The URL can be used to link to this page

2020, 04-28 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday,April 28,2020 6:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOM Meeting 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting NOTE: In response to Governor Inslee's March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning our recent State of Emergency, which waives and suspends the requirement to hold in-person meetings and provides options for the public to attend remotely,all meeting guidelines contained in the Governance Manual are hereby superseded until the Governor's order has been rescinded or amended. Therefore,effective immediately and until further notice,a live feed of the meeting will be available on our website and on Comcast channel 14.Public comments will be accepted via the following links and must be received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. • Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling-In • Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting • Join the Zoom Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a MAYOR'S REPORT 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on April 28,2020,Request for Council Action Form Total: $1,083,439.01 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 15,2020: $378,220.35 c. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 7,2020 Study Session Format d. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 14,2020 Formal Meeting Format NEW BUSINESS: 2. Resolution 20-007 Adopting Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan—Jenny Nickerson [public comment] 3.Mayoral Appointment: Citizen to Human Rights Task Force—Mayor Wick [public comment] ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Requalification—Mike Basinger 5. Shoreline Master Plan Update Grant—Mike Basinger 6. Balfour Park,Recreation& Conservation Office (RCO) Grant Discussion—Mike Stone 7. Advance Agenda- Mayor Wick INFORMATION ONLY(will not be reported or discussed): 8. Department Monthly Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 9.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation, [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda April 28,2020 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2020 Department Director Approval: IZ Check all that apply: /1 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 04/08/2020 50378-50439 $132,487.47 04/10/2020 50440-50455 $97,781.08 04/13/2020 7011; 7013; 7085-7086; 7089; 7091; 7093; 7105-7108; 7110; 7118-7119 $409,252.30 04/14/2020 50456-50507 $136,149.26 04/16/2020 50508-50512 $4,502.82 04/17/2020 7109; 7123-7124; 7129-7130; 7132 $86,140.56 04/22/2020 50515-50549 $217,125.52 GRAND TOTAL: $1,083,439.01 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.090,000.594 General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal Other Funds: 001.016.000. Public Safety 101 —Street Fund 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 103 —Paths &Trails 001.018.014.514. Finance 105—Hotel/Motel Tax 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 106—Solid Waste 001.040.041. Engineering 120—CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.040.042. Economic Development 121 —Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.040.043. Building 122—Winter Weather Reserve 001.076.000.576. Parks &Rec—Administration 204—Debt Service 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 301 --REET 1 Capital Projects 001.076.301.571. Parks &Rec-Recreation 302—REET 2 Capital Projects 001.076302.576. Parks &Rec-Aquatics 303 —Street Capital Projects 001.076,304.575. Parks &Rec-Senior Center 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076.305.571. Parks &Rec-CenterPlace 310—Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 312—Capital Reserve 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 314—Railroad Grade Separation Projects 001.090.000.518. General Gov't-Centralized Serv. 402—Stormwater Management 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 403 —Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.540. General Gov't-Transportation 501 —Equipment Rental&Replacement 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural &Eco. 502—Risk Management 001.090.000.595, General Gov't-Pavement Preser. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/0812020 11:42:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50378 4/8/2020 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 114048 303.000.259.595 CIP 0259 PRINTING SERVICE 57.93 114124 309.000.304.594 CIP 0304 PRINT SERVICE 998.61 Total : 1,056.54 50379 4/8/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 11YP-KW6W-Y3CV 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 579.93 Total : 579.93 50380 4/8/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1GRQ-JQN4-F697 001.040.043.558 SUPPLIES FOR BUILDING 134.05 1HT7-NTHK-176Y 001.040.043.558 CREDIT MEMO: FOR INVOICE 1GR -10.08 1 LJC9-9PLM--3MFC 001.040.043.558 CREDIT MEMO: FOR INVOICE 1GR -5.04 1XCV-WCYJ-73TD 001.040.043.558 CREDIT MEMO: FOR INVOICE 1GR -10.08 1YW1-RNC9-4KT4 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 23.12 Total : 131.97 50381 4/8/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1C79-RRYC-7QMJ 001.090.000.518 DISPLAY ADAPTERS 29.93 Total : 29.93 50382 4/8/2020 007808 AMENTO GROUP INC 022041 001.033.099.518 CONTRACT 02-041: PROFESSIONP 6,725.35 Total : 6,725.35 50383 4/8/2020 004185 AMP'D ENTERTAINMENT LLC INV-01705 001.076.305.575 AUDIO VISUAL FOR CENTERPLACI 48.97 Total : 48.97 50384 4/8/2020 007718 APPLETREE 000016-429-361 001.076.305.575 ANSWERING SVC FOR CENTERPL 39.44 Total : 39.44 50385 4/8/2020 000444 ARCTIC LIGHTING & ELECTRIC 746 001.016.016.521 ELETRICAL WORK HOOKING UP C 4,090.28 Total : 4,090.28 50386 4/8/2020 000030 AVISTA Feb 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: CPW MASTER AVISTA F 27,139.61 Total : 27,139.61 50387 4/8/2020 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 0146053 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 86.17 0148031 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 348.01 S0235799 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 153.20 S0236118 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 728.14 S0236124 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 69.90 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 '04/0812020 11:42:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50387 4/8/2020 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC (Continued) S0237256 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 277.54 Total : 1,662.96 50388 4/8/2020 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC 9501168265 101 000.000 542 SUPPLIES FOR MAINT SHOP 353 62 Total : 353.62 50389 4/8/2020 000101 CDW-G XFK7095 001.090.000.518 DELL LAPTOP DOCKING STATION 226.07 Total : 226.07 50390 4/8/2020 001888 COMCAST 3/17/2020-4/16/2020 001.090.000.518 INTERNET: CENTERPLACE- 396.14 Mar 18-Apr 17 2020 001.090.000.518 INTERNET: CITY HALL 106.18 Total : 502.32 50391 4/8/2020 007240 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 67284559 101.042.000.542 EMPLOYEE DOT PHYSICAL 104.00 Total : 104.00 50392 4/8/2020 001770 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO S009689191.001 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 448.62 S009689196.003 001.076.305.575 EQUIP RENTALS FOR CENTERPLA 54.45 S009692910.003 001.076.305.575 EQUIP RENTALS FOR CENTERPLA 54.45 5009692975.001 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 101.81 S009695287.001 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 100.46 5009696104.001 001.076.305.575 CREDIT MEMO: SUPPLIES RETURP -60,68 S009696692.001 001.076.305.575 CREDIT MEMO: SUPPLIES RETURI -36.14 Total : 662.97 50393 4/8/2020 000603 CONTRACT DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC 46601 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES AND FURNITURE PRECI 937.10 Total : 937.10 50394 4/8/2020 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB00316053 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS 5,800.10 RE-313-ATB00316061 101.000.000.542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS 26,230.11 RE-313-ATB00316061 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS 536.31 Total : 32,566.52 50395 4/8/2020 007740 EVERGREEN STATE TOWING LLC 53663 101.000.000.542 TOWING SERVICE: UNDECK DUMF 285.86 53978 001.090.000.518 TOWING SERVICE DODGE CARAVI 148.10 Total : 433.96 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 04/08/2020 11:42:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50396 4/8/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 562766 303.000.302.595 ADVERTISING 72.00 562767 303,000.291.595 ADVERTISING 70.50 Total : 142.50 50397 4/8/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 562769 311.000.285.595 ADVERTISING CIP 0285 69 75 Total : 69.75 50398 4/8/2020 005046 FASTSIGNS 540-11922 001.076.301.571 SIGNAGE FOR CENTERPLACE 470.45 Total : 470.45 50399 4/8/2020 000106 FEDEX 6-963-64285 303.000.259.595 FED EX 3-20-2020 74.59 Total : 74.59 50400 4/8/2020 002308 FINKE, MELISSA March 2020 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 1,092.51 March 2020B 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 135.00 Total : 1,227.51 50401 4/8/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 50819 303.000.291.595 ADVERTISING 156.80 50820 303.000.302.595 ADVERTISING 161.60 Total : 318,40 50402 4/8/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 50798 314.000.223.595 ADVERTISING CIP 0223 144.00 50824 311.000.285.595 ADVERTISING CIP 0285 153.60 Total : 297.60 50403 4/8/2020 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC001478446:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI 82.52 Total : 82.52 50404 4/8/2020 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200251543 303.000.273.518 0273-DESIGN SERVICES 11,786.04 Total : 11,786.04 50405 4/8/2020 005309 ICON CORPORATION 520058 309.000.305.594 ROOF REPAIR CENTERPLACE CIP 419.27 Total : 419.27 50406 4/8/2020 000070 INLAND POWER& LIGHT CO March 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: MARCH 2020 447.59 Total : 447.59 50407 4/8/2020 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS 325560 001.076.305.575 ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE 1,095.00 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 04/0812020 11:42:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50407 4/8/2020 000012 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS (Continued) Total : 1,095.00 50408 4/8/2020 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPO1N3796268 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI 699.40 SPOIN3804573 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR &MAINT. SUPPLI 236.23 SPO1N3867552 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR &MAINT. SUPPLI 19.60 Total : 955.23 50409 4/8/2020 001944 LANCER LTD 0476972 001.013.000.513 BUSINESS CARDS 47.37 Total : 47.37 50410 4/8/2020 004632 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 90426419 001.090.000.518 TELECOM SERVICES 792.27 Total : 792.27 50411 4/8/2020 007157 MASTERGRAPHICSAEC, LLC 1-22960 001.040.041.543 BLUEBEAM REVU EXTREME 2019 1,358.70 Total : 1,358.70 50412 4/8/2020 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 0538-974383 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR& MAINT. SUPPLI 66.06 1351-458173 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI 60.83 Total : 126.89 50413 4/8/2020 000283 NRPA 933030317-20AK 001.076.000.576 PREMIER PACKAGE MEMBERSHIP 675.00 Total : 675.00 50414 4/8/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 453431735001 001.090.000.518 USB HDMI GRAPHICS CARD 261.34 Total : 261.34 50415 4/8/2020 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 0F63165 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 199.60 0E73553 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 44.78 Total : 244.38 50416 4/8/2020 006509 POE, JOSEPH 870473 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 1,120.00 Total : 1,120.00 50417 4/8/2020 006427 RETAIL STRATEGIES LLC 372-9 001.040.042.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,000.00 Total : 12,000.00 50418 4/8/2020 004029 ROSS PRINTING COMPANY 109948 001.076.305.575 PRINTING FOR CENTERPLACE 396.98 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 04/08/2020 11:42:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50418 4/8/2020 004029 004029 ROSS PRINTING COMPANY (Continued) Total : 396.98 50419 4/8/2020 002520 RWC GROUP 119208N 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI 864.84 Total : 864.84 50420 4/8/2020 000709 SENSKE LAWN &TREE CARE INC. 9791648 001.076.305.575 QUARTERLY PEST CONTROL AT CI 353.93 Total : 353.93 50421 4/8/2020 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5-872386 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR& MAINT. SUPPLI 41.38 Total : 41.38 50422 4/8/2020 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL March 2020 001.076.302.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS:MAI 1,616.65 Total : 1,616.65 50423 4/8/2020 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51505328 101.042.000.542 WORK CREW INVOICE FEBRUARY 4,952.70 Total : 4,952.70 50424 4/8/2020 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 March 2020#1 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR MARCH 20 97.78 March 2020#2 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR MARCH 20 137.83 Total : 235.61 50425 4/8/2020 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM March 2020 001.090.000.560 2020 SOC SER/ECO DEV REIMBUF 1,500.00 Total : 1,500.00 50426 4/8/2020 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 59855 001.076.305.575 WORK ORDER 32650 AT CENTERF 71.84 Total : 71.84 50427 4/8/2020 003318 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS 1NC 24151581 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: STREET 224.86 54152178 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: STREET 68.96 Total : 293.82 50428 4/8/2020 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 539651588 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR MAINT SHOP 92.87 Total : 92.87 50429 4/8/2020 005486 TRANSPO GROUP USA INC 24454 303.000.259.595 0259-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 828.37 Total : 828.37 50430 4/8/2020 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED 899594B 001.076.000.576 NAME TAGS FOR CENTERPLACE 31.03 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 04/08/2020 11:42:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50430 4/8/2020 003649 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED (Continued) Total : 31.03 50431 4/8/2020 007120 TSHIMAKAIN CREEK LABORATORY 2008006 001.076.300.576 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AT PAF 25.00 Total : 25.00 50432 4/8/2020 003639 ULINE SHIP SUPPLIES 117661382 001.040.043.558 SUPPLIES FOR BUILDING DEPT 392.20 Total : 392.20 50433 4/8/2020 000337 UPS 000031V836110 001.040.043.558 LATE FEE FOR SHIPPING CHARGE 2.99 Total : 2.99 50434 4/8/2020 000167 VERA WATER& POWER March 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: MARCH 2020 4.444.12 Total : 4,444.12 50435 4/8/2020 003175 VISIT SPOKANE VGC 3-17-20 001.076.305.575 VISITOR GUIDE CONTRACT 1,799,00 Total : 1,799.00 50436 4/8/2020 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 43357844 001.090.000.518 HELP DESK TEMP 1,203.04 Total : 1,203.04 50437 4/8/2020 003015 WA ASPHALT PAVEMENT ASSOC 22770 101.042.000.542 ASPHALT WORKSHOPS&TRAININ 700.00 Total : 700.00 50438 4/8/2020 007160 WASHINGTON HOSPITALITY ASSN 113466 001.076.305.575 MEMBERSHIP INVESTMENT 405.00 Total : 405.00 50439 4/8/2020 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 11678150 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 703.30 11678151 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 207.73 11678152 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 21.13 Total : 932.16 62 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 132,487.47 62 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 132,487.47 Page: 6 vchlist Voucher ListPage:'9 `"1— 04/10/2020 2:56:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50440 4/10/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 14TC-R3PN-M6GG 001.040.043.558 SUPPLIES FOR BUILDING 98.76 Total : 98.76 50441 4/10/2020 007673 DIBBLE ENGINEERS INC 26010 001,033.099.518 CITY HALL STRUCTURAL REVIEW 22,309.81 Total : 22,309.81 50442 4/10/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 564059 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 55.50 564061 001.040.043,558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 86.11 Total : 141.61 50443 4/10/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 50870 001.040.043.558 ADVERTISING CTA-2019-0005 126.40 50873 001.040.043.558 ADVERTISING FOR SUB-2020-0001 97.75 Total : 224.15 50444 4/10/2020 000293 MORAN FENCE INC. 9234-B 001.223.40.00 RETAINAGE RELEASE: PRECINCT 3,718.08 Total : 3,718.08 50445 4/10/2020 007745 SATTERLUND TESTING & 3212 001.033.099.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 320.00 Total : 320.00 50446 4/10/2020 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 542166558 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 884.05 542944897 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 361.41 Total : 1,245.46 50447 4/10/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 19XP-DV9L-CFRK 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 60.24 Total : 60.24 50448 4/10/2020 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 332482 001.076.300.576 PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK: 169.00 332483 001.076.300,576 PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK 313.00 Total : 482.00 50449 4/10/2020 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 0149984 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY ATC 86.17 0151909 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 86.18 C0149984 001.076,305.575 CREDIT: LINEN SERVICE AND SUP -37.57 Total : 134.78 50450 4/10/2020 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY March 2020 001.040.042.558 PETTY CASH: 19820,21,22,23,24 13.65 Page: .--I-- vchlist Voucher List Page —2-- 04/10/2020 t04/1012020 2:56:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionfAccount Amount 50450 4/10/2020 001169 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (Continued) Total : 13.65 50451 4/10/2020 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1 Mar 2020 402.402.000.531 DORMANT CHARGES FOR WATER 241.78 Total : 241.78 50452 4/10/2020 004926 LE CATERING CO E02270 001.076.305.575 E02270: INLAND EMPIRE GARDENI 206.64 Total : 206.64 50453 4/10/2020 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO March 2020 001.076.302.576 UTILITIES: MARCH 2020 PARKS 1,401.61 Total : 1,401.61 50454 4/10/2020 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 0F72562 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 72.44 0F82298 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 42.53 0006312 001.076.305.575 LED BULBS FOR G.RM AT CENTER 1,359.70 Total : 1,474.67 50455 4/10/2020 000709 SENSKE LAWN &TREE CARE INC. 9808508 001.076.300.576 CONTRACT MAINT PARKS: MARCH 63,630.03 9809085 309.000.296.594 REPAIR TO IRRIGATION WATER M/ 2,077.81 Total : 65,707.84 16 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 97,781.08 16 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 97,781.08 Page: C vchlist Voucher List Page:( --r- 04/13/2020 10:20:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7011 4/3/2020 000164 LABOR&INDUSTRIES Ben92629 402231.17.00 LABOR&INDUSTRIES: PAYMENT 24,954.81 Total: 24,954.81 7013 4/3/2020 006863 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT, FAMILY&ME Ben92631 001.231.22.00 PAID FMLY&MED LEAVE:PAYMENT 7,792.11 Total: 7,792.11 7085 4/3/2020 000120 AWC Ben92609 314.231.16.00 DENTAL PLAN ADJUSTMENT: PAYMEN- 146,206.23 Total: 146,206.23 7086 4/3/2020 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben92611 001.231.15.00 PERS:PAYMENT 125,808.35 Total: 125,808.35 7089 4/3/2020 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben92613 314.231.21.00 UNION DUES ADJUSTMENT: PAYMENT 2,756,90 Total: 2,756.90 7091 4/3/2020 006345 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING Ben92615 001.231.20.00 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING: 153.33 Total: 153.33 7093 4/3/2020 000210 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Ben92633 101.231.28.00 HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT: 750.00 Total: 750.00 7105 4/3/2020 000682 EFTPS Ben92619 501.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 37,556.61 Total: 37,556.61 7106 4/3/2020 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben92621 501231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 38,195.32 Total: 36,195.32 7107 4/3/2020 007303 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 RO Ben92623 001.231.23 00 457 ROTH OPTION:PAYMENT 1,674.82 Total: 1,674.82 7108 4/3/2020 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PL/ Ben92625 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:PAYI 9,311.66 Total: 9,311.66 7110 4/3/2020 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401AEXEC Pl. Ben92627 001.231,14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 703.31 Total: 703.31 7118 4/3/2020 000120 AWC Ben92635 001.231.16.00 DENTAL PLAN(COUNCIL):PAYMENT 11,307.09 Page: • 1 �G. vchlist Voucher List Page: 0411312020 10:20:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7118 4!3/2020 000120 000120 AWC (Continued) Total: 11,307.09 7119 4/3/2020 000682 EFTPS Ben92637 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 2,081.76 Total: 2,081.76 14 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 409,252.30 14 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 409,252.30 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: -�__ vchlist Voucher List Page: // 04/14/2020 3:08:50PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50456 4/14/2020 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 54958 303.000.275.595 0275-ROW DESCRIPTIONS 2,400.00 Total: 2,400.00 50457 4/14/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 562773 314.000.311.595 ADVERTISING 56.09 Total: 56.09 50458 4/14/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 50851 314.000.311.595 ADVERTISING 113.60 Total: t13.60 50459 4/14/2020 000158 WELCH COMER&ASSOC. INC 51060001-R15 303.000.249.595 0249-DESIGN SERVICES 810.28 Total: 810.28 50460 4/14/2020 007156 WIDENER&ASSOCIATES 207062 303.000.275.595 0275-ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 2,136.00 Total: 2,136.00 50461 4/14/2020 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 54955 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,125.00 Total: 5,125.00 50462 4/14/2020 000007 GRAINGER 9458765758 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES:STREET -6.98 9481794817 001.040.041.558 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 17.60 9481794825 001.040.041.558 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 4.90 Total: 15.52 50463 4/14/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 461496635001 001.040.041.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CPW DEVELOPME 43.55 461496886001 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CPW DEVELOPME 34.28 Total: 77.83 50464 4/14/2020 003015 WAASPHALT PAVEMENT ASSOC 22765 001.040.041.543 ANNUAL WAPA1WSDOTJOINT TRAININ 350.00 Total: 350.00 50465 4/14/2020 006178 WALTER E NELSON CO 407022 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CPW ENGINEERIN' 263.00 Total: 263.00 50466 4/14/2020 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200253574 001.090.000.513 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 42,193.68 Total: 42,193.68 50467 4/14/2020 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC 9501174884 001.090.000.518 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT SUPPLIES:: 226.21 Page: .-1—________ vchlist Voucher List Page: --r--- 04/14/2020 r04/14/2020 3:08:50PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50467 4/14/2020 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC (Continued) 9501177168 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 6.77 Total: 232.98 50468 4/14/2020 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 625304 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL 216.57 Total: 216.57 50469 4/14/2020 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 0872010 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES.S 151.26 Total: 151.26 50470 4/14/2020 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITTINGS 1044063 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 37.41 Total: 37.41 50471 4/14/2020 002520 RWC GROUP 119387N 101.UUU.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 249-85 Total: 249.85 50472 4/14(2020 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 9808509 101.042.000.542 FLAGGING 531.43 Total: 531.43 50473 4/14/2020 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC- 803704 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 20-75 Total: 20.75 50474 4/1412020 003392 EPICENTER SERVICES LLC 2020-02 106.000.000.537 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4.028.40 Total: 4,028.40 50475 4/14/2020 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOCIATES INC L19649-1 402.402.000.594 PERVIOUS GRAVEL SHOULDER 2019 9.285.00 Total: 9.285.00 50476 4/14/2020 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100266 101.042.000.542 MARCH 2020 ENGINEERING 38,557.94 Total: 38,557.94 50477 4/14/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 563434 001.040.042.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 19.50 563435 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 63.99 563436 001.040-043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 79.79 563437 001.040-043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 58.46 563438 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 79.79 564060 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 24.49 Page. ----2------ 3 vchlist Voucher List Page; / "'3 04/14/2020 3:08:550PM Spokane Valley Bank code: spbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50477 4/14/2020 003274 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC (Continued) Total: 326.02 50478 4/14/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 50852 001.040.042.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 43.20 50854 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 73.95 50855 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 90.10 50856 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 89.25 50872 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 28.90 Total: 325.40 50479 4/14/2020 001887 VALMONT CD2171882 303.000.285.595 0285-SIGNAL EQUIPMENT 202.01 Total: 202.01 50480 4/14/2020 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 109658 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 16.62 Total: 16.62 50481 4/14/2020 002562 CD'A METALS 587862 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT SUPPLIES 137.21 587868 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT SUPPLIES 65.34 Total: 202.65 50482 4/14/2020 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 625539 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL 216,57 Total: 216.57 50483 4114/2020 000422 IJISHMAN DODGE INC 620818-1 001.090.000.518 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 978.14 Total: 978.14 50484 4/14/2020 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4299679 001.040.041.543 FUEL FOR SNOWPLOWS/MAINTENAN( 1.660.10 Total: 1,660.10 50485 4/14/2020 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC001479496:01 101.042.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUP.:STREET 54.45 Total: 54.45 50486 4/14/2020 000007 GRAINGER 9493075122 101.043.000.542 REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES:BRIDGE 29.80 Total: 29.80 50487 4/14/2020 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 537327 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 46.00 Total: 46.00 50488 4/14/2020 006457 JH LANDWORKS LLC 2391 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 1,531.96 Page: - 7V vchlist Voucher List Page: -4--- 04/14/2020 3:08:50PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50488 4/14/2020 006457 006457 JH LANDWORKS LLC (Continued) Total: 1,531.96 50489 4/14/2020 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPOBS3957924 101.000.000.542 REPAIR SERVICE BACKHOE 705.29 Total: 705.29 50490 4/14/2020 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 0538-977526 001.090.000.518 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 174.09 0538-977547 001.090.000.518 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: -19.60 0538-977596 001.040.043.558 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 43.91 0538-978404 101.0422.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 81.35 0538-978451 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 67.13 5038-979567 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 30.45 Total: 377.33 50491 4/14/2020 001546 NORCO INC 32509313619 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT. SUPPLIES 161.25 Total: 161.25 50492 4/14/2020 006220 PAPE MACHINERY INC 60014000 101.000.000.542 EQUIPMENT RENTAL:SIDEWALK SNO' 11,107.80 93082 101.000.000.542 EQUIPMENT REPAIR&MAINT 463.16 Total: 11,570.96 50493 4/14/2020 005049 PEDERSON.MICHAEL ROY MARCH 2020 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 525-00 Total: 525.00 50494 4/14/2020 005968 PRECISE MRM LLC 200-1025195 101.000.000.542 DATA PLAN 250.00 Total: 250.00 50495 4/14/2020 002520 RWC GROUP 1183516 101.000.000.542 REPAIR SERVICES#203 3.010.39 Total: 3,010.39 50496 4/14/2020 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5-873578 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 24.74 5-873683 101 000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 345.86 Total: 370.60 50497 4/14/2020 001159 SPOKANE PUMP INC. 0242936 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 44.34 Total: 44.34 50498 4/14/2020 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1561227 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW MAR 2020 500.24 Page: .