Activities,
Property Protection,
Existing Budgets, County,
Emergency Services,
Grants Region
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection,
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
Encourage tree trimming on public and private property.
INITIATIVE #2
New and SW, W 2, 5, 7, Light Dept Low Enterprise Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local
Property Protection,
Existing 10, 11 Funds,
Emergency Services,
Grants
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection,
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
Develop hazardous materials evacuation drills.
INITIATIVE #3
New and SW, TD, 1, 4, 8 Fire Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local,
Property Protection,
Existing E Budgets, County,
Emergency Services,
Grants Region
Recovery,
Continue training and exercising for possible terrorism/active shooter events.
INITIATIVE #4
New and TD, AS 1, 4, 8 Cheney and Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local,
Emergency Services,
Existing Eastern PD Budgets, County
Recovery,
Grants
Assess the vulnerability of identified critical facilities.
INITIATIVE #5
New and All 1, 4, 8 Cheney PD Low Local Long Yes Local,
Preventive Activities,
Property Protection,
Existing Budgets, County
Recovery,
Grants
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
Continue to support the countywide initiatives identified in this plan.
INITIATIVE #6
Bridgeview Consulting 3-10 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
TABLE 3-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Previous Emergency Services,
Timeline
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
New and All 1, 3, 4, 8 DEM Low Local Long Yes Local,
Preventive Activities,
Property Protection,
Existing Budgets, County,
Emergency Services,
Grants Regional
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection,
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan.
INITIATIVE #7
New and All 1, 4, 8 DEM Low Local Short Yes Preventive Activities, Local,
Property Protection,
Existing Budgets, County
Emergency Services,
Grants
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection,
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or removal in hazard-prone areas to protect structures from
INITIATIVE #8
future damage, with properties with exposure to repetitive losses as a priority.
New All 2, 10, 11 Planning High FEMA Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local
Property Protection,
Dept Grants,
Emergency Services,
Local
Recovery,
Contributi
ons
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances or programs to dictate land uses within the
INITIATIVE #9
jurisdiction.
New and All 2, 3, 4, 5, Planning Low City Short Yes Preventive Activities, Local,
Property Protection,
Existing 11 Dept Funding County
Emergency Services,
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection,
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP.
INITIATIVE #10
New and W 1-12 Spokane Medium Local, Short Yes Local
Preventive Activities,
Property Protection,
Existing Conservation Fire
Natural Resource
District, All Grants,
Protection,
County Fire HMGP,
Infrastructure
Districts PDM
Systems Protection
INITIATIVE #11
decreased risk exposure of new development.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 3-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
New and All 4, 5, 11 Building Dept Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local
Property Protection,
Existing Funds
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
Consider, where appropriate, the adoption of higher regulatory standards that will result in an increase in the
INITIATIVE #12
community resilience of new development.
New and All 4, 5, 11 City Staff and Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local
Property Protection,
Existing Council Funds,
Emergency Services,
Grants,
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection,
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
13
Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This will
INITIATIVE #
be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, will meet the minimum
requirements of the NFIP, which include the following:
Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance
Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates
Providing public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts
New and F 4, 5, 11 Planning Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local
Property Protection,
Existing Dept Funds,
Recovery,
Grants
Infrastructure
Systems Protection
Continue to build partnerships with railroad companies to mitigate railroad hazards, access issues due to
INITIATIVE #14
crossings being blocked during natural hazards.
New and TD, H 1-12 Fire Dept Low Local Long No Preventive Activities, Local,
Property Protection,
Existing Funds, County,
Emergency Services,
Grants regional
3.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 3-9 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-12 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
TABLE 3-9.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Benefits Costs
# Met Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
1 2 H M Y Y Some H
2 3 H L Y Y Y H
3 3 H L Y Y Y H
4 2 H L Y Y Y H
5 3 M L Y Y Y H
6 4 H L Y Y Y H
7 3 H L Y Y Y H
8 3 M H Y Y Some H
9 5 M L Y N Y H
10 12 H M Y Y Y M
11 3 H L Y N Y H
12 3 H L Y Y Y H
13 1 H L Y Y Y H
14 12 H L Y Y Y H
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
3.11 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES
Table 3-10 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 3-10.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
1. Continue to support adequate public fire
The City has recently purchased new
equipment and a new fire apparatus. With
protection.
the rapid growth in the West-Plains of
Spokane County and the insurgence of
emergencies in the City, discussion on how
public-safety can grow to meet the demands
and how to fund additional positions in an
on-going initiative.
2. Continue to encourage tree trimming on
The City takes measures to trim vegetation
in those areas that are the responsibility of
public and private property.
however, on-going
encouragement for private land-owners to
trim trees and reduce nuisance vegetation
continually takes place.
3. Continue to develop hazardous materials
The City incorporates hazardous materials
exercises and inclusion of public and
evacuation drills.
merchants where and when able. City public
safety engages in local and county exercises.
4. Continue training and exercising for
City public safety agencies that include the
fire department and both police agencies
possible terrorism/active shooter events.
engage in local and county active shooter
and rescue task force exercises.
5. Continue to assess the vulnerability of
The City annually identifies priority
facilities through the
identified critical facilities.
6. Continue to support the countywide
The City has continued to work with the
County and local planning partners in
initiatives identified in this plan.
supporting the initiatives of this plan.
7. Continue to actively participate in the
The City was a planning team member for
the 2020 update, and completed its annex
plan maintenance strategy identified in this
template and all planning requirements to
plan.
maintain an active level of participation.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-14 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
TABLE 3-10.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
8. Continue to support, where appropriate,
While the City feels this is a good initiative,
retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of
the reality of relocating structures that are in
structures located in hazard-prone areas to
a hazard-prone area is too costly and the
protect structures from future damage, with
lack of sufficient funding to support makes
properties with exposure to repetitive losses
this part of the initiative highly unlikely;
as a priority.
therefore, relocation of structures has been
removed from the 2020 update.
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into
The City updates its Codes and Ordnances
9.
on an as-needed basis or when Federal or
other plans, ordinances or programs to
State mandates and initiatives require
dictate land uses within the jurisdiction.
change. This planning committee reviewed
the hazard mitigation plan and continues to
explore avenues to apply the plan where
feasible.
10. Continue to implement wildfire
The City updates its Codes and Ordnances
on an as-needed basis or when Federal or
mitigation recommendations identified in
State mandates and initiatives require
the Spokane County CWPP.
change. This planning committee reviewed
the wildfire mitigation recommendations
and applied those recommendations where
necessary. Trim trimming and zero-scape
initiatives are on-going.
11. Continue to maintain and/or enhance the
The City updates its Codes and Ordnances
on an as-needed basis or when Federal or
State mandates and initiatives require
regulations that result in decreased risk
change.
exposure of new development.
12. Continue to consider, where appropriate,
The City updates its Codes and Ordnances
on an as-needed basis or when Federal or
the adoption of higher regulatory standards
State mandates and initiatives require
that will result in an increase in the
change. This planning committee reviewed
community resilience of new development.
the wildfire mitigation recommendations
and applied those recommendations where
necessary. Trim trimming and zero-scape
initiatives are on-going.
13. Continue to maintain compliance and
The City has continued to work with the
County and local planning partners in
good standing under the National Flood
supporting the initiatives of the NFIP.
Insurance Program.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
3.12 HAZARD MAPS EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps are included below. These maps are based on the best available data
at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes.
Bridgeview Consulting 3-16 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
Bridgeview Consulting 3-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 3-18 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
Bridgeview Consulting 3-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 3-20 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
Bridgeview Consulting 3-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 3-22 April 2020
CITY OF CHENEY
Bridgeview Consulting 3-23 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 3-24 April 2020
CHAPTER 4.
CITY OF DEER PARK ANNEX
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Deer Park, a participating
jurisdiction to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended to be a
standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan
document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural
requirements apply to and were met by the City of Deer Park. For planning purposes, this Annex provides
additional information specific to the jurisdiction, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk
assessment and mitigation strategy for this community only. This document serves as an update to the
previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as
appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1.
4.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The City of Deer Park followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to
internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex
development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
LOCAL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Roger Krieger, Community Services
Primary Point of Contact Update Annex Template data;
Director
coordinate meetings with City
316 E Crawford Avenue
Council members; attended planning
Deer Park, WA 99006
team meetings and workshops;
Telephone: 509-276-8802
attended annex development
e-mail: RKrieger@ci.deerpark.wa.us
workshop; conducted risk assessment
review and hazard ranking process
for presentation during October 1 st
public outreach session; worked with
city departments to identify 2020
strategies and obtain status of
previous strategies; completed plan
review, and presented and
coordinated council and citizen
briefings.
Deby Cragun, City Clerk
Alternate Point of Contact Coordinate meetings with City
316 E Crawford Avenue
Council members; assisted with the
Deer Park, WA 99006
update of information, and
Telephone: 509-276-8802
information gathering from other
e-mail: DCragun@ci.deerpark.wa.us
departments as appropriate.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
LOCAL PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
City of Deer Park City Council and
Receive updates on HMP process and
Mayor
risk assessment. Completed plan
review, approval and adoption.
4.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
Date of Incorporation
1908
Current Population
4,390 as of April 1, 2019
Population Growth
The City has used a population growth rate of 2.7 percent for key
infrastructure planning, as the 2015 State of Washington Office of Financial Management
population figure is 3,950 and this equates to this 2.7% growth rate over the last 10 years of
2005-2015.
Location and Description
Deer Park is the only city in the northern portion of Spokane
County and sits between SR 2 and SR 395, the main transportation corridors to Canadian
trading partners. The total land area of the city is approximately 7.0 square miles, with an
elevation of 2,123 above sea level. The area is generally flat, without natural hazards of severe
slope instability or floodways, and located at GPS coordinates 47.956922, -117.470230.
Brief History
Deer Park was settled in 1889 when a railroad siding was built for the Spokane
Falls & Northern Railway. Deer Park got its name when railroad surveyors saw deer grazing
in large numbers in the area. Soon the Standard Lumber Company sawmill was established to
provide the lumber needed to rebuild the nearby city of Spokane Falls (later named Spokane)
following the great fire of 1889. By 1900 the population of Deer Park was approximately 300
residents. Arcadia Apple Orchards Company was established in 1906, and orchards of apple
trees were planted on land surrounding Deer Park that had been cleared by the logging activity.
Water was diverted from Loon Lake by a series of canals and flumes to provide water to the
orchard activity but was forced to be abandoned when a draw-down in Deer Park was observed
due to the water diversion. By this time there were as many as eight sawmills within 10 miles
of Deer Park, all of which got their supplies in, and employed members of the town.
Climate---
Deer Park experiences a semi-arid climate with significant precipitation. The area
is typified by hot, arid climate during the summer and a cold, snowy and moist climate in the
Mountains to the East and North, the city is protected from the weather patterns experienced in
other parts of the Pacific Northwest. As a result of the rain shadow effect of the Cascade
Mountains, the Deer Park area also has half the rainfall of Seattle, Washington, from the West
side of the state. The average precipitation in the Deer Park area is 17 inches, whereas the
Seattle area received 37 inches annually. The most precipitation occurs in December, and the
summer is the driest time of the year. The Rocky Mountains shield Deer Park from the winter
effects of Arc
of 46 inches.
Governing Body Format
with a strong mayor and city council (5 members).
Bridgeview Consulting 4-2 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
Development Trends
Deer Park continues to grow with a mix of residential and support
industry type facilities for the residential expansion going on. The proximity to the
metropolitan area of Spokane provides a strong supply of employment, and continued
improvements to the State Highway System reduce commute times greatly, making the area an
ideal place for citizens who want to reside in a small town setting.
Economy
recreational and healthcare services; agricultural; and light manufacturing. The largest
employers include: the Deer Park School District, Northwest Steel Fabrication and Knight
Construction. Additionally, continued efforts are in place to create additional acreage for
industrial and business park developments, which are intended to promote living wage jobs and
thus create additional demands on support industries, commercial growth and residential
dwellings.
The jurisdiction boundaries are identified in the map below.
4.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the jurisdiction. Table 4-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
If available, dollar loss data is also included.
TABLE 4-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Roadway Failure FEMA-4309-DR $89,600
flooding / rain
Winter Weather Snow FEMA 8959993 Unknown
Winter Weather Ice
FEMA 118746 $10,000
Storm
Winter Weather Snow FEMA 66842 $250,000
4.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-going efforts. It
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
National Flood Insurance Information; regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative
and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going
mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation, and classifications under various community
programs.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
4.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION
Table 4-2
Repetitive flood loss records are as follows:
Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: None.
Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None.
Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been
Mitigated: None.
TABLE 4-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE
What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Building Department
(department/position) Roger Krieger, Community
Services Director
Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? No
What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? June 16, 2010
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community May, 2010
Assistance Contact?
To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP No
compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes
community? (If no, please state why)
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support No
its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance/training is
needed?
Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, No
is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your
community interested in joining the CRS program?
4.6.1 Regulatory Capability
Table 4-3. This includes
planning and land management tools, typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation
activities and indicates those that are currently in place.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-4 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
TABLE 4-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes No Yes Title 15, Deer Park Mun. Code
Version IBC / IRC
Year 2015
Zoning Ordinance Yes No Yes Title 18
Subdivision Ordinance Yes No Yes Title 17
Floodplain Ordinance Yes No Yes Title 18
Stormwater Management Yes No No Title 12
Post Disaster Recovery No No No ---
Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes RCW64.06.020
Growth Management Yes No Yes Title 17, 18, 19
Site Plan Review Yes No Yes Title 18
Public Health and Safety Yes No No Title 8
Coastal Zone Management N/A N/A N/A
Climate Change Adaptation N/A N/A N/A
Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance Yes No No Title 18
(stormwater, steep slope, wildfire,
etc.)
Environmental Protection Yes No Yes Title 16
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive Plan
Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan?
Yes
Floodplain or Basin Plan No No No
Stormwater Plan No No No
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No Yes
Habitat Conservation Plan Yes No Yes
Economic Development Plan Yes No Yes
Shoreline Management Plan N/A N/A N/A
Community Wildfire Protection No No No
Plan
Transportation Plan Yes No Yes
Response/Recovery Planning
Comprehensive Emergency No No No Spokane County DEM
Management Plan
Threat and Hazard Identification No No No Spokane County DEM
and Risk Assessment
Terrorism Plan No No No Spokane County DEM
Bridgeview Consulting 4-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 4-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No
Continuity of Operations Plan No No No
Public Health Plans No No No
Boards and Commission
Planning Commission Yes No Yes
Mitigation Planning Committee No No Yes
Previous HMP, and served on the
Committee at that time. The City
continues to be part of the effort with the
2020 update, and will remain an active
participant over the lifecycle of the 2020
edition.
Maintenance programs to reduce Yes No No
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing
drainage systems, chipping, etc.)
Mutual Aid Agreements / Yes No No The City has an Interlocal Agreement with
Memorandums of Understanding County DEM to provide emergency
management services, including
Other
4.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 4-4. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 4-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land Yes City Planning Staff
development and land management practices
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes City Building Staff
construction practices (building officials, fire
inspectors, etc.)
Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes Contract for service with Engineering Firm
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes Contract for service with Engineering Firm
natural hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Contract for service with Engineering Firm
Bridgeview Consulting 4-6 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
TABLE 4-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Surveyors Yes Contract for service with Engineering Firm
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Contract for service with Engineering Firm
Emergency Manager Yes Contract with Spokane County DEM
Grant writers Yes City Staff
Warning Systems/Services Yes Reverse 9-1-1, Alert Spokane
Hazard data and information available to public Yes In addition to the HMP, the City also maintains a
Wastewater Dam Plan
Maintain Elevation Certificates No
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No The City has an Interlocal Agreement with the
focused on emergency preparedness? County to provide various Emergency Management
services and functions. In that regard, the County
does have trained CERT members countywide,
which would be utilized throughout the
Ongoing public education or information program Yes Fire District #4
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? Yes School Districts are compliant with necessary safety
plans in place. Information from the HMP will
further support their efforts in this respect.
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes The City receives these benefits through an interlocal
agreement with County DEM, who provides
awareness and outreach efforts for the various
hazards of concern, both on an educational basis, but
also as emergencies are evolving.
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program Yes This service is something that is coordinated by the
Conservation District and WA DNR at various times.
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes Spokane County Noxious Weed Control
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils Yes Fire District #4
Chipper program No This service is something that is provided by the
Conservation District at various times, when
coordinated as a CWPP strategy.
Defensible space inspections program Yes This service is something that is available through
WA DNR in a cost-share capacity.
Address signage for property addressesYesThis service is something that is provided by the
Conservation District at various times, and
possibly through the Fire District #4
4.6.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 4-5. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 4-5
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or Eligible
Financial Resources to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Other
4.6.4 Community Classifications
Table 4-6. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community.
TABLE 4-6.
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating (Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Yes 11/2/2011
Scales
Residential Grade 3
Commercial Grade 3
Protection Class 4 11/2/2011
Storm Ready Yes
Firewise No
4.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULERABILITY RANKING
internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have
identified the hazards that affect the City of Deer Park, computing their Calculated Priority Risk Index
(CPRI) scores as follows:
Bridgeview Consulting 4-8 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 2 2 2 1 4 1.95
Earthquake 2 3 2 4 1 2.45
Flood 3 2 2 4 2 2.7
Landslide 1 1 1 1 2 1.05
Severe Weather 4 2 4 2 3 3.25
Volcano 1 1 1 1 4 1.15
Wildfire 3 2 3 4 3 2.95
Storage Lagoon 1 2 2 2 3 1.65
Failure
st
hazardous situation.
Table 4-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 4-7.
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Vulnerability
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Rank
1 Severe Weather 3.25 High
2 Wildfire 2.95 High
3 Flood 2.7 Medium
4 Earthquake 2.45 Medium
5 Drought 1.95 Low
6 Storage Lagoon Fail 1.65 Low
7 Volcano 1.15 Extremely Low
8 Landslides 1.05 Extremely Low
4.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Deer Park adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team
described in Volume 1.
4.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the jurisdiction identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
. Table 4-8 lists the
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
TABLE 4-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Preventive
County,
Cost Sources of Activities, Structural
Region
(High/ Funding Projects, Property
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Timeline Included in Protection,
to new or Hazards Low) or $ type, (Long-Previous Emergency Services,
existing MitigateObjectiveFigure if General Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets d s Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # DP-1
Continue to support the countywide initiatives identified in this plan.
New & All 1,3,4,8 DEM, Deer Low Local Ongoing Yes Public Local,
Existing Hazards Park Information, County
Prevention,
Emergency
Services
INITIATIVE # DP-2
Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-10 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
TABLE 4-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Preventive
County,
Cost Sources of Activities, Structural
Region
(High/ Funding Projects, Property
Medium/ (List Grant Protection,
Applies Timeline Included in
to new or Hazards Low) or $ type, (Long-Previous Emergency Services,
existing MitigateObjectiveFigure if General Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets d s Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
New & All 1,4,8 DEM Low Local Ongoing Yes Public Information Local,
Existing Hazards Preventive County
Activities
INITIATIVE # DP-3
Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard-prone
areas to protect structures from future damage, with properties with exposure to repetitive losses as a priority.
Existing All 2,10,11 Deer Park High FEMA Long Term Yes Preventive Local
Hazards Grant, Activities,
Local Structural
Funds Projects, Property
Protection
INITIATIVE # DP-4
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances or programs to dictate land uses within
the jurisdiction.
New & All 2,3,4,5, Deer Park Low Local Short Term Yes Preventive Local
Existing Hazards Activities,
11
Resource
Protection
INITIATIVE # DP-5
Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP.
New & Wildfire 1,2,3,4, Conservation Medium Local, Short Term Yes Public Local
Existing District, Fire Fire and Information,
5,7,8,9,
District Grants, ongoing Preventive
10,11,12
FEMA Activities,
Property
Protection, Natural
Resource
Protection
INITIATIVE # DP-6
in decreased risk exposure of existing and new development.
New & All 4,5,11 Deer Park Low Local Ongoing Yes Public Local
Existing Hazards Information,
Preventive
Activities,
Property
Protection
INITIATIVE # DP-7
Consider, where appropriate, the adoption of higher regulatory standards that will result in an increase in
the community resilience of new development.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 4-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Preventive
County,
Cost Activities, Structural
Sources of
Region
(High/ Funding Projects, Property
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Timeline Included in Protection,
to new or Hazards Low) or $ type, (Long-Previous Emergency Services,
existing MitigateObjectiveFigure if General Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets d s Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
New All 4,5,11 Deer Park Low Local Long Term Yes Preventive Local
Hazards Activities,
Property
Protection, Natural
Resource
Protection
INITIATIVE # DP-8
Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This
will be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, will meet the
minimum requirements of the NFIPO, which include the following: Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention
ordinance, Participation in floodplain identification and mapping updates, Providing public assistance/information on floodplain
requirements and impacts.
New & Flood 2,4,5,6, Deer Park Low Local On-Going Yes Preventive Local
Existing Activities,
8,12
Property
Protection, Natural
Resource
Protection
INITIATIVE # DP-9
Consider participation on the NFIP Community Rating System program.
New & Flood 2, 4, 5, 6, Deer Park Low Local On Going Yes Preventive Local
Existing 8, 12 Activities,
Property
Protection, Natural
Resource
Protection
4.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 4-9 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
TABLE 4-9.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Benefits Costs
# Met Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
DP-1 4 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
Bridgeview Consulting 4-12 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
TABLE 4-9.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Benefits Costs
# Met Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
DP-2 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
DP-3 3 High High Yes Yes Yes Medium
DP-4 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
DP-5 10 High Low Yes No Yes High
DP-6 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
DP-7 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium
DP-8 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
DP-9 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
4.11 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES
Table 4-10 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
TABLE 4-10.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
Repair/retrofit earthen wastewater dam. Facility was rebuilt with new liner and leak
detection in 2017. While the City of Deer
Park attempted to gain grant funds for this
project, none were available which met the
criteria of the granting source.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 4-10.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
Support County wide plan initiatives. Ongoing participation with DEM. We
continue to work with the County in all
areas of emergency management, including
the maintenance and update of the existing
HMP.
Support retrofit/purchase of structures in The City has continued to monitor areas for
hazard prone areas. this action item. To date, we have not
pursued this initiative, but it remains a
viable option.
Hazard plan mitigation with ordinances. The City continues to utilize information
contained and identified within the HMP to
enhance its code updates in Building and
Planning as warranted.
Implement wildfire strategies. The City continues to work with the County
Conservation District and the County DEM
in identifying potential mitigation efforts to
help reduce the risk of wildfire throughout
the City and county as a whole. This
includes review and application of wildfire
risk information as codes are reviewed and
updated.
Code enforcement enhancements. The City continues to ensure qualified
personnel are on staff by continually support
efforts for personnel certification updates
and training as applicable to allow for
appropriate code enforcement. As deemed
appropriate, the City also updates its
regulatory authority to meet guidelines and
address areas of concern.
Development code updates and standards. The city has a process in place to ensure
code updates in Building and Planning
occurs as warranted. Information from the
Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as other
sources, are utilized to ensure compliance.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-14 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
TABLE 4-10.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
Maintain compliance and participation with Code updates in Building and Planning as
National Flood Insurance Program. warranted to maintain compliance within the
NFIP. NFIP data was provided as an
outreach effort during the 2020 HMP
development.
Participation in NFIP Community Rating Monitoring areas for action. Enrollment
System. within the CRS program remains an option
for the City, but at present, the City lacks
the capacity to administer a program of this
magnitude.
Hazard area extent and location maps are included below. These maps are based on the best available data
at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes.
Bridgeview Consulting 4-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 4-16 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
Bridgeview Consulting 4-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 4-18 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
Bridgeview Consulting 4-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 4-20 April 2020
CITY OF DEER PARK
Bridgeview Consulting 4-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 4-22 April 2020
CHAPTER 5.
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE ANNEX
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Liberty Lake, a
participating jurisdiction to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended
to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base
plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural
requirements apply to and were met by the City of Liberty Lake. For planning purposes, this Annex provides
additional information specific to the jurisdiction, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk
assessment and mitigation strategy for this community only. This document serves as an update to the
previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as
appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1.
5.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The City of Liberty Lake followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition
own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex
development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Brian K. Asmus, Chief of Police
Meeting attendance, capturing of
Primary Point of Contact
23127 East Mission Avenue
information; review risk ranking;
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
review final annex and County
Telephone: 509-755-1141
base plan. Present plan to
basmus@libertylakewa.gov
Commissioners for adoption.
Darin Morgan, Sergeant
Planning Coordinator; Meeting
Alternate Point of Contact
23127 East Mission Avenue
attendance, planning team
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
facilitator; authoring of plan;
Telephone: 509-919-0451
capturing of information; conduct
dmorgan@libertylakewa.gov
risk assessment; review final
annex and County base plan.
Lisa Key, Director of PEBS
Director of Planning Engineering Provide information as necessary;
22710 East Country Vista Drive
and Building Services review draft plan.
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
Telephone: 509-755-6708
lkey@libertylakewa.gov
5.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
Bridgeview Consulting 5-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Date of Incorporation
August 31, 2001
Current Population
11,000 as of September 30, 2019
Population Growth
5.66% average growth rate per year from 2013-2019
Location and Description
Located in Spokane County along the I-90 corridor 17 miles east
of Spokane and two miles west of the Idaho/Washington state line. Liberty Lake is
approximately 6.5 square miles. The city borders the City of Spokane Valley on the west, the
Spokane River on the north and Liberty Lake on the south.
Brief History
Highlights of Liberty Lake Community History:
The Liberty Lake area was originally inhabited by Native Americans long before white
settlers came into the area.
Due to the Homestead Act of 1862, many people decided to settle in the area to be privy to
one quarter square mile of government land, provided they grow crops and work to improve
the land.
Liberty Lake was named after a Frenchman named Stephen Liberty who homesteaded on
the west side of the lake.
attractions like boating, entertainment, dancing, and Fourth of July celebrations; many
were originally brought to the area by electric train.
the west side of the city. Holiday Hill and the surrounding area was used for camping,
skiing, ice skating, motor cross racing, and youth sports camps. A ski lodge and restaurant
were also located at Holiday Hill.
reating of Homestead and
Meadowwood, as well as commercial and industrial development.
th
The annual Liberty Lake 4 of July celebration continues with music, dancing and
fireworks.
st
Upon incorporation on August 31, 2001, the City was home to three golf courses and over
4,000 residents.
Climate
Liberty Lake, Washington is a good place to live in with its moderate climate.
Average minimum temperature of Liberty Lake in January is 18.1º, average minimum
temperature in July is 56.5º. Average precipitation in
Governing Body Format
Non-Charter Code City with a Strong Mayor and seven City
Council Members. The city has an appointed city administrator that is responsible for the day
to day operations.
Development Trends
The City of Liberty Lake has experienced moderate growth in both
commercial and residential development. Multifamily housing has increased significantly and
continues to be an area where developers express interest. As the city matures, planned
residential and commercial areas continue to be built out. The city has added a second
elementary school and its first middle school. A comprehensive high school is being developed
and is anticipated to open in 2021.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-2 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
Economy
The City of Liberty L
recreational and healthcare services; motor vehicle and recreations vehicle sales and light
Huntwood Cabinets, F5 Networks, Central Valley School District, and Comcast.
The jurisdiction boundaries are identified in the map below.
5.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the jurisdiction. Table 5-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
If available, dollar loss data is also included.
TABLE 5-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Earthquake 04/29/1965 Information Not Available
Earthquake 06/25/2001 Information Not Available
Earthquake 11/11/2001 Information Not Available
Winter Storm FEMA 1825 DR 12/08-01/09 $12,932.61
5.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
National Flood Insurance Information; regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative
and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going
mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation, and classifications under various community
programs.
5.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION
nted in
Table 5-2
Repetitive flood loss records are as follows:
Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: 0
Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: 0
Bridgeview Consulting 5-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been
Mitigated: 0
TABLE 5-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE
What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Planning, Engineering, Building
Planning/PEBS Director
Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? Yes
What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? November 19, 2019
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community Unknown
Assistance Contact?
To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP No
compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes
community? (If no, please state why)
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support No
its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance/training is
needed?
Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, Yes/No clarification requested
is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your
community interested in joining the CRS program?
5.6.1 Regulatory Capability
Table 5-3. This includes
planning and land management tools, typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation
activities and indicates those that are currently in place.
TABLE 5-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes No Yes IBC (2018)
Version
Year
Zoning Ordinance Yes No No
Subdivision Ordinance Yes No Yes
Floodplain Ordinance Yes No No
Stormwater Management Yes No No
Post Disaster Recovery No No No
Real Estate Disclosure No Yes Yes RCW 64.06
Bridgeview Consulting 5-4 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
TABLE 5-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Growth Management No Yes Yes
Site Plan Review Yes No Yes Requirement of IBC
Public Health and Safety Yes No No
Coastal Zone Management N/A
Climate Change Adaptation N/A
Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance Yes Yes Yes
(stormwater, steep slope, wildfire,
etc.)
Environmental Protection
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive Plan
Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan?
Yes
Floodplain or Basin Plan No No No
Stormwater Plan Yes No No
Capital Improvement Plan Yes No No
Habitat Conservation Plan No No No
Economic Development Plan No No No
Shoreline Management Plan Yes No Yes
Community Wildfire Protection No No No
Plan
Transportation Plan Yes Yes Yes
Response/Recovery Planning
Comprehensive Emergency Yes Yes Yes
Management Plan
Threat and Hazard Identification No Yes No
and Risk Assessment
Terrorism Plan No No No
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes No No
Public Health Plans No No Yes
Boards and Commission
Planning Commission Yes No Yes
Mitigation Planning Committee Yes No No Served as a member of the HMP
committee for the 2020 update; will
remain active during the lifecycle of this
plan as identified in the maintenance
strategy of the plan.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 5-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Maintenance programs to reduce Yes No No
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing
drainage systems, chipping, etc.)
Mutual Aid Agreements / Yes No No
Memorandums of Understanding
Other
5.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 5-4. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 5-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land Yes PEBS/Director of PEBS
development and land management practices
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes PEBS/Building Inspector
construction practices (building officials, fire
inspectors, etc.)
Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes PEBS/City Engineer
Planners or engineers with an understanding of No
natural hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes PEBS/Director of PEBS
Surveyors No
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes PEBS/PEBS Director
Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use No
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
Emergency Manager Yes Police Department/Chief of Police
Grant writers Yes PEBS/Director
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor Yes SREC/Partner Agency
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?)
Bridgeview Consulting 5-6 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
TABLE 5-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Hazard data and information available to public No
Maintain Elevation Certificates Yes PEBS/PEBS Director
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on emergency preparedness?
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on environmental protection?
Organization focused on individuals with access No
and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program No
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? No
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? No
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes Parks and Maintenance/Parks Director
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils No No
Chipper program No
Defensible space inspections program No
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance No
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program No
Erosion or sediment control program No
Address signage for property addresses Yes PEBS/PEBS Director
Other
5.6.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 5-5. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 5-5
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or Eligible
Financial Resources to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Other FEMA Grant Funding
5.6.4 Community Classifications
Table 5-6. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community.
TABLE 5-6.
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System Yes 2018
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes 2018
Storm Ready Yes 2003
Firewise Unknown
Tsunami Ready (if applicable) N/A
5.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULERABILITY RANKING
internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan and have
identified the hazards that affect the City of Liberty Lake, completing their Calculated Priority Risk Index
(CPRI) scores as follows:
Bridgeview Consulting 5-8 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Duration
Severity Location Time Risk Index Score
Drought 2 2 2 1 4 1.95
Earthquake 3 3 2 4 1 2.85
Flood 1 1 1 2 2 1.2
Landslide 3 2 2 4 2 2.7
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 2 2 1 4 1.55
Wildfire 2 2 2 4 2 2.3
st
hazardous situation.
Table 5-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 5-7.
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Vulnerability
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Rank
1 Severe Weather 3.4 High
2 Earthquake 2.85 Medium
3 Landslide 2.70 Medium
4 Wildfire 2.30 Medium
5 Drought 1.95 Low
6 Volcano 1.55 Low
7 Flood 1.20 Low
5.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Liberty Lake adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning
Team described in Volume 1.
5.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the jurisdiction identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
. Table 5-8 lists the
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
TABLE 5-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE #1-
Jurisdiction application and acceptance into NFIP.
Existing SW, F 4,6 Planning Low Local Short-Term Yes Protection,
Planning /
Mitigation
Local
INITIATIVE # 2-
Re-establish recognitions for the City of Liberty Lake under the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule
administered by the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-10 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
TABLE 5-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assetsMitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
Existing SW,E,W2,4,12 Building Low Local Short-Term Yes Preventive Local
,L,F,V,D Activities
INITIATIVE # 3-
Structural seismic retrofit of Harvard Road Bridge Overpass
Existing SW,E 1,2,9,10 City Admin High State, Short-Term Yes Emergency Local,
Local, Services, County,
Grants Preventative Region
Activities
INITIATIVE # 4-
Place vulnerable utilities underground that are vulnerable to severe weather.
Existing SW 1,2,3,10 Local High General Short-Term Yes Preventive Local, County
Fund, Activities
Utility
INITIATIVE # 5-
Trimming/removal of hazardous trees that can cause damage to life or property during storms.
Existing SW 2,3,10 Planning Medium General Short-Term Yes Preventive Local, County
Fund, Activities
Utility
INITIATIVE # 6-
Support countywide initiatives that promote education of the public of natural hazards within the region.
Existing SW,E,W1,3,4,8 City Admin Low Local Short-Term Yes Public Information Local,
,L,F,V,D County,
Region
INITIATIVE #7-
Continue to coordinate with Spokane County DEM in disaster response and preparedness to include updates to
CEMP, hazard mitigation plan, training, exercises and other support.
Existing WE,E,W1,3,4,8 City Admin Low Local Short/Long Yes Preventative Local,
,L,F,V,D Term Activities County,
Region
INITIATIVE #8-
Actively participates in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan.
Existing WE,E,W1,4,8 DEM, City of Low Local Short Term Yes Preventative Local,
,L,F,V,D Liberty Lake Activities County,
Region
INITIATIVE #9-
Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures located in hazard-prone areas to protect
structures from future damage, with properties with exposure to repetitive losses as a priority.
Existing WE,E,W2,10,11 City of High FEMA Long Term Yes Structural Projects Local, County
,L,F,V,D Liberty Lake Grant,
Local
INITIATIVE #10-
Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans, ordinances or programs to dictate land uses within the
jurisdiction.
Existing WE,E,W2,3,4,5, Planning, Low Local Short Term Yes Preventative Local, County
,L,F,V,D City Admin Activities
11
Bridgeview Consulting 5-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 5-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE #11-
Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP.
Existing W 1,2,3,4,5,Spokane Medium Local, Short Term Yes Preventative Local,
7,8,9,10,County Fema/Fire Activities County,
11,12 Fire/ConservaGrants Region
tion Districts
INITIATIVE #12-
decreased risk
exposure of new development.
Existing WE,E,W4,5,11 Planning/City Low Local Short Term Yes Preventative Local, County
,L,F,V,D Services Activities
INITIATIVE #13-
Consider the adoption of higher regulatory standards that will result in an increase in the community resilience of
new development.
Existing WE,E,W4,5,11 Planning/City Low Local Long Term Yes Preventative Local, County
,L,F,V,D Services Activities
INITIATIVE #14-
Continue to support the countywide initiatives identified in this plan.
Existing WE,E,W1,3,4,8 DEM Low Local Short/Long Yes Preventative Local, County
,L,F,V,D Term Activities
5.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 5-9 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
TABLE 5-9.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
LL-1 2 High Low Yes No Yes High
LL-2 3 High Low Yes No Yes High
LL-3 4 High High No Yes No Medium
LL-4 4 Medium High No Yes No Medium
LL-5 3 High Low Yes No Yes Medium
LL-6 4 High Low Yes Yes Yes Medium
LL-7 4 High Low Yes No Yes Medium
LL-8 3 Low Low Yes Yes Yes High
Bridgeview Consulting 5-12 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
TABLE 5-9.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
LL-9 3 High High Yes Yes No Medium
LL-10 5 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
LL-11 10 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
LL-12 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
LL-13 3 Medium Low Yes No No Medium
LL-14 4 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
5.11 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES
Table 5-10 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
TABLE 5-10.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
Continued implementation of public education The City of Liberty Lake and its planning
programs within Liberty Lake in conjunction partners continue to have an extensive
with regional partners to educate citizens outreach program. Several CERT classes
about the hazards faced, and the appropriate were conducted since the last plan
preparedness and response for each of those completion; several annual safety fairs have
measures. occurred; council presentations of various
types are used by all planning partners to
provide information on hazards and
associated efforts to enhance resiliency of
Spokane County.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
5.12 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The City of Liberty Lake is in the process of participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. A
second read of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances being presented to our city council for action on
November 19 th. Upon adoption of that Ordinance, the City of Liberty Lake will have completed all
requirements to participate in the NFIP, and the City will finalize its application for participation. The
Planning Engineering and Building Services Department has designated a NFIP administrator, who will
complete the necessary training and receive final certification by October 25, 2019. The City of Liberty
Lake is committed to providing resources to remain in compliance with the NFIP.
5.13 HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps are included below. These maps are based on the best available data
at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes.
Bridgeview Consulting 5-14 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
Bridgeview Consulting 5-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 5-16 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
Bridgeview Consulting 5-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 5-18 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
Bridgeview Consulting 5-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 5-20 April 2020
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
Bridgeview Consulting 5-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 5-22 April 2020
CHAPTER 6.
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE ANNEX
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Medical Lake, a
participating jurisdiction to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended
to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base
plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural
requirements apply to and were met by the City of Medical Lake. For planning purposes, this Annex
provides additional information specific to the jurisdiction, with a focus on providing greater details on the
risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this community only.
6.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The City of Medical Lake followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition
City of Medical Lake also formulated their
own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex
development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Doug Ross, City Administrator
Meeting attendance, planning
Primary Point of Contact
124 S. Lefevre St.
team facilitator; authoring of plan;
Medical Lake, WA 99022
capturing of information; conduct
Telephone: (509) 565-5050
public outreach with council and
dross@medical-lake.org
citizens during Council meetings;
present final plan to Council for
adoption.
Scott Duncan, Maint. Supervisor
Meeting attendance; author
Alternate Point of Contact
124 S. Lefever St.
portions of plan; capture
Medical Lake, WA 99022
information; assist with risk
Telephone: (509) 299-7715
ranking and capabilities
sduncan@medical-lake.org
assessment, assist with
development of strategies..
6.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
Date of Incorporation
1890
Current Population
5,005 as of April 1, 2019
Population Growth
Based on data provided by the Washington State Office of Financial
Management (OFM) the City has experienced a very slow growth rate of 1.93% since 2011.
Location and Description
The City is located 16 miles west of the City of Spokane in an
area referred to as the West Plains. Residential in character, the City is located within a 15-
Bridgeview Consulting 6-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
mile radius of Fairchild Air Force Base, Spokane International Airport and Eastern Washington
University.
Brief History
The City grew up around Medical Lake, a lake that the Native Americans
believed had healing powers and tribes would come and splash lake water on hot stones to
engulf the sick in healing steam. European settlers also believed in the healing powers of the
lake, and in the late 1900s and early 20 th century the City became a popular tourist destination.
In 1943 Fairchild Airforce Base was established just to the north of the City and provided a
new economic opportunity to the community and region. To this day, the City is well known
for its lake and recreational opportunities including six parks and a network of paved walking
trails.
Climate
The City enjoys all four seasons, with daily winter temperatures averaging 29°F and
an average winter snowfall amount of 12.5 inches. Summer daily temperatures average 66°F
with an average rainfall amount of 2.7 inches. In the summer months, the City enjoys sunshine
75% of the season.
Governing Body Format
The City operates on the Mayor/Council form of government, all
elected. There are seven Council positions, which like the Mayor, serve four year terms. The
City has five departments: Executive, Finance, Planning, Parks & Recreation, Public Works
and Code E
services and is incorporated into Spokane County Fire District 3. The City also has a five-
member Planning Commission appointed by the Mayor.
Development Trends
Development trends for the City have been primarily residential in
nature although within the last 10 years commercial development has been on the rise. The
City draws water from a dwindling aquifer which has had an impact on the amount of new
connections available within the water system. Property values continue to rise within the City
and a second water source will be connected to the existing water system in the spring of 2020
providing the opportunity for more residential and commercial growth. The City completed its
state mandated Comprehensive Plan Update in October of 2019.
Economy
employers within the City are Eastern State Hospital and the Medical Lake School District.
Although located outside the City, another large employer of Medical Lake residents is
and healthcare related services.
The jurisdiction boundaries are identified in the map below.
6.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are hazards which are unique to
the jurisdiction as follows:
Table 6-1 lists all past occurrences of hazard events within the jurisdiction. If available, dollar loss data is
also included.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-2 April 2020
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE
TABLE 6-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Severe Storm 4246 11/12/2015
Severe Storm 1825 12/12/2008
Severe Ice Storm 1152 11/19/1996
Volcanic Eruption 623 5/21/1980
6.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
National Flood Insurance Information; regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative
and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going
mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various
community programs.
6.5.1 National Flood Insurance Information
Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in
Table 6-2
Repetitive flood loss records are as follows:
Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: Insert #0
Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: Insert #0
Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been Mitigated:
Insert #0
TABLE 6-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
What department is responsible for floodplain management in your
Relies on County
community?
No
Bridgeview Consulting 6-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 6-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? No
What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? Unknown
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community
Unknown
Assistance Contact?
To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding No
NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what
they are.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your Yes.
community? (If no, please state why)
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to
No.
support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of
assistance/training is needed?
Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If No.
so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your
community interested in joining the CRS program?
6.5.2 Regulatory Capability
Table 6-3. This includes
planning and land management tools, typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation
activities and indicates those that are currently in place.
TABLE 6-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code IRC, IFC,IBC, UPC Yes
Version
Year 2015
Zoning Ordinance Yes
Subdivision Ordinance Yes
Floodplain Ordinance No
Stormwater Management Yes
Post Disaster Recovery Yes
Real Estate Disclosure No
Bridgeview Consulting 6-4 April 2020
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE
TABLE 6-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Growth Management Yes
Site Plan Review Yes
Public Health and Safety Yes
Coastal Zone Management No
Climate Change Adaptation No
Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance Yes Critical Areas Ordinance
(stormwater, steep slope, wildfire,
etc.)
Environmental Protection Yes Critical Areas Ordinance
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive Plan Yes
Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan?
Yes
Floodplain or Basin Plan No
Stormwater Plan Yes
Capital Improvement Plan Yes Comprehensive Plan Element
Habitat Conservation Plan Yes Critical Areas Ordinance
Economic Development Plan Yes Comprehensive Plan Element
Shoreline Management Plan Yes Shoreline Master Plan
Community Wildfire Protection No
Plan
Transportation Plan Yes Comprehensive Plan Element
Response/Recovery Planning
Comprehensive Emergency No Yes DEM
Management Plan
Threat and Hazard Identification No Yes DEM
and Risk Assessment
Terrorism Plan No
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes
Public Health Plans No Yes Spokane County Health District
Boards and Commission
Planning Commission Yes
Mitigation Planning Committee Yes -
2020 planning process and will remain
part of the mitigation planning committee
during the life cycle of this plan.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 6-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Maintenance programs to reduce No
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing
drainage systems, chipping, etc.)
Mutual Aid Agreements / Yes
Memorandums of Understanding
Other
6.5.3 Administrative and Technical Capability
and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 6-4. These are elements which support not only
mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to implement mitigation
activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 6-4.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land Yes City Administrator, City Engineer
development and land management practices
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes Building Inspector
construction practices (building officials, fire
inspectors, etc.)
Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes City Engineer
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes City Administrator
natural hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis No
Surveyors Yes City Engineer
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes City Engineer
Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use No
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
Emergency Manager Yes Greater Spokane Emergency Management
Grant writers Yes City Administrator
Bridgeview Consulting 6-6 April 2020
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE
TABLE 6-4.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor Yes Through county
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?)
Hazard data and information available to public Yes City Administrator
Maintain Elevation Certificates No
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations Yes American Red Cross
focused on emergency preparedness?
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on environmental protection?
Organization focused on individuals with access Yes
and functional needs populations
Yes City Administrator, Spokane County Fire District 3,
Ongoing public education or information program
Maintenance Supervisor
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? Yes The school districts within Medical Lake provide
this information to students and families.
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes The County provides this service countywide during
various seasons.
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program Yes Spokane County Noxious Weed Control Board
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes Spokane County Noxious Weed Control Board
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils No
Chipper program No
Defensible space inspections program Yes Spokane County Fire District 3
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance Yes Maintenance Supervisor
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program No
Erosion or sediment control program No
Bridgeview Consulting 6-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 6-4.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Address signage for property addresses Yes Spokane County Fire District 3
Other
6.5.4 Fiscal Capability
Table 6-5. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 6-5.
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or Eligible
Financial Resources to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Other
6.5.5 Community Classifications
Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 6-6. Each of the
classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the resilience of a
community.
TABLE 6-6.
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System Yes
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 4
Commercial
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 4
Dwelling
Bridgeview Consulting 6-8 April 2020
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE
TABLE 6-6.
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Protection Class 6
Storm Ready Yes
Firewise No
6.6 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have
identified the hazards that affect the City of Medical Lake, computing their Calculated Priority Risk Index
(CPRI) scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Duration
Severity Location Time Risk Index Score
Drought 4 2 2 1 4 2.75
Earthquake 3 2 2 4 1 2.65
Flood 4 3 3 2 2 3.2
Landslide 2 1 2 4 2 2.1
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 2 2 1 4 1.55
Wildfire 4 3 3 4 3 3.55
st
hazardous situation.
Table 6-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
TABLE 6-7.
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Vulnerability
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Rank
1
Wildfire 3.55 High
2
Severe Weather 3.40 High
3
Flood 3.20High
4
Drought 2.75 Medium
5
Earthquake 2.65 Medium
6
Landslide 2.10 Medium-Low
7
Volcano 1.55 Low
6.7 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Medical Lake adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning
Team described in Volume 1.
6.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the jurisdiction identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
Table 6-8 lists the
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-10 April 2020
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE
TABLE 6-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE #ML1 Seek additional potable water source to provide drought protection, aquifer pollution protection and
better wildfire fighting capabilities.
Existing D, F, 1, 2, 7, 8, City of Medium HMGP, Short-Term No Structural/Property Local,
SW, WF 9 ,11 Medical Lake Wa/Se Protection County
Fund
INITIATIVE #ML2 Installation of additional aerators to provide protection of Medical Lake
Existing D, F 2, 10, 11 City of High HMGP, Short-Term No Natural Resource Local
Medical Lake General Protection
Fund
INITIATIVE #3 Continue to work with the County in emergency management matters and public awareness campaigns.
New and All All County EM Low General Long-Term No All All
Existing Fund
6.9 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 6-9 identifies the prioritization for each action item.
TABLE 6-9.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative
Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
ML1 6 High $500,000 Exceed Yes No High
ML2 3 Medium $120,000 Exceed Yes No High
ML3 9 High Low Exceed No Yes High
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
6.10 HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps are included below. These maps are based on the best available data
at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes.
Bridgeview Consulting 6-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 6-12 April 2020
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE
Bridgeview Consulting 6-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 6-14 April 2020
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE
Bridgeview Consulting 6-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 6-16 April 2020
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE
Bridgeview Consulting 6-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 6-18 April 2020
CHAPTER 7.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ANNEX UPDATE
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Spokane Valley, a
participating jurisdiction to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended
to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base
plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural
requirements apply to and were met by the City of Spokane Valley. For planning purposes, this Annex
provides additional information specific to the jurisdiction, with a focus on providing greater details on the
risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this community only. This document serves as an update to the
previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as
appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1.
7.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The City of Spokane Valley followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In
formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting
in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Mark Calhoun
Primary Point of Contact Directed the development of the
City Manager
(Original)
10210 E Sprague Ave
identification of planning team
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
members; provided information;
509-720-5100
attended kick-off and planning
ƒĭğƌŷƚǒƓθƭƦƚƉğƓĻǝğƌƌĻǤ͵ƚƩŭ
meeting; reviewed plan and
maintained contact with County
HMP team.
Jenny Nickerson
Captured relevant data required to
Primary Point of Contact
Building Official
complete plan; attended internal
10210 E Sprague Ave
working group meetings; assisted
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
in plan authoring and review.
509.720.5305
jnickerson@spokanevalley.org
Bridgeview Consulting 7-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Bill Helbig
Alternate Point of Contact Attended planning team meetings
City Engineer
as required; Captured relevant
10210 E Sprague Ave
data necessary to complete plan;
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
attended internal working group
509.720.5320
meetings; assisted in plan
bhelbig@spokanevalley.org
authoring and review.
Marci Patterson
Attended all planning meetings;
Primary Point of Contact
Executive Assistant
assimilated all data and
10210 E Sprague Ave
information necessary to
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
complete the annex template;
509.720.5108
served as primary author of plan
mpatterson@spokanevalley.org
as data was captured.
7.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
Date of Incorporation
March 31, 2003
Current Population
99,011 as of April 2019
Population Growth
Based on data from the Washington State Office of Financial
Management and U.S. Census Bureau, Spokane Valley has experienced a 1.9-percent increase
in population since 2010. Spokane Valley has seen approximately a 13.3-percent increase in
population from its estimated population of 99,011 at the time of incorporation on April, 2019.
Location and Description
The City of Spokane Valley is located near the eastern border of
Washington. The incorporated area of Spokane Valley encompasses 38.5 square miles of land
area, with room for residential, commercial and industrial expansion. Within the incorporated
city limits, there are 438 miles of roadway. It has an extensive retail tax base and is home to
several major auto dealerships, a Spokane Business Park with more than 70 buildings ranging
from 1,200 to 270,000 square feet, and the Spokane Valley Mall, which includes over 700,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area. There are more than 10,358 businesses registered to do
business in Spokane Valley as of October 2019, with estimated annual retail sales in 2018 of
$2.57 billion.