-4--` t vchlist Voucher List Page: 04/14/2020 3:08:50PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50498 4/14/2020 001969 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL (Continued) Total: 500.24 50499 4114/2020 003318 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 24152596 101.042.000.542 REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 196.61 Total: 196.61 50500 4114/2020 007814 WESCO KC AUTO PAINT 027US0954 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT_SUPPLIES 519.21 Total: $19.21 50501 4/14/2020 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0071601-1518-9 402.402.000.531 WASTE MGMT:VACTORING WASTE M, 618.42 Total: 618.42 50502 4/14/2020 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 0132831 101.042.000.542 ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SVC 814.46 Total: 814.46 50503 4/14/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC_ 457995527001 001.018.014.514 OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 116.05 Total: 116.05 50504 4/14/2020 004535 SHRED-IT USA LLC 8129534937 001.090.000.518 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION 171.00 Total: 171.00 50505 4/14/2020 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3444728463 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 16,14 3444728464 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 64.53 3444728465 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 114,65 3444728466 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 46.24 3444728467 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 6.67 Total: 260.23 50506 4/14/2020 006178 WALTER E NELSON CO 406887 001,018.014,514 OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 87.13 Total: 87.13 50507 4/14/2020 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9850753607 001.040.043.558 MARCH 2020 CELL PHONE/DEVICE CF 3,418.54 Total: 3,418.54 52 Vouchers for bank code:: apbank Bank total: 136,149.26 52 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : '136,149.26 Page: / vchlist Voucher List Page: 1------- 04/16/2020 9:34:44AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionfAccount Amount 50508 4/16/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 17G1-NQMV-CW3M 001.090.000.516 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 33.76 Total: 33.76 50509 4/16/2020 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 64636535 001.040.041558 MARCH 2020 FLEET FUEL BILL 1.212,45 Total: 1,212.45 50510 4/16/2020 007816 PACNORWEST CONSTRUCTION BLD-2020-1026 001.040.043.322 PERMIT REFUND:BLD-2020-1026 206.56 Total: 206.56 50511 4/1612020 003312 TAYLOR,CHELSIE EXPENSES 001.018,014,514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 230.00 Total: 230.00 50512 4/16/2020 006413 THOMPSON,LINDA EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 2,820.05 Total: 2,820.05 5 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 4,502.82 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 4,502.82 Page: —1------ i2 vchlist Voucher List Page: -4- 04/1712020 10:38:02AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 7109 4120/2020 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben92959 001.231,50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 1,643.35 Total: 1,643.35 7123 4120/2020 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS.401A PLAN Ben92961 001.231.14.00 401A:PAYMENT 37,113.18 Total: 37,113.18 7124 4/2012020 000682 EFTPS Ben92963 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 35,735.24 Total: 35,735.24 7129 4/20/2020 007303 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFERAGENTS,457 RC) Ben92965 001.231.23.00 457 ROTH OPTION: PAYMENT 1,667.36 Total: 1,667.36 7130 4/2012020 D00145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PL./ Ben92967 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 9,278.12 Total: 9,278.12 7132 4/20/2020 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PL Ben92969 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 703.31 Total: 703.31 6 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 86,140.56 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 86,140.56 Page: _r___ 0 /' 'vchlist Voucher List Page: —1`- 04/2212020 12:21:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50515 4/22/2020 000675 RAMAX PRINTING &AWARDS INC 32724 001.011.000.511 COUNCIL NAME TAGS/MAGNETS 173.24 Total : 173.24 50516 4/22/2020 001770 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO S009717710.001 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 2.46 Total : 2.46 50517 4/22/2020 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 363718 001.076.305.575 RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CEN` 22.00 Total : 22.00 50518 4/22/2020 004048 MOUNTAIN CONSULTING SVCS LLC 20-110 001.076.000.576 ASBESTOS SURVEY OF PUBLIC HI 1,385.00 Total : 1,385.00 50519 4/22/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 469971501001 001.076.305.575 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 51.22 469971501002 001.076.305.575 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 10.28 469974098001 001.076.000.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 211.68 Total : 273.18 50520 4/22/2020 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 0G06226 001.076.305.575 SUPPIES FOR CENTERPLACE 319.52 0G36726 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 53.36 Total : 372.88 50521 4/22/2020 007635 TODAY'S MAIL 1217 001.076.301.571 PRINTING AND MAILING: SPRING/E 3,085.13 Total : 3,085.13 50522 4/22/2020 004437 COMMUNITYATTRIBUTES INC 2803 001.040.312.558 312-APPLEWAY TRAIL ED STUDY 12,611.88 Total : 12,611.88 50523 4/22/2020 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 125046 001.040.042.558 MEMBERSHIP DUES/ECONOMIC D 13,482.27 Total : 13,482.27 50524 4/22/2020 007815 LITTLE FISH PRODUCTIONS LLC 1570 001.040.042.558 VIDEO PRODUCTION: STATE OF Tl 2,000.00 1581 001.040.042.558 VIDEO PRODUCTION: LIVE FACE& 800.00 Total : 2,800.00 50525 4/22/2020 006767 ATLAS INTEGRATED 13094 001.040.042.558 CONSULTING SERVICES_RESEAR 3,075.00 Total : 3,075.00 Page: -r1^ ; C vchlist Voucher List Page: -- 04/22/2020 12:21:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50526 4/22/2020 000030 AVISTA Feb 2020 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA 8,605.17 Total : 8,605.17 50527 4/22/2020 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 Mar2020 001.076.305.575 UTILITIES: MAR 2020 PARKS&CP 67.35 Total : 67.35 50528 4/22/2020 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 March 2020 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS MARCH 2020 175.00 Total : 175.00 50529 4/22/2020 006729 JAKT FOUNDATION 2020 105.000.000.557 2020 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 5,087.50 Total : 5,087.50 50530 4/22/2020 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: MARCH 2020 CPW 12,296.79 Total : 12,296.79 50531 4/22/2020 000405 SPOKANE VALLEY PARTNERS 2020 001.090.000.560 2020 SOC SER/ECO DEV GRANT R 9,524.55 Total : 9,524.55 50532 4/22/2020 003175 VISIT SPOKANE Feb 2020 105.000.000.557 2020 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 4,166.67 Total : 4,166.67 50533 4/22/2020 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 419 001,013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 92.00 480 314.000.143.595 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,592.91 Total : 15,684.91 50534 4/22/2020 007678 RANDALL DANSKIN PS 130210 001.033.099.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,953.00 Total : 2,953.00 50535 4/22/2020 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 842091803 001.013.015.515 SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES 821.97 Total : 821.97 50536 4/22/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1LPX-XLFY-CLTJ 001.076.301,571 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 26.54 Total : 26.54 50537 4/22/2020 003229 BARGREEN ELLINGSON 009453622 001.076.305.575 SALAD PLATES-EVENTS AT CENT 2,977.32 Total : 2,977.32 50538 4/22/2020 000900 DEPT OF L& I 261457 001.076.305.575 ANNUAL OPERATING CERT: ELEW 134.10 Page: _2-- vchlist Voucher List Page —3- 04/22/2020 12:21:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 50538 4/22/2020 000900 000900 DEPT OF L& I (Continued) Total : 134.10 50539 4/22/2020 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 1459850 001.076.305.575 MAR 2020 MONTHLY CLEANING AT 8,085.09 Total : 8,085.09 50540 4/22/2020 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 0G77321 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 59.90 Total : 59.90 50541 4/22/2020 003231 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY 8539-3 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 79.94 Total : 79.94 50542 4/22/2020 000030 AVISTA March 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: CPW MASTER AVISTA I% 26,771.05 March 2020 001.016.016.521 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA 8,620.91 Total : 35,391.96 50543 4/22/2020 000603 CONTRACT DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC 46576 001.018.014.514 OFFICE FURNITURE: CHAIR FOR I. 433.81 Total : 433.81 50544 4/22/2020 006729 JAKT FOUNDATION 2020 105.000.000.557 2020 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMS 1,507.00 Total : 1,507.00 50545 4/22/2020 003175 VISIT SPOKANE March 2020 105.000.000.557 2020 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 4,166.67 Total : 4,166.67 50546 4/22/2020 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 4/16/2020 106.000.000.343 WASTE MGMTADMIN & ROAD WE, 46,741.31 Total : 46,741.31 50547 4/22/2020 005205 GSC MEALS ON WHEELS 20.083.00 001.090.099.560 COVID-19 EMERGENCY SOCIAL SE 8,000.00 Total : 8,000.00 50548 4/22/2020 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL April 2020 001.076.302.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS:API 1,605.93 Total : 1,605.93 50549 4/22/2020 005969 SPOKANE SPORTS COMMISSION 1st QTR 2020 105.000.000.557 2020 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 11,250.00 Total : 11,250.00 35 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 217,125.52 Page: 3^i CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2020 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 15, 2020 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 311,301.93 $ - $ 311,301.93 Benefits: $ 66,918.42 $ - $ 66,918.42 Total payroll $ 378,220.35 $ - $ 378,220.35 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Study Session Format Tuesday, April 7,2020 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 6 pm. The meeting was held in City Hall with Council and staff participating via ZOOM. Ben Wick,Mayor Mark Calhoun City Manager Brandi Peetz,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Pam Haley, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Linda Thompson, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Bill Helbig, City Engineer Mike Basinger,Economic Dev.Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Proposed Resolution 20-006,Delegating Authority—Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to approve Resolution 20-006 delegating authority relating to acquisition and disposition of certain types of real property interests. City Attorney Driskell explained that the only part that changed as a result of the last discussion on this topic, was the amount under Resolution Section 1;that staff researched several projects over the past several years and determined there were no acquisitions between $50,000 to $100,000 so he said he reduced the threshold from last week's recommended $100,000, to $50,000 as currently shown in the resolution, and explained that that was the only change from the previous draft discussed at the March 31 Council meeting. There were no comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 2. Proposed Resolution 20-007 Authorizing Submittal of RCO Grant Applications—Mike Stone It was moved by Councilmember Hattenburg and seconded to approve Resolution 20-007 authorizing grant applications through the Washington Recreation Conservation Office(RCO).for Balfour Park Development and the Flora Road Property Acquisition. Parks & Recreation Director Stone explained that as we are interested in applying for a development grant for Balfour Park and for the Flora Road Property acquisition, that the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) requires a resolution; he said there is a 50%required local match for both these grants;he also noted state grant assistance is requested by the City to aid in financing the cost of both projects; he said that the City would be requesting $500,000 for the Balfour Project, and $1 million for the Flora Road property acquisition. Mr. Stone noted it is challenging to have a project that would appeal to citizens and still be competitive in the grant process; that the Flora property is offset by the Spokane River; and that citizens and Councilmembers have expressed their preference of having a project to enhance the existing Balfour Park;and that we need a presence on Sprague, and he mentioned maybe a plaza or having something connect to City Hall.Mr. Stone also noted the grant deadline was moved from May 1 to June 1; he said we would be able to participate in a technical review; that we could expect to hear something in October about the grant, and if successful, funds should be available after July 1, 2021. Mr. Calhoun remarked that it is our understanding that the award recommendations would go to the legislature to appropriate the necessary funds and that Mr. Stone Council Meeting Minutes:04-07-2020 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT confirmed he is waiting for confirmation from RCO on that issue. City Clerk Bainbridge noted one written e-mail was received from Mr. West indicating his support of the resolution. There were no other public comments. Council discussion included an idea from Councilmember Thompson about including the boy and girl scouts or camp fire groups to do a presentation in support of the application.Mr. Stone stated that there are two aspects of the application; i.e. need and community support and said staff is finalizing groups who would be willing to submit support letters; for need he stated the dire need for additional park property which is clearly stated in the Master Plan and that we have clearly heard from citizens about their desire for more park property.Mayor Wick asked if the two projects would be competing against each other and Mr. Stone said there is a percentage of funds for acquisition,and that he feels both grants fit well in this category; and in response to a question from Councilmember Haley,he noted we have not asked for support from our legislative delegation. The issue of project cost was also discussed and whether to reduce the scope of the project with Mr. Stone explaining that such scope reduction would need to be identified in the application; he also noted any reduction would not be able to be done after the fact. The verbiage in the third whereas recital of the resolution was discussed where it states the City spent$2.5 million for acquisition of the property with an additional $2.4 million committed in local funds toward park development. After further discussion about the scope and funding, and mention by City Attorney Driskell that with the changed deadline of June there is some time to make an adjustment to this resolution prior to approval, Councilmember Hattenburg withdrew his motion with no objection from Council. Mr. Calhoun said the resolution figures in the recital will be changed and staff will report back to Council again as to what a$1 million project would be with $500,000 of city funds, and other frontage improvements. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3. 2020 BUILD Grant Application—Adam Jackson Standing in for Mr. Jackson, Deputy City Manager Hohman explained about the BUILD grant application and of the May 19 due date; and said that staff wants to see what happens with the state funding budget and will continue coordinating with Spokane County.Via his new PowerPoint,Mr.Hohman explained the three scenarios and what each entails,with scenario 1 maximizing 80% of federal funds which reduces the risk of having to have higher `other funds,' and might allow future applications to reduce the BUILD request amount; scenario 2 with a BUILD request of 50% of the project cost which is a lower request than 2019, maintains the risk of higher other funds, and might not allow future applications to reduce the BUILD request amount; and scenario 3 where the County's share of the joint application would stay at approximately$10 million and the City's request to BUILD would be reduced to about$15 million,which would require the City's share to secure an additional estimated $11.6 million for the Sullivan and Trent interchange project. Mr. Hohman said those funds would be difficult to come up with under normal circumstances, but in today's world, it would be impossible. He also mentioned a concern of taking this project forward and having it weaken our INFRA application because he explained that if you give USDOT two options,one with more of a local match,they will always go with the option of us paying more locally. Mr. Hohman said that he knows the County will be applying for their separate Bigelow Gulch project and that there is some talk of the federal government coming up with a new stimulus package as part of the COVID-19 relief process; said our federal lobbyist reports that he hasn't heard definitely but that it might focus first on small businesses. Mr. Hohman further explained that we would hate to be in a position if a stimulus package with federally channeled funds would go through an existing grant program, and us not having our projects in line; said he believes our best course is to take the application like we did in 2019 and hire HDR to update the benefit/cost ratio and submit it by May 18;he said we would still look for some letters of support but the more important letters for us would be from the three members of the federal Council Meeting Minutes:04-07-2020 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT delegation; said we believe this is a strong project and the project is on our federal agenda as one of our highest priorities. There was lengthy discussion including comments about safety and grade crossings; of the need for us to apply and that the economic impact of COVID-19 will be huge so we would be looking at possible ways to get people back to work;mention from Mayor Wick of his hesitance with Bigelow and his preference to fund the Bigelow/Sullivan combined project but that we also don't want to do anything that would adversely affect our INFRA grant. Councilmember Woodard mentioned his preference for scenario 1. Councilmember Hattenburg said he also likes scenario 1 and asked if would be possible to have the grant approved with a lesser amount.Mr. Hohman said that is possible and we usually ask for a little more than we actually receive.Mr. Hohman also mentioned that staff conducted interviews with representatives from two engineering firms for the Pines design, and said a selection will be made soon. Finally, it was determined that Council had no objection to moving forward with scenario 1. It was agreed that a motion consideration will be brought to Council at next week's meeting. 4. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Requalification—Mike Basinger Via his PowerPoint presentation, Economic Development Manager Basinger explained a little about the purpose,partners and roles of entities associated with the CDBG;entitlement eligibility,project types,some of our funding history with the CDBG,funding limits,and entitlement options,including the option of what we are currently doing,which is we have deferred our status as an entitlement grantee and we participate as a part of the urban county, and that we have done so since 2003; he said this option gives us a 20% set- aside which together with other projects funded to other entities in our community, grants our community about $600,000 for projects. He further explained that under option 1 of accepting the status as an entitlement grantee,we would have to add staff and could only use 20% of those funds as support staff;he said he conducted research several years ago and it was estimated then that we would need about three full time employees to handle the program. There was discussion about the difference between us and the City of Spokane and of formula options of focusing on poverty or overcrowding and that there are some areas of the City of Spokane that suffer extreme poverty and overcrowding;questions about what would happen with the County if we were to take option 2,which is for us to accept the status as an entitlement grantee and enter into a joint agreement with Spokane County. Mr.Basinger said he contacted the County and they thought they would be able to remain as an entitlement and have our community as an entitlement due to having the sole source aquifer. Councilmember Woodard said he would like to stay with option 4,the status quo option,for at least another three years and see what happens with the stimulus packet and that the public would be better served with the amount we are doing now.Councilmember Higgins agreed with the idea of staying as we are for another three years.There was some Council discussion about our municipality not getting credit or recognition for our commitment and involvement in these types of projects,and Councilmember Higgins reminded Council that CDBG doesn't have anything to do with the homelessness issues where we hear talk about us not participating,and he noted the surrounding area is very cognizant of who we are. Councilmember Woodard concurred that this is not connected with homeless programs as the CDBG deals with infrastructure. The interlocal agreement was also briefly discussed with Mr.Basinger pointing out that paragraph numbers 2, 13 and 14 explicitly sets out that we may not participate in a HOME consortium except through the County,and that we would participate in the Regional County Homeless Program and Regional Affordable Housing Trust Fund program;and that the HCDAC,or the County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee reviews the program and makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for funding of applicant proposals. Council Meeting Minutes:04-07-2020 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT There was general Council consensus that none of the Councilmembers wants option 1 or 3; that staff will do further research on option 2 including contacting the County for their viewpoint on us taking that option, to get more information on the trust fund,and to come back for a motion consideration at a future meeting. 5. Gambling Tax: Punchboards and Pulltabs—Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor explained that at the March 24, 2020 Council meeting, a Councilmember mentioned that he had a request from a business,that the City waive gambling taxes for punchboards and pull tabs for two quarters in 2020 due to the economic hardship being experienced as a result of the current pandemic, and Council agreed that staff would bring forth an administrative report at a future meeting. Director Taylor stated that the City collected$76,573 in taxes on punchboards and pull tabs in 2019,and if taxes were waived,that would mean a reduction in revenues of approximately$19,000 per quarter; and she noted if all gambling taxes were based on total collections,that would mean an estimated revenue reduction of approximately$105,000 per quarter. Director Taylor said that since the last conversation from the dais, she has received a total of three e-mails making a request to waive taxes. Councilmember Higgins said when he was initially contacted by a business, that person said they were speaking on behalf of several people who felt as that person felt.Councilmember Higgins added that if we were to waive those taxes after mid-March, due to the current economy and business closures, those waived taxes would be substantially less than the $38,000 for two quarters. Councilmember Haley stated that she was contacted by some businesses and there was discussion about some money coming from the federal government for small business, but she added that $10,000 in assistance won't even pay payroll taxes; she said small businesses will be in trouble so we need to offer some help. There was brief discussion about how the tax is paid and Ms. Taylor noted that tax, along with the telephone tax, is remitted directly to the City; she also noted the first quarter tax due date is generally April 1.There were some suggestions about postponing the tax versus waiving it;or whether to waive some or all; and if extending the deadline,what would be the new deadline date.City Attorney Driskell reminded everyone that the first quarter is already past and under Washington law, we cannot forgive a tax due; however, he said we could discuss extending the time to pay; and he suggested if Council wants to do something in that regard,that it should be done before the second quarter taxes are due. Councilmember Thompson said she supports delaying the payment and she recognizes this is a special request from a special sector of business; but if we give one type of business a break, there are plenty of others who could use some assistance too; said she cannot support waiving the taxes on pull tabs or punchboards but is not opposed to a two month delay. Deputy Mayor Peetz said she too is not opposed to postpone the taxes and agrees with Councilmember Thompson's comments as all small businesses are taking hard hits; she also noted that these establishments can still sell food and liquor so there are other ways to get revenues;said she knows we need to remain fiscally responsible while taking care of businesses and she agrees with delaying the payment,but doesn't want to waive the tax. There was discussion about how long to delay each quarter's tax and what the deadline should be and Mr. Driskell suggested he and Finance Director Taylor look at what a logical timeframe would be based on past payments,and then come back to Council and make a recommendation. Councilmember Hattenburg also noted that he doesn't want the public to think Council is favoring one type of business over another. Based on the discussion, Mr. Calhoun asked if Council would be in favor of extending the deadline to pay the first and second quarter taxes or if Council would like to waive the taxes. All Councilmembers except Councilmember Woodard concurred to extend the deadline rather than waive the taxes; and Mr. Calhoun said that staff will bring this issue back to Council for a determination as soon as possible. 6. Lodging Tax Update—Erik Lamb, Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor gave a brief background of the Lodging Tax Funds and associated 2%hotel/motel tax; she also mentioned the additional 1.3% portion dedicated to capital facilities which funds are put into Fund 104,which as of December 31, 2019,has a balance of over$2.6 million. Director Taylor went over Council Meeting Minutes:04-07-2020 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT the allocation of awards approved by Council at their December 2019 meeting,which is as shown on page two of her Request for Action Form; and she informed everyone that we were notified that Oktoberfest would not be held.Director Taylor said we know our revenues won't measure up when it comes to making the payments on these allocations and that there will be an impact to the lodging tax revenues. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that staff doesn't have all the necessary information tonight about the full impact we will be facing, and said tonight is just to give Council an opportunity to think about it; he said staff has some options for Council to consider but he and Ms. Taylor are not looking for any direction tonight; and that staff will return once we have more information on trending revenues.Mr.Lamb said that the City has entered into agreements with all the recipients listed on the chart, and reminded Council that disbursements are given on a reimbursement basis. Mr. Lamb stated that we have never encountered anything like this before where we wouldn't have sufficient funds and the agreements did not address what kind of allocation would be made if there were a lack of funds; he said he feels at this time that all recipients awards would be pro-rata based on the total amount of funds collected, and that all agreements will be amended to make that clear. Mr. Lamb said there are options to address the decreased collections: (1) allocate available 2% funds to applicants first and any remaining collections to Fund 104; (2) re-allocate available 2020 funds to fewer number of applicants; or (3) re-allocate money in Fund #104 that was originally allocated from the 2% portion, to the 2020 applicants. Mr. Lamb stressed that under all options, since Council already approved the 2020 awards and agreements have been executed,any change to an allocation would require review and comment from the LTAC(Lodging Tax Advisory Committee). Mr. Lamb also noted that the City doesn't transfer funds into fund 104 until the end of the year. He stated that ultimately any action would have to take some kind of motion to indicate the desire to fund the first 9 agencies (minus Oktoberfest); and that any remaining funds beyond that $310,600 would be put into fund 104, keeping in mind that it would be far less than the $450,000 indicated. Again Mr. Lamb said that any change in use of revenues would have to be reviewed by the LTAC and then Council could modify or move forward from there. Mr. Lamb said staff does not have a specific date of when to come back with more information and Ms. Taylor indicated that some collection of lodging taxes have been moved out to June so we won't know about those funds until sometime in July. Councilmember Thompson commented that it would be good to know how many recipients would still be able to do their projects. Mr. Calhoun noted that some of the grants would be used almost exclusively for marketing purposes so there is a difference between a project or event and marketing; that if an event were not to occur,then we would not pay.Mr.Lamb reiterated that any change in funding would have to go back to the LTAC since they already made their recommendations and Council also made allocations, and that agreements have been entered into. Mr.Calhoun said staff will contact each of the nine remaining recipients to determine their intentions, and Council concurred. It was also suggested that if one agency decided they could not do their activity,and another agency determined they just needed more funds,maybe funds could be redistributed; and Mr. Lamb again stressed that Council could not do that without going to the LTAC and that we would have to look at each particular circumstance. Mr. Lamb said since we know that Oktoberfest won't happen,those funds would go back into the fund unless Council wants to make a different award; but the change would have to go back to the LTAC for review. In summary, Mr. Lamb said staff will contact the remaining nine agencies to see how and if each wants to move forward; that this will be discussed again. It was also decided that the proposed letter to each award recipient would not be necessary. 7. Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick Councilmember Haley mentioned that Meals on Wheels has had a huge increase in clientele due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which increase was not budgeted; said just for those new Spokane Valley clients they would need about $8000 and if this continues until August, they would need about$23,400; she also mentioned that many of their volunteers are elderly and should not be going out delivering meals,but mostly Council Meeting Minutes:04-07-2020 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT she would like to discuss at a future meeting,the initial$8,000 need.Mayor Wick suggested Council handle this emergency in much the same manner as we did with Spokane Valley Partners, and there were no objections from Council to bring this back to a future meeting for further consideration. 8. Council Check-in—Mayor Wick Mayor Wick announced that he received a request for our Council to sign and send a letter to the Governor asking that residential construction be opened; said he received a letter just prior to the meeting tonight to sign on with regional mayors, and that Council has a copy of the draft letter for our Council before them. There was discussion about whether to just send the joint letter or just our own or both, and it was determined to send both. Several Councilmembers mentioned the need to get the construction going again and of the hardship not only on the workers,but on those waiting for their homes to be completed,as waiting means those incomplete homes might not be secure, and many people are stuck with no place to go while they wait for their homes to be finished. Councilmembers agreed to send both letters. 9. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun said that based on the Governor's recent announcement to extend the stay home stay healthy proclamation through May 4, our City will do likewise, which includes keeping the Senior Center closed through May 4, cancelling Parks and Recreation programs and play structures; and keeping City Hall doors closed; he also mentioned that about half of our work force is alternating working from home and City Hall and that we are doing everything we can to adhere to social distancing; and he remarked how productive the staff has been in these circumstances and said that is a testament to our workforce. Mayor Wick added that he will be participating in a town hall-type meeting tomorrow from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. with Spokane Mayor Woodward and County Commissioner French, to talk about what we are all doing concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it will be an opportunity to hear questions from the public;he said a public service announcement is coming out soon on how to participate. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick,Mayor Office of the City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes:04-07-2020 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Spokane Valley,Washington April 14,2020 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Ben Wick,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Brandi Peetz,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Pam Haley, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember Bill Helbig, City engineer Linda Thompson, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Jenny Nickerson,Building Official Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n/a MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wick mentioned the County's Community Development Block Grant program will be getting about $1 million; mentioned the CARES federal program with about $70 to $90 million coming to local governments,although he said there has not been guidance on how those funds can be used; mentioned the ongoing meetings with County Commissioner French, business leaders, Mr. Calhoun and others concerning the emergency pandemic; and said there has been a motion filed in the Supreme Court about the release of inmates over the age of 50. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on April 14,2020,Request for Council Action Form Total: $3,026,050.18 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 31,2020: $539,338.83 c. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 10,2020 Formal Meeting Format d. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 17,2020 Study Session Format e. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 24,2020 Formal Meeting Format f. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 31,2020 Study Session Format It was moved by Councilmember Hattenburg, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Ordinance 20-005 Street Vacation 2019-005 —Bill Helbig After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title,it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 20-005 on the first reading. After Mr. Helbig went over the PowerPoint explaining the proposed street vacation, Councilmember Hattenburg asked how this vacation would affect the wetlands.Mr.Helbig said that once this becomes a single parcel,development could occur and they would have to follow all the rules and regulations for critical areas.There were no public comments as the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item January 9, 2020. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Regular Formal Council Meeting:04-14-2020 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3. First Reading Ordinance 20-006 Deferring Gambling Tax Remittance—Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title,it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 20-006 deferring remittance of gambling taxes for the first and second quarters of 2020. Finance Director Taylor explained the background of this issue, as noted in her Request for Council Action form,adding that this would include all gambling taxes due the City and would defer those taxes only for the first and second quarters. City Clerk Bainbridge said we received one public comment from Ms. Barb Howard,of Spokane Valley,who indicated she was in favor of the ordinance but would like to extend the deadline out further. There were no other public comments. Director Taylor said this does not appear to be an issue for other municipalities, and Councilmember Haley added that other municipalities are doing other things, such as waiving sewer or water fees,but this tax is about all we have control over. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 4.Motion Consideration: 2020 BUILD Grant Application—John Hohman It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to apply for the BUILD FY 20 program for the Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project. Deputy City Manager Hohman said this issue was discussed during the April 7 Council meeting at which time there was Council consensus that staff apply for BUILD FY 20 grant program for the Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project; and that tonight staff seeks Council's formalized vote on the issue to allow staff to move forward with an application.There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 5.Motion Consideration: Meals on Wheels Contract—Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the funding agreement with Greater Spokane County Meals on Wheels to provide emergency funding relating to providing additional meals to Spokane Valley senior citizens. As noted in the Request for Council Action form, City Attorney Driskell said that as a result of the pandemic, Meals on Wheels has seen a significant increase in the number of people using their service,and that this additional$8,000 would assist greatly, and the contract would run through July 30,2020.There was brief Council discussion about assisting Meals on Wheels as well as Spokane Valley Partners. There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Hazard Mitigation Agreement—Jenny Nickerson Building Official Nickerson explained that our part of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is contained in Chapter 7 in Volume 2; said we approved the original plan in 2007 as well as an update to the plan in 2014 and that the Plan requires updating every five years.Mayor Wick asked if a pandemic is considered part of a hazard and Ms. Nickerson pointed out several pages in Volume 1 that speak to hazard identification and said we don't have a lot of history for local pandemics. City Manager Calhoun added that during the H1N1 pandemic in 2009,the City developed a continuity of operations plan and that staff has been in the process of updating the plan, and said we will include a chapter specifically for pandemics; and once that is complete, we will submit it to the Greater Spokane Emergency Management for their approval. Mr. Calhoun also noted there are two volumes of the County's Hazard Mitigation Plan with well over 500 pages, but that we are focusing on Chapter 7 in Volume 2. There was Council consensus to bring this back on the next Consent Agenda for approval consideration. 7. CenterPlace Roof Repair—John Hohman Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that Council saw this item in June and November of last year where discussion was held regarding the roof repair, and tonight is follow-up from those discussions. Mr. Hohman noted that in November, Council concurred to proceed with this project using the standing seam metal roofing material,as opposed to composition/shingles,or metal tile.Mr.Hohman noted that the project was advertised for bid in February, and at the February 21 bid opening, four bids were received, ranging from a low bid of just under$500,000, to a high bid of about$1.3 million; with an engineer's estimate of $613,000; and that after careful consideration, staff decided it was best to reject all bids and re-bid the project. Regular Formal Council Meeting:04-14-2020 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Hohman explained that staff had discussions with the low bidder as there were some discrepancies in that bid which lead staff to question if that bidder could perform the work at that low amount. Mr.Hohman said that now,however,there are concerns about the budget for this and next year;that in working with Mr. Calhoun,Mr.Hohman said he asked Architects West to look again at the figures to make sure their estimate was reasonable and to consider the cost differential for composition shingles instead of standing seam metal. As noted in Mr. Hohman's Request for Council Action form, those figures are shown along with each material's life expectancy. He noted that while the life expectancy for the standing seam metal is greater, staff is recommending changing the roof material selection to composition shingles to keep more in line with the initial anticipated project budget.Mr.Hohman also mentioned that because of the years of leakage, the insulation is damaged but we won't know the extent of that damage until the project begins.Mr.Hohman also explained that the plan is to re-advertise by the end of the month with the hope of getting it constructed this year;he said composition roof would also likely give us more bidders and the work would be of shorter duration as shingles are easier to measure and install. Deputy Mayor Peetz asked about warranty on any work that would happen and Mr.Hohman said the work would include a warranty;he also noted that a full- time inspector would be retained from a firm as well as another part-time inspector on site to make sure mistakes such as were made in the past,won't be repeated.A question arose about the pitch of the roof and Mr. Hohman replied that the pitch is steep enough that shingles will work on that site. Councilmember Thompson asked if it is normal to have a full-time as well as a part-time inspector and Mr. Hohman said that it is, especially with what we have learned on other vertical construction projects. There were no objections from Council to proceed with composition shingles. Mr. Calhoun said this will be re-bid and Council will see this item again when it comes time to approve the bid award. 8. Department of Commerce ETS Grant—Adam Jackson Standing in for Mr. Jackson, City Engineer Helbig explained that the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) and Avista intend to apply for the Department of Commerce's Electrification of Transportation Systems grant under a single, regional application, and have asked for our City's participation; he said the application would include project elements that would benefit many of the cities and agencies and said although we could apply separately, the intent is to leverage a regional application benefitting multiple agencies. Mr. Helbig explained that the SRTC application intends to propose a 50% match towards the total project cost and assumes Avista will provide all matching funds. He further explained that we were questioned where we might put these charging stations, and said we could put two at CenterPlace and two at City Hall, and they could either be AC or DC; he noted that if Avista doesn't come up with a full match,the City would have to put in funds as identified in Table 3 on the Request for Council Action form. Mr. Helbig said staff is looking for Council consensus that staff coordinate with SRTC for the submittal of the grant. There were no objections from Council for staff moving forward as indicated. 9. Advance Agenda- Mayor Wick There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Calhoun stated that staff has worked hard to bring items for last week and this week's agendas, and therefore,there is no meeting next week;he said the next meeting will be April 28,2020. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Regular Formal Council Meeting:04-14-2020 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 20-007 - Adopting Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Department of Emergency Management Services; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44 Section 201.6 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Resolution 07-002; Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan — adopted 3/27/2007 Resolution 14-015; Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update— adopted 12/16/2014 Administrative Report: April 14, 2020 BACKGROUND: The Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a compliance document for the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The City of Spokane Valley approved the original plan in 2007 under Resolution 07-002, and approved an update to the plan in 2014 under Resolution 14- 015. The Plan requires updating every five years. The most recent update to the Plan has since expired. In 2019, the Greater Spokane County Emergency Management (GSCEM) office undertook the development of the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan as a multi-jurisdictional planning effort. The final adopted version by the GSCEM is attached. In order to qualify for federal funding under the Disaster Mitigation Act, the City of Spokane Valley must officially adopt the Plan. OPTIONS: Move to approve Resolution 20-007 to adopt the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve Resolution 20-007 adopting the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2020 Update. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Undetermined. STAFF CONTACT: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official; Bill Helbig, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Resolution 20-007 authorizing adoption of the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; and • Due to the size of the document, the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Volume 1 & 2, Final Adopted Version (April 2020) is available electronically here http://laserfiche.spokanevalley.org/weblink8/0/fol/417829/Row1.aspx DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION 20-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 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 DRAFT Adopted this 28th day of April,2020 Attest: City of Spokane Valley Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Ben Wick,Mayor Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney 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 < R Fo JAL64cpayme.c› F8ci LV W C bN BU LTPNG 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: ''4 - BRIDGEVIEW CONSULTING Bridgeview Consulting, LLC 915 North Laurel Lane Tacoma, Washington 98406 253.301.1330 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ES-1 Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Authority 1-1 1.1.1 Local Concerns 1-1 1.1.2 Purposes 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 2.9.1 Related Hazard Planning Documents 2-7 2.10 Public Involvement 2-8 2.10.1 Strategy 2-8 2.10.2 Hazard Questionnaire 2-9 2.10.3 Survey Results 2-10 2.10.4 Internet 2-10 2.10.5 Social Media 2-11 2.10.6 Public 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 3.4.1 Geology 3-8 3.4.2 Hydrology 3-10 3.4.3 Climate 3-11 3.5 Demographics 3-13 3.5.1 Population Characteristics 3-13 3.5.2 Income 3-15 3.5.3 Age Distribution 3-15 3.5.4 Race,Ethnicity and Language 3-16 3.5.5 Disabled Populations 3-17 3.6 Economy 3-17 3.6.1 Employment Trends 3-17 Bridgeview Consulting i April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 3.7 Land Use 3-18 3.8 Housing Stock 3-21 3.8.1 Building Stock Age 3-21 3.9 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 3-22 3.9.1 Hazardous Materials 3-26 3.9.2 Infrastructure and Utility Failure 3-27 3.9.3 Transportation 3-29 3.10 Future Trends in Development 3-29 3.11 Laws and Ordinances 3-30 3.11.1 Federal 3-30 3.11.2 State 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 4.2.1 Hazard Identification 4-2 4.2.2 Hazard Profiles 4-3 4.2.3 Risk Assessment Process 4-3 4.2.4 Hazus and GIS Applications 4-4 4.2.5 Calculated 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 5.2.1 Extent and Location 5-2 5.2.2 Previous Occurrence 5-3 5.2.3 Frequency 5-5 5.2.4 Severity 5-8 5.2.5 Warning Time 5-10 5.3 Secondary Hazards 5-10 5.4 Climate Change Impacts 5-10 5.5 Vulnerability 5-11 5.5.1 Overview 5-11 5.5.2 Impact on Life,Health, and Safety 5-13 5.5.2 Impact on Property 5-13 5.5.3 Impact on Critical Facilities 5-13 5.5.4 Impact on Economy 5-13 5.5.5 Impact 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 6.1.1 How Earthquakes Happen 6-1 6.1.2 Earthquake Classifications 6-2 6.1.3 Ground Motion 6-4 6.1.4 Effect of Soil Types 6-4 Bridgeview Consulting ii April 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.2 Hazard Profile 6-6 6.2.1 Extent and Location 6-6 6.2.1 Previous Occurrence 6-11 6.2.2 Frequency 6-13 6.2.3 Severity 6-14 6.2.4 Warning Time 6-18 6.3 Secondary Hazards 6-18 6.4 Climate Change Impacts 6-19 6.5 Vulnerability Assessment 6-19 6.5.1 Overview 6-19 6.5.2 Impact on Life,Health and Safety 6-19 6.5.3 Impact on Property 6-20 6.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 6-23 6.5.5 Impact on Economy 6-24 6.5.6 Impact on Environment 6-26 6.5.7 Secondary 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 7.1.1 Flood 7-1 7.1.2 Flooding Types 7-2 7.1.3 National Flood Insurance Program 7-3 7.1.4 NFIP Program Overview 7-4 7.1.5 Dam Failure 7-7 7.2 Hazard Profile 7-9 7.2.1 Extent and Location- Flood 7-9 7.2.2 Previous Occurrence 7-10 7.2.3 Frequency 7-11 7.2.4 Severity 7-11 7.2.5 Extent and Location—Dam Failure 7-17 7.2.6 Previous Occurrence 7-18 7.2.7 Frequency 7-19 7.2.8 Severity 7-19 7.2.9 Warning Time 7-19 7.3 Vulnerability Assessment 7-21 7.3.1 Overview 7-21 7.3.2 Impact on Life,Health,and Safety 7-21 7.3.3 Impact on Property 7-23 7.3.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 7-25 7.3.5 Impact to the Economy 7-28 7.3.6 Impact 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 8.2.1 Extent and Location 8-2 8.2.2 Previous Occurrence 8-3 8.2.3 Frequency 8-4 8.2.4 Severity 8-4 8.2.5 Warning Time 8-6 8.3 Secondary Hazards 8-6 8.4 Climate Change Impacts 8-7 8.5 Vulnerability Assessment 8-7 8.5.1 Overview 8-7 8.5.2 Impact on Life,Health,and Safety 8-7 8.5.3 Impact on Property 8-8 8.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 8-10 8.5.5 Impact on Economy 8-13 8.5.6 Impact 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 9.1.1 Damaging Winds 9-1 9.1.2 Tornado 9-2 9.1.3 Blizzards and Snowstorms 9-5 9.1.4 Ice Storms 9-5 9.1.5 Dust Storms 9-6 9.1.6 Thunderstorms 9-6 9.2 Hazard Profile 9-8 9.2.1 Extent and Location 9-8 9.2.2 Previous Occurrence 9-8 9.2.3 Frequency 9-12 9.2.4 Severity 9-12 9.2.5 Warning Time 9-13 9.3 Secondary Hazards 9-13 9.4 Climate Change Impacts 9-13 9.5 Vulnerability Assessment 9-14 9.5.1 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 9-14 9.5.2 Impact on Economy 9-15 9.5.3 Impact on Environment 9-15 9.6 Vulnerability Assessment 9-16 9.6.1 Impact on Life,Health,and Safety 9-16 9.6.2 Impact 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 10.2.1 Extent and Location 10-1 10.2.2 Previous Occurrence 10-1 Bridgeview Consulting iv April 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.2.3 Frequency 10-3 10.2.4 Severity 10-3 10.2.5 Warning Time 10-3 10.3 Secondary Hazards 10-4 10.4 Climate Change Impacts 10-4 10.5 Vulnerability Assessment 10-4 10.5.1 Overview 10-4 10.5.2 Impact on Life,Health,and Safety 10-4 10.5.3 Impact on Property 10-4 10.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities 10-5 10.5.5 Impact on Economy 10-5 10.5.6 Impact 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 11.1.1 Wildland-Urban Interface Areas 11-2 11.1.2 Wildfire Types 11-4 11.1.3 Identifying Wildfire Risk 11-4 11.1.4 Historical Fire Regime and Current Condition Classification 11-5 11.2 Hazard Profile 11-7 11.2.1 Extent and Location 11-8 11.2.2 Previous Occurrence 11-11 11.2.3 Frequency 11-13 11.2.4 Severity 11-17 11.2.5 Warning Time 11-17 11.3 Secondary Hazards 11-17 11.4 Climate Change Impacts 11-17 11.5 Vulnerability Assessment 11-18 11.5.1 Overview 11-18 11.5.2 Impact on Life,Health,and Safety 11-18 11.5.3 Impact on Property 11-19 11.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure 11-23 11.5.5 Impact on Economy 11-24 11.5.6 Impact 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 13.1.1 Guiding 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 1—Planning-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 14.1.1 Federal 14-1 14.1.2 State-Level Planning Initiatives 14-3 14.1.3 Local Programs 14-6 14.2 Mitigation-Related Regulatory Authority 14-7 14.3 Washington State Rating Bureau Levels of Service 14-12 14.3.1 Public Protection Classification Program 14-12 14.3.2 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule 14-13 14.3.3 Public Safety Programs 14-14 Chapter 15. Plan Maintenance 15-1 15.1.1 Plan Implementation and Maintenance 15-1 15.1.2 Annual Review 15-2 15.1.3 Future Plan Updates 15-3 15.1.4 Implementation through Existing Programs 15-3 15.1.5 Continued 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 Potential-Probabilistic* 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 1-Planning-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 Plan-Countywide 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 2018-June 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 1—Planning-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 • Beverly O'Dea,Project Manager and Lead Planner,Bridgeview Consulting,LLC. • David O'Dea, 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 — WHAT'S NEW — WHAT'S DIFFERENT 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, FEMA Region X approved the County's first multi 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 1—Planning-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 FEMA's 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 written to support the DEM's quest to obtain Emergency Management 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 County's and Region's THIRA documents. 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 plan's 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 plan's 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 plan's 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 1—Planning-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 FEMA's 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 plan's 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 partner's 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 components, while not discoverable under public disclosure, serve as the County's 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 purposes as 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Bridgeview Consulting 1-4 April 2020 CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS 2.1 PLAN DEVELOPMENT Spokane County's 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 depaitnients, 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 annual reports(such as the County Assessor's Annual Reports for the periods 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 jurisdiction's overall vulnerability, plan updates may validate the information in the previously approved plan. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the mitigation strategy continues to address Bridgeview Consulting 2-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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; • Beverly O'Dea,Bridgeview Consulting, Lead Project Planner; • David O'Dea, 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. During the County's kick-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 intent" to participate in the planning process. That letter designated a point of contact for the jurisdiction and confirmed the jurisdiction's commitment to the process and understanding of expectations. Linkage procedures have been established (see Volume 2 of this plan) for any jurisdiction wishing to link to the 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 2-1. Hazard Mitigation Planning Partners and Level of Participation r a County,City,Town or Primary Point of Alternate Point(s) 6 E o Entity Represented Contact of Contact A ��• ® '��s U A w b" a 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 En.ineer u Municipalities Airway Heights,City of Chief Mitch Metzger Nate Whannell X X X X X X Cheney,City of Chief Tom Jenkins X X X X X X Deer Park,City of Roger Krieger, X X X X X X Community Services Director Fairfield,Town of Mayor KayDee Ken Fuchs X X X X X X Gilkey Liberty Lake,City of Chief Brian Asmus Sgt.Darin Morgan X X X X X X Medical Lake,City of Doug Ross,City J.Mayfield X X X X X X Administrator Spokane Valley,City of Mark Calhoun,City John Hohman, X X X X X X Manager Deputy City Manager Marci Patterson, Executive Assistant Special Purpose Districts and Stakeholders Spokane County Garth Davis Forestry X X X X X X Conservation District Program Manager Newman Lake Flood Malcolm Hamilton, X X X X X X Control Zone District PE Fire Districts I Spokane Valley Fire Chief Shawn Arold X X X X X X Spokane County FD 3 Chief Cody Bill Dennstaedt X X X X X X Rohrbach Spokane County FD 4 Chief Randy A/Chief Howard X X X X X X Johnson Johnson Bridgeview Consulting 2-4 April 2020 PLAN METHODOLOGY u a f A . Q t CI* ° ° ° ° _ ° County,City,Town or Primary Point of Alternate Point(s) o o Entity Represented Contact of Contact A a U U A w Spokane County FD 5 Commissioner X X X X X X Bonita Cobb Spokane County FD 8 A/C Lonnie Rash Chief Tony Nielsen X X X X X X Spokane County FD 10 Chief K.Johnson X X X X X X Consultants and Planning Team Facilitators Bridgeview Consulting,LLC Beverly O'Dea,Project Manager and Lead Planner David O'Dea,Strategic Analyst,Facilitator,Planning 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Stakeholders Data 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 • Spokane County Assessor's Annual Reports (2013-2019) 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 County's 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 1—Planning-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 FEMA's eligibility criteria. Key elements from the risk assessment portion of the hazard mitigation planning will again be utilized to further support and update the County's Debris 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 area's 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 note,one element addressed within the County's survey involved citizens' identification 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. Generally, most comments received were of the "response" nature with respect to evacuation areas in the 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 1—Planning-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. mom~.»..b.« 2.10.3 Survey Results - Maw Additional points of interest from the - � ^* survey results include: ' 31.25 percent of respondents have experienced an earthquake; 8.33 - u..... .. .... . ... .. . . .. .:m percent have experienced a volcanic eruption, and 85.42 percent have experienced a severe weather event. • Of the 15 disaster declarations ,, I'. 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 for review. The County intends to keep a website active after the plan's completion to keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates. The County's website address was publicized in all press releases, mailings, questionnaires 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 site,and were available for download.A link was also made available to the County's 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 - ":. .a plan's update; to distribute information concerning the survey; advise " ' ©_. citizens of the availability of the hazard maps for review and comment; 7 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/gcontent/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 meetings which were held in conjunction with County Commissioner's Meetings were also recorded for 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 availability of the plan, inviting citizens to review the plan by downloading it from the County's website. Bridgeview Consulting 2-11 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 plan's 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 April Public Outreach Strategy Initial press release on the planning process disseminated by Spokane 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 Depaitment of May Public Outreach Strategy N/A Emergency Management website;Facebook and Twitter Accounts utilized to announce effort. May Public Outreach Strategy Hazard Mitigation survey posted on Spokane Department of Emergency N/A Management website. 