Brief History
Spokane Valley occupies the broad, gravelly valley of the Spokane River and
-
1890), a former fur trader, operated a ferry over the river beginning in about 1854. Over the
next few decades, settlers began to establish farms, orchards, and trading posts such as the
Dishman Store. Beginning in 1895, irrigation vastly increased the productivity of the land.
Apples were the chief crop until about 1925, when truck farming took over. World War II
brought a huge aluminum plant to Trentwood and hundreds of jobs. The 1950s brought a rapid
growth trend toward suburban living, which caused a population boom in the last half of the
century. Several incorporation drives were attempted and failed. Finally, in 2002, voters
authorized the creation of a 38.5-square-mile city. Today Spokane Valley is the 10th largest
city in Washington.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-2 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Climate
At an elevation of 2,384 feet, Spokane Valley experiences all four seasons of the
year. Annual average rainfall is 18.2 inches with an annual average snowfall of 20.1 inches
from November to April. Temperatures range from average January lows of 23ºF to mid-
summer average highs at 85.4ºF.
Governing Body Format
The City of Spokane Valley is a non-charter code city and operates
under a council-manager plan of government. It is governed under the optional municipal code
of RCW Chapter 35A. Under this form of government, legislative authority is concentrated in
the elected City Council, which hires a professional administrator to implement its policies.
The executive branch is led by the city manager. There are seven positions on the City Council,
and all council positions are at-large positions. Councilmembers are generally elected to four-
year terms, with elections held every two years. For continuity, position terms are staggered by
two years so that not all positions are open for election at the same time. The chair of the council
has the title of Mayor and presides at Council meetings
Development Trends
The City of Spokane Valley and its immediate area are primarily urban
and suburban residential with supporting retail and commercial enterprises. Heavy industrial
uses are located along the BNSF/UP railways, primarily within the Industrial Park near the
northeastern border of the city, which also houses light industrial and manufacturing uses.
Washington State Law, (RCW Chapter 36.70), requires that counties that meet specified
population criteria, as well as cities within those counties, prepare and adopt a comprehensive
long-range plan to serve as a guide for community development. The plan must consist of an
integrated and internally consistent set of goals, policies, and implementation measures. In
addition, the plan must focus on issues of the greatest concern to the community and be written
in a clear and concise manner. City actions, such as those relating to land use allocations,
annexations, zoning, subdivision and design review, redevelopment, and capital improvements,
must be consistent with the plan. The City of Spokane Valley is in compliance and good
standing with the provisions of RCW 36.70 and adopted its most recent comprehensive plan in
2006. The most recent update occurred in 2013; the City will review and amend the Plan as
necessary to allow for the management of future growth and development as identified in this
plan.
Economy
healthcare and social assistance. In 2019, these industries together accounted for 25,705 jobs in the
city, about 40 percent of employment in the city.
Manufacturing companies in Spokane Valley range from very small to very large; leading industry
segments include aluminum casting, aerospace products, structural and other metal products, and
medical equipment and supplies. These businesses enjoy significant distribution options thanks to
Interstate 90 and two class 1 railroads that travel through the city. The largest manufacturing
employers include Kaiser Aluminum, Wagstaff, Key Tronic EMS, Servatron, Mackay
Manufacturing, Spokane Industries, Katerra and Hotstart.
The greater Spokane region is the health care hub of the Inland Northwest and northern Idaho.
Specifically, Spokane Valley host numerous healthcare facilities that serve a regional customer
base, including MultiCare Valley Hospital, CancerCare Northwest and Spokane CyberKnife and
Radiation Oncology Center.
Spokane Valley is a major retail presence in the region. The city is home to the Valley Mall (108
plus stores) and a diverse range of businesses situated mostly along key arterials. In terms of the
number of establishments within the city, the largest percentage (19 percent) offer food and
beverage services. Miscellaneous store retailers (representing a broad mix of typically smaller-
footprint retailers) and motor vehicle and parts dealers also accounted for sizable portions of the
Bridgeview Consulting 7-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
and innovate. New companies that recently chose Spokane Valley as the first site of their expansion
into Washington State include Dulut
include Costco, Walmart, Yolks, Fred Meyer and Carmax.
7.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the jurisdiction. Table 7-1 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction.
The City could not identify specific dollar losses associated with the hazard impact, but will work at
maintaining the information for future plan updates.
TABLE 7-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # Dollar Losses
Type of Event (if applicable) Date (if known)
Flood DR 4309 04.21.2017 Unknown.
Severe Storms DR 4249 01.15.2016 Unknown
Wildfire EM 3372 08.21.2015 Unknown
Severe Storms DR 1825 03.02.2009 Unknown
Wildfire FM 2783 07.11.2008 Unknown
Hurricane Katrina EM 3227 09.07.2005 Unknown
Flood/Landslides DR 1172 04.02.1997 Unknown
Severe Storms DR 1159 01.17.1997 Unknown
Severe Storms DR 1152 11.19.1997 Unknown
Flood DR 1100 02.09.1996 Unknown
Wildfire DR 922 11.13.1991 Unknown
Flood DR 769 07.26.1986 Unknown
Flood EM 3086 08.19.1982 Unknown
Volcano DR 623 05.21.1980 Unknown
Drought EM 3037 03.31.1977 Unknown
Flood DR 185 12.29.1964 Unknown
Bridgeview Consulting 7-4 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
7.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
National Flood Insurance Information; regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative
and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going
mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation, and classifications under various community
programs.
7.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION
ce is presented in
Table 7-2
Repetitive flood loss records are as follows:
Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: None
Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None
Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been
Mitigated: None
TABLE 7-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE
What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Community and Public Works
Department
John Hohman
Deputy City Manager
Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? Yes
What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? 06.25.2010
An update is currently in
process.
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community 9/18/08
Assistance Contact?
To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding NFIP No
compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what they are.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your No.
community? (If no, please state why) There is one major floodplain
that is currently unstudied with
approximate A zones that do not
adequately address actual flood
risk.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 7-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to support No
its floodplain management program? If so, what type of assistance/training is
needed?
Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If so, No.
is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your We are not currently interested
community interested in joining the CRS program? in joining the CRS program.
7.6.1 Regulatory Capability
Table 7-3. This includes
planning and land management tools, typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation
activities and indicates those that are currently in place.
TABLE 7-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes No No Currently adopted Washington State
Building Codes under the State Building
Version:
Code Act, RCW 19.27
Year: 2015
Zoning Ordinance Yes No No City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Title 19, Zoning Regulations
Subdivision Ordinance Yes No No City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Title 20, Subdivision Regulations
Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes Yes
Stormwater Management Yes No Yes City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Title 22, Design and Development
Regulations
Post Disaster Recovery No No No
Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations must be consistent with
Chapter 64.06 RCW
Growth Management Yes No Yes Regulations must be consistent with
Chapter 36.70A RCW
Site Plan Review Yes No No City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Title 19, Zoning Regulations
Public Health and Safety No Yes Yes Spokane Regional Health Department and
Washington State Department of Health
Coastal Zone Management No No No Not Applicable to Region
Climate Change Adaptation No No No
Bridgeview Consulting 7-6 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
TABLE 7-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance Yes Yes Yes
(stormwater, steep slope, wildfire,
etc.)
Environmental Protection Yes Yes Yes
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive Plan Yes No Yes
Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan?
Yes
Floodplain or Basin Plan No No No
Stormwater Plan No No No
Capital Improvement Plan Yes Yes Yes
Habitat Conservation Plan No No No
Economic Development Plan No No No
Shoreline Management Plan Yes No Yes Comprehensive Plan and Development
regulations must be consisted with
Chapter 90.58 RCW
Community Wildfire Protection Yes No No Spokane County Community Wildfire
Plan Protection Plan
Transportation Plan Yes Yes Yes 6 Year Transportation Improvement
Program
Response/Recovery Planning
Comprehensive Emergency No Yes No Spokane County Emergency Management
Management Plan
Threat and Hazard Identification No Yes No Spokane County Emergency
and Risk Assessment Management, Hazard Mitigation Plan
Terrorism Plan No No No
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan No No No
Continuity of Operations Plan No No No
Public Health Plans Yes No No County Public Health maintains various
health plans on which the City relies when
needed for these services.
Boards and Commission
Planning Commission Yes Yes No
Mitigation Planning Committee Yes No No
update for this 2020 version of the plan,
and will continue to serve on the
Committee as required within the Plan
Maintenance Strategy portion of the plan.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 7-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Maintenance programs to reduce Yes Yes No
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing
drainage systems, chipping, etc.)
Mutual Aid Agreements / No No No
Memorandums of Understanding
Other
7.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 7-4 . These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 7-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land Yes Community and Public Works Department Staff
development and land management practices
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes Community and Public Works Department Staff
construction practices (building officials, fire
inspectors, etc.)
Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes Community and Public Works Staff
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes Community and Public Works Department Staff
natural hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes City Finance Staff
Surveyors No
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes Community and Public Works Department Staff
Personnel skilled or trained in Hazus use No
Scientist familiar with natural hazards in local area No
Emergency Manager Yes
Grant writers Yes Community and Public Works Department Staff
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor No
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?)
Hazard data and information available to public No
Maintain Elevation Certificates Yes Community and Public Works Department Staff
Bridgeview Consulting 7-8 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
TABLE 7-4
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on emergency preparedness?
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on environmental protection?
Organization focused on individuals with access No
and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program No
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? Yes This is a service provided by the local school
districts.
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes The City is part of an interlocal agreement with
Spokane County to provide these services.
Other No
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes Spokane County Noxious Weed Control Board
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils No
Chipper program No
Defensible space inspections program Yes This is a service provided by the local fire districts in
conjunction with the Spokane County Conservation
District.
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance Yes Community and Public Works Department Staff
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program No
Erosion or sediment control program No
Address signage for property addresses Yes Community and Public Works Department Staff
Other
7.6.3 Fiscal Capability
presented in Table 7-5. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 7-5
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or Eligible
Financial Resources to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes
Other N/A
7.7 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Table 7-6. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community.
TABLE 7-6.
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) or
Date Enrolled
Rating
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3
Protection Class 2
Storm Ready Yes
Firewise No
Tsunami Ready (if applicable) N/A
7.8 HAZARD RISK AND VULERABILITY RANKING
internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have
identified the hazards that affect the City of Spokane Valley, computing their Calculated Priority Risk Index
(CPRI) scores as follows:
Bridgeview Consulting 7-10 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Duration
Severity Location Time Risk Index Score
Drought 4 2 2 1 4 2.75
Earthquake 3 2 2 4 1 2.65
Flood 4 3 3 2 2 3.2
Landslide 3 2 2 4 2 2.7
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 2 2 1 4 1.55
Wildfire 4 3 3 4 3 3.55
st
hazardous situation.
Table 7-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score, and the discussion
based on the subject matter expertise of the internal planning team as they felt the hazards would impact
them, or have historically impacted them. In some cases, the numeric ranking varies as a result of this
subjective assessment, as well as hazards being ranked equally. A qualitative vulnerability ranking was
then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past occurrences, spatial extent,
damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is categorized into the following
classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and
property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no disruption to
essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 7-7.
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Vulnerability
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Rank
1 Wildfire 3.55 High
1 Severe Weather 3.4 High
2 Flood 3.2 High
2 Landslide 2.7 Medium
3 Earthquake 2.65 Medium
4 Drought 2.75 Medium
5 Volcano 1.55 Low
7.9 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Spokane Valley adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning
Team described in Volume 1.
7.10 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the jurisdiction identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
concern. Table 7-8 lists the
ound information and
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-12 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
TABLE 7-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Initiative Type:
Public Information,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects, Who or What
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Benefits?
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services, Facility, Local,
existing Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural County,
Hazards Objectives
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection Region
INITIATIVE #
COSV 1 Enforce updated Building and Energy Codes.
New & All 1,2,3,10 City of Low City of Short-Term Yes Public All
HazardsSpokane
Existing Spokane Information/Preven
Valley,
Valley tative Activities
Washington
Community
Assoc. of
Development
Building
Officials,
Idaho
Assoc. of
Building
Officials
Washington
State
University
Energy
Program,
Internationa
l Code
Council
INITIATIVE #
COSV 2 Educate residents in flood-prone areas by providing informational pamphlets.
New & Flood, 2,4,5,6,8,City of Low City of Short-Term Yes Public Information All
Existing Severe 10 Spokane Spokane
Weather Valley Valley,
Community Internatio
Development nal Code
Council
INITIATIVE #
COSV 3 Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This
will be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that, at a minimum, will meet the requirements
of the NFIP, which include the following:
Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance
Participating in flood plain identification and mapping updates
Providing public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts.
New & Flood, 2,4,5,6,8,City of Low Local Ongoing Yes Public Information/ All
Existing Severe 10 Spokane Property
Weather Valley Protection/Preventa
Community tive Activities
Development
INITIATIVE #
COSV 4 Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 7-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Initiative Type:
Public Information,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects, Who or What
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Benefits?
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services, Facility, Local,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural County,
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection Region
New & Wildfire 1,2,3,4,5,Spokane Medium Local, Short-Term Yes Public Information/ All
Existing 7,8,9,10,Conservation Fire Preventative
11,12 District, all Grants, Activities
County Fire FEMA
Districts Hazard
Mitigation
Grants
INITIATIVE #
COSV 5
in a decreased risk exposure of new development.
New & All 4,5,11 Spokane Low Local Short-Term Yes Public Information All
Existing Hazards Conservation Ongoing
District, all
County Fire
Districts
INITIATIVE #
COSV 6 Consider, where appropriate, the adoption of higher regulatory standards that will result in an increase in
the community resilience of new development.
New All 4,5,11 Spokane Low Local Long-Term Yes Public Information/ All
Hazards Conservation Preventative
District, all Activities
County Fire
Districts
INITIATIVE #
COSV 7 Continue to support the countywide initiatives identified in the plan.
New & All 1,3,4,8 DEM Low Local Ongoing Yes Preventative All
Existing Hazards Activities
INITIATIVE #
COSV 8 Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan.
New & All 1,4,8 DEM Low Local Short Term Yes Preventative All
Existing Hazards Activities
INITIATIVE #
COSV 9 Provide scour protection for vulnerable bridge abutments.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-14 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
TABLE 7-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Initiative Type:
Public Information,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects, Who or What
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Benefits?
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services, Facility, Local,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural County,
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection Region
Existing Flood, 1,11 Spokane High Hazard Long Term Yes Preventative All
Severe Valley Public Mitigation Activities/Structura
Weather Works Grant l Projects/Property
Program, Protection/Natural
Flood Resource
Control Protection
Assistance
Account
Program,
Public
Works
Trust
Fund
7.11 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 7-9 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
TABLE 7-9.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
COSV-1 4 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes Medium
COSV-2 6 Low Low Yes Yes Yes Medium
COSV-3 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
COSV-4 10 Medium High Yes Yes Yes High
COSV-5 3 Medium Low Yes No Yes High
COSV-6 3 Medium Low Yes No No Medium
COSV-7 4 Low Low Yes Yes Yes High
COSV-8 3 Low Low Yes Yes Yes High
COSV-9 2 High High Yes Yes No Medium
7.12 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES
Table 7-10 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 7-10.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
COSV 1 Enforce updated Building and X X
Energy Codes.
X
COSV 2 Educate residents in flood-prone X
areas by providing informational pamphlets.
X
COSV 3 Protect the aquifer from critical Title 21; Environmental Controls, has been
materials through secondary containment amended to require secondary containment
requirements and documentation. and spill control planning for all materials
which have the potential to harm or
adversely affect the aquifer.
X
COSV 4 Continue to maintain compliance X
and good standing under the National Flood
Insurance Program. This will be accomplished
through the implementation of floodplain
management programs that, at a minimum, will
meet the requirements of the NFIP, which
include the following:
Enforcement of the adopted flood damage
prevention ordinance
Participating in flood plain identification
and mapping updates
Providing public assistance/information on
floodplain requirements and impacts.
X
COSV 5 Consider participating in the NFIP
Community Rating System.
X
COSV 6 Where appropriate, support No action has been taken
retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of
structures in hazard-prone areas to protect
structures from future damage, with properties
with exposure to repetitive losses as a priority.
X
COSV 7 Integrate the hazard mitigation plan No action has been taken and this has been
into other plans, ordinances or programs to addressed by other initiatives
dictate land uses within the jurisdiction.
COSV 8 Implement wildfire mitigation X X
recommendations identified in the Spokane
County CWPP.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-16 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
TABLE 7-10.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy Project Status
COSV 9 Continue to maintain and/or X X
codes and regulations that result in a decreased
risk exposure of new development.
COSV 10 Consider, where appropriate, the X X
adoption of higher regulatory standards that
will result in an increase in the community
resilience of new development.
X X
COSV 11 Continue to support the
countywide initiatives identified in the plan.
X X
COSV 12 Actively participate in the plan
maintenance strategy identified in this plan.
X X
COSV 13 Provide scour protection for Ongoing Bridge Maintenance Program
vulnerable bridge abutments.
7.13 HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps are included below. These maps are based on the best available data
at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes.
Bridgeview Consulting 7-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 7-18 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Bridgeview Consulting 7-19 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 7-20 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Bridgeview Consulting 7-21 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 7-22 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Bridgeview Consulting 7-23 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 7-24 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Bridgeview Consulting 7-25 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 7-26 April 2020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Bridgeview Consulting 7-27 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 7-28 April 2020
CHAPTER 8.
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Town of Fairfield, a participating
jurisdiction to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended to be a
standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan
document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural
requirements apply to and were met by the Town of Fairfield. For planning purposes, this Annex provides
additional information specific to the jurisdiction, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk
assessment and mitigation strategy for this community only.
8.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The Town of Fairfield followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In addition to
Town of Fairfield also formulated their own
internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex
development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
KayDee Gilkey, Mayor
Primary Point of Overall author of the plan; captured
PO Box 334
Contact information, attended county meetings,
Fairfield, WA 99012
developed strategies. Established
Telephone: Phone #509-990-6105
internal planning team for Town.
e-mail Address: mayor@fairfieldwa.com
Devin Billington, Public Works Supervisor
Alternate Point of Provided information to complete
PO Box 334
Contact annex, attended planning team
Fairfield, WA 99012
meetings, assisted in strategy
Phone #509-995-4059
development, provided information for
e-mail: publicworks@fairfieldwa.com
the Capabilities Assessment.
Terry Liberty, Town Planner
Planner and code Provided information to complete
PO Box 334
annex, attended planning team
enforcer
Fairfield, WA 99012
meetings, provided information for the
Telephone: 509-230-7030
Capabilities Assessment.
e-mail: fairfieldplanner@gmail.com
Cheryl Loeffler, Clerk
Provided information to complete
Town Clerk
PO Box 334
annex, attended meetings, assisted in
Fairfield, WA 99012
strategy development, provided
Telephone: 509-283-2414
information for the Capabilities
Email: townclerk@fairfieldwa.com
Assessment.
8.3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
Date of Incorporation
1889
Bridgeview Consulting 8-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Current Population
620 as of 2016 Census
Population Growth
since the early 2000s.
Location and Description
The Town of Fairfield is located in Southeast Spokane County
and along Highway 27.
Brief History
Established the same year that Washington gained its statehood in 1889,
Fairfield quickly became one of the gems of the Palouse. With its rolling hills and fertile soil,
it quickly attracted settlers to the area. The Town of Fairfield has celebrated Flag Day with a
parade and community festivities continuously since 1910. We have maintained an
approximate population of around 600 people since the early 2000s. Agriculture is an important
economy as well as Palouse County Assisted Living Facility (our largest employer in Fairfield).
Climate
Fairfield averages about 18 inches of rain per year. There are approximately 173
sunny days per year. Snowfall averages about 39 inches of snow per year. It is definitely a four
seasons climate.
Governing Body Format
The Town of Fairfield is governed by a five-member City Council.
The Mayor is considered the City Manager.
Development Trends
Development trends for the Town of Fairfield are limited, with several
new houses being built in recent years. We anticipate more growth in future years as the
reminder of Spokane County has really had the growth and southeast corner is really one of the
only remaining growth for residential opportunities in the county.
Economy
services (e.g., retail sales and services; recreational and healthcare services; agricultural; and
light manufacturing. The largest employers include: Palouse County Assisted Living Facility
and the Pacific Northwest Co-op.
The jurisdiction boundaries are identified in the map below.
8.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the jurisdiction Table 8-1 lists all past occurrences of hazard events within the jurisdiction.
If available, dollar loss data is also included.
TABLE 8-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
Type of Event FEMA Disaster # (if applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Volcano 623 5/18/80 $10,000
Flood 1100 2/09/96 unknown
Severe Storms 1159 1/17/97 unknown
Severe Storm 4249 1/15/2016 $88,134
Bridgeview Consulting 8-2 April 2020
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
8.5 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identi
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
National Flood Insurance Information; regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative
and technical mitigation capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going
mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various
community programs.
8.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION
I
Table 8-2. This identifies the current status of the
Repetitive flood loss records are as follows:
Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties: None at this time
Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties: None at this time
Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Been Mitigated:
None at this time
TABLE 8-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
What department is responsible for floodplain management in your Planning Commission
community?
Cheryl Loeffler
Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in your community? No
What is the date of adoption of your flood damage prevention ordinance? 4-20-2010
When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or Community
CAV 8-17-2011
Assistance Contact?
CAC 6-15-2017
To the best of your knowledge, does your community have any outstanding
Not that we are aware of
NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed? If so, please state what
they are.
Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood risk within your No. the 1994 SCS study is
community? (If no, please state why) better. RiskMap app
Bridgeview Consulting 8-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 8-2
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance or training to Yes, general information
support its floodplain management program? If so, what type of
assistance/training is needed?
Does your community participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? If No willing to learn more
so, is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification? If not, is your about it.
community interested in joining the CRS program?
8.6.1 Regulatory Capability
regulatory capabilities is presented in Table 8-3 . This
includes planning and land management tools, typically used by local jurisdictions to implement hazard
mitigation activities and indicates those that are currently in place.
TABLE 8-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Codes, Ordinances & Requirements
Building Code Yes As required under Growth Management and
Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Zoning Ordinance Yes
Subdivision Ordinance Yes
Floodplain Ordinance Yes
Stormwater Management Yes
Real Estate Disclosure No
Growth Management Yes Yes Currently updating
Site Plan Review Yes
Public Health and Safety Yes Contract with Fire District and County
Sheriff Dept.
Coastal Zone Management n/a
Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance Yes Within our Growth Management Plan
(stormwater, steep slope, wildfire,
etc.)
Environmental Protection No
Planning Documents
General or Comprehensive Plan
Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation plan?
No -- still working on it
Floodplain or Basin Plan No Have a Floodplain Management Study
Capital Improvement Plan Yes Working on as a part of Growth
Management
Bridgeview Consulting 8-4 April 2020
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
TABLE 8-3
LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY
Other
Local Jurisdictional State
Authority Authority Mandated Comments
Economic Development Plan Yes Working on as a part of Growth
Management
Community Wildfire Protection Yes The Conservation District developed a
Plan Countywide CWPP in 2015.
Transportation Plan Yes Working on as a part of Growth
Management
Response/Recovery Planning
Threat and Hazard Identification Yes Addressed in this document; the County
and Risk Assessment has a separate THIRA.
Terrorism Plan Yes Through Law Enforcement
Public Health Plans No The Town relies on the County Health
Department to provide these services.
Boards and Commission
Planning Commission Yes Yes Has been in adoption for decades
Mitigation Planning Committee Yes The Town has participated in the 2020
development of the HMP with the County,
and will remain a member in good standing
on that committee during the life cycle of
the plan.
Maintenance programs to reduce Yes Yes Ongoing chipping program
risk (e.g., tree trimming, clearing
drainage systems, chipping, etc.)
Mutual Aid Agreements / Yes MOU with Fire District
Memorandums of Understanding
Other
8.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capability
and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 8-4. These are elements which support not only
mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to implement mitigation
activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 8-4.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Planners or engineers with knowledge of land Yes Planner and engineering firm: Century West
development and land management practices
Bridgeview Consulting 8-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 8-4.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes Planner
construction practices (building officials, fire
inspectors, etc.)
Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes Engineering Firm Century West
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes Engineering Firm Century West
natural hazards
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis Yes Clerk
Surveyors No Not on staff, but can contract.
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS applications Yes We have a contract with Lon Ottosen
Personnel skilled in life safety techniques Yes Both of our Public Works employees are EMS and
Volunteer Firemen
Emergency Manager Yes Mayor and District Fire Chief District #2
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor Yes Spokane County Fire District #2
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?)
Hazard data and information available to public Yes If an emergency exists, the Town utilizes FB,
Website and electronic signage to communicate with
public.
Maintain Elevation Certificates No
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations Yes The County has personnel trained throughout the
focused on emergency preparedness? county to serve as CERT members and medical
reserve corps.
Organization focused on individuals with access Yes Local churches and Palouse County Assisted Living
and functional needs populations
Yes Both Conservation District and Cooperative
Ongoing public education or information program
Extension have shared public information/education
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? Yes The schools in the area are required to maintain
safety plans and programs for both natural and non-
natural hazards of concern.
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No While the Town does not have the personnel to
disaster-related issues? manage a program such as this, the County does
have programs in place, and reaches out to
businesses to provide hazard information as
appropriate.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-6 April 2020
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
TABLE 8-4.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes County provides general public education programs
which address all hazards of concern.
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes program
vegetation management
Chipper program Yes We contract to have chipping done twice a year
Defensible space inspections program Yes Various fire districts/departments provide this
service to homeowners as requested.
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance Yes Public works as needed
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program No
Erosion or sediment control program Yes Spokane County ordinance
8.6.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 8-5. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 8-5.
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or Eligible
Financial Resources to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service Yes
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Other
Bridgeview Consulting 8-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
8.6.4 Community Classifications
Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 8-6. Each of the
classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the resilience of a
community.
TABLE 8-6.
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 2 Not sure
Commercial
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3 Not sure
Dwelling
Protection Class 6 Not sure
Storm Ready County
Firewise Yes CWPP through
Conservation
District 2015
8.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have
identified the hazards that affect the Town of Fairfield, computing their Calculated Priority Risk Index
(CPRI) scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 3 2 2 1 4 2.35
Earthquake 2 3 2 4 1 2.45
Flood 3 2 3 2 2 2.6
Landslide 31 2 2 4 1 1.85
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 3 3.45
Volcano 1 3 4 1 1 2.
Wildfire 2 2 2 4 2 2.3
the most
hazardous situation.
Table 8-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Bridgeview Consulting 8-8 April 2020
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less costly
than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to essential
services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government functions
are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
TABLE 8-7.
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Vulnerability
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Rank
1
Severe Weather 3.45 High
2
Floods 2.6 Medium
3
Earthquake 2.45 Medium
4
Drought 2.35 Medium
5
Wildfire 2.30 Medium
6
Volcano 2.0 Low
7 Landslide 1.85 Low
8.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Town of Fairfield adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team
described in Volume 1.
8.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the jurisdiction identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
Table 8-8 lists the
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 8-8.
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
Hazards Objectives
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 1 Be prepared for Winter storms by having town equipment and staff ready to go. This includes necessary
training, radio equipment, and supplies necessary to manage the situation.
Existing SW All Public Works Medium PDM, Short-term No Emergency Local
HMGP, Services
Homeland
Security,
Streets
Budget
INITIATIVE #2 Work with state agencies to be allowed to clean/maintain sides of creek bank and culverts.
Existing Flood All Public Works High HMGP, Long term No Property Local, county
FMA, protection, natural
PDM, resource protection
HUD,
Conservati
on District
INITIATIVE #3 Seek out grant opportunities to conduct any type of creek bank stabilization necessary, and to appropriately
manage culverts (if size increase is necessary). This may also require that roadwork be completed. Conducting projects such
as this will ensure that response capabilities continue throughout the community as roadways will remain accessible.
New and All All Public Works High HMGP, Long-term No Property Local,
Existing HUD, Protection, Natural County
FMA, Resource
PDM Protection,
Preventive,
Structural,
Emergency
Services
INITIATIVE #4 Continue to inform citizens of the potential risks associated with the hazards of concern to help ensure their
safety, and to provide opportunities for mitigation efforts to increase resiliency.
New and All All Mayor High Current Long-Term No. Emergency Local and
Existing Budget, Services, Public County
HMGP Information,
Preventive Actions
8.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 8-9 identifies the prioritization for each action item.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-10 April 2020
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
TABLE 8-9.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
1 All High Medium - No Yes Yes High
Within
budget to
some
extent
2 All High High Yes Yes No High
3 All High High Yes Yes No High
4 All High Low to Yes Yes Yes High
Medium
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
8.11 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/
VULNERABILITY
Continuing to capture structure data and expanding on critical infrastructure information will be of benefit
in future plan updates.
8.12 HAZARD AREA EXTENT AND LOCATION
Hazard area extent and location maps are included below. These maps are based on the best available data
at the time of the preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes.
Bridgeview Consulting 8-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 8-12 April 2020
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
Bridgeview Consulting 8-13 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 8-14 April 2020
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
Bridgeview Consulting 8-15 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 8-16 April 2020
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX
Bridgeview Consulting 8-17 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Bridgeview Consulting 8-18 April 2020
CHAPTER 9.
NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ANNEX
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Newman Lake Flood Control
Zone District, a participating special purpose district to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements
the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the
planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Newman Lake Flood
Control Zone District. For planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the
district, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this
entity only.
9.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The Newman Lake Flood Control Zone District followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the
Newman Lake
Flood Control Zone District also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader
planning process. Individuals assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief
description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Malcolm Hamilton, Newman Lake Primary Point of Contact Point of Contact for the
Engineer District for Updating the
1026 W Broadway Ave Hazard Mitigation Plan
Spokane, WA 99260
Telephone: 509-477-7175
e-mail: mhamilton@spokanecounty.org
Dawson Matthews, Newman Lake Engineer Alternate Point of Contact Assistance with updating
1026 W Broadway Ave plan.
Spokane, WA 99260
Telephone: 509-477-7193
e-mail: dmatthews@spokanecount.org
Colleen Little, Manager Newman Lake Flood Assistance with updating plan
1026 W Broadway Ave Control Zone District
Spokane, WA 99260 Manager
Telephone: 509-477-7244
e-mail: clittle@spokanecounty.org
Spokane County Emergency Management Greater Spokane Provide guidance and
1121 W. Gardner Ave Emergency Management services from the County
Spokane, WA 99260 Department
Telephone: 509-477.3046
Bridgeview Consulting 9-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
9.3 DISTRICT PROFILE
The Newman Lake Flood Control Zone District (NLFCZD) is located in eastern Spokane County and
encompasses the watershed of Newman Lake and its outlet channel. The District was formed in 1968 when
Newman Lake property owners asked Spokane County for assistance in managing the lake level and flood
problems around Newman Lake. The District began collecting benefit assessments for the operation and
maintenance of the floodwater barrier, outlet channel and sump, and to pay off bonds used to fund right-of-
way acquisition in 1981.
Newman Lake area citizens began to raise water quality concerns in the lake 1970s and early 1980s. To
allow the District to assist in the efforts to study and alleviate water quality problems, citizens initiated a
campaign to revise state law to allow flood control zone districts to fund water quality improvements. This
was accomplished in 1983. At the time of the formation of the District, it was decided that of the funding
options for flood control zone districts, benefit assessments would be the most equitable. Every parcel
within the District is classified by benefit areas for both flood/lake level control facility benefits and water
quality improvement facility benefits. This classification and its associated benefit classification percentage
are based on the estimated amount that a parcel benefits from the implemented improvements by the
District. Therefore, assessments are based on the adjusted property value, which is a product of the benefit
classification percentage and the assessed property value.
The District is supervised by the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners who support an unpaid
Advisory Board consisting of five voting members and three alternative members. The County Engineer
administers the District for the Advisory Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Three part-time
employees work under the County Engineer for the District.
The following is a summary of key information about the district:
Governing Authority
The district is governed by Spokane County Board of Commissioners
Population Served
An estimated 3,419 people are served in the District as of 2010
Land Area Served
The NLFCZD covers an area of approximately 26,500 acres.
Value of Area Served
The estimated value of the area served by the district is $357,292,890
as of 2018
Land Area Owned
57.91 acres are owned by the District.
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the District:
Estimated value of $250,000
Flood Water Barrier (1.6 miles in length south of the lake).
Estimated value of $500,000
Lake Outlet Channel (approximately 3.8 miles).
Estimated value of $150,000
wide weir gate).
Estimated value of $250,000
Sump (approximately 40 acres)
Estimated value of $150,000
9-2
NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ANNEX
Equipment in the Aerator Compressor Building that includes two 50-HP air compressors, two
oxygen separators, an air dryer, two air tanks, a 6,000-gallon poly alum tank, and
miscellaneous wiring and piping
Estimated value of $189,400
Oxygenation system in the lake that includes a 60-HP Flygt pump, 9-foot diameter cone and
out through a 24-inch diameter, 120-foot long distribution manifold; three ¾-inch PVC
lines also run along the distribution manifold and use three nozzles attached to the
oxygenation distribution manifold ports
Estimated value of $204,000
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment
The total value of critical infrastructure and
equipment owned by the district is $1,693,400.
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the District:
Aerator Compressor Building that houses the aeration equipment listed above
Estimated value of $160,600
Total Value of Critical Facilities
The total value of critical facilities owned by the district
is $160,600.
Current and Anticipated Service Trends
The mapped District boundary is set and is not
anticipated to change. However, the number of parcels in the district can vary year-to-year. An
increase in density of land use will result in an increase in impermeable surface within our
surface are and thus increase the demand on control facilities.
9.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the special purpose district. Table 9-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the
district. If available, dollar loss data is also included.
TABLE 9-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Flood 4309 4/21/2017 Unknown
Flood 1172 4/2/1997 Unknown
Volcano 623 5/21/1980 Unknown
9.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
9-3
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. This capabilities assessment is divided into the following
sections: regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation
capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal
capabilities which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs.
9.5.1 Regulatory Capability
The District has adopted/enacted codes, resolutions, policies and plans that compliment and support hazard
mitigation planning and activities. The following existing District codes, resolutions, policies, and plans are
applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
Newman Lake Dam Emergency Action Plan
Alum Spill Response Plan
Water Quality Equipment Operation Procedure and Safety Manuals
Newman Lake Flood Control Zone District Policy and Procedures Manual
3.20 Flood Damage Protection Ordinance
Spokane County Shoreline Master Program Effective January 22, 2013
Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance 2013 Edition
9.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 9-2. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 9-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes Services provided to District by County
construction practices.
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes Services provided to District by County
natural hazards.
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. Yes Services provided to District by County
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. Yes Services provided to District by County
Emergency Manager. Yes Services provided to District by County
Grant writers. Yes Services provided to District by County
9-4
NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ANNEX
TABLE 9-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor Yes Services provided to District by County
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?).
Hazard data and information available to public. Yes Services provided to District by County
Specific equipment response plans. Yes Services provided to District by County
Specific operational plans. Yes Services provided to District by County
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. No
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on emergency preparedness? (E.g., CERT,
SAR, Medical Reserve Corps, etc.).
Organization focused on individuals with access No
and functional needs populations.
Ongoing public education or information program No
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education).
Natural disaster or safety related school programs. No
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues.
Multi-seasonal public awareness program. No
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes Services provided to District by County
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils No
Chipper program No
Defensible space inspections program No
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance or Yes Services provided to District by County
cleaning program
Stream restoration program No
9-5
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 9-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Erosion or sediment control program No
Address signage for property addresses Yes Services provided to District by Fire Department
9.5.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 9-3. These are the financial tools or
resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 9-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
District Assessment Fees per chapter 86.09 RCW Yes
9.5.4 Community Classification
Table 9-4. Each of
the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the resilience
of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation efforts are
indicated accordingly.
9-6
NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ANNEX
TABLE 9-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No
Storm Ready No
Firewise No
Tsunami Ready (if applicable) No
9.6 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have
identified the hazards that affect the Newman Lake Flood Control Zone District. During discussions by the
internal planning team members in identifying the potential impact of those hazards, additional factors were
also discussed and considered when estimating the potential financial losses caused by hazard-related
damages. Such factors include the number of facilities damaged, the extent of damage to each facility, and
the length of time required for repairs, etc. For service providers which generate income, lost revenue from
customers being without service and the cost of providing temporary service was also a consideration in
identifying the economic losses. their
Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI) scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 2 2 2 1 3 1.9
Earthquake 2 2 2 4 1 2.25
Flood 2 3 3 2 2 2.4
Landslide 1 2 1 4 1 1.65
Severe Weather 2 3 3 2 2 2.4
Volcano 1 1 4 1 4 1.75
Wildfire 2 3 4 4 2 2.9
st
hazardous situation.
Table 9-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
9-7
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
TABLE 9-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Hazard CPRI
Rank
Rank Hazard Type Score
1 Wildfire 2.9 High The Newman Lake watershed area is well forested
throughout with minimal infrastructure from human
activity. A wildfire would be far reaching and
would affect the entire district.
2 Flood 2.4 High The Flood Control District manages the water level
of the lake to prevent large flooding events from
damaging residents downstream as well as State
Highway 290.
3 Severe Weather 2.4 Medium
structures. Debris in the water way can damage the
structures and prevent proper passage of water,
resulting in heavier flooding. Ice on the structures
can prevent the ability to open up the gates during
flooding events.
4 Earthquake 2.25 Medium The entire planning area is susceptible to
earthquakes. A fault runs through Newman Lake.
The structures in the area are not susceptible to
liquefaction
9-8
NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ANNEX
TABLE 9-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Hazard CPRI
Rank
Rank Hazard Type Score
5 Drought 1.9 Low Droughts will increase the risk to wildfire and has
the ability to limit water supplies needed to fight
fires.
6 Volcano 1.75 Low Ashes from a volcanic eruption will impact the air
quality of the district and will affect the health of
the residents.
7 Landslide 1.65 Low
the event of a landslide. In addition to property
damage to residents living in the District, a
landslide may add sediment to Newman Lake and
decrease the storage area for water retention
9.7 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described
in Volume 1.
9.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 9-6 lists the action
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
TABLE 9-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Previous Emergency Services,
Timeline
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
Initiative NL-1Produce better flood hazard maps in the Newman Lake area.
Existing Flood 4,6 Spokane Medium NFIP, Long Term Yes Property Protection Local
County Spokane
County,
Ecology
9-9
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 9-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
Initiative NL-2Provide technical information and guidance, for living and developing within the floodplain around Newman
Lake.
Existing Flood 4,5,6 Spokane Medium Spokane Short Term Yes Public Information Local
County County
Initiative NL-3Repair floodwater control barrier along the south end of the lake and analyze flood systems to reduce
hazards.
Existing Flood 6 NLFCZD High NLFCZD, Short Term Yes Structural Projects Local
Ecology,
Army
Corps of
Engineers,
Natural
Resources
Conservati
on Service
Initiative NL-4Reconnect Thompson Creek with its floodplain.
Existing Flood 6,11 Spokane High Army Long Term Yes Recovery Local
County Corps of
Engineers,
Natural
Resources
Conservati
on
Service,
NFIP,
NLFCZD
Initiative NL-5Clear potential fuels on property such as dry underbrush and diseased trees that can trigger and maintain
wildfires. Educate the public on these practices.
Existing Wildfire 7,12 Spokane Low Spokane Short Term Yes Preventative County
County County, Activities
NLFCZD,
Volunteer
Fire
Assistance
, Rural
Fire
Assistance
INITIATIVE NL-6Support countywide initiatives that promote education of the public of natural hazards within
the region
New and All 1,3,4,8 NLFCZD Low Local Long Term Yes Public Information Region
Existing Hazards
9-10
NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ANNEX
TABLE 9-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE NL-7Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan
New and All 1,4,8 DEM, Low Local Long Term Yes Preventative Region
Existing Hazards NLFCZD Activities
INITIATIVE NL-8 Perform routine sump maintenance and expand sump area to allow for more infiltration of flood water.
Existing Flood 6,11 Spokane High FEMA, Long Term No Preventative Local
County Local, Activities
Spokane
County
9.9 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 9-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
TABLE 9-7
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Priority
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets?
NL-1 Medium High Yes Yes No Low
NL-2 High Low Yes Yes Yes Medium
NL-3 High High Yes Yes No Medium
NL-4 Low High No Yes No Low
NL-5 High Medium Yes Yes No High
NL-6 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes High
NL-7 Low Low Yes Yes Yes High
NL-8 High High Yes Yes No Medium
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
9-11
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
9.10 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES
Table 9-8 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
TABLE 9-8
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy 2019 Project Status
X
NL1 The County received LiDAR information for the
District in 2017. An inundation map for the District is
currently being produced with assistance from the
NRCS.
X
NL2 Ways to effectively and efficiently distribute
information to those living in the District are being
explored.
X
NL3 NRCS is providing assistance in analyzing a cost-
effective solution to repairing the barrier.
NL4 On hold until an agreement can be reached with the X
landowner
X
NL5 Programs offered by Fire District and DNR
NL6 Continuation of efforts from 2015 plan X
X
NL7 Continuation of efforts from 2015 plan
9-12
NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ANNEX
9-13
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
9-14
CHAPTER 10.
SPOKANE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
10.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Spokane Conservation District,
a participating special purpose district to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex
is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information
contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process
and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Spokane Conservation District. For
planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on
providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document
updated with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in
Volume 1.
10.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The Spokane Conservation District followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan.
also formulated its own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals
assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they
participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Garth Davis, Forestry Manager
Primary Point of Contact/ Planning team
210 N Havana
Forestry Program Manger
Spokane, WA 99202
(509)535-7274 ext 212
Garth-Davis@sccd.org
Cori Turntine, Operations Mgr
Alternate Point of Contact/
Planning team
210 N Havana
Operations Manager
Spokane, WA 99202
(509)535-7274 ext 230
Cori-Turntine@sccd.org
Eric Choker, Soils Mgr
Planning Team Member Planning team
210 N. Havana
Spokane, WA 99202
(509) 535 7274 ext 219
Eric-Choker@sccd.org
10.3 DISTRICT PROFILE
Spokane Conservation District is a special purpose district that was formed in 1973 to serve the citizens
and resources of Spokane County, excluding Deer Park, and works across county lines through the use of
memorandums of understanding. The District works with individuals, landowners, business and
government entities to protect and conserve water resources, provide technical assistance for agricultural
Bridgeview Consulting 10-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
and livestock practices, promote sustainable forestry practices; promote energy conservation and enhance
wildlife habitat. For fiscal year 2018, the Dist
Funding comes primarily through a property assessment and state grants.
A five-member Board of Supervisors governs the District. Three Board members are elected and two are
appointed by the Washington State Conservation Commission. The Board appoints a Director to oversee
the adoption of this plan; the Director will oversee its implementation.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
Governing Authority
The district is governed by a five member Board of Supervisors
Population Served
514,631 as of July 1, 2018
Land Area Served
1,764 square miles
Land Area Owned
50 acres
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Vehicle Fleet - $75,000
Tractors, Trailers - $180,000
Drone - $21,000
Computers, laptops - $20,000
Tools and other field equipment - $100,000
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment
The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $396,000.
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
8 th Property Office Building - $1,200,000
Havana Property Office Building - $1,000,000
Total Value of Critical Facilities
The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $2,200,000.
Current and Anticipated Service Trends
The Spokane Conservation District provides
services in the following categories: Production Agriculture, Environmental Education, Water
Resources, Forestry and Soil Science. The District anticipates service requests to increase
across all of our service categories as a result of our constituents realizing the need for better
natural resource stewardship.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-2 April 2020
SPOKANE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
Map of Spokane Conservation District Service Area
Bridgeview Consulting 10-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
10.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the special purpose district. Table 10-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the
district. (Individual accounts are provided below by the District Forestry Manager to provide a recap of
the impact of the hazards historically.)
February 1985, There was an extreme cold front settled over the region with daytime temperatures holding
around -10 to -15 degrees. The District had a Washington Conservation Corps crew that was doing hazard
fuels reduction on private lands in Spokane County. District Forestry Manager was in charge of the crew
and had set up firewood deliveries to low income households for the second week of the month. The cold
front moved in that week along with winds gusting to 20-30mph from the Northeast. The wind chills were
down to -35 degrees. I sent the crew home but Alan and I stayed to load and deliver the wood. We could
only work for about 15 minutes at a time even with military issue arctic parkas, gloves and boots. The
damage came on the second day of the winds with numerous trees going down, especially Spruce and
shallow rooted ornamental trees. Power lines came down and many streets were blocked just as they were
during Ice Storm in 1998. The Spokane Indians baseball park outfield fence also came down and was
totally destroyed. After the storm passed, Al and I with our crew started cleanup of the fence and stacked
and sorted the materials for salvage by the County. Spokane was a huge mess for several weeks and we
were very busy helping landowners with tree salvage and advice.
The Hangman Hills Fire in 1987, a very strong front moved into the area with winds gusting to 30+ mph
from the west. A power line along Hwy 195 at Washington Rd. went down when a very large pine tree fell
on it. The ensuing fire raced across the valley and struck the Hangman Hills housing development,
destroying 36 homes and part of the golf course Clubhouse. There were covenants that required all homes
in the development to have cedar shakes on the roofs. Like pouring gasoline on the fire, the homes were
quickly consumed by the fire with only a couple down in the bottom of the drainage coming through
unscathed. Both of those houses (which were not a part of the development) had stucco exteriors and metal
roofs. As a result of that fire, Fire Safe Spokane was formed which eventually blended into the national
Firewise program. Alan and I spent hundreds of hours providing technical assistance on that fire. I
produced a video that informed landowners about how to determine if a tree was damaged too much to save
and when and what type of trees should be planted in the future. We also were busy keeping the "Chainsaw
Bandits" from taking advantage of landowners, telling them that all of their tree must come down
immediately. A lot of trees were removed without cause because of people taking advantage of the
landowners involved in the fire.
Ice storm in 1996 created a lot of damage just because of the weight of the ice coating the trees and power
lines. Once again the chainsaw bandits hit the streets, gouging people by convincing them their trees were
damaged beyond salvation. We spent hundreds of hours doing damage assessments. We were constantly
reminding the public about having qualified people do damage assessments and that any work performed
should also be done by people who are qualified.
The Valley View Fire began on July 18, 2008, just two weeks after the last Firewise risk assessments were
completed by District Staff.
The Windstorm in November 2015 caused landscape trees to take down power lines resulting in a power
outage lasting over a week. Months of technical assistance provided by the District was generated by this
storm.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-4 April 2020
SPOKANE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
TABLE 10-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Wind Storm November Unknown
17, 2015
10.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities,
including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities
which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs.
10.5.1 Regulatory Capability
The District has adopted/enacted codes, resolutions, policies and plans that compliment and support hazard
mitigation planning and activities. The following existing District codes, resolutions, policies, and plans are
applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
Emergency Operations Plan
Facility Evacuation Plan
Inclement Weather Plans
Active Shooter Plans
Hazardous Materials Response Plans
Employee Handbooks and Safety Manuals
10.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 10-2. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 10-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure No
construction practices.
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes
natural hazards.
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. Yes
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. Yes
Emergency Manager. Yes
Grant writers. Yes
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor Yes
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?).
Hazard data and information available to public. No
Specific equipment response plans. No
Specific operational plans. No
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. No
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on emergency preparedness?
Organization focused on individuals with access No
and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program Yes
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? No
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? No
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No
Bridgeview Consulting 10-6 April 2020
SPOKANE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
TABLE 10-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes Water Resources/Forestry
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils No
Chipper program No
Defensible space inspections program Yes Forestry Program
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance Yes Water Resources
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program Yes Water Resources
Erosion or sediment control program Yes Soils
Address signage for property addresses Yes Forestry
10.5.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 10-3. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 10-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes No
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds No
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds No
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Other
Bridgeview Consulting 10-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
10.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION
presented in Table 10-4. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation
efforts are indicated accordingly.
TABLE 10-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness No
Grading Schedule
Storm Ready No
Firewise Yes While the CD is not a Firewise
Community, the CD supports all of the
local Firewise communities by
providing program information and
working with the various
municipalities throughout the County
in enhancing the Firewise Program
countywide, including identifying and
funding, as possible fuels reduction
projects, etc
Tsunami Ready (if applicable) No
10.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
the hazards that affect the Spokane Conservation District, including the addition of climate change as a
separate ranked hazard. During discussions by the internal planning team members in identifying the
potential impact of those hazards, additional factors were also discussed and considered when estimating
the potential financial losses caused by hazard-related damages. Such factors include the number of
facilities damaged, the extent of damage to each facility, and the length of time required for repairs, etc.
For service providers which generate income, lost revenue from customers being without service and the
cost of providing temporary service was also a consideration in identifying the economic losses. After
internal Planning Team discussions, the District calculated their Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)
scores as follows:
Bridgeview Consulting 10-8 April 2020
SPOKANE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 3 2 4 1 4 2.75
Earthquake 2 3 4 4 1 2.85
Flood 2 3 2 1 3 2.1
Landslide 1 1 2 4 1 1.65
Severe Weather 3 3 4 3 2 3.15
Volcano 1 1 4 4 1 2.05
Wildfire 4 3 4 4 1 3.65
Climate Change* 4 3 3 1 4 3.15
st
hazardous situation.
*Not ranked by all other planning team members.
Table 10-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 10-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score
Rank
1 Severe 3.15 High Severe storms, including winds can impact all
Weather
to structures and ability for normal business
operation to continue. In 2015, a severe
windstorm knocked down surrounding power
lines and the District was unable to continue
normal business operation for 11 days due to
power outage.
Tree risk assessments, floods streambank
work, salvage logging (wildfire/windstorm),
BAER team-work, property cleanup
2 Wildfire 3.65 High
of the most active wildfire seasons. The
structures owned by the district have not been
impacted by wildfire. The recent increase in
wildfires may be related to climate change and
drought.
3 Earthquake Low Spokane County has a relatively low seismic
2.85
risk. However, seismic levels up to 5.5 have
buildings are made of concrete or steel,
limiting the impact.
4 Flood 2.1 High th property falls within a flood
zone.
5 Landslide 1.65 Low Low risk
6 Drought 2.75 Medium Droughts will increase the risk to wildfire and
has the ability to limit water supplies needed
to fight fires. The increase to wildfire danger
structures.