6/1/19 Public Outreach Project Manager Gerry Bozarth presented information concerning the 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. Aug Planning Team Meeting Topics of discussion during the planning team meeting included review of 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. 8/12 Public Outreach City of Spokane Valley established Facebook and Twitter announcements 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.or /acontent/NewsFeed.aspx?FeedID=6544 Bridgeview Consulting 2-12 April 2020 PLAN METHODOLOGY Table 2-2. Plan Development Milestones Date Event Description Attendance 9/10 Primera Safety Fair Planning team members coordinated information at the Primera Safety Fair that talked about various risks and hazards,and how citizens can Prepare themselves. 9/11 Interview-Spokesman EMD Deputy Director Chandra Fox was interviewed by the Spokesman Review Review for Preparedness Month. Discussions included an update on the 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. 9/18 LEPC Meeting During the monthly LEPC meeting,Project Manager Gerry Bozarth made 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. Various Public Outreach Strategy Public notices via County website of upcoming meetings,Facebook and 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. 10/1/19 Public Outreach— The countywide risk assessment was provided by consultant,with the 25 Presentation of Risk majority of all planning team members present. Information was 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. 10/1/19 Planning Team Meeting After the public outreach event occurred(12-3)a Mandatory workshop —16 was held to assist with Strategy Development by the planning team members. Several examples were discussed,with FEMA's 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 District mitigation planning process,the risk assessment and the Conservation District's planning annex to the Board of Supervisors,a meeting which is advertised and open to the public. 11/14/19 Planning Team Review The draft of the base plan was provided to the planning team members, with a two week period provided for comments. 12/10 Public Outreach Strategy Initiation of final public comment period. Various planning team N/A members made announcements of the plan's availability during open 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 Draftplan 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Moor" „'fir a T A 411 2 "�x,rymaJ Figure 2-2. June LEPC Meeting , '411111 41) Figure 2-3. Strategy and Template Development Workshop Bridgeview Consulting 2-14 April 2020 PLAN METHODOLOGY • p w._ �r il7t� - vommo f 4; Figure 2-4. Presentation of Risk Findings(Meeting Setup) 1,114, awn aims • Pr Itt 44- 166,, 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 state's 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 1—Planning-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 rege�ne w _ _ a i arvf, _ _ �.- A1unatal Rasa,cues1 1:1 Urban Cr"AM Baur Clary r ._:.., -,, „ ..[; -- Mastsar rllifl M.1ry � .... M, raary ( `r ,l ° 1 Asirrkii --- Raft olcd I ;1, Rt..lrs and Lakes r- 41 7 1 Rt.. s I i ` T AL'. A!'1#i.: 1 fir`. ., pi, i i E " ill .4 1111111111111.1 M 1J,;r, . 1111101 .:: 1 f 1 IES r x cm ■r _ 1 IArccI " 1 Ir \ 1 I ,„. I 1 1 `' I fsa^.a N: . — -d , a ... . . ,, ; I _ _. z* 1 rur, 1 I .1,-4'1., r____,,,,,..„..ki r .°, r r Figure 3-1. Main Features of Spokane County Bridgeview Consulting 3-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 county's 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 Indians—Upper, Middle and Lower—lived in the Spokane River watershed and the Coeur d'Alene Tribe 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 area's 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 depot's 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.' • 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 'USDA Soil Survey,Spokane County,WA.(1968). Accessed 10/8/19. Available at: https://booksgoogle.com/books?id=vKl Mc jrd 1 j 8 C&pg=PA 1&lpg=PA 1&dq=spokane+county+is+drained+by+two+principal+st reams&source=bl&ots=RNLEJDrc2 j&sig=ACfU3U0klgCrGHzSTFvHnBrcGGbZ W 211gg&h1=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisyYn 5 i431AhXXjp4KHaKxDYwQ6AEwCHoECAcQAg#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 1—Planning-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 President's 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 community's capability to avoid large-scale events in the future. Still, many natural hazard events do not trigger federal disaster declaration protocol but have significant impacts on their communities. These events are also important to consider in establishing recurrence intervals for hazards of concern. 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 Numbera Declaration Date Incident Type/Title DR-50b 2/25/1956 Flood/Flood DR-70b 3/6/1957 Flood/Flood DR-1376 10/20/1962 Severe Storm/Severe Storm DR-146b 3/2/1963 Flood/Flood 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 County's 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements The diversity of Spokane County's 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 County's 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 d'Alene,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). The Spokane River originates in Coeur d'Alene Lake in Idaho, which is fed by the Coeur d'Alene and St. 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 enters a canyon that extends through the city. The tributary area of Coeur d'Alene Lake is approximately 3,700 square miles, and it drains mountainous, forested area with elevations ranging from 2,120 feet at Coeur d'Alene Lake to 6,500 at the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains. Coeur d'Alene Lake is a natural lake 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 watershed's water resources requires a thorough understanding of the watershed's 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 1—Planning-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 d'Alene 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 State's"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, from Post Falls Dam at the outlet from Lake Coeur d'Alene to Little Falls Dam at 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 ponds—two 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 Act's 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 110°F to -30°F. 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 1-Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 3-3 shows the average monthly and annual rainfall in WRIA 54. Historic precipitation trends are illustrated in Figure 3-2.3 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 Spokane County, Washington, Precipitation - Precip -21310-2012 Mean: 1.82" - 1959-21319 Trend 494"!Decade 179.0 160.0 8.4 150.4 149.0 5.D 130.0 I120.0 110.0 4.D 1 140.4 _- 3 I 96.o c 3.0 54.9 70.0 2.0 � I II I M Jr 849 54.0 u.. a -� I r ■.N M i d II I I I rl.. I 1 1 I I I I I1 1 rI ! I 1 40.0 1.0 1 1 34.9 20.0 I 1 I 10.0 9.D r 9.13 Jan 1959 Jan 1984 Jan 1970 Jan 1980 Jan 1994 Jan 2606 Jan 2010 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&firsttrendy ear=1950&lasttrendy ear= 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 vulnerability—such as disability, age, poverty, and minority race and ethnicity—often 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements {1nnu;il Prmul;1tmn Gran:71- .1961 2111E 5�a 4% -I 3% 196 4' _ tw 1331 ' 197 19 r6 1981 1. 59+91 19+93 2001 21X3 21111 2016 -1% U.S. Spplhone —Stein 4!6 .6% 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) http s://www.ofm.wa.gov/site s/default/file s/public/datare search/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 people's decisions on evacuation. Individuals who cannot afford gas for their cars will likely decide not to evacuate. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 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, well below the state's $62,848, according to the U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts. Over the period 2012 to 2016, 13.3 percent of the population was living below the poverty level in Spokane County. This is well above 11 percent for the state.4 Poverty by age and gender for 2017 is illustrated in Figure 3-4.5 P ' --''' .. lll ., IJL :6.i. 11.2i _ -[ J'.pt. ! •,1 __ - .- .Mar ■rt+—Ole 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-profile s/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 1—Planning-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 County's 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). Of the county's over-65 population, 6.8 percent are in the poverty rate,which is lower than the State's average of 8.0 percent, and beneath the U.S. average of 9.3 percent. It is also estimated that 6.1 percent of the county's population is 5 or younger,compared to the state average of 6.2 percent and 22.2 percent of the county's population is 18 or younger,which is the same as the state's 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 county's 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 county's 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. Total population with a disability status is estimated to be at 38,104 countywide.6 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 County's 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 versus the 5.9 percent for 2018, and 6.1 percent for 2017 within Spokane County(see Figure 3-5).7 6 American Fact Finder Accessed May 10,2019.Available online at: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/j sf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Unemployment rots,non seasonally adjusted Spokane 7.4w 2 6.6x -.4041116. p i 6C 3 b6xNIIIII.."1111111111111111Ssem._ 6.4x 5% Jui Fob Mar Ar.• Au4 Sop Oct Nov pec 2016 7 {:G'^,. F, ;1^, 1, 1+10. y a., , -.i >, r ,P 2017 <;/9,, a tin, r,IN, 3r t% 1n, ark,. 4.0,, 4 1,6, 2418 ._e. ri ear , t'-, rc f .i d=u a % a'.Nir. .;a•,,. .a`J`, a t,:., 2019 <l t,rkm +, Employment and unemployment,not seasonally adjusted Spokane 2014 2018 2017 atruey A471 uR WW1 Wee 254 MO 1`,%.000 243244 239750 Ims411+.k.11 276.432 237.966 228,953 224.540 giswi,ril'M 411«a11 15.1E °tl.t,U t1.2a, 14.7 HO tnr<Mrv,MI,c,,1 63% 6', 5901 61% Figure 3-5. Spokane County Unemployment Rates 2016-2019 3.7 LAND USEA f I 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 ✓ „ilk County along the Interstate 90 corridor.Prime farmland consists of rural land with excellent physical and chemical fitA° characteristics for the production of food,feed,forage,fiber and ►1 t il3. .1 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: haps://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full._Report/Volume_l,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Washin gton/st5 3_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 Low Density Residential Plus 325 Total 1,046,970 Bridgeview Consulting 3-19 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements spoka..county Compreimnsiv*Pion ' '4 44.-4 c......,...........w. ..., ,...._. ..-- .......-... t" ...,,.. MIN we a.....*4.. -- - C.......N1 • '. ..7 In......,,. ... ...— I t , 11' rii1.7... ............ \ ' ' 11111............ .....— IM,...tooL.- en,...._....,,,,,.....,.. iii',I....... imm in...-........ , .._ Ni . f : k t ,/' , ., 1 - . .,,, ., ._ , - , . 1 7 i k 44111k\ (' • 1,,' - I -- - I ' - - ----it' .. ' T e 4 '. r - • '1 I - i 1 -, c.,---,-7,,--. %r•-.. ',,,,-- . ,, — +,. 1 " , ... ... ....,1 Jo, " ... ' .:,,,, . - w-i-at";.• . . - , - .r.- . r t 1 I ' -7' 3#1t. .. . I . .f. i , -, - I r .. i . , . : ;-f f , , ,.., . . , , ,.. ( tP-Ft i/ . . C-.-, 1 ' . , . , . , . . , . ' ,.. I 1 , , . .. .. . ..,..,- ..... _ . ,.. Spokane Count.), ?ouilding (rid PkInning — — 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 Management's Forecasting Division provides data on Housing Units by Structure Type 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) Jurisdiction Total Mobile 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 1—Planning-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). Customarily,within FEMA's Hazus Program,homes 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 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 Depaitnient 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements ka* w, 4Spakane County • Hazard Mitigation - Plan ;K, C , n,ca! Facilities •:6 , _i',,.. 0 t + ' 41 CriticoHnfrastructure 6 .. • 1 w y s •r w • i • • •I • • • • � .e •r 1 • ... • • • .'•0 • • • • •'. 0.." 41 • * 6 • • •• S. • ••••••• • •s: . • y,, • I ,, w . • w- • •r• `•• • Y k•••• •F •w b.40.11*■ 0,o4r i�j••• '00' •00• N,.. % r •. told • Critical c Mies • 0•• a' ° • I IIS • ', gig),* • `• a 01.r • , • .• • } • r••• V • • • r • • Critical *41 w • tnfiasiruclure a en•.•• ■ • .. , • • 111,6 kr•,O I • :• ■ • I ■ • • a•bp.ld • v, • I• • • It I s•s•r . w.r,lies, •1 • , Or).SQundor,• •I•IOOL.,LW 00ro10I141101 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 Jurisdiction Health Functions Functions Schools Hazmat Functions Total Airway Heights 0 0 3 1 6 0 10 Cheney 0 1 4 7 6 0 18 Deer Park 1 0 2 5 3 0 11 Fairfield 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Latah 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Liberty Lake 0 0 2 1 6 0 9 Medical Lake 1 0 2 4 0 0 7 Millwood 0 0 2 2 1 0 5 Rockford 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 Spangle 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 Spokane 6 1 35 74 106 0 219 Spokane Valley 1 0 14 50 91 0 156 Waverly 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Unincorporated 0 0 46 51 71 0 171 Total 9 2 116 195 297 0 619 Table 3-10. Spokane County Critical Infrastructure Jurisdiction Bridges Water Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other Total Airway Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cheney 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Deer Park 1 0 0 0 0 6 7 Fairfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Medical Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Millwood 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Rockford 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 Spangle 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Spokane 134 0 1 2 9 12 150 Spokane Valley 37 0 0 1 1 5 43 Waverly 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Unincorporated 196 1 4 10 27 42 280 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 3.9.1 Hazardous Materials All communities located near Spokane County's 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 terrorists' use of hazardous materials. The combination of possible sources of exposure to Spokane's 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 incident's 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements connects one computer to another, networking the nation's 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 1—Planning-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 "specific geographical areas that are...essential for the conservation 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 ESA's prohibition of taking or to meet the requirements of the consultation process. With the listing of salmon and trout species as threatened or endangered,the 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 1—Planning-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 nation's surface waters so that they can support "the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water." Evolution of CWA programs 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 state's shorelines." Its jurisdiction includes the Pacific Ocean shoreline and the shorelines of Puget Sound,the Strait of Juan de Fuca,and rivers,streams and lakes above a certain size. It also regulates wetlands associated with these shorelines. Washington State Building Code The Washington State Building Code 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. Washington's state-developed codes are mandatory statewide for residential and commercial buildings. Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning Washington's Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning law(RCW 38.52)establishes parameters to ensure that preparations of the state will be adequate to deal with disasters,to ensure the administration of state and federal programs providing disaster relief to individuals,to ensure adequate support for search and rescue operations,to protect the public peace,health and safety, and to preserve the lives and property of the people of the state. It achieves the following: • Provides for emergency management by the state, and authorizes the creation of local organizations for emergency management in political subdivisions of the state. • Confers emergency powers upon the governor and upon the executive heads of political subdivisions of the state. • 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 1—Planning-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 Washington's floodplain management law (RCW 86.16, implemented through WAC 173-158) states that prevention of flood damage is a matter of statewide public concern and places regulatory control with the Department of Ecology. RCW 86.16 is cited in floodplain management literature, including FEMA's national assessment, as one of the first and strongest in the nation. A major challenge to the law in 1978, Maple Leaf Investors v. Ecology, is cited in legal references to floodplain management issues. The court upheld the law, declaring that denial of a permit to build residential structures in the floodway is a valid exercise of police power and did not constitute a taking. RCW Chapter 86.12 (Flood Control by Counties) authorizes county governments to levy taxes, condemn properties and undertake flood control activities directed toward a public purpose. Flood Control Assistance Account Program Washington's first flood control maintenance program was passed in 1951, and was called the Flood Control Maintenance Program. In 1984, RCW 86.26 (State Participation in Flood Control Maintenance) 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). S�.fJ.rfM .. 14, 11110 s 1 1 Figure 3-8 West Plains/Airport Area Public Development Area Bridgeview Consulting 3-35 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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's 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 since the last plan's completion. Similarly,the "southside 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 size since the last plan's completion,with approximately 300 new residential structures anticipated over the life cycle of this plan. The City of Liberty Lake near the County's eastern border 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's election to no longer provide fire services,thereby annexing its boundaries into Fire District 3's response areas. 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 exception of general "growing pains"and the ability to meet all service-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 drought on its "dwindling" aquifer could cause a potential issue if the new system does not come on-line as anticipated. Such limitation has impacted the City's ability to expand to some degree,but it is anticipated 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 identification—Use all available information to determine what types of disasters may affect a jurisdiction,how often they can occur, and their potential severity. • Vulnerability identification—Determine the impact of natural hazard events on the people, property,environment,economy and lands of the region. • Cost evaluation—Estimate the cost of potential damage or cost that can be avoided by mitigation. 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 1—Planning-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 area's 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 the planning area's vulnerabilities. For those municipal planning partners with defined 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 hazard—Exposure was determined by overlaying hazard maps with an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to determine which of them would be exposed to each hazard. • Assess the vulnerability of exposed facilities—Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was determined by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Tools such as GIS and 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 1—Planning-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 Low—The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal to nonexistent. – Low—Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal. – Medium—Moderate 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. – High—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 have occurred in the past,and have a high probability of reoccurring. – Extremely High—Very 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 1—All of the information needed to produce an estimate of losses is included in the software's default data. This data is derived from national databases and describes in general terms the characteristic parameters of the planning area. • Level 2—More accurate estimates of losses require more detailed information about the planning area. To produce Level 2 estimates of losses, detailed information is required about local geology,hydrology,hydraulics and building inventory, as well as data about utilities and critical facilities. This information is needed in a GIS format. 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 3—This level of analysis generates the most accurate estimate of losses. It requires detailed engineering and geotechnical information to customize it for the planning area. 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 1—Planning-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 established list and utilizing the County's 2019 Assessor's database. (Flood Insurance maps are available on the County's website 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 2019 Assessor's 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 of Ecology's FY2018 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 and within a 100' buffer. • 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements CPR] Degree of R,sk: Assigned Imp at Impact Weighting Category LevelID laescrict!n Factor Factor • Rare with no documented r,smry of ocxurew e._ Ur likty 1 • Annual probablity of less man 1a,(-100 years or more! Possible • Infrequent°ccueertces;at least one documented Cl ane: Wit. 2 • Annual p obabi'ty that is between 1%and 10%(-10 year_ - -- 4096 Probability Lately • Frequent occurrences wt-at Least two or more documented r::: events. 3 • Annual probability that es between 10%2 and 90%(-10 years c • Common events with a well-ddocumented history of occurrence -!ghly:_oc?ty 4 • Annual probabaty of occurring.{t%chance ort 00%Annuatry'. • People-Inpnes and illnesses are treatable with first aid;nirvana,hospital impact;no deaths Negligkile impact to quality of ite • Property-Less than 5%of critical facilities and infrastructure impacted and only fora short disallow(less than 2436 hour suds as fora snow event);no loss of facilities.wait only very minor damage:clean-tip, F.-,..�.giPie 1 • Economy-hlegligihk economic Piped_ • Continuity of government operatitg at 90%of normal operations with only !ghr modifications due to dversion of normal work for short-ienm response activity.C:Srup ion lasts no more than 2436 how's. • Spec Purpose Districts:No Functional Downtime. _ • People-Injuries or illness predorninaredy minor in nature and do not result in permanent disability;some increased calls for service at hospitals;no deaths:14%or less cf the population inpacted.Moderate impact to quality of aft. • Property-Slight property damage-greater than 5%and less than 25%of critical and non- critical cifities and infrastructure. Limited • Rome-, - m.3c-1 associated with+ass properly tax base furled:impact results vrwarity torn -_-_- -. lax base boor businesses smut down during duration of event and short- term Clea ; ea e.- - _ _ _ ":rased wages • Continuity c - - .]`!cols;mostelse-1!af hlagn rude, services being pr: hcura cM' ' ^^-Wx. 25% Severity • Std Puroose_ • ,inalt?9 da d, y- as. • People njuies_ .estfts it some perry anew,d_ • r;ct significant injury.hospital calls ipt service increases srgniIicattly of ore `r: -_ . . ?'.3 of the population impacted. • Properly-Moderate property damages w ._ less than 50%of critical and non-critical%cities and infrastructure). Critical • Economy- Moderate impact as a result of critical and non-critical facilites and infrastructure impact loss of revenue associated'rah tax base,lost income. • Continuity of government-50%operational capacity,limited delivery of essential services. Services intenwpled for more than 1 week,but c1 month. • Special Purpose astride:Functional downtime 1130.364 days. • People-injuries or*misses result in permanent disability and death to a significant amount of the population exposed to a hazard >50%of the poptdation impacted • Property-Severe property damage>50%of critical facilities and noncritical fealties and infrastructure impacted catastrophic • Economy-Significant impact-loss of buildings/content.inventory,lost revenue.lost income. • Continuity of goverment significantly impacted;limited services provided(Nle safety and mandated measures only) Services disrupted for>than 1 month. • Seca Purpose Disvicts =unchonat Downtime 36.5 days or more Limited Less than 10•,s of area Trisected. Geographit Moderate 10%-24%of area impacted EEowtion bent and 20% Signeicant 25%-49%c area impacted 3 Extensive 50%a more of area impa:- 4 <6 hours Se.1-explanatory 4 Warning Time 6 to 12 hours Se1-exptanatory 3 1 Speed of 10% Onset 12 lo 24 hours Se-tf-explanatory 2 >24 hourf exotaratt^y 1 <6 hours Seri-explanatory 1 c 24 hours Self-explanatory Duration 5=: <1 week Self-explanatory. >1 week Self-explanatory 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 1—Planning-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 partner's completed worksheet is summarized in Chapter 12. An example worksheet is illustrated in Figure 4-2. !!r•'144644,, 1.16•14 (Y,YS•- ...a..n.11./a p►�1 e....w..4 Mw unra. Yr. Irl �•0 ' *f. Nowt t Y m N 11 At Y4 Ilr 411 M M �..+111.1+0(Ara..+ira 141l0 MI SKnn t est IPS . - . - 4 .w • _ r" lyprlr.r..rr ra.r.. . r T ha ay.. .awr. [wn awry w'Wj A 14' a . r.a 1]r w„ Ir_: 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 1—Planning-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 and C for residential construction.10 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 county's 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 to be "catastrophic," 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 County's EOC as the state's alternate EOC. 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's 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 list, and use of the Assessor's database for general building stock. 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 wildfire (addressed within the HMP, but also within the County's CWPP maintained separately). Bridgeview Consulting 4-13 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 in governance is tightly linked to the government's response 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 County and its planning partners' 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 is identified in the Hazus User's Guide. 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 5.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND DEFINITIONS 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 statutory definition of drought(Revised Code of Washington Chapter subsurface water supplies and 43.83B.400).According to state law,an area is in a drought condition generally impacts health, well- when: being, and quality of life. Hydrological Drought— • The water supply for the area is below 75 percent of normal. Deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. • Water uses and users in the area will likely incur undue Socioeconomic Drought— hardships because of the water shortage. Drought impacts on health, 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 precipitation's 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 1—Planning-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 drought's 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 (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 region's 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 state's 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 state's 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 " 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 1—Planning-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 specific to impact to Spokane County; however, the State's 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan 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). ..1 May 20,2019 Drought Declaration Arras 0.row 4624 a .. lrrru M ` ,11.6." iM1 F A- Jr •w! i . yw . 1i 1. �� Legend I ly L,„,„,„, Avail.1.7i ,-,11,,0w1r1 Gill tee.w Wwm„, 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. Palmer Z--Index May, 2019 1/4 04 1 Net•Ortel Centers 8 � Eerrt tar Informason 4041 ihr Lx efiie "+.y14e m tiers% m31e' dtc4I *our drought rarq@ moist mast -2"`. -2119 -1 25 -1.21 .2 53 -3 K. t) to 10 r1 a 74 -1 #:i +0.99 •.i:3 tt Figure 5-2. Palmer Z Index Short-Term Drought Conditions (May 2019) Bridgeview Consulting 5-5 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Palmer Drought severity Index May,2019 .iii 1', fit '1 isimik. w ' Nate:oat Cement ity ,s , ,, Ez.ninmentai IIIIIIIIIIIt_l \., , , IIl „,,.,.,., 0,woe •a.g,e moderate 17; —r,r• *044 WO most Trost wolf NM MN MOM -;. : 1 w .zoo .3.03 400""ml '...--C.: --.:'''.- :rog .2¶09 Figure 5-3. Palmer Drought Severity Index-May 2019 Palmer Hydrological Drought Index Long-Term(Hydrological)Conditions June 2019:through June 15 2019' 1 ' . 111 ,7,"_ a. a -, %Nit A,-/ ili - " ' 11-., ) , rid i.,. 