7 Climate 3.15 High Climate change will continue to exacerbate
Change other hazards of concern, including increased
severity of severe storms, increased flooding
events, and impact to water supplies. These
have the potential to impact not only district-
owners structures, but also response
capabilities and district work.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-10 April 2020
SPOKANE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ANNEX
TABLE 10-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score
Rank
8 Volcano 2.05 Low The likelihood of a volcanic eruption is low;
however, the ashfall could potentially be
impacted, the vegetation would be potentially.
10.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described
in Volume 1.
10.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 10-6 lists the action
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are
also identified.
TABLE 10-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 1
Continue to keep the Public advised on hazards of concern and potential impacts to natural resources.
Existing WF,Fl,, 2,4,12 SCD Low SCD Long-term No Public Information County
Dr,Eq,E
T,SW,
SWW
INITIATIVE # 2
Provide Home Ignition Zone cost share program to homeowners in Spokane County.
Existing Wildfire 2,4,10,12 SCD medium SCD Long-term No Property protection County
INITIATIVE #3
Continue to assist with CWPP maintenance.
Existing Wildfire 2,4,5,8,1SCD low All Long-term No Prevention County
0,11,12 participant
in CWPP
INITIATIVE # 4
Continue Firewise Program including home site assessments.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 10-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
Existing Wildfire 2,4,12 SCD, DNR medium SCD, Long-term No Prevention County
DNR
INITIATIVE # 5
Seek out grant opportunities to site harden new facility for hazards of concern.
new WF,Fl, 2,4,12 SCD medium SCD Short-term No Prevention County
LS
INITIATIVE # 6
Establish emergency operations center facility.
new WF,FL 1,2 SCD Low SCD Long-term No Emergency County
Services
INITIATIVE # 7
Utilize future training facility with kitchen as potential community hazard shelter.
New WF,FL,1,2,8 SCD Low SCD Long-term No Emergency County
SW Services
10.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 10-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
TABLE 10-7.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Priority
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets?
1 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
2 4 Medium Medium Yes Yes Yes High
3 8 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
4 3 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
5 3 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
6 2 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
7 3 Medium Low Yes Yes Yes Medium
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
Bridgeview Consulting 10-12 April 2020
CHAPTER 11.
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #3 ANNEX
11.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Spokane County Fire District
#3, a participating special purpose district to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This
Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information
contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process
and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Spokane County Fire District #3. For
planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on
providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document
serves as an update to the previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and
updated with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in
Volume 1.
11.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The Spokane County Fire District #3 followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan.
Spokane County Fire District
#3 also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals
assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they
participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Bill Dennstaedt, Deputy Chief
Primary Point of Contact Meeting Attendance, Annex
10 S. Presley Drive
Cheney, WA 99004
509-235-6645
billd@scfd3.org
Cody Rohrbach, Fire Chief
Alternate Point of Contact Risk Assessment
10 S. Presley Drive
Cheney, WA 99004
509-235-6645
crohrbach@scfd3.org
Deb Arnold
Assistance Data Pulling
10 S. Presley Drive
Cheney, WA 99004
509-235-6645
darnold@scfd3.org
11.2.10 District Profile
Spokane County Fire District #3 was formed from a "grassroots citizen movement" in 1945. This movement
came from the desire of the citizenry to have access to timely fire protection year-round. Fire District #3
covers southwest of Spokane County totaling 565 square miles. As with the majority of modern-day fire
departments, Fire District 3 also provides Emergency Medical Services at the Basic Life Support level
Bridgeview Consulting 11-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
th
which is approximately 75 percent of our call volume. On October 16 1991, gale force winds hit Spokane
County causing hundreds of wildfires and effected every Fire Agency. This initiated a plan to improve
Spokane County 911 communications system and build reciprocal mutual and automatic agreements with
all fire agencies in Spokane County. Now these agreements extend to boarding agencies in Whitman and
Lincoln County.
The District surrounds the City of Cheney, Medical Lake and the Town of Spangle. By contract in (1980)
the District provides Fire and E.M.S. services to the Town of Spangle. Staffed by five full-time command
positions, twelve part-time command positions, three full-time support positions and as of 2019 three
fulltime line firefighters the district mainly operated and supported by approximately 130 part-paid on
call(volunteer) firefighters. The District operates 50+ pieces of equipment out of 11 Stations and a training
facility.
SCFD 3 is one of the largest and most diverse fire districts in the state of Washington; encompassing
approximately 565 square miles in the southwest corner of Spokane County. The topography of the District
varies considerably. The s
lands. Moving north, timber lands increase as well as the number of homes; eventually leading to
unincorporated communities adjacent to the city of Spokane. The far northern portion of the District also
includes manufacturers and businesses. Other areas of protection in the District are roads and railways.
There is approximately 20 miles of Interstate 90 that runs through the Northwest part of the District and 25
miles of SR-195 that runs through the Eastern portion of the District. These two highways account for
numerous high-speed accidents annually. Both Burlington Northern/Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads
have Main Lines running through the District. There are approximately 100 miles of railway. SCFD 3 sits
just southwest of Spokane. Spokane is a city in the State of Washington, in the northwestern United States.
It is the seat of Spokane County, as well as the center of the Spokane Metropolitan Area. Spokane County
is currently outpacing Washington State in population growth.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
Governing Authority
The district is governed by 3 Board of Commissioners
Population Served
20,000estimate
Land Area Served
565 Square Miles
Value of Area Served
The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$2,587,422,536
Land Area Owned
17 Acres
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Fire Apparatus and Equipment $7,500,000.00
Personnel Protective Equipment $1,500,000.00
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment
The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $9,000,000.00
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Fire Stations and Community Center
Total Value of Critical Facilities
The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $7,600,000.00
Current and Anticipated Service Trends
There has been a growing demand nationwide
for public safety. We have been seeing a 18% increase over the last 2 years and 12% over the
Bridgeview Consulting 11-2 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #3 ANNEX
last 10 years. With this increase in need of our service the demand for equipment and personnel
has risen. Combine this with the ever-increasing costs we strive to be fiscally responsible for
future planning. We have experienced a large commercial and residential growth to the north
end of our district. This north area accounts for 50% of our total call volume.
The distri
11.3 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are hazards which are unique to
the special purpose district as follows. Collins Aero Space can and has had 2 Hazardous Material Releases.
Table 11-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the district. If available, dollar loss data is also
included.
TABLE 11-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Wildfire, Yale Rd 3372 2015
Ice Storm, 1152 1997
Wildfire 922 1991
Local Area Disaster Not Declared
Wildfire, Watt Rd 2002
Wildfire, Watermelon Yes 2014
Hill
Wildfire, Hangman Hills 1988
11.4 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identifies
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities,
including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities
which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
11.4.1 Regulatory Capability
The District has adopted/enacted codes, resolutions, policies and plans that compliment and support hazard
mitigation planning and activities. The following existing District codes, resolutions, policies, and plans are
applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
Fire District Capabilities:
Capital Improvement Program
Sprinkler Codes
Strategic Plan
Emergency Operations Plan
Mutual Response Agreements
Emergency Procedures and Policies
City/County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
State of Washington Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
National Response Framework
National Incident Management System
WAC 296.305
Response Plan
11.4.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
capabilities, including educational and
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 11-2. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 11-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes Fire Marshall
construction practices.
Planners or engineers with an understanding of No
natural hazards.
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. Yes Administrated
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. Yes Volunteer/FF
Emergency Manager. No
Grant writers. No
Bridgeview Consulting 11-4 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #3 ANNEX
TABLE 11-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor No
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?).
Hazard data and information available to public. No
Specific equipment response plans. No
Specific operational plans. Yes Operations
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. No
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on emergency preparedness?
Organization focused on individuals with access No
and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program Yes Prevention
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? No
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes Prevention
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program Yes Prevention
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other No
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils No
Chipper program No
Defensible space inspections program Yes Prevention
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance No
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program No
Erosion or sediment control program No
Bridgeview Consulting 11-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 11-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Address signage for property addresses Yes Prevention
Other No
11.4.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 11-3. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 11-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants NO
Capital Improvements Project Funding YES
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes NO
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service NO
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds NO
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds NO
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds NO
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas NO
State Sponsored Grant Programs YES
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers NO
Other NO
11.5 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION
Table 11-4. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation
efforts are indicated accordingly.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-6 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #3 ANNEX
TABLE 11-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule No
Storm Ready No
Firewise No
Tsunami Ready (if applicable) NA
11.6 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
the hazards that affect the Spokane County Fire District 3. The District included two additional hazards of
concern, both non-natural. During discussions by the internal planning team members in identifying the
potential impact of those hazards, additional factors were also discussed and considered when estimating
the potential financial losses caused by hazard-related damages. Such factors include the number of
facilities damaged, the extent of damage to each facility, and the length of time required for repairs, etc.
For service providers which generate income, lost revenue from customers being without service and the
cost of providing temporary service was also a consideration in identifying the economic losses. After
internal Planning Team discussions, the District calculated their Calculated Priority Risk Index (CPRI)
scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 4 2 3 1 4 2.95
Earthquake 3 3 2 4 1 2.85
Flood 4 2 3 2 3 3.05
Landslide 2 2 1 4 1 2.05
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 3 4 1 4 2.15
Wildfire 4 4 4 4 4 4.
Train Derailment* 2 3 1 4 3 2.35
Collins 2 3 2 4 3 2.55
Aerospace*
st
hazardous situation.
*Specific to FD 3.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Table 11-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
TABLE 11-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Hazard
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Type CPRI Score
Rank
1 Wildfire 4 High Wildfires effect our region every year and
major wildfire happen roughly every 5
years. There have been many wildfire events
when FEMA declared disaster.
2 SW 3.4 High Severe storms have impacted the region
routinely. These events cause power
outages, down trees damage to structures.
Significate amount of snow which cause
roadway delays and hazardous driving
situations.
Are District has very little area that falls into
3 Flood 3.05 Medium
the flood plain. Emergency response is
sometimes delayed due to water of
roadways.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-8 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #3 ANNEX
TABLE 11-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Hazard
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Type CPRI Score
Rank
4 Drought 2.95 Medium When the area is effect by drought this
increases our risk to wildfires and adds to
the danger of wildfires with extreme fire
behavior.
5 Earthquake 2.85 Medium This is rare to our community and adds an
added risk for that reason. Earthquakes will
cause infrastructure damage due to the age
of facility and codes.
6 C Aero 2.55 Medium Limit hazard. With the growth of our
community and population near this facility
our risk becomes high due to the cyanide
release potential. Close-housing has added
high risk to responders.
7 Train Derail 2.35 Medium With a large amount of railroad traffic from
2 National Railroad companies and 1
regions company. Derailments have
occurred with high hazard potential but low
risk.
8 Volcano 2.15 Low Negligible
9 Landslides 2.05 Low Negligible
11.7 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described
in Volume 1.
11.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 11-6 lists the action
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are
also identified.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 11-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Estimated Sources of
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 1 Determine the need to retrofit Fire Station to provide better mean of meeting the need as a temporary
evacuation shelter for community effected by hazards. As stations are identified and prioritized seek funding to retrofit
structures.
Exciting WF/SW/1,10, Operations/ High Capital/ Long-Term No Emergency County
F/D/EQ/Maintenance HMGP/ Services/Recovery/Facility
CA/TD/AFG Public Information
V/L
INITIATIVE # 2 Continue to build partnerships with railroad companies to mitigate railroad hazards, access issue due to
crossing being blocked during natural hazards. Once recognized this will help reduce emergency response times.
Exciting/All 1,2,3,5,7,Operations High HMGP/ Long Term No Emergency Service County/Local
New 8,9, Private Structural Project /State/Federal
INITIATIVE # 3 Continue to develop and educate the public about the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Exciting/All 1,2,3,4,5,Planning, LOW HMGP/ Short and No Initiative Type: Local,
Public Information,
New 6,7,8,9, Operations, Capital Long Term County,
Preventive Activities,
10,11,12 Prevention Region, State,
Structural Projects,
Property Protection,
Emergency Services,
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection
11.9 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 11-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
TABLE 11-7.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority
1 2 H H Y Y N H
2 7 H M Y N Y H
3 12 H L Y Y Y H
Bridgeview Consulting 11-10 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #3 ANNEX
11.10 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Service Area Map attached.
Bridgeview Consulting 11-11 April 2020
CHAPTER 12.
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #4 ANNEX
12.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Fire District, a participating
special purpose district to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex is not intended
to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information contained in the base
plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural
requirements apply to and were met by the Fire District. For planning purposes, this Annex provides
additional information specific to the district, with a focus on providing greater details on the risk
assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document serves as an update to the
previously completed plan. All relevant data has been carried over and updated with new information as
appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1.
12.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The Spokane County Fire District #4 plan followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base
Fire District also
formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting
in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Chief Randy Johnson
Primary Point of Contact Oversite / Administration of
315 E. Crawford St
project
Deer Park, WA 99006
Telephone: 509-467-4500
e-mail: randyj@scfd4.org
Asst. Chief Howard Johnson
Alternate Point of Contact Lead on Project; authored plan;
315 E. Crawford St
attended meetings;
Deer Park, WA 99006
coordinated/gathered necessary
Telephone: 509-467-4500
information. Attended workshops
e-mail: howardj@scfd4.org
with County.
Asst. Chief Bill Neckels
Assistant on Project capturing and
Alternate Point of Contact
315 E. Crawford St
gathering information as
Deer Park, WA 99006
necessary. Attended meetings.
Telephone: 509-467-4500
e-mail: billn@scfd4.org
12.3 DISTRICT PROFILE
Spokane County Fire District #4 is a fire district established in 1945. The district provides Fire, Rescue,
Medical, and Hazardous indent response to North Spokane County. The district includes the areas of
Wildrose, Wayside, Riverside, Elk, Chattaroy, Elk-Chattaroy, Colbert, Green Bluff, Mt. Spokane
(including portions of the State Park), and the city of Deer Park. A three-member elected Board of
Bridgeview Consulting 12-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Commissioners governs the fire district. The Board of Commissioners assumes responsibility for the
adoption of this plan. The Fire Chief will oversee its implementation.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
Governing Authority
The district is governed by an elected board of 3 Fire Commissioners.
Population Served
45,000 as of 2018 (estimated)
Land Area Served
approximately 330 square miles in North Spokane County
Value of Area Served
The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$3,962,940,009 (based upon 2019 tax assessment)
Land Area Owned
Approximately 30 acres (station properties)
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Department Vehicles and Equipment
Located at the 10 Fire Stations throughout the Fire District
12 Fire Engines
10 Squad/Brush Units
10 Water Tenders (3000 gallon)
13 Command Vehicles
2 Jeep Plows
1 Support Unit
1 Heavy Rescue
1 Tower/Ladder Truck
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment
The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is $8,455,000
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Fire Station 41/Admin/Community Center - $7,030,000
Fire Station 42 - $1,500,000
Training Center - $895,000
Maintenance Shop - $777,000
Fire Station 43 - $455,000
Fire Station 44 - $1,750,000
Fire Station 45 - $1,246,000
Fire Station 46 - $2,174,000
Fire Station 47 - $857,000
Fire Station 48 - $900,000
Fire Station 49 - $2,174,000
Fire Station 40 - $1,170,000
Bridgeview Consulting 12-2 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #4 ANNEX
Total Value of Critical Facilities
The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $20,928,000
Current and Anticipated Service Trends
The Fire District has grown steadily over the
years and continues to grow. The district calls for service has grown commensurate with the
population growth. District 4 responses totaled 3340 for 2018. This is an increase of 1078
calls per year since 2010. With the amount of building of both residential and commercial
properties within the district this trend is anticipated to continue or increase in the upcoming
years.
12.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the special purpose district. Table 12-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the
district. If available, dollar loss data is also included.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 12-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Fire 922 10/16/1991
Severe Ice Storm 1152 11/19/1996
Severe Storm(s) 1825 12/12/2008
Volcano 623 5/21/1980
Local Area Disaster Not Declared
Severe Windstorm N/A 07/23/2014
12.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identifies
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities,
including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities
which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs.
12.5.1 Regulatory Capability
The District has adopted/enacted codes, resolutions, policies and plans that compliment and support hazard
mitigation planning and activities. The following existing District codes, resolutions, policies, and plans are
applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
Fire District Capabilities:
Capital Improvement Program
Sprinkler Codes
Strategic Plan
Emergency Operations Plan
Emergency Procedures and Policies
City/County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
State of Washington Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
National Response Framework
National Incident Management System
Revised Code of Washington 52.26 (Regional Fire Protection Service)
WAC 296.305
Response Plan
Bridgeview Consulting 12-4 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #4 ANNEX
General Capabilities:
Specific incident response plans
Operations plans or policies
Employee Handbooks and Safety Manuals
Mutual Aid Agreements
12.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 12-2. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 12-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure NO
construction practices.
Planners with an understanding of natural hazards. YES SCFD4 / Assistant Chief
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. NO
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. YES SCFD4 / IT Support
Emergency Manager. YES SCFD4 / Duty Officers
Grant writers. NO
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor YES SREC / Dispatch Agency
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?).
Hazard data and information available to public. YES SCFD4 / Admin
Specific equipment response plans. YES SCFD4 / SREC / Dept Run Cards
Specific operational plans. YES SCFD4 / Admin
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. NO
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations YES SCFD4 / Citizens Advisory Committee
focused on emergency preparedness?
Bridgeview Consulting 12-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 12-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Organization focused on individuals with access NO
and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program YES SCFD4 / PIO
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? YES SCFD4 / PIO
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing NO
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? YES SCFD4 / PIO
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program YES SCFD4 / Asst. Chief CWPP
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other NO
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils YES SCFD4 / Asst. Chief / PIO
Chipper program NO
Defensible space inspections program YES SCFD4 / Asst. Chief / Wildland
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance NO
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program NO
Erosion or sediment control program NO
Address signage for property addresses YES SCFD4 / Duty Officers
Other
12.5.3 Fiscal Capability
capabilities is presented in Table 12-3. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-6 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #4 ANNEX
TABLE 12-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants YES
Capital Improvements Project Funding YES
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes YES
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service NO
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds YES
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds YES
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds NO
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas NO
State Sponsored Grant Programs YES
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers NO
Other
12.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION
Table 12-4. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation
efforts are indicated accordingly.
TABLE 12-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) or
Grading Date Enrolled
Protection Class 5
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule - 2
Commercial
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule - 3
Residential
Storm Ready NO
Firewise YES 1992
Bridgeview Consulting 12-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
12.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
the hazards that affect the Fire District. During discussions by the internal planning team members in
identifying the potential impact of those hazards, additional factors were also discussed and considered
when estimating the potential financial losses caused by hazard-related damages. Such factors include the
number of facilities damaged, the extent of damage to each facility, and the length of time required for
repairs, etc. For service providers which generate income, lost revenue from customers being without
service and the cost of providing temporary service was also a consideration in identifying the economic
losses. After internal Planning Team discussions, the District calculated their Calculated Priority Risk
Index (CPRI) scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 3 2 3 1 4 2.55
Earthquake 3 2 3 4 1 2.85
Flood 3 1 2 4 1 2.45
Landslide 2 1 2 1 2 1.65
Severe Weather 4 3 3 4 2 3.5
Volcano 2 2 2 1 4 1.55
Wildfire 3 2 3 4 2 2.9
The Calculated Priority Risk
hazardous situation.
Table 12-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-8 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #4 ANNEX
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
TABLE 12-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard Hazard CPRI
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Type Score
Rank
1 Severe 3.5 High Severe storms can impact all of the
Weather Strong winds in the area could damage the facilities. Severe
weather would have an impact on response from all the
district Fire Stations, especially to the Station 43 response
area (elk) and the Station 48 Response area (Mt Spokane).
Falling trees impacts ingress and egress to primary and
secondary roads, as well as a vast majority of the driveways
in the area. Snow not only has the ability to increase call
volume, but it dramatically increases response time to those
incidents. Snow load has impacted many buildings in the
district, and will continue to in the future.
2 Wildfire 2.9 High
wildfire continues to increase (on average) year to year. It
has been a few years since the Fire District experienced a
tructures due to wildfire, however, in 1991, a
firestorm hit the area and the district lost over 50 structures
in a 24 hour period.
3 Earthquake 2.85 High All of the district facilities are susceptible to damage from
earthquake. The area is not
so none of them are built with earthquake preparedness in
mind. Due to that fact, if a large earthquake were to impact
our Fire District, the damage to our facilities could be high.
4 Drought 2.55 Medium Droughts contribute to the destructiveness of wildfires. The
drought trend has continued over the last few years for
eastern Washington (minus 2019)
5 Flood 2.45 Medium None of the fire district facilities fall within the flood plain,
however, response to flooded areas do occur.
6 Landslide 1.65 Medium None of the district facilities are within known landslide
areas.
7 Volcano 1.55 Medium May 18, 1980 Mt St Helens erupted covering much of
eastern Washington with ash. That mountain, as well as
others in
12.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described
in Volume 1.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
12.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 12-6 lists the action
rmation
on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the district),
potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also
identified.
TABLE 12-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
Hazards Objectives
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # -1 District has initiated a plan to map and assess vulnerability to wildfire. We have hired a consultant and
continue to work with him to assess the overall community vulnerability. We are utilizing GISS mapping of wildfire hazard
areas to facilitate analysis and planning decisions. We are developing and maintaining a database to track community
vulnerability to wildfire. We are utilizing this information to assist in working with state and local partners to develop
wildfire mitigation priorities for the Fire District.
Existing WF 1, 2, 4, 7, SCFD4 Moderate/General Long-Term N/A Public Information, Local,
11, 12 High Fund / Property County,
Hazard Protection, Region
Mitigation Resource
Grant Protection
INITIATIVE # -2 Power lines can be protected from the impacts of winter storms (as well as other hazards) with the
following techniques: Establish standards for all utilities regarding tree pruning around lines (work with Utility Companies).
Burying overhead power lines (Utility companies)
New All 2, 12 SCFD4 Mod/High Hazard Long Term N/A Prevention Local,
Hazards Mitigation Activities, County
Grant Emergency
Services
INITIATIVE # -3 Conduct Weather Risk Awareness Activities. Public awareness of severe winter storms can be improved
through following efforts that District 4 can assist in providing: Inform public about severe winter weather impacts (through
district webpage and community events) Encouraging homeowners to install carbon monoxide monitors and alarms in their
homes.
New All 2, 4 SCFD4 Low/Mod General Short Term N/A Public Information Local,
Hazards Fund County
12.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 12-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-10 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #4 ANNEX
TABLE 12-7.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Priority
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets?
1 6 High High Yes Yes NO 1
2 2 High Mod Yes Unk YES 2
3 2 Mod High Yes Yes NO 3
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
Bridgeview Consulting 12-11 April 2020
CHAPTER 13.
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5 ANNEX
13.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Spokane County Fire District 5,
a participating special purpose district to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex
is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information
contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process
and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Spokane Fire District 5. For planning
purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on providing
greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document serves as
with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in Volume 1.
13.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The Spokane County Fire District 5 followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan.
5 also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals
assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they
participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Scott Lynch, Fire Chief
Scott Lynch Fire Chief Planning for the future equipment,
17217 W. Four Mound Rd
station, etc.
Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026
Telephone: 509-796-4793
Bcobbscfd5@gmail.com
Mason McCann, Asst. Chief
Planning for roads, equipment,
Mason McCann/Bethany McCann
17217 W. Four Mound Rd
terrain, training, etc.
Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026
Asst. chief/Training Officer
Telephone: 509-796-4793
mightymason@hotmail.com
Bonita Cobb, Commissioner
Bonita Cobb Commissioner Planning for finances for SCFD5,
17217 W. Four Mound Rd
SCFD5 planning for employment,
Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026
working with the public for the
Telephone: 509-796-4793
future growth
Bcobbscfd5@gmail.com
13.3 DISTRICT PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction and its history:
Date of Incorporation
1945
Bridgeview Consulting 13-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Population Growth
experienced a relatively large rate of growth. The overall population has increased 21 % since 2000 and has
added 82 more homes in our rural area. Zero being farm Ag residents.
Population Growth
The U.S. Census Bureau projected a 0.9-percent growth rate in Spokane County for
2013. Based on the October 2012 Spokane County Population Study, the overall population of Spokane
County increased by 12.7 percent between 2000 and 2010, including all incorporated areas.
Location and Description
The Spokane County Fire Protection District 5 (SCFD5) is a rural fire and
non-transport Quick Response Fire, EMS, Rescue District. SCFD5 provides Fire and Emergency Medical
Services within a rural 90 square miles in the northwest section of Spokane County, Washington. SCFD5
has no fire hydrants, only one year-round water source and the roads consist mainly of rough gravel and
dirt. We also provide mutual aid to five surrounding districts substantially increasing our area. We average
over 100 runs a year.
Brief History
SCFD5 was formed in 1945, Lincoln County Fire District 4 and SCFD5
becoming a district together. In 1993 SCFD5 branched off into its own District. Building
Station 51 with a full station, office, kitchen, and bays for trucks.