14aw61'ceniers rxx Environmental ..i., •,,, , ; .\ ,---4:, Information `I sat ol month eattmated from nommibi i ererwannocer ael y extremely drought cko7p1 dro ;hr i.age rings' omIst moist M M -1.00 -3.00 -200 -I 9.9 *2X) .3.00 .4.00 and to to to I o 31091 andve below -399 -2 99 .1,99 .2 99 • abo Figure 5-4. Palmer Hydrological Drought Index Long-Term Hydrologic Conditions (June 2019) Bridgeview Consulting 5-6 April 2020 DROUGHT ICs.1- S �► ..0?"`�. "� fit- '2 7' 1'r ^t, l• r'kw ON 111/ q 4 (IC • . jir A - 'fie - Y 1 '.1&-- •110P11 9 P1Rx:•. 4MI ,1'r '' r 519[3 w� --7---'-:::. _7--;: --.'y {11,2_g 30Ns _ F or —0.8 —1.2 25 c4251N 120W 115W 110W I05W 11X7W 05W 9; 05W 8 W 7_.W 7 W Month-1 Forecasts` In Ensemble • CFSv2 ■ OFDL • NASA • NCAR • CMC1 • CMC2 2 Togo In Boundaries• Risers Q Legend Month-2 Forecasts; ■ Ensemble • CFSv2 • GFDL ■ NASA • NCAR M CMC1 ■ CMC2 Month-3 Forecast: ■ Ensemble ■ CFSv2 ■ OFDL ■ NASA ■ NCAR • CMC1 ! CMC2 Figure 5-5. 24-Month Standardized Precipitation Index(June 2018—June 2019) IL.. ..�.n�.•I.Ir,_a,.I„i �I..I,I.1.1!.,II!II!ii! I!.L.!,,,il•. L.:.�i�.i�.n.•t ii..�r.�1�.1'�I�..,�rl.:.n�....,rl�...,�.,i1r, li..�Ld�i ,�,..I,•r•.I. rJi L..,.L�.; ii•..I„I,,.�.��I:�i. I��.�I,i. il��.i .�I,..I� .il�. �9. ;•.lir: .i i.1',.�.�i�. .r� 4. L,u n.Il .cJ•r r .drri mu.,about IMa US prn4551 Monitor DO Abnoirnally Dry "�,I 1 •., .,,,,,.. 1 . .4p1,1iun. 26.6% 70.8% r tirnpr nI t' .. S1.te 1'w-M • •1 i,.rblR war �mslts ..®. • ,I.I Hi 11001 rin 4llYl -ovnr.dF4. Di moderate IL F 4=1'10 .. m^Re 10 crops panurer 33.1% 44.2% lap Irrahr}ItdtpYi 1.v.apo 01%11'1, GI-di. .9 '7i •w•h [dry wete111Ft t1,69I,tui, I re 1.1imi.d D2 Severe Drought 1' ▪ 14.44 0:004 0 1111114.44;1, 111% 11.194 •10,044111041140410100010100 0051.1. 117 IA •WArIi c110rrtl41'I1poied 03 Extreme Drought 14) •1'1.x1. P 11,1040,14.4.40, 0.0% 0.0 .pyul 1 y vrr . Igmnn ,r'are 141 G41 - - e+r,uv 41' 04•Excaptlrinal brought .rrtelnInnaI awl wldelpre.d 0.0% VAP rroplp.Nur.100101 "tel / .Slrn11r5.of water[Oiling meter 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements rata[Soil Moisture Aatror'rraiy Weekly, Month! 11W' i•• `.. led 400 PUP _1000 024 pq . • —s0 I100 x-190140 2d1l25W' 1201W 115W 110.1P 1 544' io.1W '45'W mLW 8.W DOW 7SW 79W Ca Togo IN Ensemble ® MOSAIC • NOAH ■ SAC II %RC G' Boundaries ! Weis Q Legend Notes about this product: Related UMW. • Units are millimeters Imm) • 2-panel Ensemble graphic • Data source:North American Land Data Assimlatioa4 System • 4-panel(MOSAIC,NOAH.SAC.VIC)graphic (NLDAS) . Geo7IFF • Base Periods 1979-2010 Contacts Kingtse Mo(Kinglse.Mognoaa,goy)&LI-Chuan Chen • GeoTIFF Undefined value k59.999E-20 (Gchuan.chenr@Jnoaa.goy) 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 supply—Drought threatens supplies of water for irrigated crops and for communities. • Agricultural—Drought threatens crops that rely on natural precipitation. • Fire hazard—Drought 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 Valley—Rathdrum 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 1—Planning-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 90°F 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 activity to 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Figure 5-8). When applying the State's severity risk index, Spokane County gained a"High"rating based on the State's Drought Risk Index(WA EMD)(see Figure 5-9).12 The State's plan indicates that all census tracts in the County are ranked medium or higher for drought 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. v.. 41230 = � { 10104, f"111:CA eam tott MOrIKom u oe. Modoom-lb' 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 Vor =ID444.4 r. exos -_ Ir ,,.r ‘, CAI =2 .... m ,... ry....� • r.,I at�+F�'. . CC= inn w.ar«rvww I M *AMU 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 area's 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 1—Planning-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 situation on the County's 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 Survey's water use figures for Washington State show that public supply—domestic, commercial, industrial, and thermoelectric generation—uses about one gallon of every eight. Growing counties will find their rate of water use grow as their population grows. Spokane County's 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 1—Planning-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 Government's Ability to Continue Operations X L=Low;ML=Medium-Low; M=Medium;MH=Medium-High;H=High;VH=Very High 5.9 RESULTS Washington State's 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan indicates that all census tracts in the County are ranked 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 6.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND DEFINITIONS Earthquake—The shaking of the 6.1.1 How Earthquakes Happen ground caused by an abrupt shift of An earthquake is the vibration of the earth's surface following rock along a fracture in the earth or a contact zone between tectonic plates. a release of energy in the earth's crust. This energy can be generated by a sudden dislocation of the crust or by a volcanic Epicenter—The point on the earth's eruption. Most destructive quakes are caused by dislocations surface directly above the hypocenter of of the crust.The crust may first bend and then,when the stress an earthquake. Thean earthquake is commonly de descrcr ibed 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 Fault—A fracture in the earth's 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 weakness in the crust. Even if a fault zone has recently Focal Depth—The depth from the experienced an earthquake, there is no guarantee that all the earth's surface to the hypocenter. stress has been relieved.Another earthquake could still occur. Hypocenter—The region underground where an earthquake's energy Earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest have been studied originates extensively.It is generally agreed that three source zones exist Liquefaction—Loosely packed, water- for Pacific Northwest quakes: a shallow (crustal) zone; the logged sediments losing their strength Cascadia Subduction Zone; and a deep, intraplate "Benioff' in response to strong shaking, causing zone.These are shown in Figure 6-1.More than 90 percent of major damage during earthquakes. 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 fault's length and location and its ability to generate damaging ground motion at a given site. In some areas, smaller, local faults produce lower magnitude quakes, but ground shaking can be strong, and damage can be significant as a result of the fault's proximity to the area. In contrast, large regional faults can generate great magnitudes but,because of their distance and depth,may result in only moderate shaking in the area. Bridgeview Consulting 6-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements -.-4,,„b:„..„:._,,,._. . ‘Amt ATc 1aC\ Vancouverc c��v�u ' �VOOAGI.(A scattier • • Pacrfie Juan d --a Crusta! �`' Pete Fuca Plate • earthquakes(900A10), 1872) 1o di.111111" • f•-- I it'ff 7 Deep Subduction zone , earthquakes earthquakes (1700) (1949, 1965, 2001) 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 1.0-3.0 I I.Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions 3.0-3.9 II—III 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. 4.0-4.9 IV—V 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. 5.0-5.9 VI—VII 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. 6.0-6.9 VII—IX 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 higher destroyed with foundations.Rails bent. XI.Few,if any(masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII.Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. Bridgeview Consulting 6-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 Modified Potential Structure Damage Estimated PGAa 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% X—XII Extreme Very Heavy Very Heavy >124% a. PGA measured in percent of g,where g is the acceleration of gravity Sources: USGS, 2008; USGS, 2010 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 1—Planning-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 earth's crust. A shake map shows the extent and variation of ground shaking in a region immediately following significant earthquakes. Ground motion and intensity maps are derived from peak ground motion amplitudes recorded on seismic sensors(accelerometers),with interpolation based on estimated amplitudes where data are lacking,and site amplification corrections. Color-coded instrumental intensity maps are derived from empirical relations between peak ground motions and Modified Mercalli intensity. Two types of shake 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 'I Spokane County c 1 ''`^ w''""elf Hazard Mitigation 1 1 Plan 100-Year Probabilistic ° ;, Earthquake Scanrio i ' M5.5 \* I, H4TUS, v.4.2_3 '` �P e/ ,."" ,,, i` „ i 1::),), „a /: k le OA m' ,*4111" 'r;„' rr r . ,, ,,"" ,# Ground c "Yrs),{,.,_ . w` Accaferotion , r.. fr __ ,', U "•,), � Pool r rArw�,a *` • Sm rrw.Np _ , ,Saar a•iw .. Peen.., m, * akin":. /0. * i Ao c 11 4 E", Iw.7.. I. &. d 1/°// ' G=2:1� «.. a - PGA rogues rot the + 4 44 100-Year ProbaballsPlc i Earthquake Scenario range Doan d o .p�� *� r 2%'3.02.4 grvNiRy a - [f , p ` Ir Pif FilitZUS awe.clw } r. ` ..-1 ! . `,.« V . WC,wqu..•t *4.34.4 OM-+aawan +MOp locator Figure 6-2. Peak Ground Acceleration; 100-Year Probability Event Bridgeview Consulting 6-8 April 2020 EARTHQUAKE -18 Spokane County '� �" ,, ^�• "° Hazard Mitigation I Plan 500-Year Probabilistic , ' Earthquake Scarrfio M5.5tf 1 HAZUS. v.1.2.3 \ ' {. . ip w 1 1 Ar Gloved Accelerallnn t a* oto * * } y, staiMr 5r 4f I -.l ir.4..r 1 C1k.4,d pm* rrivri(!occektrchon i * e /4°52,05**16,kw a M / (421-7.. 5, _, ..L YIN"prolaabt1055 -rrthai tike treacle l l 'cited r Spokane Cu. MI °.A.Sclan lIP❑rofnrs .,alxans we used tar ulnIfl purposas. PGA values for the * 547'0 Year ProbabOJiaf1. 1 Earthquake Scenar C"Or range from b..) ':. 9.52 y4aa1,7Jy rte,. ,p, i 1.4 )..N.( ,. HAZUS • , MCI. LOC Cita( Figure 6-3. Peak Ground Acceleration; 500-Year Probability Event Bridgeview Consulting 6-9 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements T �Trrrir�Y-�I I Spokane County Av Hazard Mitigation w , '' Plan USGS ShakeMap Scenario Spokane M5.5 Earthquake N4 , °` \ , :ffs, r, I9 X • 4 • 5cenc.% E0 Epicenter PGA values for the fsr*Mr rreYt ,= P'n"T`;T" USGS created '.'�* ��-,./ Scenario2� 7 range fro M5.5 fart!► — % from k}•.x.r--- gravity. 'w * �,. P i P i' 2.414,-w � r k' ■ .. 5-T4 ..• .. .•,� F * * rr r n *. �. * '� . r' .,ry, a ,..,a....;.a.., •< �Aa_ y,uF rr Y. M, n w� �u, �" R !9y.` "M'' _ ra f7 n w r oa'cm.CW R 4 t t '. , , t .61.4.6.1.1,6•13, IMop Locator 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, Washington's 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Recent Earthquakes Near Spokane,Washington,United States C,ra+f'qtr 1Jayvuae • 0 calV,i.a*Ms n,u,e oust 7 a+n ..•.-a.w.r ..r....i �i w..,...rtca. I eartnjyaie n ene oast 3b days t�a.Ihp'arri n Mx c.a%t 765 nava torhod Foto By1,14014166 Newby Mice& "'_„"d '" `,.P•••:%'y y':-'." _ _ far Fadi os 0,-F07 I.� fMl$EdPk.,Leh x PIURTO orF,w,, er111, •n dept F >�t n 9 rraxt FMlr� rt'oda*"0.0*911 id�1r"-+T �Ym, 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- reve al-potential-quake-hazard-spokane-area Bridgeview Consulting 6-13 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 g's (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 , \ ( , 9-/I ' , I , . 1. Q ,...... ,....„,,,,,, Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan D.P. fait Nation& Earthquake Hazards \* d, Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soils & Earthquake Faults \ p It WA-DNR. 2001: 2017 1 r t'''' 1 . d * ,, • ,,, , ,--- forthquake WA 41.oR 7.FF F 7 , o' _ „"---— ------7—'''--- * PPI:P / — ',...,..,. -Sr.,.. 70,nD A Ali, Nahona;forthquake ho z or cts Redu c f i or 'ClKocrs44: \ Pr ogra at MEN RP) / 4,4 d *Z7Uriti •d 0.* Soils ClossIfic ration I 4 te, * ' j i * 4' .4- L . =11 orl° • El C i 0,de * ,4 rwira.•wqr. I '• . • . .-' t •-• . • ' , o ..-- ea•--n a nm-r.e 04...ma a I oP.al Mop tocater Figure 6-6. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Soil Site Classes Bridgeview Consulting 6-15 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 11 r Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Liquefaction Susceptibility WA-DNR. 200 1 ^ m « e" marrow -411111610* Lig etacHan ubwhe lar nit SarsccpdrbAity as a w OVA 04.1 :70., ht .,ar ; l Sa+.atrptgw a Y1491, n 4 A*.ael'ate Ac] • r,J*lu eac•urtxr. Ver y LLr+v kr luw Met 11.a.e 601 111 Bedrock r,wN'l.l:inwn/e AIM R LanAmi* �w+l '*.e.••1 Mrrgea LC4wKa4wkM date lw[*aFTWa7 trY aaMa M`0en1 F*ree CMnJr'•'f'T'•+Tr+A 1l' HafLrrrlllm.•41:r1 L"ihxilaah IaK ___a Na..4 Oo.M an:ru^Acar 17.9.70 1 Ne tre.,ye+1wr^erd ar . utic.O m ar I II'1E41iMa IZIM▪ .del p,TrtJ /'!CI VW hade*.w.a Not aa.4 w1 W'wwKa+Ar e A.A it IIA 11,14',00,114r ItNat.any 11K1[4*4.6 r101t.1a Me Anat. -• 41•40,1cvrw.olt 000'410 d',ran s. w e an 1w ae421,X4 ca a»m • cowl. '„iac.e 000:1,0111011,0 Iris,*Vero*am*er WeAutrk. avuyl. meet ewmark,iclp tier OOariu�Trw• coc aKu]K Figure 6-7. Liquefaction Susceptibility Bridgeview Consulting 6-16 April 2020 EARTHQUAKE ,, y t. s *44 I— . N." 414' — -—1 1 , II 1 ! — ' d - W. ry 4 di21.11014 rry M r,lpgl 5 -` - DIY _- u } • Oil x:1wMrM1w YY --..,. i - 41 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 0,4 12.1 w■ ^4! ,-_ - VJ • 8 VY 0 O V8 UHQ i •I \ _ °,) - -- 0 48"N Gd� .N` '� ,� �� 48 N — 40 S. III 1:' pokando - 20 ti 18 ,. i * OLYM s I 14 r --' �i 12 1 — 10 S 48°N 46'N 6 n ` 2 .0 0 'IN :_ �q�0,) _1 IN VY 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 earth's crust.As newly freed crust returns to its original,pre-glacier shape,it could cause seismic plates to slip and stimulate volcanic activity according to research into prehistoric earthquakes and volcanic activity. NASA and USGS scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern Alaska may be opening the way for future earthquakes(NASA,2004). Secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. Soils saturated by repetitive storms could experience liquefaction 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 1—Planning-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 from earthquakes(March 2019 Bozarth interview with KREM2 TV).16 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: haps://www.krem.com/artic le/tech/science/environment/more-than-850-buildings-in-Spokane-co-could-b e-unstab le- 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 Pre-1972 90,082 No explicit earthquake requirements in building codes. State law did not require local governments to have building officials or issue building permits. 1972-1994 51,329 UBC seismic construction standards adopted in Washington in 1972. 1994-2004 47,418 Seismic risk Zone 3 standards of the UBC went into effect in Washington in 1994 2004-present >29,000 Washington upgraded the building code to follow International Building Code Standards in 2004 Due to descriptions within the assessor's database,these numbers are estimates only and are not inclusive of all types of structures. The Assessor's database contains a category named"Other"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 1-Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 6-8. Earthquake Building Loss Potential-Probabilistic* Estimated Earthquake Loss Value 100-Year Probabilistic Earthquake 500-Year Probabilistic Earthquake Jurisdiction Structural Non-Structural Total Structural Non-Structural Total Airway Heights $95,540 $7,201 $102,741 $1,236,014 $300,714 $1,536,728 Cheney $165,704 $20,690 $186,394 $2,148,836 $694,975 $2,843,811 Deer Park $52,774 $5,043 $57,817 $754,163 $218,704 $972,866 Fairfield $1,806 $448 $2,254 $20,579 $6,461 $27,039 Latah $934 $232 $1,166 $10,648 $3,343 $13,991 Liberty Lake $416,047 $106,586 $522,633 $5,623,903 $1,931,706 $7,555,608 Medical Lake $9,799 $769 $10,568 $157,013 $41,125 $198,137 Millwood $40,988 $6,367 $47,355 $694,953 $248,392 $943,345 Rockford $1,946 $483 $2,429 $22,177 $6,963 $29,139 Spangle $1,025 $255 $1,280 $11,687 $3,669 $15,356 Spokane $4,818,546 $531,584 $5,350,130 $69,574,102 $20,423,752 $89,997,855 Spokane Valley $2,339,761 $227,938 $2,567,699 $32,758,742 $9,668,369 $42,427,112 Waverly $1,199 $298 $1,496 $13,660 $4,289 $17,948 Unincorporated $8,337,242 $1,523,494 $9,860,736.00 $110,575,963 $33,748,414 $144,713,977 Total $16,283,311 $2,431,388 $18,714,698 $223,602,440 $67,300,876 $291,292,912 *(Spokane County 2015 HMP) Damaae Catenaries by General Occupancy Type 12.000 10,000 8,000 8:000 W Complete ' Extensive 1G:V Moderate 2.000 o ,`® - I a ' Cr � 04' q. 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 1-Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 6-10. Critical Facility Vulnerability to 100-Year Earthquake Event Moderate Extensive Complete Category No 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 #of Critical Probability of Being Fully Functional(%) 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 Earthquake Losses by Occupancy Type ($ m ill ians) 280 240 IN Single Family :0C — 180 - Other Residential • Commercial 120 ▪ Industrial ▪ Others U Figure 6-11. Hazus Estimated Dollar Losses by Occupancy Type Spokane M5.5 ShakeMap (2019) Earthquake Losses by Loss Type ($ millions) • Capital-Related 1% Content 33% Inventory1°I° �NlllI° Non _Structural 55% Rlocation 2% Rental 2% Structural 5% W age 1% ��yyuuu;,ggqqqll�qq�y ai i��pp�iti��sio��ai ium 'y. Total. 100% 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 1—Planning-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 data set would significantly enhance the partnership's ability to assess 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 percent of the planning area's building stock was built prior to 1972, when seismic provisions became uniformly applied through building code applications. • Critical facility owners should be encouraged to create or enhance Continuity of Operations Plans using the information on risk and vulnerability contained in this plan. • Geotechnical standards should be established that take into account the probable impacts from earthquakes in the design and construction of new or enhanced facilities. • Earthquakes could trigger other natural hazard events such as dam failures and landslides, which could severely impact the 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 1—Planning-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 Government's Ability to Continue Operations 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 Dam—Any 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 or develop quickly,with disastrous effects that can be water. (Washington Administrative Code, local (impacting a neighborhood or community) or Title 173, Chapter 175.) regional (affecting entire river basins, coastlines and Dam Failure—An uncontrolled release of multiple counties or states) (FEMA, 2010). Most impounded water due to structural communities in the U.S. have experienced some kind deficiencies in dam. of flooding, after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, Flood—The inundation of normally dry land coastal storms, or winter snow thaws. Floods are one resulting from the rising and overflowing of a of the most frequent and costly natural hazards in body of water. terms of human hardship and economic loss, Floodplain—The 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 Floodplain—The 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 dam failure inundation data. This information was not can occur more than once in a short period made available to this planning process for security of time. The 1-percent annual chance flood purposes is the standard used by most federal and state agencies. 7.1.1 Flood Return Period—The average number of years between occurrences of a hazard Flooding is a general and temporary condition of (equal to the inverse of the annual likelihood partial or complete inundation on normally dry land of occurrence). from the following: Riparian Zone—The area along the banks of a natural watercourse. • Riverine flooding, including overflow from a High Hazard Dam—Dams 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 Dam—Dams 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 • Coastal erosion; could be located in areas with population and 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 1—Planning-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 stream's 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 1—Planning-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, 2010, which is also the County's DFIRM (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. The County's flood ordinance also requires 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 on Spokane County's program is available at 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 1—Planning-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 nation's 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 FEMA's list of repetitive loss structures because no flood insurance policy was in force at the time of loss. FEMA's 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." 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 Properties that 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 Darn 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 1—Planning-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 Ecology's 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 agency's capabilities,practices and regulations regarding design, construction, operation and maintenance of the dams; and developed guidelines for inspection and evaluation of dam safety(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dam Safety Program The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) cooperates with a large number of federal and state agencies to ensure and promote dam safety. 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 49,000 cfs. 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 d'Alene 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements on the lower Spokane River are reduced by the large storage volume normally available in Coeur d'Alene 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 Date Declaration# Type of event Estimated Damagea 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 Date Declaration# Type of event Estimated Damagea 11/12/2015 4249 Severe Storms, Straight-Line Winds,Flooding N/A 6/1/2011 -- Flooding $200,OOOa 5/19/2008 -- Flooding $1,000,000a 3-2-1999 -- Flooding $700,000a 3/18/1997 DR-1172 Storms/Flooding/Landslides/Mudslides N/A 1/17/1997 DR-1159 Severe Winter Storms/Flooding 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 1963—Flooding occurred in the counties of Columbia, Garfield, Grant, Whitman, and Spokane. Federal disaster number 146 was assigned for the event. • February 1996—Heavy 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 1997—Rain,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 1—Planning-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 stream's 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 community's flood threat is the length of time floodwaters remain above flood stage. Bridgeview Consulting 7-12 April 2020 FLOOD AND DAM FAILURE ..) ' 1 A';...4._..„. . :) ,Arrhk-VL.1 , Spokane County Hazard Mitigation , t ,, ,, , . Plan 0•4O ,fob * Hood Hazard Areas ,, FEMA 2(119 1 , , , 00 •, ,..., , ‘ 1.40.0.341< , .d LOW I ",:d * to IR Air OY . SPOk "11141 IV, ;trrl.•., VOW , . ........—,-, .... ‘,,,_ C7a22a 1 Hood Hazard IV 0 Areas ff.A4A 2(79 * , A OZECCZ GICAM • Eire A ,_,,,,,, e iF ,k sad event ons.v.m.'Om* •zone AE i 1E #Zone AE rXtfp ,,'r , •Zone AO , 1,6)-2,/37r,Joi '-kLi ''' Honed Areas • •Zone X C?) , / rI MOW,"OAKA.1t t— ilielp Lott:liar N ' . ' AA `, ' . . 1 11142.opium*a,*volv, Figure 7-1. FEMA DFIRM Flood Hazard Areas April 2020 Bridgeview Consulting 7-13 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements iµ 'it'C° :milu 4.11,01.11 ct,w 144440.1414m% V # - El M.4, aar J" A .r try ae+na W L Figure 7-2. Frequency of Major Flooding in Washington by County USGS 12424000 HANGMAN CREEK AT SPOKANE, HA 399 c 280 E 260 N 240 a229 �ry., � .0 200 189 169 140 as 120 •.i I= 199 Apr May May May May May May May 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 2019 2919 2019 2919 2019 2019 2019 2019 ---- Provisional Data Subject to Revision ---- Median daily statistic (71 years) — Estinated discharge — Discharge Graph courtesy oP the U.S. Geological Survey 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/Location 10-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/Location 10-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 At Hawthorne Road 138 a 249 a 293 a 349 a 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 Little Spokane River Near Mouth 2,366 b 3,491 b 3,884 b 5,009 b 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 1—Planning-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 area's 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 Spokane s Water Department, these "" facilities are operated by Avista Utilities. Of these dams, the Post Falls Dam located downstream from the outlet of Lake Coeur d'Alene has the greatest ►vs� 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 d'Alene 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 7-6. Dams in Spokane County Crest Surface Drainage National Year Dam Length Height Area area Hazard Name ID# Water Course Owner Built Typea (feet) (feet) (acres) (sq.mi.) Classb 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 "notable" failures 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 facility.18 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 today's 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: • lA= 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 dam's structural type also affects warning time.Earthen dams do not tend to fail completely or instantaneously. Once a breach is initiated,discharging water erodes the breach until either the reservoir water is depleted or the breach resists further erosion. Concrete gravity dams also tend to have a partial breach as one or more monolith sections are forced apart by escaping water. The time of breach formation ranges from a few minutes to a few hours (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). 18 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrdocs/WaterRights/wrwebpdf/damfailure-ws.pdf Bridgeview Consulting 7-19 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 Categorya Direct Loss of Lifeb Lifeline Lossesc Property Lossesd Lossese Low None(rural location,no No disruption of Private agricultural Minimal incremental permanent structures for services(cosmetic or lands,equipment,and damage human habitation) rapidly repairable isolated buildings damage) Significant Rural location,only transient Disruption of essential Major public and Major mitigation or day-use facilities facilities and access private facilities required High Certain(one or more) Disruption of essential Extensive public and Extensive mitigation extensive residential, facilities and access private facilities cost or impossible to commercial,or industrial mitigate development a. Categories are assigned to overall projects,not individual structures at a project. b. Loss of life potential based on inundation mapping of area downstream of the project.Analyses of loss of life potential should take into account the population at risk,time of flood wave travel,and warning time. c. Indirect threats to life caused by the interruption of lifeline services due to project failure or operational disruption;for example,loss of critical medical facilities or access to them. d. Damage to project facilities and downstream property and indirect impact due to loss of project services, such as impact due to loss of a dam and navigation pool,or impact due to loss of water or power supply. e. Environmental impact downstream caused by the incremental flood wave produced by the project failure, beyond what would normally be expected for the magnitude flood event under which the failure occurs. Source: U.S.Army Corps ofEngineers, 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 nation's dams. Dams are designed partly based on assumptions about a river's flow behavior,expressed as hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. 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. The County's Critical Facilities list 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 1—Planning-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 tip ' ti o •� � - .= . w N h U a ooh s o N h U a °0z c,, � � Airway Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cheney 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fairfield 0 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah 0 0 0 0 1 2 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 0 0 Millwood 1 0 0 0 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockford 0 1 0 0 8 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spangle 0 0 0 0 11 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane 1 1 3 0 40 192 95 9 18 0 1450 4,994 Spokane Valley 15 0 0 0 138 481 5 2 0 0 333 882 Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 5 0 1 3 644 1,645 18 0 0 0 157 556 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 Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain (Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Other* Total Airway Heights 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cheney 28.40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Deer Park 4.34 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Fairfield 31.44 4 9 0 7 0 0 0 2 22 Latah 21.38 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 Liberty Lake 31.71 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Medical Lake 22.