Climate
Spokane County Fire District 5 climate has four seasons. NW weather is average
low of 22 to 55. NW weather is average high of 33 to 83. Nine Mile Falls (zip 99026),
Washington gets 16 inches of rain, on average, per year. The US average is 39 inches of rain
per year. Nine Mile Falls (zip 99026) averages 48 inches of snow per year.
Development Trends
When SCFD5 was formed the community was a farming-ranch
community. Since that date SCFD5 is anticipating development levels of low to moderate,
consisting primarily of residential development.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
Governing Authority
The district is governed by SCFD5 a three-member county council.
The district consists of a Fire Chief, Secretary and volunteer fire fighters. The Chief and
Secretary report to the three county commissioners once a month.
Population Served
2,000 as of June 2018
Land Area Served
90 square miles
Value of Area Served
The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
$145,272,399 as of 10/11/2019
Land Area Owned
6 acres
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Two Engines $103.050.00
Brush trucks $259.000.00
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment
The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is a Million Dollars
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Fire District Station 51 $800,00
Fire District Station 52 $500.00
Total Value of Critical Facilities
The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is $100.000.00
Bridgeview Consulting 13-2 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5 ANNEX
Current and Anticipated Service Trends
Based on data tracked by Spokane County
population has increased 21 % since 2000 and has added 82 more homes in our rural area.
Zero being farm Ag residents. This increase in density of land uses will represent an increase
in population and thus a projected increase in call volume. Our district is experiencing an
average annual increase in call volume of 10 percent.
ovided below.
13.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are hazards which are unique to
the special purpose district as follows. Table 13-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the
district. If available, dollar loss data is also included.
TABLE 13-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Sever Winter Storms DR-1825 12/2008 to $2.2 Million
1/2009
Storms/Flooding/ DR-1178 3/18/1997
Landslides/Mudslides
Severe Winter DR-1159 11/17/1997
Storms/Flooding
Ice and Snow Storms DR-1152 11/19/1996
Severe Storms/Flooding DR-1100 2/9/1996
Fire DR-922 11/13/1991
Local Area Disaster Not Declared
Heavy Rain Event NA 3/30/2012 $225,000
Valley Fire NA 7/2008 $45,000
Severe Winter NA 1/2008 to $1.2Million
Storms/Wind 2/2008
13.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-
Bridgeview Consulting 13-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities,
including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities
which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs.
13.5.1 Regulatory Capability
The District has adopted/enacted codes, resolutions, policies and plans that compliment and support hazard
mitigation planning and activities. The following existing District codes, resolutions, policies, and plans are
applicable to this hazard mitigation plan: While we have these capabilities we do rely on the county for some
of the capabilities.
Fire District Capabilities :
Capital Improvement Program
Sprinkler Codes
Strategic Plan
Fire Explorer Post
After Quake Assessment Report
Citizen Emergency Response Training (CERT)
Emergency Operations Plan
Emergency Procedures and Policies
City/County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
State of Washington Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
National Response Framework
National Incident Management System
Revised Code of Washington 52.26 (Regional Fire Protection Service)
WAC 296.305
Response Plan
General Capabilities:
ment Plan (CIP) supports projects that are identified in this plan
update. The CIP is updated annually by the District and adopted by the Board of Commissioners in
the fall of each year.
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires state, tribal and location governments to develop a
hazard mitigation plan as a condition of receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster
regulation and plan update. The Fed
Hazard Mitigation Plan on 10-19-2019.
Specific incident response plans
Operations plans or policies
Employee Handbooks and Safety Manuals
Mutual Aid Agreements
Continuity of Operations Plan
Continuity of Business Plan
Bridgeview Consulting 13-4 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5 ANNEX
13.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 13-2. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 13-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure
construction practices.
Planners or engineers with an understanding of YES Building & Planning/Spokane County
natural hazards.
Engineering & Roads/Spokane County
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. YES
CEO/CFO / Spokane County
Information Systems Department, GIS,
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. YES
Engineering & Roads/Spokane County
Emergency Manager. YES Emergency Management/Spokane County
Grant writers. YES Spokane County grant writers
All Departments/Spokane County
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor YES Emergency Management/Spokane County
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?).
Hazard data and information available to public. YES All Departments/Spokane County
Specific equipment response plans. YES All Departments/Spokane County
Specific operational plans. YES All Departments/Spokane County
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. YES All Departments/Spokane County
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations YES All Departments/Spokane County
focused on emergency preparedness?
Organization focused on individuals with access YES All Departments/Spokane County
and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program YES All Departments/Spokane County
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
Bridgeview Consulting 13-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 13-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? YES All Departments/Spokane County
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing YES All Departments/Spokane County
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? YES All Departments/Spokane County
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program YES All Departments/Spokane County
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other YES Spokane County Noxious Weed Board
vegetation management
All Departments/Spokane County
Fire Safe Councils YES All Departments/Spokane County
Chipper program YES All Departments/Spokane County
Defensible space inspections program YES All Departments/Spokane County
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance YES Spokane County Natural Resource
or cleaning program
All Departments/Spokane County
Stream restoration program YES Spokane County Natural Resource
Erosion or sediment control program YES Spokane County Natural Resource
Address signage for property addresses YES All Departments/Spokane County
Other
13.5.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 13-3. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 13-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants YES
Capital Improvements Project Funding YES
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes YES
Bridgeview Consulting 13-6 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5 ANNEX
TABLE 13-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service YES
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds YES
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds YES
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds YES
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas YES
State Sponsored Grant Programs YES
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers YES
Other
13.5.4 Community Classification
Table 13-4. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation
efforts are indicated accordingly.
TABLE 13-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) or
Grading Date Enrolled
Protection Class 8 2000
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 2 2000
Commercial
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3
Dwelling
Storm Ready YES 1991
Firewise YES 2014
13.6 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
the hazards that affect the Spokane County Fire District 5. During discussions by the internal planning
Bridgeview Consulting 13-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
team members in identifying the potential impact of those hazards, additional factors were also discussed
and considered when estimating the potential financial losses caused by hazard-related damages. Such
factors include the number of facilities damaged, the extent of damage to each facility, and the length of
time required for repairs, etc. For service providers which generate income, lost revenue from customers
being without service and the cost of providing temporary service was also a consideration in identifying
the economic losses. After internal Planning Team discussions, the District calculated their Calculated
Priority Risk Index (CPRI) scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 3 2 2 1 4 2.35
Earthquake 2 3 2 4 1 2.45
Flood 4 1 2 2 2 2.6
Landslide 3 2 2 4 2 2.7
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 2 3 1 4 1.75
Wildfire 4 3 2 4 2 3.3
The Calculated
hazardous situation.
Table 13-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-8 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5 ANNEX
TABLE 13-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score
Rank
1 SW 3.4 High Several weather has affected SCFD5 by
delayed response due to bad road
conditions, visibility, electric poles down
1 Wildfire 3.3 Extremely High A wildfire can cause breathing issues for
residents and fire fighters, low water
supplies, high winds, structure losses
2 Landslide 2.7 Medium Roads are blocked causing us to reroute
(lowering our response time). Residents
trapped in vehicles, homes, in the landscape.
2 Flood 2.6 Medium Water way flood causing road closures,
bus, livestock trapped, power outages due to
down poles.
3 Earthquake 2.45 Medium One structure is over 50 years, second is 22
years which may be affected. The district
has not been affected in the past but the
structure of our building could be at risk
4 Drought 2.35 Medium Lack of water for fighting fires, livestock,
family homes. High fire danger in a
drought. Low production of faming crops.
5 Volcano 1.75 Low Ash in the air is hard on the apparatus, low
response time due to visibility, lack of air
supply for breathing, department could use
ability to refill oxygen tanks for residents.
13.7 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described
in Volume 1.
13.8 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 13-6 lists the action
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are
also identified.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 13-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Estimated Sources of
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 1 Emergency Response Set up with Spokane County for Communication and Evacuation plans for residents
New All 1,2,3,4,5,SCFD5 High General Long Term NA Preventive Activities, Local,
Structural Projects,
Hazard 6,7,8.9, Fund, County,
Property Protection,
11,12 FEMA, Region
Emergency Services,
DNR,
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 2 Seek out grants to Continue to provide Public Information, Firewise Training, Hazardous Maps and Data,
Outreach Projects, Environmental Education for all residents
New All 1,2,3,4,5,SCFD5 High General Long Term NA Public Information, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Hazard 6,7,8.9, Fund County,
DNR
Structural Projects,
10, 11,12 Region
WAFAC
Property Protection,
Emergency Services,
FEMA
Recovery, Natural
DNR
Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 3 Seek out grant funding to conduct affordable construction of a third Station at south end of district
Existing 1,2,3,4,5,SCFD5 High General Long Term NA Public Information, Local,
Preventive Activities,
7,8.9, 10, Fund, County,
Structural Projects,
12 FEMA Region
Property Protection,
Emergency Services,
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 4 Training Facility for SCFD5. SCFD5 has acquired an additional 7 acres at our main location, opening up
the opportunity to build a training facility.
New All 1,2,3,4,5,SCFD5 High General Long Term NA Public Information, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Hazard 7,8.9, 10, Fund, County,
Structural Projects,
12 FEMA Region
Property Protection,
Emergency Services,
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 5 Work with Railroad and Federal Administration on RR Crossing Arms. One of which would be at the
Coulee Hite Road
New All 1,2,3,4,5,RR Grain High General Long Term NA Local,
Public Information,
Preventive Activities,
Hazard 8.9, 12 Elevator, WA Funds, County,
Structural Projects,
DOT, FEMA, Region
Property Protection,
Spokane State
Emergency Services,
County Road Funds
Recovery, Natural
Department
Resource Protection
Bridgeview Consulting 13-10 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5 ANNEX
TABLE 13-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Estimated Sources of
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 6 Replace building components to site hardening with fireproof materials, roofing, screening, vents, defensible
space.
Existing All 1,2,3,4,5,SCFD5 High General Long Term NA Local
Public Information,
Preventive Activities,
Hazard 6,7,8.9, Funds,
Structural Projects,
10, 12 FEMA,
Property Protection,
State
Emergency Services,
Funds
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 7 Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP
Existing All 1,2,3,4,5,SCFD5 High FEMA, Long Term NA Public Information, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Hazard 7,8.9, 10, Local County,
Structural Projects,
12 Grants Region
Property Protection,
Emergency Services,
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection
Existing All 1,2,3,4,5,SCFD5 High FEMA Long Term NA Public Information, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Hazard 7,8.9,12 County,
General
Structural Projects,
Region
Fund
Property Protection,
Emergency Services,
Recovery, Natural
Resource Protection
13.9 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 13-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 13-7.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Priority
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets?
1 11 High High Exceed YES NO High
2 12 High High Exceed YES NO Medium
3 11 High $650,000 Exceed YES NO High
4 10 High $800.00 Exceed YES NO High
5 7 High 1,000.000 Exceed YES NO High
6 11 High High Exceed YES NO High
7 10 High High Exceed YES NO High
8 9 High $2,000.000 Exceed YES NO High
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
13.10 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK
Future training and education on potential risks and vulnerability is essential to implementing and keeping
a hazard mitigation plan current. With the growth and development of lands, wildfire require additional
analysis. There are known areas that are becoming more developed that are not mapped as high wildfire
areas and that may need to be reassessed with current models.
Severe weather affects the region more frequently than most hazards, so having the most up-to-date weather
information is crucial to County operations. Along with the most current weather models, Spokane County
has identified that reducing response times and adjusting operations could benefit more of Spokane County
population.
13.11 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Spokane County Fire District 5 is 100% volunteer and will be in need of full time employees in the future.
SCFD5 is also in need of training to keep up with NFPA Standards. Our Rural farming community is having
more housing developments as the city is moving out to the rural area.
Bridgeview Consulting 13-12 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #5 ANNEX
Bridgeview Consulting 13-13 April 2020
CHAPTER 14.
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #8 ANNEX
14.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Spokane County Fire District 8,
a participating special purpose district to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex
is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information
contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process
and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Spokane County Fire District 8 For
planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on
providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This document
updated with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process discussed in
Volume 1.
14.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
Spokane County Fire District 8 followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan. In
formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals assisting
in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Lonnie Rash, Assistant Chief
Primary Point of Contact Planning Coordinator; Meeting
12100 E Palouse Hwy
attendance, planning team facilitator;
Valleyford, WA 99036
authoring of plan; capturing of
Telephone: 509-926-6699
information; review final annex and
lrash@scfd8.org
County base plan. Present plan to
Commissioners for adoption.
Chris Wyrobek, Division Chief
Alternate Point of Meeting attendance; risk ranking; author
12100 E Palouse Hwy
Contact portions of plan; capture information;
Valleyford, WA 99036
capabilities assessment; review final annex
Telephone: 509-926-6699
and County base plan.
cwyrobek@scfd8.org
Marty Long, Division Chief
Planning Team Member Prevention Education Tasks; public
12100 E Palouse Hwy
outreach; author portions of plan; capture
Valleyford, WA 99036
information; capabilities assessment; risk
Telephone: 509-926-6699
ranking.
Mlong@scfd8.org
Thomas Hatley, Division Chief
Planning Team Member Meeting attendance; author portions of
12100 E Palouse Hwy
plan; risk ranking; capture information;
Valleyford, WA 99036
capabilities assessment
Telephone: 509-926-6699
thatley@scfd8.org
Bridgeview Consulting 14-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
14.3 DISTRICT PROFILE
Spokane County Fire District 8 provides a full range of services that include fire suppression, emergency
medical services, fire prevention, education and investigation, and associated support and maintenance
services to our 21,724 citizens in a 110 square mile area in south Spokane County. Fire District 8 members
responded to 3,090 incidents in 2018 from four fire stations located in the Moran, Valleyford, Ponderosa,
and Saltese areas. Each station is staffed twenty-four hours a day with a combination of career, part-time,
volunteer, and resident volunteer personnel.
An overall increase in staffing, including two additional Firefighter/Paramedics and one Firefighter/EMT,
was achieved in 2018. In utilizing Part-Time and Volunteer Firefighters, the District was able to increase
staffing on days when these members were available to pull additional shifts. This helped maintain staffing
levels at Station 81 and Station 84 from three to four firefighters, and Station 82 and Station 85 were able
to maintain staffing from two firefighters to three firefighters on days when additional members were
available to provide service.
The citizens of Fire District 8 elect a three-member Board of Fire Commissioners to govern the
organization, each of whom is elected to serve a six-year term. The current Board consists of Board Chair
Andy Rorie, Commissioner Lee Boling, and Commissioner Greg Hesse.
In 2018, the General Operating Budget for Fire District 8 was $6.8 million dollars. This revenue is derived
primarily from property taxes, which were levied at $1.36 per $1,000 of assessed property valuation, and
an EMS levy that was set at $0.45 per $1,000 of assessed property valuation. A Maintenance and
Operations levy, also set at $0.45 per $1,000 of assessed property valuation, contributes to the revenue of
the District as well.
Per the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau (WSRB), Spokane County Fire District 8 has worked to
achieve an overall community protection class rating of 4. The Fire Protection Classification rating, which
helps determine insurance rates for residential and commercial properties, is derived from several factors
including, but not limited to, fire station location, staffing, and water supply. Fire District 8 achieved this
rating in 2018 and has been successful in maintaining a community protection class rating of 4 due to
improvements made in the areas of staffing, equipment, water supply, and training.
Governing Authority
The district is governed by a three person Board of Fire
Commissioners.
Population Served
22,351 as of 9/1/2019
Land Area Served
110 Square Miles
Value of Area Served
The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is 3.2 billion
dollars
Land Area Owned
The Fire District owns approximately 18 acres of land
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
6 Engines, 6 Brush, 3 Water Tenders, 1 Support/Air Unit
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment
The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is 5.8 million dollars
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Fire Station 81 3.8 million dollars
Fire Station 82 3.2 million dollars
Bridgeview Consulting 14-2 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #8 ANNEX
Fire Station 84 1.1 million dollars
Fire Station 85 1.1 million dollars
Total Value of Critical Facilities
The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is 18 million dollars
Current and Anticipated Service Trends
The fire district has experienced an
approximately 4.5 percent annual increase in call in the last 5 years. This increase is due to
increased growth in the fire district as well as automatic aid agreements with neighboring fire
districts. While the actual land use has gone relatively unchanged, density with respect to
infill and new residential subdivisions has grown.
14.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that
are unique to the special purpose district. Table 14-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the
district. If available, dollar loss data is also included.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 14-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Snow Storm 1825 12/23/2008 380,000.00
Spokane Valley Fire 2783 7/10/2008 Unknown
Wildfire (Yale Road) 2783 8/13/2015 Unknown
14.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities,
including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities
which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs.
14.5.1 Regulatory Capability
The District has adopted/enacted codes, resolutions, policies and plans that compliment and support hazard
mitigation planning and activities. The following existing District codes, resolutions, policies, and plans are
applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
Fire District Capabilities:
Capital Improvement Program
Sprinkler Codes (Adopted by Spokane County Building and Planning)
Strategic Plan
Emergency Procedures and Policies
City/County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
State of Washington Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
National Response Framework
National Incident Management System
Revised Code of Washington 52.26 (Regional Fire Protection Service)
WAC 296.305
Response Plans, to include Automatic and Mutual Assistance
update. The CIP is updated annually by the District and adopted by the Board of Commissioners in
the fall of each year.
Specific incident response plans or complement of types of resources for response
Bridgeview Consulting 14-4 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #8 ANNEX
Operations plans or policies
Standard Operating Guidelines and Safety Manuals
Mutual Aid Agreements
Automatic Aid Agreements
14.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 14-2. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 14-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure No
construction practices.
Planners or engineers with an understanding of No
natural hazards.
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. Yes
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. Yes
Emergency Manager. No
Grant writers. No
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor Yes
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?).
Hazard data and information available to public. Yes The hazard mitigation plan risk assessment is
review. The County will maintain the data on its
website during the lifecycle of the mitigation
plan.
Specific equipment response plans. Yes
Specific operational plans. Yes
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. No
Education and Outreach
Bridgeview Consulting 14-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 14-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations No
focused on emergency preparedness?
Organization focused on individuals with access Yes Prevention Education Division, Fire District 8,
and functional needs populations Division Chief of Prevention
Ongoing public education or information program Yes Prevention Education Division, Fire District 8,
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household Division Chief of Prevention/ Support Services
preparedness, environmental education) Volunteer Community Risk Reduction
Natural disaster or safety related school programs? Yes Prevention Education Division, Fire District 8,
Division Chief of Prevention
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes The County maintains these programs through
its Emergency Management Department.
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other No
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils Yes Prevention Education Division, Fire District 8,
Division Chief Prevention/Education, Fire Wise
Communities Designated
Chipper program Yes Prevention Education Division, Fire District 8,
Division Chief of Prevention( Shredding Day
with DNR)
Defensible space inspections program Yes Prevention Education Division, Fire District 8,
Division Chief of Prevention/ Support Services
Volunteer Community Risk Reduction
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance No
or cleaning program
Address signage for property addresses Yes Prevention Education Division, Fire District 8,
Division Chief of Prevention/ Support Services
Volunteer Community Risk Reduction
Other
14.5.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 14-3. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-6 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #8 ANNEX
TABLE 14-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No
Capital Improvements Project Funding No
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Other
14.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION
Table 14-4. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation
efforts are indicated accordingly.
TABLE 14-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Community Rating System No
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes Unknown
Storm Ready No
Firewise Yes 5/2016
14.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Base Plan, and have identified
the hazards that affect Spokane County Fire District 8. During discussions by the internal planning team
Bridgeview Consulting 14-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
members in identifying the potential impact of those hazards, additional factors were also discussed and
considered when estimating the potential financial losses caused by hazard-related damages. Such factors
include the number of facilities damaged, the extent of damage to each facility, and the length of time
required for repairs, etc. For service providers which generate income, lost revenue from customers being
without service and the cost of providing temporary service was also a consideration in identifying the
economic losses. After internal Planning Team discussions, the District calculated their Calculated Priority
Risk Index (CPRI) scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 3 3 2 1 4 2.55
Earthquake 2 3 3 4 1 2.65
Flood 3 2 2 2 2 2.4
Landslide 2 3 3 4 2 2.7
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 2 3 1 3 1.7
Wildfire 4 3 2 4 3 3.35
hazardous situation.
Table 14-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-8 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #8 ANNEX
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
TABLE 14-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score
Rank
1 Severe 3.4 High Severe storms can impact all of the
Weather
included in this assessment were built in
the 1977-1978 timeframe. One was built
in 1920. Strong winds in the area could
damage the facilities. Severe storms also
impact response capabilities. Falling trees
and flooded roadways impact ingress and
egress. Snow, while customarily not of a
long duration or significant amounts, also
has the potential to impact response times,
as well as increasing calls for service.
Snow-load capacities can also be of
concern, such as the roof collapsing a gym
in Thurston County during a particularly
significant snow event. A combined
snow/rain event could overcome drainage
capacity, further impacting response
2 Wildfire 3.35 High The majority of structures owned by the
district fall into Fire Regimes 3 and 5.
While structures owned by the district
have not been impacted by wildfire, the
increased over the last several years,
potentially because of climate change and
the drought which the entire state
experienced in 2015, as well as the dries
summer on record in 2017.
3 Landslide2.7MediumWhile no impact has occurred to district
property, the area which the district
serves is susceptible to landslides,
which may ultimately impact response
capabilities and evacuation, if
necessary.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 14-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score
Rank
4 Earthquake The entire planning area is susceptible to
2.65 Medium
earthquakes. While all of the structures
owned by the district fall
structures are dated, making them more
susceptible to the EQ hazard. All but three
of the structures owned by the district
included in this assessment are wood, with
three being steel construction. Five others
are concrete.
5 Drought 2.55 Medium Droughts will increase the risk to wildfire
and has the ability to limit water supplies
needed to fight fires. The increase to
wildfire danger could also impact the risk
6 Flood 2.4 Medium
either the 100- or 500-year floodplain;
however, response to areas flooded do
frequently occur. In some instances,
response is hampered by floodwaters over
roadways.
7 Volcano 1.7 Low Minimal impact to structure, but potential
equipment impact.
14.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described
in Volume 1.
14.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 14-6 lists the action
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are
also identified.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-10 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #8 ANNEX
TABLE 14-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Estimated Sources of
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 1
Continue to support the Glenrose Community Fire Wise Program. This initiative addresses the ongoing education,
prevention, and recovery activities to support the community of Glenrose
Existing WF 2,5,8,11,Spokane $1,500.00 General Long-Term No Public Information, Community
12 County Fire annual Fund Prevention Members of
District 8-Activities, Glenrose,
Community Emergency County and
Risk Services, Recovery, Fire District.
Reduction Natural Resource General
Division Protection. Taxpayer for
reduction of
required
finding or
disaster
assistance.
INITIATIVE # 2
The Fire District has initiated an apartment and short-term rental program to educate apartment managers on
important safety and recover information and strategies. The District would like to expand the program to add a part-time, as needed
person to coordinate, facilitate, and expand the program. The intent would be to seek out grant funding to help continue the practice.
Existing/SW/EQ 2,3,8 Spokane $1,000.00 General Long-Term No Public Information, Public, Fire
New County Fire current/ Fund Prevention District for
District 8-Activities, reduction in
$10,000.0
Community Emergency responses.
0 new
Risk Services, Recovery.
Reduction
Division
INITIATIVE # 3
The District has a sustainable and robust pre-plan program that includes rural farming areas. The District will seek
out grant funding to assist in maintaining this program through continued public education.
Existing SW/WF 1,4 Spokane Low General Long-Term No Prevention Public,
County Fire Fund Education, District,
District 8-Emergency Local.
Community Services.
Risk
Reduction
Division
INITIATIVE 4
Seek grant funding to conduct a Wildland Urban Interface Assessment with Mapping. The District has significant
Wildland Urban Interface areas and is looking for the ability to identify, map and educate those in the hazard areas of strategies to
reduce impacts of wildland fires.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 14-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Estimated Sources of
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
New and WF 1,2,4,12 Spokane Medium General Long-Term No Public Information, Public,
Existing County Fire Fund Prevention District,
District 8-/Grants Activities, Local, Region
Community Emergency
Risk Services
Reduction
Division
INITIATIVE # 5
The District has recognized the need to support the community and be able to effectively respond during hazardous
events as well as be a short-term shelter during disasters. The District does not currently have those capabilities, and is in need of and
sustainable generators at two of the four fire stations in order to be able to serve as shelters in the area.
New WF/EQ/1,3 Spokane High General Short-Term No Property Public,
SV County Fire $280,000 Fund / Protection, District,
District 8 Block Emergency County
Grants Services.
INITIATIVE # 6
Enhance the GIS function of the District through mapping, data collection, and education to responders. The
District will need to hire a GIS manager to complete the work and maintain updated information, and interface with Spokane County
GIS. The District will seek out grant funding to staff such a position o allow for the capture and maintenance of the GIS data which
will assist with future risk assessments in the area.
New SW/ 1,2,3,4, Spokane Medium General Long-Term No Property Public,
WF/EQ County Fire Fund / Protection, District,
District 8-Grants Emergency County
Community Services, Public
Risk Information
Reduction
Division
14.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 14-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-12 April 2020
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #8 ANNEX
TABLE 14-7.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Priority
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets?