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Millwood 8.83 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Rockford 71.19 9 19 0 0 0 5 0 0 33 Spangle 28.82 11 4 0 5 0 1 0 0 21 Spokane 1,040.23 45 24 1 1 0 52 2 7 132 Spokane Valley 619.66 153 4 1 0 1 6 1 1 167 Waverly 14.45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Unincorporated 27,352.47 653 36 2 210 5 39 1 13 959 Total 29,275.7 880 99 4 225 6 103 4 26 1,347 *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 Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain (Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Other Total Airway Heights 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cheney 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer Park 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fairfield 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bridgeview Consulting 7-23 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 7-10. Area and Structures Within the 500-Year Floodplain Area in Floodplain Number of Structures in Floodplain (Acres) Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Religion Government Education Other Total Medical Lake 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Millwood 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockford 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spangle 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane 865.18 1,572 103 1 0 5 39 3 6 1,729 Spokane Valley 206.69 340 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 351 Waverly 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 1,169.97 175 1 0 4 0 2 0 3 185 Total 2,241.84 2,087 114 1 4 5 41 4 9 2,265 Table 7-11. Value of Exposed Buildings Within the 100-Year Floodplain Estimated Flood Exposure Percent of Total Structure Contents Total Assessed Value Airway Heights $0 $0 $0 0.00% Cheney $137,210 $68,605 $205,815 0.00% Deer Park $57,930 $28,965 $86,895 0.00% Fairfield $3,212,900 $1,606,450 $4,819,350 0.01% Latah $241,610 $120,805 $362,415 0.00% Liberty Lake $5,133,670 $2,566,835 $7,700,505 0.01% Medical Lake $0 $0 $0 0.00% Millwood $1,309,990 $654,995 $1,964,985 0.00% Rockford $2,845,580 $1,422,790 $4,268,370 0.01% Spangle $1,667,290 $833,645 $2,500,935 0.00% Spokane $61,186,600 $30,593,300 $91,779,900 0.12% Spokane Valley $34,374,380 $17,187,190 $51,561,570 0.07% Waverly $66,980 $33,490 $100,470 0.00% Unincorporated $253,173,695 $126,586,848 $379,760,543 0.50% Total $363,407,835 $181,703,918 $545,111,753 0.72% *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 Structure Contents Total Assessed Value Airway Heights $0 $0 $0 0.00% Cheney $0 $0 $0 0.00% Deer Park $0 $0 $0 0.00% Fairfield $0 $0 $0 0.00% Latah $0 $0 $0 0.00% Liberty Lake $0 $0 $0 0.00% Medical Lake $0 $0 $0 0.00% Millwood $0 $0 $0 0.00% Rockford $0 $0 $0 0.00% Spangle $0 $0 $0 0.00% Spokane $401,245,380 $200,622,690 $601,868,070 0.79% Spokane Valley $65,204,780 $32,602,390 $97,807,170 0.13% Waverly $0 $0 $0 0.00% Unincorporated $41,934,890 $20,967,445 $62,902,335 0.08% Total $508,385,050 $254,192,525 $762,577,575 1.00% *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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 7-13. Critical Facilities in the 100-Year Floodplain Medical and Government Hazardous Jurisdiction Health Services Function Protective Materials Schools Other Total 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 1 0 0 0 1 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 1 0 0 0 1 Spangle 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Spokane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Waverly 0 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 Jurisdiction Bridges* Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other** Total 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 1 0 0 0 1 Spangle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane 8 0 0 0 0 3 11 Spokane Valley 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 15 0 0 0 0 9 24 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 Jurisdiction Health Services Function Protective Materials Schools Other Total 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 0 Spokane 0 0 1 2 2 0 5 Spokane Valley 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 2 3 4 0 9 Table 7-16. Critical Infrastructure in the 500-Year Floodplain Water Jurisdiction Bridges* Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other** Total 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 0 Spokane 2 0 0 1 0 0 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 7-16. Critical Infrastructure in the 500-Year Floodplain Water Jurisdiction Bridges* Supply Wastewater Power Communications Other** Total *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. Much of the County's 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 in the 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 1—Planning-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 jurisdiction's 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 7-17. Consequence Analysis L ML M MH H VH Economic Consequences X Environmental Impact X Government's Ability to Continue Operations 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 the probability 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. Landslide—The 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, develop in the soil overlying bedrock on sloping surfaces when water such as weight or saturation, rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall or acting upon them. rapid snowmelt. Water pressure in the pore spaces of the material increases to the point that the internal strength of the soil is drastically Mass Movement—A weakened.The soil's reduced resistance can then easily be overcome collective term for landslides, by gravity,changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or"slurry." sflows, falls and sinkhnkholes. 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 hydraulic force of water due to the mass of material included in them. water. 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: • A slope greater than 30 percent as identified in Spokane County's Critical Areas Ordinance19 • 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?bidld= Bridgeview Consulting 8-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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. Large blocks of earth shift when tsi. A thin layer of soil and debris moves groundwater levels rise, rapidly down a steep slope. XI:,- . J orirod.IIIIIr /wr.. 111( Figure 8-1. Deep Seated Slide Figure 8-2. Shallow Colluvial Slide Mid-slope benches typicatly t"r" I - 1I A large slide cots deep into the d` indicate slide prone areas, slope.depositing tons a 5011 and k -- -- debris at the base. F, t e e i e r 1f I ■1i1 r ■ 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 move—in response to such changes as increased water content, earthquake shaking, addition of load, or removal of downslope support—they deform and tilt the ground surface. The result can be destruction of foundations, offset of roads, breaking of underground pipes, or overriding of downslope property and structures. 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 SYSTEMATIC LANDSLIDE HAZARD MAPS integral part of land management and regulation in Washington through the Landslide Hazard Zonation Project , Watershed Analyses I WA) prepared by the Forest Practices Division Mass Wasting{Module of the Washington Department of • 54 projects,1994 2002 Natural Resources. Permanent rules . Landslide Hazard Zonatnan adopted by the Washington Forest (LK) Practices Board in 2001 address • 63 projects, 2003.2009 landslide hazards from specific • Forested watersheds only landforms across the state (WAC 222- 823 watershed(WAU%a,754 16-050 (1)(d)). This methodology was are forested Wai developed to provide standardized C `�`'LHZYn° 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 Depaitnient 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 identification and the County's Critical Areas Ordinance. 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 1960—on 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 1—Planning-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 , ( — - i.,- r„r 1,,,..,,,, , .' 'J Spokane County o Hazard Mitigation ,.na ,;:: , ^ A AO Plan ° '' Historic Landslide Areas * .t. .',+ 0 8 Steep Slopes \ >t 1 WA-DNR 20 i 9 + Ili a '1- USGS. '/J Arc' O E M , ,,,,,,,o,- ?lop „„ r le lev ,i,,4 0.4) 11/#4:%,j A ^ , 1 AMnv rfy * LIC. . Mm.;ham * La I.' r' tandside r. Compilation Areas 0I YIfA.t%A1'R.2p lc ' n •` ,r I f I31,1 ir+'i * 'I' Steep Slopes GruZi r ,d U5G 'r3 we DOW • 9 Ir Notiar+al'I ortq r.oh a inati '""" "PxvrUS Modycrlas7 Ragram(Nf MRM} 1 ,'" A ry Soils CYasiiticniran 1\)1/4.N1 '1): , mizr: I' it, a li - t oqf x i r.Rr+ Ainp LoCnror Figure 8-5. Landslide Probability Bridgeview Consulting 8-5 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 intersecting within a 100' 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 County's population of retirees may increase the level of first- 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 1—Planning-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 *For these planning purposes, risk area is identified through application of a 100'buffer applied to the County's defined steep 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,based on the County's Critical Areas Ordinance,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. Applying the principle of a 100' buffer to the 30 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% *For these planning purposes,risk area is identified through application of a 100'buffer applied to the County's defined steep slope of 30%and above,and areas identified within WADNR mapped historic landslides. **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* Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 8.5.4 Impact on Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Applying the 100' buffer, Table 8-5 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements -07 ier, e(lig* 1 - 1 Spokane County ' • Hazard Mitigation Plan Historic Landslide Areas T, .. • & Steep Slopes with Critic a, ;- iities & - Critical inflistruc wire . • • . ..., . . • • . • ' Landslide • 0 D Compilation Areas • • D 0, . • Yr A Dri ;or* • 40 • • 1 i,1,-7- • g.. 4-0 , e . *. • ,,,• • , o 'N •• •^ •• 447,• * v • • 0. : L . o .....• to . . . • • .... . .„..,_. .i. . ., • ;•.... • ...; • . . . • • • •-., • • --• ••0 4,6 • • , . • • • .4? '' • • * -•• • .. . Steep Slopes • ••,... . * ..t, t•• •• ,... .. a ' ..•„:• g4, ''', s• it• 49i. I ,, USGS '1,Ate DEM 4919109 0 0 * • *• * • •," e •• 0, • 0 • • I 0, Da P or h 9 • .2 1•4*••r • •• / Or r ' • • a • de • • •.....* . • • Na4Fonai k nah p.yoke r 0 S.r • HO'FOral R ryluc nom • * • • Program iNe*f RP) • • .• • Sok efalsifir ey1ion 4 OA CNN 7 X11 . it.• 1 IP '' ' A 6991e 9,1 106, 40 • .e , • • • 6 , 6.. ,:s r • •.. t...... ' i•w...ro.4ar Pi 99,.9, .,=. '14909,Oil v.go.,,,,e9,19 oti • • • .1,3.,,,.•"ff.•,I.A• *,h,—* Colticol Podlliti to • -itca,'Sall • •tsnrai.. 9 19,..-.9. ,, ..,, , 1 *• 0 • • Lrit,.:ol 199..,•,ly 6 0 CrilircItrd,CiLir9 • ',',' -^19 • • 9 ,:,,,,' t , late, , , , .„ , . 1 Ti .., .. . . _ a , , ,,. . , . , .40,„...,,,,... .,........ ..p ...c...., 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 only limit the resources available for citizens' use,but also would cause economic impact on businesses in 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 1—Planning-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 Government's Ability to Continue Operations 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 reported to have occurred as a result of a landslide event, but when the 100' buffer is applied,there are a fair number of residential structures whose access could be impacted. The County's 30 percent slope 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 1—Planning-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 9.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND DEFINITIONS Severe weather refers to any dangerous meteorological Freezing Rain—The result of rain occurring phenomena with the potential to cause damage,serious social when the temperature is below the freezing 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 classified as general severe weather; those with a more power and telephone lines and limited geographic area are classified as localized severe transportation routes. weather. Severe weather, technically, is different from extreme weather, which refers to unusual weather events are Severe Local Storm—"Microscale" at the extremes of the historical distribution for a given area. atmospheric systems, including tornadoes, thunderstorms, windstorms, ice storms and snowstorms. These storms may cause a 9.1.1 Damaging Winds great deal of destruction and even death, Damaging winds are classified as those exceeding 60 mph. but their impact is generally confined to a Damage from such winds accounts for half of all severe small area. Typical impactsare on 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 Thunderstorm—A 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 • Straight-line winds—Any thunderstorm wind that is not tornadoes are also dangers associated with associated with rotation; this term is used mainly to thunderstorms. Lightning is a serious threat differentiate from tornado winds. Most thunderstorms to human life. Heavy rains over a small area produce some straight-line winds as a result of outflow in a short time can lead to flash flooding. generated by the thunderstorm downdraft. Tornado—Funnel clouds that generate Downdrafts—A small-scale column of air that rapidly winds up to 500 miles per hour. They can • 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 FO to F5. Downburst winds may begin as a microburst and spread out over a wider area, sometimes producing damage Windstorm—A storm featuring violent similar to a strong tornado. Although usually associated winds. Southwesterly winds are associated with thunderstorms, downbursts can occur with showers with strong storms moving onto the coast too weak to produce thunder. from the Pacific Ocean. Southern winds 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 Storm—A storm having significant maximum wind speeds up to 168 mph. There are two snowfall, ice, and/or freezing rain; the kinds of microbursts: wet and dry. A wet microburst is quantity of precipitation varies by elevation. Bridgeview Consulting 9-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 tornado's vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths can be up to 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. 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. Fujita Scale EF•0 65-85 mph winds �_ EF-1 86-110 mph S ig EF-2 111-135 mph EF-3 EF-4 Intense EF-3 X200 mph Figure 9-1. Tornado Ratings Bridgeview Consulting 9-2 April 2020 SEVERE WEATHER - ,. Mi• - rf>td" �` � �.. ^Y s M lt- i ‘ . `^ ''► `;,stir , . k .,P- .- a ? A n+rw.nw '1 .,. °,i* .r, �•' ^^. t=.Yom'" I ,,.. Y, w te.„ ....„.. .r e, , r tett ,. .„.....„ ,. kr„. Ak ski-,40° r , Managing Damage Risk Color Code Description of Damage The Threat to Some damage Gan be seen to pearly _ Property and maintained roofs.Unsecured right-we :I , _ Personal Safe Can Safety eb}eCts,such as trash Corns,are displaces Be Minimized 4A ^, 'Through ComplianceMinor damage to roofs and broken window - I i With Up•To•Date Model Building Codes occur,Larger and heavier objects become - and Engineering displaced.Miner damage to trees and .--,. Standards landscaping can be observerl. Property andRoo:. damaged. ncludtnq true toss of shingles and soma Personal Protection 1 I 1,I-•' i nonpermanent foundations Can Be Improved c i lives and Through Wind lurid:.;. , I ti❑wm Hoxard Mitigation over V. I;• .I ,mos = _--. Techniques Not nrrbr., .l tin t;: I • ,Inac:tt res. Normally Required '-':,. n by Current Building , . Or.. rr Codes ( Roots endsD mo w,ll scally unrelnforcoc I I` JI masonry.are torn}roll •t,ctures.Small ancillary Coatings are ellen destroyed. Manufactured berries on nonpermanent " fount/alerts Can be overturned.Some trees are uprooted. Personal Protection Welt constructed homes,as well as manufactured homes,are Can OnlyBe. destroyed.and some structures are Idled off their foundations, AchieveThrough Automobile-woe debris is displaced and Use of a Specially often tumbles.Trees are often uprooted — Designed Extreme and blown over. Wind Refuge Area, Shelter,or seta Room -Sing frame douses and engineered . buildings are lifted from their foundations or are signilrcantly damaged or destroyed. ": T Automobile-sized debris is moved significant •tet "` --- distances.Trees are uprooted and splintered Figure 9-2. Potential Impact and Damage from a Tornado Bridgeview Consulting 9-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 1 I F v t } , I % — ,5 '�'. L r ~--1r . .-. r,4 r_.I _ ‘. _O 11) (2-_—__. +I J . r�-_ =.r , _ I r 1f r 1--4. III P , I 'fF r— ' ---) f .,t5- 1----,-----r-,,, '.... Highest . ( .F; --------r-1. `R. ti = High Figure 9-3. Tornado Risk Areas in the United States • Tornado Risk Map ._ _ � i-., == - a 1 ..�. ,a • I . I „(::— • - •r-,— -1 p .'* 61r .•ria• ' 0114 _. • c..s f .. ALASKA �, i I C,N L I �sr.,. wp�y�, zot4t,It 4 II_ .v OTH R CIras ONSIDERATIONS ZONE III gni void ppVcXi td., i I, ....„..i.,..,Jscccr�+a H.9v.i r ZONE IV MIIIIIIIIIIII InHAIMAIICM IV., .Peycyr'.'.•rq yp.nnc r3 uw:v+n Uu4Ti rcr Ate°tf wit ASCE 1411 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 Air—Below-freezing temperatures in the clouds and near the ground are necessary to make snow and/or ice. • Moisture—Moisture is required in order to form clouds and precipitation. Air blowing across a body of water, such as a large lake or the ocean,is an excellent source of moisture. • Lift—Lift is required in order to raise the moist air to form the clouds and cause precipitation. An example of lift is warm air colliding with cold air and being forced to rise over the cold dome.The boundary between the warm and cold air masses is called a front. Another example of lift is air flowing up a mountain side. 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 region's 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 1—Planning-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 city's residents lost electricity—their 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): • The developing stage of a thunderstorm is marked by a cumulus cloud that is being pushed upward by a rising column of air(updraft). The cumulus cloud soon looks like a tower(called towering cumulus) as the updraft continues to develop. There is little to no rain during this stage but occasional lightning. The developing stage lasts about 10 minutes. • The thunderstorm enters the mature stage when the updraft continues to feed the storm, but precipitation begins to fall out of the storm, and a downdraft begins (a column of air pushing downward). When the downdraft and rain-cooled air spread out along the ground,they form a gust front, or a line of gusty winds. The mature stage is the most likely time for hail, heavy rain, frequent lightning, strong winds, and tornadoes. The storm occasionally has a black or dark green appearance. Bridgeview Consulting 9-6 April 2020 SEVERE WEATHER • Eventually, a large amount of precipitation is produced and the updraft is overcome by the downdraft beginning the dissipating stage. At the ground, the gust front moves out a long distance from the storm and cuts off the warm moist air that was feeding the thunderstorm. Rainfall decreases in intensity,but lightning remains a danger. 12 0ti 10 o -20 rq � 10 2 / � yi r g r-- km - 8-16 km 0.—841 ku -4 Developing St,, i.., lr^,:tore Stage Dissipating Stage 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 1—Planning-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 Not Declared. homes destroyed from fire-- 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 thunderstorm's wind.In Lincoln county, the severe wind caused numerous power outages and some downed trees 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/tomado/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 9th. 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 DR 4249 Landslide and Cheney— of which$2m was for damaged 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 1—Planning-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 aroundffty thousand dollars due to the severe thunderstorm's wind.In Lincoln county, the severe wind caused numerous power outages and some downed 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 FI tornado touched down and pulled up numerous times as it traveledfrom 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 state. The ice storm on Nov. 19, 1996 ranks as Avista Utilities'second-worst outage event with connections cut to 100,000 plus homes and businesses. 11/28/1993 Ice Storm 0 $500,000 Description:Data from SHELDUS,No narrative available. Bridgeview Consulting 9-10 April 2020 SEVERE WEATHER Tornadoes in Washington state There were 123 tornadoes in Vr , l',,,f'r.rrtl 1'35;1 tii 2U l Non]] , end magnitude b county:. MAGNITUDE O TORNADO 1 SANTA" OKANOGAN srFVFNs PP. Fin FJLRRY ORI . 0 4ale I5iAN0 r „\if 4 r + „,,,77,,,,.,,, rw"r kttly , A r ra Alt illik , , 1 Vea +A,, . d" � � , Cix', IN �S.k ml4 . " 1 , iv SPOKANE Ole i 0\\A 4„&? it,..„..,,;, 11)Ne.IS tornado* ,i \,ff,-4, r,,, 1 R Re 4 14 GRAY', ,.imA I • NAR@OF: Jtr:,FSJON PQRU r+,:,. A M$ "'Tr .-P::, NOTE Wk tun gton PPC Prig has not had anffi trwt5 rRANLLIN UMW G' ib/ENI or tSiEr5 event tepotted rCUW111i r,. YARJrNA BFNrtRS (W'AHKfAXUM " ' 0 4I.01Ah •AMr�nrtu Ir of tome& net yet Ortrrrnrnrd I�� 7��I��»�1 ��1111111, WALLA [ARA rr PA';K %r WAdtA a Of r?A481.1 Sewties.NOAA. ar1972 Wilma!WrurP+r.Srryrcr 'rNui ed MANE NOWLIN/THE 5EAT1Lk TIMES Figure 9-6. Tornado History in Washington 1950-2018 Source: NOAA National Weather Service as cited in the Seattle Times2l ✓ . r 40 A.-1*.• ..fir�'.! ' ''y 1 i ..e,4ft. ......, ..... Figure 9-7. November 2015 Windstorm Damage to Spokane County Resident Source: Spokesman-Review.22 21 https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/weather/tomado-touches-down-on-kitsap-peninsula-rips-roof-off-home-weather- service-says/ 22 Cohn 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 9.2.3 Frequency -41 '1" The severe weather events for Spokane County shown in Table 9-1 are4101• often related to high winds associated with winter storms and t, ,t thunderstorms. The planning area can expect to experience exposure to 4 j some type of severe weather event at least annually. According to theApt t • Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013) Spokane County has a winter storm recurrence rate of 125 percent, which means r 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 states.23 Since 1950, Spokane has experienced 13 tornadoes. '3 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 County's 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 EFO or EF1,with less than 1 percent reading an EF4 or stronger.25 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://wwwl.wsrb.com/blog/tornadoes-in-washington-how-common-are-they Bridgeview Consulting 9-12 April 2020 SEVERE WEATHER 140 1004044 1 11000 ler 20N SIC Yae1imam,(7W0nto' ........ 170 430-xwrAmago 000470111 1MI 100 i7 >01 00 71 tiR 57 SO 11 10 40 g *ILF A rkmoll 1111nOw 1w..r. N..now= N.r W11110 C.W WWI a1.ci..r. 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements , (b) Precipitation o ► Less precipitation 'revious a ''' climate More ›. heavy .c New precipitation AI climate , Cliiiim _ Light. Average Fleav y cc ! ' Temperature c 7— . T f \ More S Previous . \4A mmmm.� ;.a r weather climate M ., 1 More ›, Loss record hot - .;old weather cr "VPRf�Pr climate Average Hot 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. Accommodation and food services account for 6.90 percent of the County's economy, while arts, 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 categories account for over almost 60 percent of the County's economy. Each of these occupation classes 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 haps://washington.reaproject.org/analysis/industry-structure/industriesbyregion/employment/reports/530063/ Accessed 23 July 2019. Bridgeview Consulting 9-15 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 Airway Heights $759,713,040 $75,971,304.0 $227,913,912.0 $379,856,520.0 Cheney $1,427,171,370 $142,717,137.0 $428,151,411.0 $713,585,685.0 Deer Park $564,187,650 $56,418,765.0 $169,256,295.0 $282,093,825.0 Fairfield $55,034,250 $5,503,425.0 $16,510,275.0 $27,517,125.0 Latah $15,171,552 $1,517,155.2 $4,551,465.6 $7,585,776.0 Liberty Lake $2,307,789,015 $230,778,901.5 $692,336,704.5 $1,153,894,507.5 Medical Lake $538,564,950 $53,856,495.0 $161,569,485.0 $269,282,475.0 Millwood $383,999,655 $38,399,965.5 $115,199,896.5 $191,999,827.5 Rockford $45,632,205 $4,563,220.5 $13,689,661.5 $22,816,102.5 Spangle $24,005,460 $2,400,546.0 $7,201,638.0 $12,002,730.0 Spokane $30,818,695,125 $3,081,869,512.5 $9,245,608,537.5 $15,409,347,562.5 Spokane Valley $14,006,485,725 $1,400,648,572.5 $4,201,945,717.5 $7,003,242,862.5 Waverly $9,443,730 $944,373.0 $2,833,119.0 $4,721,865.0 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 1—Planning-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 Government's Ability to Continue Operations 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 the probability 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 1—Planning-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 Hazards related to volcanic eruptions are distinguished by DEFINITIONS the different ways in which volcanic materials and other Lahar—A 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 areas. Lava Flow—The least hazardous threat posed by volcanoes. Cascades Washington State has five active volcanoes: Mount Baker, volcanoes are normally associated with Glacier Peak, Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and slow moving andesite or dacite lava. Mount Adams. These volcanoes are all capable of Stratovolcano—Typically 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 the environment, and civil and military aviation in areas stratovolcanoes. more than a few miles from the mountains' slopes. Tephra—Ash and fragmented rock 10.2 HAZARD PROFILE material ejected by a volcanic explosion 10.2.1 Extent and Location Volcano—A 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 earth's 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Annual probability of A Mount Baker 10 centimeters or more 44 * 7 ,WASHINGTON of tephra accumulation YGlacier Peak in the Pacific Northwest from Cascade Volcanoes Mpunt Rainier'. st , 1% nt St. Helens> Ilk Mount Ad. s. 1131 ip 0.2% Mount Hood 0,1 ount Jefferson AP 0.02% *Three Sisters 0.01% 4 Newb ir Crater Lake Caldera less than 0.01% OREGON 0 100 200 kilometers 0 50 100 miles El USGS r..' . USGS/C110 1997 Mocified from:Scott eta. 1995 USGS O.-n-Frig Re.. 95-492 Figure 10-1. Probability of Tephra Accumulation in Pacific Northwest Aile Nlr>t+sr1 Wrat+it•r 11 ' gliElM Wash. 2 1 Ir IM 11+mail tit, !Wens "4 ."ilial Irl;rnrti _ . Nlnrput 11++0u1 ,dk * ti Almin1 .leiIur Nnti -_ W e tr, I'Irrrc `i�tu rM Zig a No%IYerr) \nic..t no _ A Cr:r t r r. I.a kv \li.ciivine I ;+kc \ulcarto Aiik2 iiiiii .'1Iut+nl .alr:atil:r .�+a 2 2 Mil. L„,,„.„n 1.„0, I l I 4000 2000 I �c C YEARS COA200 a 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, California's Lassen Peak and Washington's 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 volcano's 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 1—Planning-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 Earth's 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 Airway Heights $759,713,040 $75,971,304.0 $227,913,912.0 $379,856,520.0 Cheney $1,427,171,370 $142,717,137.0 $428,151,411.0 $713,585,685.0 Deer Park $564,187,650 $56,418,765.0 $169,256,295.0 $282,093,825.0 Fairfield $55,034,250 $5,503,425.0 $16,510,275.0 $27,517,125.0 Latah $15,171,552 $1,517,155.2 $4,551,465.6 $7,585,776.0 Liberty Lake $2,307,789,015 $230,778,901.5 $692,336,704.5 $1,153,894,507.5 Medical Lake $538,564,950 $53,856,495.0 $161,569,485.0 $269,282,475.0 Millwood $383,999,655 $38,399,965.5 $115,199,896.5 $191,999,827.5 Rockford $45,632,205 $4,563,220.5 $13,689,661.5 $22,816,102.5 Spangle $24,005,460 $2,400,546.0 $7,201,638.0 $12,002,730.0 Spokane $30,818,695,125 $3,081,869,512.5 $9,245,608,537.5 $15,409,347,562.5 Spokane Valley $14,006,485,725 $1,400,648,572.5 $4,201,945,717.5 $7,003,242,862.5 Waverly $9,443,730 $944,373.0 $2,833,119.0 $4,721,865.0 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 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 1—Planning-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 Washington's 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 Government's Ability to Continue Operations 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 the probability 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. Wildfires can be ignited by WO TOO CH mug CURES RES Conflagration—A fire that grows beyond its lightning or by human activity such as smoking original source area to engulf adjoining regions. campfires, equipment use and arson. Wildfires occur Wind, extremely dry or hazardous weather 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 and has an adequate supply of oxygen from the ambient area, often more than a square mile,when many air. individual fires grow together.Temperatures may 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 material through convection and thermal radiation. known way of stopping them. Lethal First, wood is dried as water in it is vaporized at a concentrations of carbon monoxide, combined temperature of 212°F. Next, the wood releases with the intense heat, poses a serious life threat to responding fire forces. In very large events, the flammable gases at 450°F. Finally, wood can smolder rising column of heated air carries enough at 720°F, and ignite at 1,000°F. 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 from the wildfire front can warm the air to 1,470°F, and the hazard of lightning strikes. which pre-heats and dries flammable materials,causing them to ignite faster and allowing the fire to spread Interface Area—An area where vegetation faster. High temperature and long-duration surface susceptible to wildfires and urban or suburban 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 Large wildfires may affect air currents by the stack non-urban areas. Because of their distance from effect: air rises as it is heated, so large wildfires create firefighting resources, they can be difficult to powerful updrafts that draw in new, cooler air from contain and can cause a great deal of 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 1—Planning-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 community is 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 same as those used in the National Fire Protection Association's 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-o f-federal-lands-that-are-at-high-risk-from Bridgeview Consulting 11-2 April 2020 WILDFIRE ,.. ..4%1 ---. r , : . ) Spokane County , 1 „.. Hazard Mitigation Plan Wildiand Urban interface (WW) ' , .,, - 007,,00 ' ,rzi ,iiiri:-- •'.', High Risk Communities , wr WA•DNR March 2018 irf ft tit i1/4. , r -4---- J ---] ( , ,........ , , TZZI-17,21 1 1! atZ; r m-- ..... 1 IN L i "1 •.r 1 r ._, heasont z' 11 tj'r (. . •r0 IV , '' Mike ... - ' se a 0 Y 00# Wildiand '-' Urban e WO 01 1. . g-," 1 i'Llit4 k ' 't ----------- ---- 1.- interface (Will) r -- .,/ i 1 High Risk •., - Communities obrerey '1 \ „r CT...J... '1 ' demi* i WA-ONit Melee 7018 l•_ 1 Lake P0411. - - 41110 -00`m., We 4111c*I I - 0 morvt4mi 410 High . - 411/ L Ow ckeket 1 ail, ( Aerakelr Prai ,re „,„! r c r• ,..! Lj-,1;:j-'41 I me le*hitd .. / '''',,, Ea.../".1,,,,,,, IT,-.4,3,COOIOle 9” e / / 'Sp is vol. .k ,r a HI 01.will t_..4., ,, .,,, ,. ';-..- i _-- ,........ ilielp Lott:liar " • Figure 11-1. Wildland Urban Interface and Level of Risk(DNR, 2018) 11-3 April 2020 Bridgeview Consulting Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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. • Crawling or surface fires 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 or aerial fires 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 ` #:;1 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 Fire Behavior Triangle Topography can have a powerful influence on wildfire behavior.The movement of air over the terrain tends to direct a fire's course. Gulches and canyons can funnel air and act as a chimney, intensifying fire behavior and inducing faster rates of spread. Saddles on ridge tops offer lower resistance to the passage of air and will draw fires. Solar heating of drier, south-facing slopes produces upslope thermal winds that can complicate behavior. Slope is an important factor. If the percentage of uphill slope doubles, the rate of spread of wildfire will likely double. On steep slopes,fuels on the uphill side of 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 wildfire's 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 wildfire's 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 1—Planning-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 area's 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 Communities USA TM The NFPA's 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 40,1 W/S , 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 County's 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- rec o gnition-pro gram/state-listing-o f-p artcip ants.aspx Bridgeview Consulting 11-7 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 1—Surface fires that burn fine herbaceous fuels, cured and curing fuels,little shrub or timber present,primarily grasslands and savanna. • FBFM 2—Burns fine, herbaceous fuels, stand is curing or dead, may produce fire brands on oak or pine stands. • FBFM 3—Most intense fire of grass group,spreads quickly with wind,one third of stand dead or cured,stands average 3 feet tall. • FBFM 4—Fast spreading fire, continuous overstory, flammable foliage and dead woody material,deep litter layer can inhibit suppression. • FBFM 5—Low intensity fires, young, green shrubs with little dead material, fuels consist of litter from understory. • FBFM 6—Broad range of shrubs, fire requires moderate winds to maintain flame at shrub height,or will drop to the ground with low winds. • FBFM 7—Foliage highly flammable,allowing fire to reach shrub strata levels,shrubs generally 2 to 6 feet high. • FBFM 8—Slow, ground burning fires, closed canopy stands with short needle conifers or hardwoods, litter consisting mainly of needles and leaves,with little undergrowth, occasional flares with concentrated fuels. • FBFM 9—Longer flames, quicker surface fires, closed canopy stands of long-needles or hardwoods,rolling leaves in fall can cause spotting,dead-down material can cause occasional crowning. • FBFM 10—Surface and ground fire more intense, dead-down fuels more abundant, frequent crowning and spotting causing fire control to be more difficult. Bridgeview Consulting 11-8 April 2020 WILDFIRE • FBFM 11—Fairly active fire, fuels consist of slash and herbaceous materials, slash originates from light partial cuts or thinning projects, fire is limited by spacing of fuel load and shade from overstory. • FBFM 12—Rapid spreading and high intensity fires,dominated by slash resulting from heavy thinning projects and clear-cuts, slash is mostly 3 inches or less. • FBFM 13—Fire spreads quickly through smaller material and intensity builds slowly as large material ignites, continuous layer of slash larger than 3 inches in diameter predominates, resulting from clear-cuts and heavy partial cuts, active flames sustained for long periods of time,fire is susceptible to spotting and weather conditions. Bridgeview Consulting 11-9 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements -"7'4,� �� r `Spokane County ° i1 Hazard Mitigation : Plan Anderson 13 Fire Behavior : , ,1 Fuel Model �� . 4 ,,,. ,_,,,,, ,1 : : ,,., , , . .... do „res„ i „: 0, , i 1 ,4,,, ,..i.:,„ 1,1 k , ,,,,t r „ a. lvV MMM:::" •• FF yy I lepiii a b '.1;'0''',1"'" M ..444,' igrot,: t k 4 lNthiebd ti ' � : -• ,-, 1 Y r r-g*".' i t „„ r ^ On.a gym . ; s Aridersao 13 Fire getiav+'q+fuer Mode! q lA Y'i'S1iRM ][Sfd 1� ^d,t , x ' alnar eons. .' .b �,". •r.,* I k 'P d' 1-....7:".--ti .6 J V ®, - yr ,r T r h »r ) , , , .� L . .,,, . Mop Locator 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 Depaitnient 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements I "k-,100..;-' Spokane County . .w . Hazard Mitigation Plan . • Dept, of Natural Resources (DNR) YM " Fire Locations. 2008 - 2019tuv c , ' & Land Ownership . ° ' li . .. ... , . . . .. . . " . . ,.. . t .. . i . • ., . ....... : .. . . . . • . .. , ., , ,„, v,...,,„,. • • . ... . .. 4/ 1 " . . . . 1,.... - , . . . .t.• .. . •. ... . ... , .. • . ., .. .... , • . • • .. ,_ . .• .. „.„. ,.. . .. . ,• .... . . • „ :1' M• °• .. Y•1 1.;"1.. ' '4x:14,, r] .;.1*a. � • •w 0.0".*.. • • ^N _ .rr.� 4 uiw r han.r. 1 a, I ..r - I, • .; • w ;jj 3 L • > lona G73af3P+ah1�'& r. ..y. .1- i„ % • •, ,•• frae locohonx 2P0-2o19 . --r„„, —`t-:J .::*:27A 0: '": — f • 4• • rnw a 1 .. / .V'. 1 Ars:* WY .•••.• -. " '/ Lrara•:,rw.vn b .til Y. :f =ryr• , .' • • ` _ ..I ,,r1f :Cri,.a•w WC.- - f Yr/' ^ /' ',n F • • • , 4 • •I • • • SIMM O4.011ff*el 1.0.61.ICa .. sAwngia." a • • •06,0 :rIt,a A146.* • $ 1 / r I K e:nPP.dd I. Doerr d 1-srcac•tryi'r ^ F -., P Of,a+rvCw�]rt, a s )• . c..r...ra �. 64•-, • e * leo y • fib, p • 1NiOarr rn.r ref n1-6 I • jt / , 1:10,. *to& li ' • r • C.•6 11111.1.011,1114 414Sh. r y ae a . ' •I 1 . •, + .. . - JNap r.pemrnrr. . 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 1—Planning-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 .., 1 e -"\ ill I —If ..71„ 4,r7 ,,,,- -,7,,,, * , , .;',,,: - : Spokane County ',.. - . , ,,i, 1 :4,r '' i ,,- - ' ''' ' ,' l 1 Hazard Mitigation ', , -, , , . , Plan -\\.\ _, - , , -1i, . i. ,, , , 4 1','41. d' , Historic Fire Regime Groups ' -'''' --,,;-.,„ LANDFIRE, 2017 ' .„V;..•! . ?A \ vps A '' ' r*''''''.'')'' • ' A _ , '''S .*•.4 r4 r — ',. ,.r. / . 416,_.:t.A- • ,rid --to„„, ,, - - - . •4 .-- *., .,,, -.• J .. , .,1 w ' • :4. 4 -„‘4 ,. ,. . ,• ,:,.4 1 • a - - ,,,' r. ,r, ,.•;ay." ,.J , .. - ..#i.1.ai d g .,',i,‘"„takrt it& \afic,11,,' 1 ,, '' ,e'Tt* : # Sy.,,,* 'kis, -ts''''' ril' ''''4' _ ,, ''.. 4.,"' "'',T • .4* "'.-114 ' - "..,, , • '' IA ti 'Of . , ,,.„...,,,F ,,, , .,;:,4., - ,,,;„;, -,,,,,,,,ti l''''5'7-iiK'r**:' i'' :': '•," '`n/ '1: r.,-"r1•,,t;:,,:C4P-1-': 4 C43',":. .4..i.,..--,, ,:..,,,,,: ;?:::,.' .., 'VrIt;11. t•trfee' :' ' :;+? ,' , , t 0 I . <> r.e liepirne Group i',1 6 r , , i r::::> ore Regime GrOVP v "Os Sparsely Vegetaled . , , „ , <C> water L;(> e.mtee h---41eI rt 4'eserro Cgsais INA tf4 ‘.' 1 1.• ' .._ - f'S: ,, I .1 ''' . ' ggiDeULLNIlfil Ma. Locator ,,kpwq,&ror-viweL May.41Li Figure 11-4. LandFire Fire Regime Groups (2017) 11-15 April 2020 Bridgeview Consulting Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements - '"r! 1 �*JSpokane _ County 1 J:1,;<` . ,JE(i r 1 Hazard Mitigation ` �1 " ° , Plan ` - 0 Vegetation Condition Class � . ',"NJ P LANaf+RF 2016 2e �^"a ",,r � k 1 4 t a x j J uy * " %i... • 'F &'• .fid .. SYN i',, y', r'.y *< , . p, Vegetation , �I / Po .ria' mm. e condMwn crow w.awurrn aur. k •' „e� +. r mncwwuaw.cw.rrnr ..,. ,r� 4” i. .^ 1,._:ar �� f ". ,. y 4';..) . / r +1c iYbV`t 1 1 'i 1 ...N°1&." `' ,� i.�,,,« 7".,.w'r` §• P'.:... v ,.."',4$sx '.'cu= -9w.,d.""L.�* .'r» t MIR" 1 ti f 1 ti k 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Historically, drought patterns in the West are related to large-scale climate patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The El Nino–Southern Oscillation in the Pacific varies on a 5-to 7-year cycle,the Pacific Decadal Oscillation varies on a 20- to 30-year cycle, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation varies on a 65- to 80-year cycle. As these large-scale ocean climate patterns vary in relation to each other, drought conditions in the U.S. shift from region to region. El Nino years bring drier conditions to the Pacific Northwest and more fires. Climate scenarios project summer temperature increases between 2°C and 5°C and precipitation decreases of up to 15 percent. Such conditions would exacerbate summer drought and further promote high-elevation wildfires, releasing stores of carbon and further contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases. Forest response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide—the so-called "fertilization effect"—could also contribute to more tree growth and thus more fuel for fires, but the effects of carbon dioxide on mature forests are still largely unknown. High carbon dioxide levels should enhance tree recovery after fire and young forest regrowth, as long as sufficient nutrients and soil moisture are available, although the latter is in question for many parts of the western United States because of climate change. 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 Buildings Population Buildings Population Buildings Population Buildings Population Buildings Population 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 Spangle 14 34 6 15 0 0 92 238 0 0 Spokane 15,486 43,572 719 1,798 782 2,700 28,729 93,042 21,388 58,624 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 43,442 124,661 *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 1—Planning-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." Table 11-4. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 1 Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total %of AV Airway Heights 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Cheney 11 $3,627,350 $1,813,675 $5,441,025 0.03% Deer Park 1,209 $235,987,300 $117,993,650 $353,980,950 1.64% Fairfield 139 $16,792,590 $8,396,295 $25,188,885 0.12% Latah 51 $3,976,640 $1,988,320 $5,964,960 0.03% Liberty Lake 2,582 $1,118,117,670 $559,058,835 $1,677,176,505 7.75% Medical Lake 11 $11,842,170 $5,921,085 $17,763,255 0.08% Millwood 12 $3,526,020 $1,763,010 $5,289,030 0.02% Rockford 14 $1,870,430 $935,215 $2,805,645 0.01% Spangle 20 $2,000,040 $1,000,020 $3,000,060 0.01% Spokane 16,310 $3,736,907,620 $1,868,453,810 $5,605,361,430 25.90% Spokane Valley 11,115 $3,490,971,010 $1,745,485,505 $5,236,456,515 24.19% Waverly 6 $237,590 $118,795 $356,385 0.00% Unincorporated 20,595 $5,804,939,461 $2,902,469,731 $8,707,409,192 40.23% 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 Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total %of AV Airway Heights 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Cheney 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Deer Park 13 $1,385,260 $692,630 $2,077,890 0.15% Fairfield 65 $9,810,600 $4,905,300 $14,715,900 1.10% Latah 33 $2,973,876 $1,486,938 $4,460,814 0.33% Liberty Lake 127 $33,226,750 $16,613,375 $49,840,125 3.72% Medical Lake 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 3° "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 Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total %of AV Millwood 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Rockford 23 $13,789,200 $6,894,600 $20,683,800 1.54% Spangle 6 $691,930 $345,965 $1,037,895 0.08% Spokane 719 $126,236,251 $63,118,126 $189,354,377 14.12% Spokane Valley 84 $15,170,600 $7,585,300 $22,755,900 1.70% Waverly 2 $77,600 $38,800 $116,400 0.01% Unincorporated 2,804 $690,625,687 $345,312,844 $1,035,938,531 77.25% Total 3,876 $893,987,754 $446,993,877 $1,340,981,631 100% Table 11-6. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 3 Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total %of AV Airway Heights 2 $166,600 $83,300 $249,900 0.01% Cheney 93 $39,196,540 $19,598,270 $58,794,810 1.34% Deer Park 518 $65,109,748 $32,554,874 $97,664,622 2.23% Fairfield 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Latah 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Liberty Lake 493 $186,879,360 $93,439,680 $280,319,040 6.41% Medical Lake 428 $62,867,874 $31,433,937 $94,301,811 2.15% Millwood 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Rockford 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Spangle 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Spokane 782 $185,669,434 $92,834,717 $278,504,151 6.36% Spokane Valley 4,626 $858,414,411 $429,207,206 $1,287,621,617 29.42% Waverly 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Unincorporated 7,158 $1,519,123,756 $759,561,878 $2,278,685,634 52.07% 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 11-7. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 4 Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total %of AV Airway Heights 94 $16,577,300 $8,288,650 $24,865,950 0.21% Cheney 191 $37,030,660 $18,515,330 $55,545,990 0.47% Deer Park 1 $37,220 $18,610 $55,830 0.00% Fairfield 46 $5,115,300 $2,557,650 $7,672,950 0.06% Latah 23 $1,606,180 $803,090 $2,409,270 0.02% Liberty Lake 12 $4,324,600 $2,162,300 $6,486,900 0.05% Medical Lake 353 $55,614,315 $27,807,158 $83,421,473 0.71% Millwood 511 $73,031,162 $36,515,581 $109,546,743 0.93% Rockford 53 $5,763,310 $2,881,655 $8,644,965 0.07% Spangle 92 $7,085,637 $3,542,819 $10,628,456 0.09% Spokane 28,729 $4,638,465,037 $2,319,232,519 $6,957,697,556 58.83% Spokane Valley 3,673 $561,516,405 $280,758,203 $842,274,608 7.12% Waverly 49 $4,469,750 $2,234,875 $6,704,625 0.06% Unincorporated 10,783 $2,474,386,519 $1,237,193,260 $3,711,579,779 31.38% 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 Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total %of AV Airway Heights 1,106 $158,835,395 $79,417,698 $238,253,093 2.05% Cheney 1,736 $365,567,372 $182,783,686 $548,351,058 4.71% Deer Park 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Fairfield 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Latah 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Liberty Lake 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Medical Lake 626 $94,810,194 $47,405,097 $142,215,291 1.22% Millwood 161 $20,245,419 $10,122,710 $30,368,129 0.26% Rockford 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Spangle 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Spokane 21,388 $3,848,395,604 $1,924,197,802 $5,772,593,406 49.61% Spokane Valley 8,683 $1,314,810,658 $657,405,329 $1,972,215,987 16.95% Waverly 0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Unincorporated 9,742 $1,954,457,618 $977,228,809 $2,931,686,427 25.20% Bridgeview Consulting 11-22 April 2020 WILDFIRE Table 11-8. Planning Area Structures Exposed-FIRE REGIME 5 Buildings Assessed Value Jurisdiction Exposed Structure Contents Total %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 Total 250 39 114 486 213 1 13 Bridgeview Consulting 11-23 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 11-9. Critical Facilities Exposed to Wildfire Regimes Regime 1 Regime 2 Regime 3 Regime 4 Regime 5 Barren Water* *1,acilities 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 d'Alene, Idaho, south along Highway 27, and southwest paralleling 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 Fisheries—Critical fisheries can suffer from increased water temperatures, sedimentation and changes in water quality. • Soil Erosion—The protective covering provided by foliage and dead organic matter is removed, leaving the soil fully exposed to wind and water erosion. Accelerated soil erosion occurs,causing landslides and threatening aquatic habitats. • Spread of Invasive Plant Species—Non-native woody plant species frequently invade burned areas. When weeds become established, they can dominate the plant cover over broad landscapes, and become difficult and costly to control. • Disease and Insect Infestations—Unless diseased or insect-infested trees are swiftly removed, infestations and disease can spread to healthy forests and private lands. Timely active management actions are needed to remove diseased or infested trees. • Destroyed Endangered Species Habitat—Catastrophic fires can have devastating consequences for endangered species. • Soil Sterilization—Topsoil exposed to extreme heat can become water repellant, and soil nutrients may be lost. It can take decades or even centuries for ecosystems to recover from a fire. Some fires burn so hot that they can sterilize the soil. Many ecosystems are adapted to historical patterns of fire occurrence.These patterns,called"fire regimes," include temporal attributes (e.g., frequency and seasonality), spatial attributes (e.g., size and spatial complexity), and magnitude attributes (e.g., intensity and severity), each of which have ranges of natural variability.Ecosystem stability is threatened when any of the attributes for a given fire regime diverge from its range of natural variability. 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 1—Planning-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 don't 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 Government's Ability to Continue Operations 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 the probability 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 1—Planning-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 each according 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most hazardous situation. Bridgeview Consulting 12-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1-Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 12-2. Countywide Combined Calculated Priority Risk Index Score 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 Spokane County 2.75 2.85 2.1 1.65 3.15 2.05 3.65 Conservation District Spokane Valley Fire 2.75 2.85 3 3.1 3.4 1.75 3.3 Spokane County FD 3 2.95 2.85 3.05 2.05 3.4 2.15 4 Spokane County FD 4 2.55 2.85 2.45 1.65 3.5 1.55 2.9 Spokane County FD 5 2.35 2.45 2.6 2.7 3.4 1.75 3.3 Spokane County FD 8 2.55 2.65 2.4 2.7 3.4 1.7 3.35 Spokane County FD 9 2.75 2.55 2.65 2.6 3.25 3.0 3.55 Spokane County FD 10 3.15 2.85 3.0 2.7 3.4 1.75 3.7 Newman Lake Flood 1.90 2.25 2.4 1.65 2.4 1.75 2.9 Control Zone District 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 Table 12-3. Countywide Hazard Ranking 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 Spokane County 6 3 4 5 1 8 2 Conservation District* Spokane Valley Fire 6 5 4 3 1 7 2 Spokane County FD 3* 4 5 3 9 2 8 1 Spokane County FD 4 4 3 5 6 1 7 2 Spokane County FD 5 4 3 2 2 1 5 1 Spokane County FD 8 5 4 6 3 1 7 2 Spokane County FD 9 4 7 5 6 2 3 1 Spokane County FD 10* 4 3 2 2 1 5 1 Newman Lake Flood 5 4 2 7 3 6 1 Control Zone District 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 Low—The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is very minimal to nonexistent. • Low—Minimal 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements • Medium—Moderate 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. • High—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. • Extremely High—Very 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. Table 12-4. Countywide Risk Summary 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 1 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 1—Planning-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 0-1 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. 0-2 Reduce natural hazard-related risks to potentially isolated/vulnerable 1, 3,4, 5, 6 populations within the planning area. 0-3 Improve/protect systems that provide warning and emergency 2, 3,4, 6 communications. 0-4 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. 0-5 Strengthen codes, land use planning and their enforcement, so that new All construction can avoid or withstand the impacts of natural hazards. 0-6 Provide/improve flood protection with flood mitigation measures and 1,2, 5 drainage system maintenance plans. 0-7 Provide/improve fire protection thru proactive fuels management 1,2, 5 programs. 0-8 Assure coordination between participating [jurisdictions] and adjoining 1,4, 6 communities. 0-9 Work to lower emergency service response times, including through 1, 3,4, 6 improvement to transportation facilities. 0-10 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. 0-11 Seek mitigation projects that minimize environmental impacts, improve All the environment's ability to absorb the impact of natural disasters,or seek ways to mitigate their impacts on the environment. 0-12 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 further increase resilience. FEMA's 2013 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 alternatives that are backed by a planning process, are consistent with the planning partners' goals and objectives, and are within the capabilities of the partners to implement. 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 1—Planning-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 Assessor's Office,Permitting and other County offices,update Assessor's parcel data to include more building-specific information which may be utilized within the GIS and Hams programs for enhanced risk assessments to provide a detailed loss estimation. New All 1,4,5,6, Assessor's 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 1—Planning-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, Infonnation 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 Promote a"Fire Wise"program in County to increase fire safety zones around businesses and residences. 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 1—Planning-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 Depaitiuent,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 (SC-1) Protection, 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 (SC-4) Protection, 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, (SC-17) Response, County 10, 11, 12 FEMA Recovery, Hazard Natural Mitigation Resource Grants Protection Bridgeview Consulting 13-9 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 (SC-10) Response, and Local 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 (SC-9) Mitigation 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 offuture 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 (SC-8) Projects, Facility, Engineering grants. Public Local &Roads Information and Education, Natural Resource Protection SC-10 Provide scour protection for approximately 25 "scour critical"bridges in Spokane County. Existing F/SW 1,2,6, 10, Spokane High General Short- Yes Prevention, Regional 11 County, Funds,Grants Term (SC-7) Property 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-13 Assess the"Shady Slope Road floodplain area."This 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 1—Planning-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. Existing EQ,F, 2,6, 9, 10 Spokane High PDM, Short- No Structural, County SW County HMGP, Term Emergency Public Works WSDOT Services, 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, 1 - among others,the Community Rating System scale,identifying each mitigation action item 1.4- j 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 1—Planning-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 1—Planning-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 to define "benefits"according 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. Each Planning Team member's respective annex update contains information concerning their previous strategies. Table 13-5. Action Plan—Countywide Mitigation Initiatives Hazards Addressed Lead Agency Possible Funding Sources or Resources Time Linea Objectives 2020 Status CW-1—Maintain a Hazard Mitigation Plan website where this final plan will be housed and planning partners as well as On-going, members of the public will be able to monitor plan implementation. carried over All Hazards DEM DEM General Fund Ongoing 4,8 Now CW-8 CW-2—Continue to support the use, development and enhancement of County-wide citizen notification system On-going, carried over All Hazards DEM General Fund,Department of Homeland Ongoing 1,2,3,8 Combined Security/Emergency Management with CW-8 Performance Grants CW-3—Continue to leverage ongoing,regional public education and awareness programs as a method to educate the public On-going on risk and community resilience. All Hazards All Planning Partners Existing program funds Ongoing 4,8 Now CW-8 CW-4—Strive to capture perishable data such as: high water marks, extent and location of hazard, and loss information; Carried following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment. over All Hazards All Planning Partners Existing Program funds,FEMA post Short Term 4,8 Now CW-4 disaster(PA)funding CW-5—Continue the use and maintenance of the HAZUS-MH model that was developed to support this plan update. On-going, Maintenance includes periodic updates of inventory, and hazard data. Use of this tool will be available to all planning carried over partners. Flood, Earthquake, DEM DEM General Fund Short term 4,8 Now CW-1 Dam Failure and CW-5 CW-6—Utilize DEM as a repository for historic information on hazard events. This information can be utilized by the On-going, planning partners to support future risk assessments, planning and mitigation actions within the planning area. On-going carried over Now CW-4 All Hazards DEM DEM general Fund Short-term 4,8 Now CW-4 CW-7—Support the development and maintenance of continuity of operation planning with a consistent guidance package Completed 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 April2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 13-6. 2020 Status of Spokane County-Specific 2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategies Included 2020 Applies to new in Status* or existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline 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, High Grant F-4 Engineering &Roads 2020 Update:Bruce Road Bridge was constructed in 2014. Initiative#SC-3—Replace Elliot 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 maintain Country 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 Included 2020 Applies to new in Status* or existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? Initiative#SC-6—Develop LID 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—Provide scour protection for approximately 25"scour critical"bridges in Spokane County. 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:Spokane has provided scour protection for approximately 20%of the 25 identified as "scour critical." 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 New Weather 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 13-6. 2020 Status of Spokane County-Specific 2015 Hazard Mitigation Strategies Included 2020 Applies to new in Status* or existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline 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 New County, Low Now CW-8 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 Included 2020 Applies to new in Status* or existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? New and All Hazards 2, 3, 4, 5, Spokane Low Local Short term No Un-Going Existing 11 County Now CW-17 Planning 2020 Update: The HMP was utilized in the County's update to its COMP plan, as well as undergoing a SEPA review prior to last adoption. Incorporating the HMP into other planning efforts will be an on-going effort, as integration of planning efforts is a primary focus of 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 SGS. Districts Grants 2020 Update: Several initiatives were completed since the 2015 was adopted. The County will continue to assist those entities'efforts 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements 13.9 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION ACTIVITIES In addition to the mitigation action items previously identified,the County • . i and its planning partners also undertook additional initiatives which A elo►s provided assistance in reducing the potential impact of disaster events on the planning area, as follows: Mitil 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 Service Rural 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 Program Enabling Funding Plan Requirement 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 El ❑ repair of damaged infrastructure, Declaration publicly owned buildings) Individual Assistance(IA) Stafford Act Presidential Disaster ❑ ❑ Declaration Fire Management Assistance Grants Stafford Act Fire Management El ❑ Assistance Declaration Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Stafford Act Presidential Disaster El ❑ (HMGP)Planning Grant Declaration HMGP Project Grant Stafford Act Presidential Disaster El El Declaration Pre-Disaster Mitigation(PDM)Planning Stafford Act Annual Appropriation ❑ ❑ Grant PDM Project Grant Stafford Act Annual Appropriation El El Flood Mitigation Assistance(FMA) National Flood Annual Appropriation El El Insurance Act Severe Repetitive Loss(SRL) National Flood Annual Appropriation El El Insurance Act Repetitive Flood Claims(RFC) National Flood Annual Appropriation El ❑ Insurance Act Homeland Security Dept. of Homeland Annual Appropriation El ❑ Security El=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 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 1—Planning-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.fe m a.gov/government/grant/pdm/ind e x.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_assi stance.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/fin agp/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 are the County's capabilities. 