1 5 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
2 3 High Medium Yes Yes No High
3 2 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium
4 4 Medium High Yes Yes No Medium
5 2 Medium High Yes Yes No High
6 4 Medium Medium Yes No No
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
Bridgeview Consulting 14-13 April 2020
CHAPTER 15.
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #10 ANNEX
15.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Spokane County Fire District
10, a participating special purpose district to the Spokane County Fire District 10 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update. This Annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements
the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the
planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Spokane County Fire
District 10. For planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with
a focus on providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only. This
relevant data has been carried
over and updated with new information as appropriate and as identified within the planning process
discussed in Volume 1.
15.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The Spokane County Fire District 10 followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan.
Spokane County Fire District
10 also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process. Individuals
assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how they
participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Ken Johnson
Fire Chief Meeting attendance; primary author of plan; worked
929 S. Garfield Rd.
with county planning team to assist in development
Airway Heights, WA 99001
of base plan; assisted with data capturing and
509-244-2425
kjohnson@scfd10.org
s Strategic Planning and Safety Committee
to assist in identifying hazards, risk and strategies.
Presented final plan to Commissioners for adoption.
Mike Risley
Prevention Lt. Assisted with Data Collection and analysis; attended
929 S. Garfield Rd.
internal planning meetings; assisted with risk
Airway Heights, WA 99001
ranking process and review of document.
509-244-2425
mrisley@scfd10.org
Orlando Sandavol
Operations and Operations and Planning Chief; provided
929 S. Garfield Rd.
Planning Deputy information concerning response and potential
Airway Heights, WA 99001
Chief impact from hazards of concern; assisted with
509-244-2425
review of document, providing information and
osandavol@scfd10.org
review of risk assessment.
15-1
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
15.3 DISTRICT PROFILE
Critical Infrastructure
Formed in 1949, the Spokane County Fire District #10 (District) protects 18 miles highways,
including Interstate 90, US Highway 2, and several state highways. More than 70,000 vehicles,
both personal and commercial, pass through our District each day. We also protect 23 miles of
active railroad lines managed by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads.
Both companies have major east/west rail lines passing through the District, with 45 trains passing
through daily. The hazardous materials transported by rail include crude oil, concentrated
agricultural fertilizers, chemicals, and gases.
One major electrical high-tension system passes through the District, bringing electricity from
hydroelectric dams to Spokane and the surrounding area. We also have five petroleum and natural
gas pipelines, totaling 40 miles, running through our industrial and residential areas. The five lines
carry diesel, gasoline, jet and aviation fuel, and natural gas. Two petroleum pipelines and one
natural gas pipeline transport commodities across Washington State, as well as provide fuel to
Spokane International Airport and Fairchild Air Force Base.
We provide automatic aid to Fairchild Air Force Base and Spokane International Airport. Fairchild
AFB is home to the 92nd Air Refueling Wing. They store one million gallons of jet fuel on site
which they dispense by truck. A water system, including wells and pipelines, supplies Fairchild
AFB with drinking water. Spokane International Airport stores 750,000 gallons of jet and aviation
fuel onsite, with they dispense by truck. We also provide mutual-aid and automatic aid to both
facilities.
We protect the Joint Personnel Recovery Center which tracks and trains the Department of Defense
and civilian intelligence agency personnel. They store 50,000 gallons of diesel and 12,000 gallons
of propane on site. The Avista Natural Gas Processing facility adds Ethyl Mercaptan to raw natural
gas, 24 hours a day, giving it the sulfur smell prior to distribution. Ethyl Mercaptan is highly
flammable and very toxic if inhaled. It is stored onsite in multiple 1,000-gallon tanks with regular
deliveries by truck. The BF Goodrich Aircraft Brake Manufacturing facility stores 60,000 gallons
of propane gas onsite. One of the manufacturing by-products is Hydrogen Cyanide, which could
be released in event of an equipment malfunction or operator error.
Community Description
The District is a combination department, with the majority volunteer, located near Spokane in NE
Washington. Our first due response covers 213 square miles, with a population of 19,255, including
suburban and rural areas. Our response area does not experience seasonal population increases. Our
dential, 30% open space, and 5% commercial.
-Hispanic white, 5.5% Hispanic, 2.4% Asian,
1.8% non-Hispanic African-American, 1.7% Native American, and 3.5% other/more than one race.
The age breakdown is 22.2% less than 18 years, 62.2% ages 18-64, and 15.6% ages 65 and older.
The median household income is $52,900 and 15.6% live below the Federal Poverty Level. The
County Health Rankings and Roadmaps website (www.countyhealthrankings.org) ranks Spokane
15-2
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
thndth
County 26 out of 39 Washington counties for health behaviors, 22 for quality of life, 26 in
rd
length of life, and 23 in health outcomes; the larger the number, the worse the ranking/outcome.
The demand for our services continues to grow (17% in 2017 and 5% in 2018). We provide fire
protection, Basic Life Support, and Haz-Mat response services to commercial (big box stores/strip
malls), industrial (Spokane International Airport), residential (single-family homes, condos, and
trailer parks), and wildland/suburban and suburban/urban interface areas. Our response services
include Rescue Operations Level, Emergency Medical First Response, Basic Life Support Non-
transportation, Structural Fire Suppression, Wildland Fire Suppression, and Haz-Mat Operational
Level.
During the summer months, the risk for a major wildfire is our primary concern. High to extreme
fire danger weather conditions occur daily when daytime temperatures hover around 100 degrees
and generate gusty winds; 95% of our protection area lacks hydrants or any public water system.
This creates hazardous conditions for residents, our firefighters, and the 23,000+ people who
commute through our service area each day.
The District provides mutual aid to all fire districts in Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, and
Whitman counties in NE Washington and to Booner, Kootenia, and Shoshone counties in NW
Idaho. We provide automatic aid to the cities of Airway Heights and Spokane, Fairchild AFB,
Spokane International Airport, and Spokane County Fire Districts 3; 5; and 9.
We deploy from five stations; four unstaffed and one staffed by career and volunteers with a three-
person engine crew. One station is staffed 24 hrs. per day with a daily minimum staffing of 3 career
firefighters working during the day (7 am-6 pm, Mon-Sat), and volunteer firefighters covering the
night. The remaining 4 stations are intermittently staffed with resident/reserve volunteer
firefighters. Our second busiest station, Station #2, is typically staffed one day a week with two
reserve firefighters.
We responded to more than 2,700 calls during the past three years, using nine career staff members;
12 traditional volunteers; and 80 reserve volunteer firefighters. Traditional volunteers live in the
district and respond from home. Reserve volunteers live outside the district and participate in shifts.
The career staff consists of one (1) Fire Chief, two (2) Deputy Chiefs, one (1) Division Chief, three
(3) lieutenants, and three (3) firefighters. The career chief staff have administrative responsibilities
and are also duty officers. The chief staff members are salaried/non-FLSA employees. The career
lieutenants have both program and company level responsibilities. The lieutenants and firefighters
work a 45-hour week, covering 7 am-6 pm Monday through Saturday.
The following is a summary of key information about the jurisdiction:
Governing Authority
The district is governed by a board of three (3) Fire Commissioners
Population Served
6900 as of 02/2019
Land Area Served
85 sq. miles
Value of Area Served
The estimated value of the area served by the jurisdiction is
1,240,545,094.
15-3
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Land Area Owned
9.21 acres
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Fire Engines Type 1 3,081,278.00
Pumper Ladder 721,761.00
Brush Trucks Type 6 691,760.00
Command units 222,897.00
Attack Engines Type 3 485,514.00
Support units 271,692.00
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment
The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the jurisdiction is 6,219,916.00
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the Jurisdiction:
Fire Station 1 929 S. Garfield Rd. 1,568,157.00
Fire Station 2 5408 W Lawton Rd 381,246.00
Fire Station 3 6316 N Dover Rd 518,274.00
Fire Station 4 1411 S Brooks Rd 595,746.00
Fire Station 5 9921 W Trails Rd 517,021.00
Fire Station 6 future planned station
Total Value of Critical Facilities
The total value of critical facilities owned by the
jurisdiction is 3,580,444.00
Current and Anticipated Service Trends
The District is experiencing increased call volumes.
Our three-year response average, 2015-2017, is 975, ranging from 1,063 to 833 per year. During
this same three-
191 to 155. We provided three times more aid than we received during that time. The three-year
rolling averages for the number of alarms per year have consistently increased: 2013-2015 (890),
2014-2016 (901), and 2015-2017 (984). We expect these numbers will continue to increase as the
and more arid over time.
the summer months.
service area open space, we expect to experience more Wildlife Suppression responses; Over the
three-year period, 2015-
431 acres. The worst year was 2015 with 51 vegetation fires totaling 396 acres.
15-4
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
15.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all-hazard events that have occurred within the County.
In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are no additional hazards that are unique
to the special purpose district. Table 15-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the district. If
available, dollar loss data is also included.
TABLE 15-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Wildfire Coulee Hite Fire 2015
Severe Weather Drought 2015
Severe Weather County Wide Wind Event 2015 Moderate damage to structures
Severe Weather Coulee Hite Creek Flooding 2009
Severe Weather Record Snowfall 2009 Moderate damages to structures
15-5
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 15-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Wildfire Wood Rd Fire 2007
Wildfire Newkirk Rd Fire 1997
Severe Weather Ice Storm 1996 Moderate damage and
displacement
Wildfire Bowie Rd Fire 1996
Wildfire Fire Storm 1991
15.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies, and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. The capabilities are divided into the following sections:
regulatory capabilities that influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation capabilities,
including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal capabilities
which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs.
15.5.1 Regulatory Capability
The District has adopted/enacted codes, resolutions, policies and plans that complement and support hazard
mitigation planning and activities. The following existing District codes, resolutions, policies, and plans are
applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
Fire District Capabilities:
Capital Improvement Program
International Fire Codes
Strategic Plan
After Quake Assessment Report
Citizen Emergency Response Training (CERT)
Community First Aid/ CPR training, Stop The Bleed training.
Emergency Operations Plan
Emergency Procedures and Policies
City/County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
State of Washington Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
National Response Framework
15-6
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
National Incident Management System
Employee Handbooks and Safety Manuals
Revised Code of Washington 52.26 (Regional Fire Protection Service)
WAC 296.305
Response Plan
District Mutual Aid Agreements The District participates in Mutual Aid Agreements with adjacent
jurisdictions, counties, and the State of Washington. Mutual Aid Agreements allow agencies to
contract with each other to provide personnel and equipment to other agencies that request assistance
during a disaster or emergency. The District has signed Mutual Aid Agreements that provide access
to resources of other agencies and jurisdictions and defines the terms under which agencies respond
to such requests.
15.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
g educational and
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 15-2. These are elements that
support not only mitigation but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 15-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Spokane County Building Department
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes
construction practices.
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes Spokane County Building Department
natural hazards.
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. Yes Administrative Director
A joint position with labor
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Haz. use. Yes
Spokane DEM
Emergency Manager. Yes
Grant writers. No
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor No
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?).
Hazard data and information available to public. Yes
Specific equipment response plans. Yes
Specific operational plans. Yes
Education and Outreach
15-7
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 15-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations Yes Block Groups
focused on emergency preparedness?
The organization focused on individuals with
access and functional needs populations
Ongoing public education or information program Yes
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education)
A natural disaster or safety-related school Yes
programs?
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues?
Multi-seasonal public awareness program? Yes
Other
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No
Noxious Weed Eradication Program or other Yes Spokane County
vegetation management
Fire Safe Councils Yes Prevention Program
Chipper program No
Defensible space inspections program Yes Prevention Program
Creek, stream, culvert or storm drain maintenance No
or cleaning program
Stream restoration program No
Erosion or sediment control program No
Address signage for property addresses Yes Administrative assistant.
Other
15.5.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 15-3. These are the financial
tools or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
15-8
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
TABLE 15-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants No
Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds No
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas No
State-Sponsored Grant Programs Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers No
Grants Yes
15.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION
Table 15-4. Each
of the classifications identified establishes requirements that, when met, are known to increase the resilience
of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation efforts are
indicated accordingly.
TABLE 15-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) or
Rank Date Enrolled
Community Rating System NA
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 2
Commercial
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3
Dwelling
Fire Protection Class 5 2018
Storm Ready Yes
15-9
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 15-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) or
Rank Date Enrolled
Firewise Yes 2010
Tsunami Ready (if applicable) No
15.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
the hazards that affect the Spokane County Fire District 10. During discussions by the internal planning
team members in identifying the potential impact of those hazards, additional factors were also discussed
and considered when estimating the potential financial losses caused by hazard-related damages. Such
factors include the number of facilities damaged, the extent of damage to each facility, and the length of
time required for repairs, etc. For service providers which generate income, lost revenue from customers
being without service and the cost of providing temporary service was also a consideration in identifying
the economic losses. After internal Planning Team discussions, the District calculated their Calculated
Priority Risk Index (CPRI) scores as follows:
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 4 3 3 1 4 3.15
Earthquake 3 3 2 4 1 2.85
Flood 4 2 3 2 2 3.
Landslide 3 2 2 4 2 2.7
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 2 3 1 4 1.75
Wildfire 4 3 4 4 2 3.7
Aircraft 4 2 3 4 2 3.3
st
hazardous situation.
Table 15-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
15-10
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and the potential cost of damage to
life and property are very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact on government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and the potential cost of damage to
life and property are minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated and less costly
than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact on essential
services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted in excess of one month.
TABLE 15-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Hazard
Vulnerability Description of Impact
Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score
Rank
1 Wildfire 3.7 High Wildfires increase calls for service and
potential risk to firefighters;
1 SW 3.4 High Vehicle and structural damage; increased
calls for service;
1 Aircraft Aircraft Crashes; areas within the runway
3.3 High
susceptible to potential impact.
2 Flood 3 Medium Damaged bridges delayed response times
2 Landslide 2.7 Medium Damaged property; impact to roadways
may delay response times.
3 Earthquake 2.85 Medium Damaged property; injury to citizens;
potential delayed response time due to
roadway conditions, landslides, or
increased calls for service.
4 Drought 3.15 Medium Increase the risk of wildland fires
5 Volcano 1.75 Low Volcanic ash may cause vehicle damage
and damage to intake valves.
15-11
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
15.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described
in Volume 1.
15.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 15-6 lists the action
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, and the type of initiative associated with each item are
also identified.
TABLE 15-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # 1
Ensure efficient but effective emergency response and recovery capabilities to reduce the loss of life and property
.
during and after a disaster through mitigation efforts
Existing All All SCFD10 High General Long-Term No Protection/ Local
Hazards Fund planning/
mitigation
INITIATIVE # 2
Continue Community Outreach.
Existing All All SCFD10 Low General Long Term No Public Information, Local
Hazards Fund prevention
activities
INITIATIVE # 3
Identify and determine site suitability to establish two new stations outside hazard areas and within the district
boundaries to ensure response capabilities.
New Fire All SCFD10 High Grants/ Long Term No Emergency Regional
MO Levy Services
INITIATIVE # 4
Determine feasibility establishing a potential warming and cooling shelter for community members during local
disasters.
New All All SCFD10 Medium Grant Long Term No Recovery Regional
Hazards /DEM
Continue to work with Spokane County Conservation District to identify community wildfire hazards.
INITIATIVE # 5
New All All FD 10, Low General Short Term No Prevention/ Local
Hazards Spokane Fund Property Protection
County
Conservation
District
15-12
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
TABLE 15-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Preventive Activities,
Estimated Sources of
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
to new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
Work with the appropriate rail, transportation, and county agencies to ensure available access to areas
INITIATIVE # 6
serviced by the district.
New All All FD 10, Rail, Low General Short Term No Emergency Regional
Hazards County, Fund Services
Additional
Work with county to ensure the roads are elevated in areas effected by flooding which impacts egress
INITIATIVE # 7
and ingress to those impacted areas.
New All All FD 10, Low General Short Term No Prevention/ Local
Hazards Spokane Fund Property Protection
County Roads
Continue to assess landslide hazards in the area that would land lock communities.
INITIATIVE # 8
New All All DNR/ Low General Short Term No Prevention/ Local
Hazards Spokane Fund Property Protection
County
15.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 15-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
TABLE 15-7.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Priority
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets?
1 9 Medium High Yes No Yes High
2 9 High Low Yes Yes Yes High
3 9 High High Yes Yes No Medium
4 9 High Medium Yes Yes No High
5 9 Low Medium Yes Yes Unk Low
6 9 High High Yes Yes Yes High
7 9 Medium Medium Yes Yes No Medium
15-13
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 15-7.
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Priority
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets?
8 9 High Low Yes Yes No Medium
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
15.11 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/
VULNERABILITY
To manage natural hazard risk, a broader understanding of the concept of vulnerability is needed
in order to reduce losses resulting from hazardous events in our community. For example, this
year alone SCFD10 had a bridge that was damaged by a BNSF train. The impact to the community
has been wide reaching to include military facilities and reduced service levels for years.
15-14
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
15-15
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
15-16
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
15-17
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
15-18
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX
15-19
CHAPTER 16.
SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNEX UPDATE
16.1 INTRODUCTION
This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the Spokane Valley Fire Department,
a participating special purpose district to the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. This Annex
is not intended to be a standalone document, but rather appends to and supplements the information
contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process
and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the Spokane Valley Fire Department. For
planning purposes, this Annex provides additional information specific to the district, with a focus on
providing greater details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this entity only.
16.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM POINT(S) OF CONTACT
The Spokane Valley Fire Department followed the planning process detailed in Section 2 of the Base Plan.
Spokane Valley Fire
Department also formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process.
Individuals assisting in this Annex development are identified below, along with a brief description of how
they participated.
Local Planning Team Members
Name Position/Title Planning Tasks
Shawn Arold, Deputy Chief Primary Point of Contact Attended planning team meetings,
2120 N. Wilbur Road served as primary author of the
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 plan, conducted internal planning
Telephone: 509-928-1700 team meetings, captured
e-mail: information from other personnel.
arolds@spokanevalleyfire.com
Alternate Point of Contact Attended planning team meetings,
2120 N. Wilbur Road assisted with development of the
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 annex, attended internal planning
Telephone: 509-928-1700 meetings, worked to capture data
e-mail: and information from other SVFD
obrient@spokanevalleyfire.com personnel.
16.3 DISTRICT PROFILE
The following is a summary of key information about the district:
Governing Authority
The Spokane Valley Fire Department (SVFD) was organized in 1940
and legally established under Title 52 - Fire Protection Districts, Chapter 52.02 of the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW). The Department was identified as the Spokane Valley Fire
Protection District #1 (SVFPD#1) for the express purpose of providing fire protection services,
Bridgeview Consulting 16-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
SVFD has evolved into an organization providing a wide range of emergency services such as
fire suppression, emergency medical basic and advanced life support, fire prevention, public
education, community risk reduction, rescue task force, hazardous materials mitigation,
domestic preparedness planning and response, technical rescue, and wildland-urban interface
fire prevention and suppression. Chapters 52.12 through 52.16 of the RCW define Powers,
Commissioners, and Finances of Fire Protection Districts. The Department is governed by a
five-
business through established policies. However, the Board of Commissioners subrogates the
responsibility and oversight for daily operations and established programs to the Fire Chief.
Population Served
125,000 as of 2010 census, and the current population has increased by
nearly 7, 000 residents.
Land Area Served
75 square miles
Value of Area Served
The estimated value of the area served by the district is 9. 5 billion.
Land Area Owned
14 acres
List of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment Owned by the District:
8 engines $4,000,000
2 ladders $3,000,000
Reserve Engines $300,000
3 Wildland Apparatus $180,000
Specialized response trailers (Comms, Decon, mass casualty) $140,000
Total Value of Critical Infrastructure/Equipment
The total value of critical infrastructure
and equipment owned by the district is $7,620,000
List of Critical Facilities Owned by the District:
10 Fire Stations
$40 million
Apparatus maintenance facility and equipment
$2.5 million
Training tower, classrooms and drill ground
$3.0 million
Administrative facility with Department Emergency Operations Center
$6.0 million
Total Value of Critical Facilities
the total value of critical facilities owned by the district is
$51,500,000.
Current and Anticipated Service Trends
SVFD experienced a higher growth of assessed property valuation over the last several years. Building
permit values over the last five years have continued to increase by approximately 5%. Through the past
year, property values have been increasing at a more substantial rate, and construction activity and value
have increased significantly. Land use designations allow for an increase in medium and light commercial
and residential land uses within the service area, especially in the eastern geographical area. This increase
Bridgeview Consulting 16-2 April 2020
SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNEX
in density of land uses will represent an increase in population and thus a projected increase in call volume,
necessitating the addition of an 11 th station, likely in the next five years. SVFD continues to increase in
call volume over the last five years. In 2018, SVFD received nearly 18,000 calls for service as compared
to just under 14,000 in 2013. Call volume has steadily increased since 2013. Auto Aid agreements have
been implemented with neighboring agencies within the last several years.
shown on the map provided below.
16.4 HAZARD EVENT HISTORY
Within the Base Plan, the Planning Team identified all hazard events which have occurred within the
County. In the context of the planning region, it was determined that there are hazards which are unique to
the special purpose district as follows. Table 16-1 lists all past occurrences which have impacted the
district. If available, dollar loss data is also included.
TABLE 16-1
NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS
FEMA Disaster # (if
Type of Event applicable) Date Dollar Losses (if known)
Severe winter storm DR-1825 03/02/2009 Moderate damage to SVFD
facilities and occupancies within
the district.
Wildland Urban FM-2783 07/11/2008 13 residential structures were
Interface Fire destroyed with an estimated loss
of at least $10 million and $3.5
million to combat the fire.
Ice Storm DR-1152 01/07/1997 Severe damage to residential and
commercial occupancies within
the district.
Fire Storm FM-2079 10/18/1991 141 residential structures were
destroyed.
Severe Ice/Winds DR-769 05/20/1986 Unknown
Mt. St. Helens eruption DR-623 05/22/1980 Unknown
Severe Ice/Winds DR-545 10/10/1977 Unknown
Local Area Disaster Not Declared
3.1 Earthquake N/A 06/2001 Minimal damage regionally
16.5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PLANS
Coordination with other community planning efforts is paramount to the successful implementation of this
plan. This section provides information on how planning mechanisms, policies, and programs are
Bridgeview Consulting 16-3 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
integrated into other on-
preparing and planning for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating the impacts of hazard events
and incidents.
Capabilities include the programs, policies and plans currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could
be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. This capabilities assessment is divided into the following
sections: regulatory capabilities which influence mitigation; administrative and technical mitigation
capabilities, including education and outreach, partnerships, and other on-going mitigation efforts; fiscal
capabilities which support mitigation efforts, and classifications under various community programs.
16.5.1 Regulatory Capability
The District has adopted/enacted codes, resolutions, policies and plans that compliment and support hazard
mitigation planning and activities. The following existing District codes, resolutions, policies, and plans are
applicable to this hazard mitigation plan:
Fire District Capabilities:
Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan
Sprinkler Codes
Strategic Plan
FIRE CORPS
Emergency Operations Plan
Emergency Procedures and Policies
City/County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
State of Washington Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
National Response Framework
National Incident Management System
Revised Code of Washington 52.26 (Regional Fire Protection Service)
WAC 296.305
Response Plan
Community Risk Assessment
Standards of Coverage
Mutual Aid Agreements
Automatic Aid Agreements
Strategic Plan, adopted 2018
Accreditation Standards
Bridgeview Consulting 16-4 April 2020
SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNEX
16.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities
e and technical capabilities, including educational and
outreach efforts, and on-going programmatic efforts are presented in Table 16-2. These are elements which
support not only mitigation, but all phases of emergency management already in place that are used to
implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information.
TABLE 16-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes
construction practices.
Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes
natural hazards.
Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. Yes SVFD
Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. Yes
Emergency Manager. Yes DEM
Grant writers. Yes SVFD and DEM
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse 9-1-1, outdoor Yes DEM
warning signs or signals, flood or fire warning
program, etc.?).
Hazard data and information available to public. No
Specific equipment response plans. Yes SVFD
Specific operational plans. Yes SVFD
Water Shortage Contingency Plan. No
Education and Outreach
Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations Yes SVFD
focused on emergency preparedness? (E.g., CERT,
SAR, Medical Reserve Corps, etc.).
Organization focused on individuals with access No
and functional needs populations.
Ongoing public education or information program Yes
(e.g., responsible water use, fire safety, household
preparedness, environmental education).
Natural disaster or safety related school programs. Yes
Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No
disaster-related issues.
Multi-seasonal public awareness program. Yes
Bridgeview Consulting 16-5 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 16-2
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
Available
Staff/Personnel Resources (Yes/No) Department/Agency/Position
Other No
On-Going Mitigation Efforts
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program No
Erosion or sediment control program No
Address signage for property addresses Yes
Other No
16.5.3 Fiscal Capability
Table 16-3. These are the financial tools
or resources that could potentially be used to help fund mitigation activities.
TABLE 16-3
FISCAL CAPABILITY
Accessible or
Financial Resources Eligible to Use?
Community Development Block Grants
Yes
Capital Improvements Project Funding
Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes
Yes
User Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric Service
No
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds
Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds
Yes
Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds
Yes
Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas
No
State Sponsored Grant Programs
Yes
Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers
Yes
Other
Yes
Bridgeview Consulting 16-6 April 2020
SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNEX
16.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION
classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in Table 16-4. Each
of the classifications identified establish requirements which, when met, are known to increase the
resilience of a community. Those which specifically require district participation or enhance mitigation
efforts are indicated accordingly.
TABLE 16-4
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Participating
(Yes/No) Date Enrolled
Protection Class 2 Unknown
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3 Unknown
Commercial
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 3
Dwelling
Storm Ready No N/A
Firewise No N/A
16.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
the hazards that affect the Spokane Valley Fire Department. During discussions by the internal planning
team members in identifying the potential impact of those hazards, additional factors were also discussed
and considered when estimating the potential financial losses caused by hazard-related damages. Such
factors include the number of facilities damaged, the extent of damage to each facility, and the length of
time required for repairs, etc. For service providers which generate income, lost revenue from customers
being without service and the cost of providing temporary service was also a consideration in identifying
the economic losses. After internal Planning Team discussions, the District calculated their Calculated
Priority Risk Index (CPRI) scores as follows:
Bridgeview Consulting 16-7 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
CALCULATED PRIORITY RISK INDEX RANKING SCORES
Magnitude and/or Extent and Warning Calculated Priority
Hazard Probability Severity Location Time Duration Risk Index Score
Drought 4 2 2 1 4 2.75
Earthquake 3 3 2 4 1 2.85
Flood 4 2 3 2 2 3.
Landslide 4 2 2 4 2 3.1
Severe Weather 4 3 4 2 2 3.4
Volcano 1 2 3 1 4 1.75
Wildfire 4 3 2 4 2 3.3
st
hazardous situation.
Table 16-5 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern based on their CPRI score. A qualitative
vulnerability ranking was then assigned based on a summary of potential impact determined by: past
occurrences, spatial extent, damage, casualties, and continuity of government. The assessment is
categorized into the following classifications:
Extremely Low No or very limited impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is very minimal-to-nonexistent. No impact to government functions with no
disruption to essential services.
Low (Negligible) Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life
and property is minimal. Government functions are at 90% with limited disruption to essential
services.
Medium (Limited) Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the
general population and /or built environment. The potential damage is more isolated, and less
costly than a more widespread disaster. Government functions are at 80% with limited impact to
essential services.
High (Critical) Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general
population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this
category may have occurred in the past. Government functions are at ~50% operations with limited
delivery of essential services.
Extremely High (Catastrophic) Very widespread with catastrophic impact. Government
functions are significantly impacted for in excess of one month.
Bridgeview Consulting 16-8 April 2020
SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNEX
TABLE 16-5
HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING
Description of Impact (e.g., dollar loss, how it impacted
Hazard Hazard CPRI Vulnerability structures, capability to provide services, etc.)
Rank Type Score Rank
1 SW 3.4 High Moderate damage to SVFD facilities and occupancies
within the district.
2 Wildfire 3.3 High Residential structures destroyed with an estimated loss of at
least $10 million and $3.5 million to combat the fire.
3.1 Medium Potential to hinder delivery of service in portions of the
3 Landslide
district.
4 Flood 3 Medium Residential, businesses and roadways may be impacted.
5 Earthquake 2.85 Medium Minimal damage regionally
6 Drought 2.75 Medium Drought customarily does not impact structures, but would
increase fire danger.
7 Volcano 1.75 Low Impact from ash on the fire response vehicles could be
significant. Increased calls for service may exist due to
health-related issues for individuals with breathing/health
related issues.
16.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described
in Volume 1.
16.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk
assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 16-6 lists the action
information on how each action item will be administered, responsible agency/office (including outside the
district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of
initiative associated with each item are also identified.
Bridgeview Consulting 16-9 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 16-6
HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Who or What
Initiative Type:
Benefits?
Public Information,
Facility, Local,
Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities,
County,
Cost (High/ Funding Structural Projects,
Region
Applies to Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection,
new or Low) or $ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services,
existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Term, Plan? Recovery, Natural
assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund, etc.) Short-Term) Yes/No Resource Protection
INITIATIVE # SVFD 1Develop a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP).
New and All-1,3 SVFD Low SVFD Short term No Planning/EmergencLocal and
existing Hazards y Services County
INITIATIVE # SVFD 2Develop an employee family support plan to facilitate employee availability during disaster events.
Response All-1 SVFD $20,000 SVFD Short term Yes Emergency Local
based Hazards (cost for Services
initiative potential
facility
upgrade
needs and
supplies)
INITIATIVE # SVFD 3 Support countywide initiatives that promote the education of the public of natural hazards within
the region.
New and All-1,2,4,5,8,DEM, SVFD Low Grants, Short term Yes Public education, Local and
existing Hazards 12 SVFD Preventive County
Activities
INITIATIVE # SVFD 4 Conduct a Standard of Cover needs analysis.
Response All-1,4,9 SVFD $40,000 - Grants, Ongoing No Emergency Local
based Hazards cost for SVFD Services, Resource
initiative the Protection
technical
advisory
committee
INITIATIVE # SVFD 5 Participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan
New and All-1-12 DEM, SVFD Low SVFD Ongoing Yes Planning Local
existing Hazards
16.10 PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES
Once the mitigation initiatives items were identified, the Planning Team followed the same process outlined
within Volume 1 to prioritize their initiatives. An analysis of six different initiative types for each identified
action item was conducted. Table 16-7 identifies the prioritization for each initiative.
Bridgeview Consulting 16-10 April 2020
SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNEX
TABLE 16-7
MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE
# of Do Benefits Is Project Can Project Be Funded
Initiative Objectives Equal or Grant-Under Existing Programs/
a
Priority
# Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets?
SVFD 4 3 High $40,000.00 Yes Yes Yes High
SVFD 1 2 Low Low Yes No Yes High
SVFD 3 6 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium
SVFD 5 12 Medium Low Yes No Yes Medium
SVFD 2 1 Low $20,000.00 TBD TBD Yes Low
a. See Chapter 1 for explanation of priorities.
16.11 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES
Table 16-8 summarizes the initiatives that were recommended in the previous version of the hazard
mitigation plan and their implementation status at the time this update was prepared.
TABLE 16-8
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy 2019 Project Status
Continue working with DEM The SVFD has changed priorities for hiring
staff and support contract within the organization and will not be
initiatives generated by the seeking a separate full-time emergency
team. management contract employee as a
standalone position. The SVFD will look for
opportunities to modify existing
organizational structures to accommodate
contract management.
SVFD did not begin working The SVFD will include an employee support
on the research and plan during the research and development of
development towards an a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP).
employee family support plan
to facilitate employee
availability during disaster
events.
Bridgeview Consulting 16-11 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
TABLE 16-8
STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
Current Status
Mitigation Strategy 2019 Project Status
Continue refinement of the Initial program roll-out included the
pre-incident planning and participation of company officers in the site
management program. visit and creation of plans.
Continue working with DNR
to identify fire hazard areas
and implement risk reduction
projects.
Continue support with wildfire
mitigation recommendations
identified in the Spokane
County CWPP.
Continue countywide
initiatives that promote
education of the public of
natural hazards within the
region.
Actively participate in the
strategies identified in the
CWPP.
16.12 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/
VULNERABILITY
The SVFD conducted a Community Risk Assessment (CRA) in 2009 and will embark on a complete review
and update of our assessment to better understand the changes that have occurred since the last assessment.
SVFD will contract with a third party Technical Advisory Group to facilitate and evaluate the CRA.
16.13 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The Spokane Valley Fire Department serves the area east of the city of Spokane, north of Spokane County
Fire District #8 south of Fire Districts #9 and Fire District #13, and west of the Washington/Idaho border.
The district sits in the valley formed by the foothills of the Selkirk range to the north and Mica foothills to
the south.
The SVFD district includes three municipalities:
Bridgeview Consulting 16-12 April 2020
SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNEX
The City of Millwood sits in the northwest portion of the SVFD district and is surrounded by the
City of Spokane Valley to the west, south, and east, and the unincorporated area of Spokane
County. (light blue area on the map below)
The City of Spokane Valley is the largest municipality in the district. It is surrounded by
unincorporated areas of Spokane County and the City of Liberty Lake to the east. (dark blue area
of the map below)
The City of Liberty Lake lies in the eastern part of the fire district and is surrounded on three
sides by unincorporated areas of Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley to the west.
(dark green area of the map below)
Unincorporated areas of the district are governed by Spokane County. These areas add up to 29.82 square
miles. The SVFD district boundaries are illustrated on the map below.
Bridgeview Consulting 16-13 April 2020
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annex Documents
APPENDIX A.
PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS
APPENDIX A.
PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS
Achieving DMA Compliance
One of the goals of the multi-jurisdictional approach to hazard mitigation planning is to achieve compliance
with the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for all participating members in the planning effort. There are
several different groups who can be involved in this process at different levels, and as determined by the
planning partnership. In order to provide clarity, the following is a general breakdown of those groups:
The Hazard Mitigation Plan Development Staff (referred to her
makeup includes the project management team (county and consultant), consultant members, and
The planning partners, which are those jurisdictions or special purpose districts that are actually
developing an annex to the regional plan; and
The planning stakeholders, which are the individuals, groups, businesses, academia, etc., from
which the planning team gains information to support the various elements of the plan.
DMA compliance requires that participation be defined in order to maintain eligibility with respect to
meeting the requirements which allow a jurisdiction or special purpose district to develop an annex to the
base plan. To achieve compliance for all partners, the plan must clearly document how each planning
criteria examples (this list is not all-inclusive):
Estimated level of effort
. It is estimated that the total time commitment to meet these
approximately 40 - 50 hours over the
twelve-month period, including workshop attendance. This time is reduced somewhat for special
purpose districts.
Participate in the process.
As indicated, it must be documented in the plan that each planning
cess to the best of your capabilities. There is flexibility in defining
Special Purpose District) involved. However, the level of participation must be defined at the on-
set of the planning process, and we must demonstrate the extent to which this level of participation
has been met for each partner.
Public Involvement
. The planning team will be responsible for supporting the partnership during
the public involvement phases of the planning process. Support could be in the form of providing
venues for public meetings, attending these meetings as participants, providing technical support,
etc. Each entity completing an annex will be required to complete their own public outreach
strategy.
Duration of planning process.
This process is anticipated to take approximately twelve months
to complete (not including state and FEMA review). It will be easy to become disconnected with
the process objectives if you do not participate in some of these meetings to some degree. General
tasks associated with this effort include review of existing plans, updating of general profile and
Census data, identification and/or verification of critical infrastructure, and public outreach efforts
Bridgeview Consulting A-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annex Documents
(to be identified and defined during planning meetings or workshops, but at a minimum will require
two efforts).
Capability Assessment.
All planning partners will be asked to identify their capabilities during
this process. This capability assessment will require a review of existing documents (plans, studies,
and ordinances) pertinent to each jurisdiction to identify policies or recommendations that are
nt
the hazard mitigation initiatives selected (i.e.: comp plans, basin plans, or hazard specific plans or
information, studies, reports, etc.).
Hazard Identification and Risk Ranking.
All planning partners will participate in the
identification of hazards to be addressed during this effort and the overall risk ranking exercise for
the base plan. (Other hazards not addressed by the general body of the group may be included in
specific annex documents.) Once the base plan risk ranking has occurred, each planning partner
will complete their own risk ranking exercise for their own jurisdiction/entity. This is a facilitated
process, and requires mandatory attendance at the risk ranking planning meeting to gain
compliance. This meeting will be mandatory attendance.
Action/Strategy Review.
All previous planning partners will be required to perform a review of
the strategies from their respective prior action plan to: determine those that have been
accomplished and how they were accomplished; and why those that have not been accomplished
were not completed. Note even if your plan has expired, it is still considered an update, and not
a new plan. The planning team will be available to assist with this task; however, for existing
planning partners, this is mandatory.
Annex Template Development.
Each planning partner will be required to develop their own
annex template, which will be the data specific to their entity or jurisdiction. Information contained
in this document will include, but is not limited to: community profile, population or service area
data, disaster history information, identification of critical facilities. The template itself will be
provided; however, the actual completion of the document is a requirement of each planning
partner. This element is mandatory for active participation.
Consistency Review.
All planning partners will be required to review the entire base plan when
completed, and their respective annex document after final editing by the planning team.
Customarily, there is a minimum of two weeks provided for this review process, but normally we
attempt to give an entire month for this element of the project.
Plan adoption.
Each jurisdiction and special purpose district involved in the effort must adopt the
plan once FEMA and State approval have been gained. If not adopted by each jurisdiction, that
mitigation plan in place even though they have gone through the process. Adoption is mandatory
per FEMA guidelines.
One of the benefits to multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources. This means more than
monetary resources. Resources such as staff time, meeting locations, media resources, technical expertise
will all need to be utilized to generate a successful plan.
It is anticipated that two or three workshop sessions will be required to complete this plan, in addition to
two public outreach sessions. Those workshop sessions will last three or four hours each, and take the place
of monthly meetings. While the workshop sessions will provide the bulk of actual meeting attendance,
A-2
APPENDIX A. PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS
based on the progress of the planning partnership as a whole, there may be additional meetings which may
be required; however, each planning partner will be required to attend, at a minimum, 75% of the workshop
sessions and provide data as requested. Much of the data exchange can occur through email or telephone
calls, which will supplement the workshops.
With the above participation requirements in mind, each planning partner will be asked to aid this process
by being prepared to develop its own section of the plan. To be an eligible planning partner in this effort,
each Planning Partner will be asked to provide the following:
A.
B. Designate a lead point of contact for this effort. This designee will be listed as the hazard mitigation
point of contact for your jurisdiction in the plan. An alternate is also highly recommended in case
the designated lead becomes unavailable to ensure the 75% meeting requirement is met.
C. Identify their hourly rate of pay for this point of contact, which will be used to calculate the in-kind
match for the grant that is funding this project.
D. If requested, provide support in the form of mailing list, possible meeting space, and public
information materials, such as newsletters, newspapers or direct mailed brochures, required to
implement the public involvement strategy developed during this planning process.
E. Participate in the process. There will be many opportunities as this plan evolves to participate.
Opportunities such as:
a. Hazard Mitigation Planning Team meetings;
b. Public meetings or open houses;
c. Workshops/ Planning Partner specific training sessions;
d. Public review and comment periods prior to adoption.
At each and every one of these opportunities, attendance will be recorded. Attendance records will be used
to document participation for each planning partner. While attendance at every meeting may not be
practical, there are meetings which are mandatory. Each planning partner should attempt to attend as many
meetings and events as possible, but must attend the minimum established requirement.
F. There will be mandatory workshops that all planning partners will be required to attend. These
workshops will cover specific items, one of which will be the proper completion of the
in the plan.
Failure to have a representative at these mandatory workshops will disqualify the planning partner
from participation in this effort. The scheduling for these workshops will be far enough in advance
to allow the planning partners to attend.
G. In addition to participation in the mandatory workshops, each partner will be required to complete
their annex document, and provide it to the planning team in the time frame established. Technical
assistance in the completion of these annexes will be available, but the actual writing of the annex
document is the responsibility of each planning partner. Failure to complete your annex in the
required time frame may lead to disqualification from the partnership.
A-3
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2: Planning Partner Annex Documents
H.
technical studies, plans, ordinances specific to hazards to determine the existence of any not
consistent with the same such documents reviewed in the preparation of the County (base) Plan. In
the same category, each partner will also be required to review the entire base plan once completed,
as well as their edited annex.
I. Each partner will be asked to review the Risk Assessment and identify hazards and vulnerabilities
specific to its jurisdiction. Resources will be provided to the jurisdiction with specific mapping
and technical consultation to aid in this task if the jurisdiction/entity does not have their own
capacity, but the determination of risk and vulnerability will be up to each partner (through a
facilitated process during one of the mandatory workshops).
J. Each partner will be asked to review and determine if the mitigation recommendations chosen in
the base plan will meet the needs of its jurisdiction. Projects within each jurisdiction consistent
with the base plan recommendations will need to be identified and prioritized, and reviewed to
determine their benefits vs. costs.
K. Each partner will be required to create its own action plan (mitigation strategies) that identifies
each project, who will oversee the task, how it will be financed and when it is estimated to occur.
L. Each partner will be required to formally adopt the plan.
Planning tools and instructions to aid in the compilation of this information will be provided to all
committed planning partners. Each partner will be asked to complete their annexes in a timely manner and
according to the timeline established during the initial planning meeting.
** Note**: Once this plan is completed, and FEMA approval has been determined for each partner,
maintenance protocol identified in the plan.
A-4
APPENDIX A. PLANNING PARTNER EXPECTATIONS
Exhibit A.
Example Letter of Intent to Participate
Insert Date: _____________
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Planning Partnership
C/O: Gerry Bozarth, CEM
Spokane County DEM
1121 W Gardner
Spokane, WA 99201
Via email at: GBozarth@spokanecounty.org
Dear Spokane County Planning Partnership,
Please be advised that the ____________ (insert City or district name) is committed to participating in the
update to the Spokane County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. As the Chief Administrative Official for
this jurisdiction, I certify that I will commit all necessary resources in order to meet Partnership expectations
obtain Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) compliance for our jurisdiction.
contact for this process and they can be
reached at (insert: address, phone number and e-mail address). We understand that this designated point
-
aid in the determination of this local match, we have determined that the hourly rate (salary and benefits
included) for our designated point of contact is $________________. The funding source for our point of
not through federal funds.
Sincerely,
A-5
Spokane County
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes
APPENDIX B.
PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO
THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
APPENDIX B.
PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO
THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Not all eligible local governments within Spokane County are included in the 2020 Spokane County Hazard
Mitigation Plan. It is assumed that some or all of these non-participating local governments may choose to
link to the Plan at some point to gain eligibility for programs under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act.
In addition, some of the current partnership may not continue to meet eligibility requirements due to a lack
of participation as prescribed by the plan. The following linkage procedures define the requirements
established by the planning partners for dealing with an increase or decrease in the number of planning
partners linked to this plan. It should be noted that a currently non-participating jurisdiction within the
defined planning area is not obligated to link to this plan. These jurisdictions may elect to do their own
complete plan that addresses all required elements of 44 CFR Section 201.6.
INCREASING THE PARTNERSHIP THROUGH LINKAGE
Eligible linking jurisdictions are instructed to complete all of the following procedures during this time
frame:
The eligible jurisdiction requests a Linkage Package by contacting the Point of Contact
(POC) for the plan:
Gerry Bozarth
Disaster Mitigation & Recovery, PIO
Spokane Department of Emergency Management
Phone: 509-477-7613
Email: GBOZARTH@spokanecounty.org
The POC will provide a linkage packages that includes:
Copy of Volume 1 and 2 of the plan
Planning partners expectations package.
A sample letter of intent to link to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
A Special Purpose District or City template and instructions.
Hazard Mitigation Catalog
A request for technical assistance form.
A copy of Section 201.6 of Chapter 44, the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), which
defines the federal requirements for a local hazard mitigation plan.
The new jurisdiction will be required to review both volumes of the Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update, which includes the following key components for the planning area:
The planning area risk assessment
Goals and objectives
Plan implementation and maintenance procedures
Comprehensive review of alternatives
Countywide initiatives.
Bridgeview Consulting B-1 April 2020
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Once this review is complete, the jurisdiction will complete its specific annex using the
template and instructions provided by the POC. Technical assistance can be provided upon
request by completing the request for technical assistance (TA) form provided in the linkage
package. This TA may be provided by the POC or any other resource within the Planning
Partnership or a currently participating City or Special Purposes District partner. The POC will
determine who will provide the TA and the possible level of TA based on resources available
at the time of the request.
The new jurisdiction will be required to develop a public involvement strategy that ensures the
publics ability to participate in the plan development process. At a minimum, the new
jurisdiction must make an attempt to solicit public opinion on hazard mitigation at the onset of
this linkage process and a minimum of one public meeting to present their draft jurisdiction
specific annex for comment, prior to adoption by the governing body. The Planning Partnership
will have resources available to aid in the public involvement strategy such as the Plan website.
However, it will be the new jurisdictions responsibility to implement and document this
strategy for incorporation into its annex. It should be noted that the Jurisdictional Annex
templates do not include a section for the description of the public process. This is because the
original partnership was covered under a uniform public involvement strategy that covered the
planning area described in Volume 1 of the plan. Since new partners were not addressed by
that strategy, they will have to initiate a new strategy, and add a description of that strategy to
their annex. For consistency, new partners are encouraged to follow the public involvement
format utilized by the initial planning effort as described in Volume 1 of the plan.
Once their public involvement strategy is completed and they have completed their template,
the new jurisdiction will submit the completed package to the POC for a pre-adoption review
to ensure conformance with the plan format.
The POC will review for the following:
Documentation of Public Involvement strategy
Conformance of template entries with guidelines outlined in instructions
Chosen initiatives are consistent with goals, objectives and mitigation catalog of the
Planning Area Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
A Designated point of contact
A ranking of risk specific to the jurisdiction.
The POC may utilize members of the Planning Team or other resources to complete this review.
All proposed linked annexes will be submitted to the Planning Team for review and comment
prior to submittal to the Washington Emergency Management Division (WAEMD).
Plans approved and accepted by the Planning Team will be forwarded to WAEMD for review
with a cover letter stating the forwarded plan meets local approved plan standards and whether
the plan is submitted with local adoption or for criteria met/plan not adopted review.
WAEMD will review plans for federal compliance. Non-Compliant plans are returned to the
Lead agency for correction. Compliant plans are forwarded to FEMA for review with
annotation as to the adoption status.
FEMA reviews the new jurisdictions plan in association with the approved plan to ensure
DMA compliance. FEMA notifies new jurisdiction of results of review with copies to WAEMD
and approved planning authority.
New jurisdiction corrects plan shortfalls (if necessary) and resubmits to WAEMD through the
approved plan lead agency.
B-2
APPENDIX B. PROCEDURES FOR LINKING TO THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
For plans with no shortfalls from the FEMA review that have not been adopted, the new
jurisdiction governing authority adopts the plan (if not already accomplished) and forwards
adoption resolution to FEMA with copies to lead agency and WAEMD.
FEMA regional director notifies new jurisdiction governing authority of plan approval.
The new jurisdiction plan is then included with the regional plan with the commitment from the new
jurisdiction to participate in the ongoing plan implementation and maintenance.
DECREASING THE PARTNERSHIP
The eligibility afforded under this process to the planning partnership can be rescinded in two ways. First,
a participating planning partner can ask to be removed from the partnership. This may be done because the
partner has decided to develop its own plan or has identified a different planning process for which it can
gain eligibility. A partner that wishes to voluntarily leave the partnership shall inform the POC of this desire
in writing. This notification can occur any time during the calendar year. A jurisdiction wishing to pursue
this avenue is advised to make sure that it is eligible under the new planning effort, to avoid any period of
being out of compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act.
After receiving this notification, the POC shall immediately notify both WAEMD and FEMA in writing
that the partner in question is no longer covered by the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, and that the
eligibility afforded that partner under this plan should be rescinded based on this notification.
The second way a partner can be removed from the partnership is by failure to meet the participation
requirements specified in the Planning Partner Expectations package provided to each partner at the
beginning of the process, or the plan maintenance and implementation procedures specified in Volume 1
of the plan. Each partner agreed to these terms by adopting the plan.
Eligibility status of the planning partnership will be monitored by the POC. The determination of whether
a partner is meeting its participation requirements will be based on the following parameters:
Are progress reports being submitted annually by the specified time frames?
Are partners notifying the POC of changes in designated points of contact?
Are the partners supporting the Planning Partners by attending designated meetings or
responding to needs identified by the body?
Are the partners continuing to be supportive as specified in the Planning Partners expectations
package provided to them at the beginning of the process?
Participation in the plan does not end with plan approval. This partnership was formed on the premise that
a group of planning partners would pool resources and work together to strive to reduce risk within the
planning area. Failure to support this premise lessens the effectiveness of this effort. The following
procedures will be followed to remove a partner due to the lack of participation:
The POC will advise the Planning Partnership of this pending action and provide evidence or
justification for the action. Justification may include: multiple failures to submit annual
progress reports, failure to attend meetings determined to be mandatory by the Planning
Partnership, failure to act on the partners action plan, or inability to reach designated point of
contact after a minimum of five attempts.
The Planning Partnership will review information provided by POC, and determine action by
a vote. The Planning Partnership will invoke the voting process established during the
formation of this body.
B-3
Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2Planning Partner Annexes
Once the Planning Partnership has approved an action, the POC will notify the planning partner
of the pending action in writing via certified mail. This notification will outline the grounds for
the action, and ask the partner if it is their desire to remain as a partner. This notification shall
also clearly identify the ramifications of removal from the partnership. The partner will be
given 30 days to respond to the notification.
Confirmation by the partner that they no longer wish to participate or failure to respond to the
notification shall trigger the procedures for voluntary removal discussed above.
Should the partner respond that they would like to continue participation in the partnership,
they must clearly articulate an action plan to address the deficiencies identified by the POC.
This action plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Partnership to determine whether the actions
are appropriate to rescind the action. Those partners that satisfy the
review will remain in the partnership, and no further action is required.
Automatic removal from the partnership will be implemented for partners where these actions
have to be initiated more than once in a 5 year planning cycle
B-4