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 the planning partners' eligibility for future hazard mitigation 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 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 "specific geographical areas that are...essential for the conservation 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 Bridgeview Consulting 14-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 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 ESA's prohibition of taking or to meet 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, and biological integrity of the nation's surface waters so that they can support "the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water." 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 are dated. Additional NFIP data can be found within the Flood Hazard Profile, and within each partners' 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 1—Planning-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 in the shoreline area.A major goal of the act is to prevent the"inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." Its jurisdiction includes the Pacific Ocean shoreline and the shorelines of Puget Sound,the Strait of Juan de Fuca,and rivers,streams and lakes above a certain size. It also regulates wetlands associated with these shorelines. 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 A `zero-rise' floodway is an area reserved to carry the discharge 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 and Indoor Air Quality Code.Washington's state-developed codes are mandatory statewide for residential and commercial buildings. Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning Washington's Comprehensive Emergency Management Planning law(RCW 38.52)establishes parameters to ensure that preparations of the state will be adequate to deal with disasters,to ensure the administration of state and federal programs providing disaster relief to individuals,to ensure adequate support for search and rescue operations,to protect the public peace,health and safety, and to preserve the lives and property of the people of the state. It achieves the following: • Provides for emergency management by the state, and authorizes the creation of local organizations for emergency management in political subdivisions of the state. • Confers emergency powers upon the governor and upon the executive heads of political subdivisions of the state. • 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 Washington's floodplain management law (RCW 86.16, implemented through WAC 173-158) states that prevention of flood damage is a matter of statewide public concern and places regulatory control with the Department of Ecology. RCW 86.16 is cited in floodplain management literature, including FEMA's national assessment, as one of the first and strongest in the nation. A major challenge to the law in 1978, Maple Leaf Investors v. Ecology, is cited in legal references to floodplain management issues. The court upheld the law, declaring that denial of a permit to build residential structures in the floodway is a valid exercise of police power and did not constitute a taking. RCW Chapter 86.12 (Flood Control by Counties) authorizes county governments to levy taxes, condemn properties and undertake flood control activities directed toward a public purpose. Flood Control Assistance Account Program Washington's first flood control maintenance program was passed in 1951, and was called the Flood Control Maintenance Program (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 1—Planning-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 with the 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's 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 Washington's Growth Management Act requires local governments to protect five types of critical areas: important fish and wildlife habitat areas,wetlands,critical aquifer recharge areas,frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas,such as bluffs. Spokane County's critical areas regulations are a response 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 County.31 Within the 2018 update of Spokane County's CAO, Chapter 11.20.080 provides incentives for 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 Hazard mitigation builds on a community's existing capabilities in place, including financial, regulatory, programmatic and planning capabilities.the County's capabilities to implement mitigation projects include 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 following information and tables identify the County's capabilities with respect to (mitigation) efforts of 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 relative to other land uses. Land that would be assessed at $10,000 an acre for its "highest and best use" might be valued at perhaps $3,000 an acre as farmland. The effect of this lower valuation is to lower the tax assessed on lands classified as "current use,"thereby making the land more affordable to keep in farm 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?bidld= Bridgeview Consulting 14-7 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 is al-Are as-Ord in an c e 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 through various departments and with 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, and Sheriff's departments. Updated 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 1—Planning-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 Hazard data and information available to public Y GIS maintains data for various departments which 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's service area, types of services offered, populations served, and how the 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 Available Department/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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements Table 14-3. Education and Outreach Available Department/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 community's 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 Community's 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 area's 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 depaitnients 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 Heights 4 Cheney 5 Deer Park 4 Fairfield 6 Latah 7 Liberty Lake 2 Medical Lake 6 Millwood 2 Rockford 6 Spangle 6 Spokane 3 Spokane County N/A Spokane County F.P.D. 1 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 10 5 Spokane County F.P.D. 11 6 Spokane County F.P.D. 12 7 Spokane County F.P.D. 13 6 Spokane County F.P.D. 2 7 Spokane County F.P.D. 3 5 Spokane County F.P.D. 4 5 Spokane County F.P.D. 5 8 Spokane County F.P.D. 8 4 Spokane County F.P.D. 9 4 Spokane Valley 2 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 community's 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 1—Planning-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 Heights 5 5 Cheney 3 3 Deer Park 4 4 Fairfield 2 3 Latah Not Ranked Not Ranked Liberty Lake 3 4 Medical Lake 4 4 Millwood 2 3 Rockford 2 3 Spangle 2 3 Spokane 3 4 Spokane County 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 1 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 10 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 11 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 12 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 13 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 2 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 3 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 4 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 5 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 8 2 3 Spokane County F.P.D. 9 2 3 Spokane Valley 3 3 Waverly 5 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 County's fire departments and districts serve its citizens,in addition to "i`. the local municipalities' fire de artments. Within these fire districts and c .IRE-K.5151MT PUNTS departments, there are a total of fire stations which protect the county Fort HoMe LANDSCAPES during emergency situations. The purpose of Spokane County Fire Districts is .......--....- the -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 ea 1 641Spokane County is also a recognized StormReady® County under the National ,„T„,„w,,,.,,,.a,,.i, Weather Service Program. Achieving such status requires a significant level of effort. Being part of a Weather-Ready Nation is about preparing for your community's increasing vulnerability to extreme weather 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. Pini Response Plans Flood Hazard _ . Food Phreat Spokane County and its jurisdictions have developed various response 46'el,ren+ -• ,„ RecoanttIon plans to be utilized during incident-specific events. Such plans provide guidance to first responders and community members in what actions ,' �11i/AM � ��. Flood Forecast 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. , Remaly - Fa,x�a�t nisseminame, Response 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 Plan's format allows sections to be reviewed and updated when new data become available, resulting in a plan that will remain current and relevant. 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. • A comprehensive update of the County or participating city/town's comprehensive plan. Bridgeview Consulting 15-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Volume 1—Planning-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 specified under 44 CFR. However, it may enhance the planning partnership's opportunities for funding.While failure to implement this component of the plan maintenance strategy will not jeopardize a planning partner's compliance under the DMA, completion of the 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. The County's Comprehensive Plan and the comprehensive plans of the planning partners are considered to 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 1—Planning-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. The public will continue to be apprised of the plan's progress through the county's website and the 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 FEMA. 1981.National Flood Insurance Program. "Flood Insurance Study for Spokane County" October 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 FEMA. 2007. FEMA,National Flood Insurance Program, Community Rating System; CRS Coordinator's 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 Summary—Open 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. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 11/11/2008. "Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies and Risk Management Practices: Critical Elements for Adaptation to Climate Change" 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements OTA(Congressional Office of Technology Assessment). 1993. Preparing for an Uncertain Climate,Vol. I. OTA–O-567.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 Carolina's (USC)Hazard Research Lab 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/j sf/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/eghazards.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-summarie s 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/aprill/hseries/pop_decennial_census_series_1890- 2010.xlsx Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ACRONYMS ASHRAE—American Society of Heating,Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers CFR—Code of Federal Regulations cfs—cubic feet per second CIP—Capital Improvement Plan CRS—Community Rating System CWPP—Community Wildfire Protection Plan DEM—Spokane Department of Emergency Management DFIRM—Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps DMA—Disaster Mitigation Act DNA—Washington Department of Natural Resources DSO—Dam Safety Office EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA—Endangered Species Act FBFM—Fire Behavior Fuel Model FCAAP—Flood Control Assistance Account Program FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC—Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRM—Flood Insurance Rate Map FRCC—Fire regime condition class GIS—Geographic Information System GMA—Growth Management Act HAZUS-MH—Hazards,United States-Multi Hazard HMGP—Hazard Mitigation Grant Program IBC—International Building Code IRC—International Residential Code MM—Modified Mercalli Scale NEHRP—National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NFIP—National Flood Insurance Program NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS—National Weather Service PDM—Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program PGA—Peak Ground Acceleration RCW—Revised Code of Washington SCS—U.S. Depaitnient of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service SFHA—Special Flood Hazard Area SHELDUS—Special Hazard Events and Losses Database for the US THIRA—Threat and hazard identification and risk assessment UBC—Uniform Building Code USGS—U.S. Geological Survey WAC—Washington Administrative Code WRIA—Water Resource Inventory Area Bridgeview Consulting A-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1—Planning-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 water—whether from rainfall, snowmelt, springs or other sources—flows to a single water body or watercourse. The boundary of a river basin is defined by natural topography, such as hills, mountains and ridges. Basins are also referred to as "watersheds" and "drainage basins." Benefit: A benefit is a net project outcome and is usually defined in monetary terms.Benefits may include direct and indirect effects. For the purposes of benefit-cost analysis of proposed mitigation measures, benefits are limited to specific,measurable,risk reduction factors,including reduction in expected property losses(buildings,contents and functions) and protection of human life. Benefit/Cost Analysis: A benefit/cost analysis is a systematic,quantitative method of comparing projected benefits to projected costs of a project or policy. It is used as a measure of cost effectiveness. Building: A building is defined as a structure that is walled and roofed, principally aboveground, and permanently fixed to a site. The term includes manufactured homes on permanent foundations on which the wheels and axles carry no weight. Capability Assessment: A capability assessment provides a description and analysis of a community's current capacity to address threats associated with hazards. The assessment includes two components: an inventory of an agency's mission,programs and policies, and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. A capability assessment is an integral part of the planning process in which a community's actions to reduce losses are identified, reviewed, and analyzed, and the framework for implementation is identified. The following capabilities were reviewed under this assessment: • Legal and regulatory capability • Administrative and technical capability • Fiscal capability 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 1—Planning-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 watersheds or basins. Drought: Drought is a period of time without substantial rainfall or snowfall from one year to the next. Drought can also be defined as the cumulative impacts of several dry years or a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, which in turn results in water shortages for some activity, group or environmental function. A hydrological drought is caused by deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. A socioeconomic drought impacts the health, well-being and quality of life or starts to have an adverse impact on a region.Drought is a normal,recurrent feature of climate and occurs almost everywhere. Earthquake: An earthquake is defined as a sudden slip on a fault, volcanic or magmatic activity, and sudden stress changes in the earth that result in ground shaking and radiated seismic energy. Earthquakes can last from a few seconds to over 5 minutes, and have been known to occur as a series of tremors over a period of several days. The actual movement of the ground in an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Casualties may result from falling objects and debris as shocks shake,damage,or demolish buildings and other structures. Exposure: Exposure is defined as the number and dollar value of assets considered to be at risk during the occurrence of a specific hazard. Extent: The extent is the size of an area affected by a hazard. 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 community's Flood Insurance rate Map. The study contains such background data as the base flood discharges and water surface elevations that were used to prepare the 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 community's 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 FO to F5 based on tornado wind speed and damage.An FO tornado (wind speed less than 73 miles per hour(mph))indicates minimal damage(such as broken tree limbs),and an F5 tornado (wind speeds of 261 to 318 mph)indicates severe damage. Goal: A goal is a general guideline that explains what is to be achieved. Goals are usually broad-based, long-term,policy-type statements and represent global visions. Goals help define the benefits that a plan is trying to achieve.The success of a hazard mitigation plan is measured by the degree to which its goals have been met(that is,by the actual benefits in terms of actual hazard mitigation). Geographic Information System(GIS): GIS is a computer software application that relates data regarding physical and other features on the earth to a database for mapping and analysis. 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 FEMA's nationally applicable, standardized methodology and software Bridgeview Consulting A-5 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1—Planning-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 50,000°F. The rapid heating and cooling of air near lightning causes thunder. Lightning is a major threat during thunderstorms. In the United States, 75 to 100 Americans are struck and killed by lightning each year(see http://www.fema.gov/hazard/thunderstorms/thunder.shtm). Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the complete failure of soils, occurring when soils lose shear strength and flow horizontally. It is most likely to occur in fine grain sands and silts, which behave like viscous fluids when liquefaction occurs. This situation is extremely hazardous to development on the soils that liquefy, and generally results in extreme property damage and threats to life and safety. Local Government: Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district,intrastate district,council of governments(regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate 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 1—Planning-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 community's flood problems Stakeholder: Business leaders, civic groups, academia, non-profit organizations, major employers, managers of critical facilities,farmers,developers,special purpose districts,and others whose actions could impact hazard mitigation. Stream Bank Erosion: Stream bank erosion is common along rivers,streams and drains where banks have been eroded, sloughed or undercut. However, it is important to remember that a stream is a dynamic and constantly changing system.It is natural for a stream to want to meander,so not all eroding banks are "bad" and in need of repair. Generally, stream bank erosion becomes a problem where development has limited the meandering nature of streams,where streams have been channelized, or where stream bank structures (like bridges, culverts, etc.) are located in places where they can actually cause damage to downstream areas. Stabilizing these areas can help protect watercourses from continued sedimentation, damage to adjacent land uses,control unwanted meander, and improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife. Steep Slope: Different communities and agencies define it differently, depending on what it is being applied to,but generally a steep slope is a slope in which the percent slope equals or exceeds 25%. For this study,steep slope is defined as slopes greater than 33%. Sustainable Hazard Mitigation: This concept includes the sound management of natural resources,local economic and social resiliency, and the recognition that hazards and mitigation must be understood in the largest possible social and economic context. Thunderstorm: A thunderstorm is a storm with lightning and thunder produced by cumulonimbus clouds. Thunderstorms usually produce gusty winds, heavy rains, and sometimes hail. Thunderstorms are usually short in duration (seldom more than 2 hours). Heavy rains associated with thunderstorms can lead to flash flooding during the wet or dry seasons. Tornado: A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending between and in contact with a cloud and the surface of the earth.Tornadoes are often(but not always)visible as funnel clouds. On a local scale, tornadoes are the most intense of all atmospheric circulations, and winds can reach destructive speeds of more than 300 mph. A tornado's vortex is typically a few hundred meters in diameter, and damage paths can be up to 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. Vulnerability: Vulnerability describes how exposed or susceptible an asset is to damage. Vulnerability depends on an asset's construction 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, topography and air mass. Fuel can include living and dead vegetation on the ground, along the surface as brush and small trees,and in the air such as tree canopies.Topography includes both slope and elevation.Air mass includes temperature,relative humidity,wind speed and direction, cloud cover,precipitation amount,duration, and the stability of the atmosphere at the time of the fire. Wildfires can be ignited by lightning and, most frequently,by human activity including smoking,campfires,equipment use and arson. Windstorm: Windstorms are generally short-duration events involving straight-line winds or gusts exceeding 50 mph. These gusts can produce winds of sufficient strength to cause property damage. Windstorms are especially dangerous in areas with significant tree stands, exposed property, poorly constructed buildings,mobile homes(manufactured housing units),major infrastructure, and aboveground utility lines.A windstorm can topple trees and power lines;cause damage to residential,commercial,critical facilities; and leave tons of debris in its wake. Zoning Ordinance: The zoning ordinance designates allowable land use and intensities for a local jurisdiction. Zoning ordinances consist of two components: a zoning text and a zoning map. 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=223 8 Summary Overview of the Plan's 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements... • 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 plan's development process that a steering committee would remain in service to oversee maintenance of the plan. At a minimum, the steering committee will provide technical review and oversight on the development of the annual progress report. It is anticipated that there will be turnover in the membership annually,which will be documented in the progress reports. For this reporting period, the steering committee membership is as indicated in Table 1. TABLE 1. 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 ...ANNEX C—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 0/) 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements... TABLE 2. ACTION PLAN MATRIX Action Taken? Status(X, (Yes or No) Time Line Priority Status 0/) Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative# — [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative# — [description] Initiative#_ [description] Initiative#_ [description] Completion status legend: ✓=Project Completed O=Action ongoing toward completion X=No progress at this time Bridgeview Consulting C-4 April 2020 ...ANNEX C—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 plan's development) Recommendations for Changes or Enhancements: Based on the review of this report by the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee, the following recommendations will be noted for future updates or revisions to the plan: • • • • Public review notice: The contents of this report are considered to be public knowledge and have been prepared for total public disclosure. Copies of the report have been provided to the governing boards of all planning partners and to local media outlets and the report is posted on the 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 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements... 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 .,S.R SPc CyMfa* Prepared by: II - BRIDGEVIEW CONSULTING Bridgeview Consulting, LLC 915 North Laurel Lane Tacoma, Washington 98406 253.301.1330 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Volume 2—Planning 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 1.4.1 2020 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 2.6.1 Regulatory Capability 2-5 2.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 2-7 2.6.3 Fiscal Capability 2-8 2.6.4 Community 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 3.6.1 Regulatory Capability 3-4 3.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 3-6 3.6.3 Fiscal Capability 3-7 3.6.4 Community 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 4.6.1 Regulatory Capability 4-4 4.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 4-6 4.6.3 Fiscal Capability 4-7 4.6.4 Community 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 5.6.1 Regulatory Capability 5-4 5.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 5-6 5.6.3 Fiscal Capability 5-7 5.6.4 Community 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 6.5.1 National Flood Insurance Information 6-3 6.5.2 Regulatory Capability 6-4 6.5.3 Administrative and Technical Capability 6-6 6.5.4 Fiscal Capability 6-8 6.5.5 Community 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 2-Planning 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 7.6.1 Regulatory Capability 7-6 7.6.2 Administrative 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 8.6.1 Regulatory Capability 8-4 8.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capability 8-5 8.6.3 Fiscal Capability 8-7 8.6.4 Community 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 9.5.1 Regulatory Capability 9-4 9.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 9-4 9.5.3 Fiscal Capability 9-6 9.5.4 Community 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 10.5.1 Regulatory Capability 10-5 10.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 10-5 10.5.3 Fiscal 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 11.2.10 District Profile 11-1 11.3 Hazard Event History 11-3 11.4 Applicable Regulations and Plans 11-3 11.4.1 Regulatory Capability 11-4 11.4.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 11-4 11.4.3 Fiscal 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 12.5.1 Regulatory Capability 12-4 12.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 12-5 12.5.3 Fiscal 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 13.5.1 Regulatory Capability 13-4 13.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 13-5 13.5.3 Fiscal Capability 13-6 13.5.4 Community Classification 13-7 13.6 Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Ranking 13-7 v Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2-Planning 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 14.5.1 Regulatory Capability 14-4 14.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 14-5 14.5.3 Fiscal 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 15.5.1 Regulatory Capability 15-6 15.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 15-7 15.5.3 Fiscal 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 16.5.1 Regulatory Capability 16-4 16.5.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities 16-5 16.5.3 Fiscal 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: "Multi jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process and has officially adopted the plan." (Section 201.6.a(4)) 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: "Any county, municipality, city, town, township, public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law),regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization; and any rural community,unincorporated town or village, or other public entity." There are two types of Planning Partners 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 2—Planning 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 wishing to join the planning effort were asked to provide the planning team with a "notice of intent to participate" that agreed to the planning partner expectations and 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 provide a"Letter of Intent to Participate." • 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. • Each partner will be expected to perform a"consistency review"of all technical studies,plans, and ordinances specific to hazards identified within the planning area to determine the existence of plans,studies or ordinances not consistent with the equivalent documents reviewed in preparation of the County plan. For example: if a planning partner has a floodplain management plan that makes recommendations that are not consistent with any of the County's basin plans,that plan will need to be reviewed for probable incorporation into the plan for the partner's area. • 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 CFR would be met, based on the partners' capabilities and mode of operation. Each partner was asked to participate in a technical assistance workshop during which key elements of the template were completed by a designated point of contact for each partner and a member of the planning team. The templates were set up to lead each partner through a series of steps that would generate the DMA-required elements that are specific for each partner. 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 constituency,their vital facilities and the facilities' functionality after an event. The methodology followed that used for the countywide risk ranking presented in Volume 1.A principal objective of this exercise was Bridgeview Consulting 1-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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; • FEMA's 2013 Hazard Mitigation Catalog; • Federal funding and technical assistance catalogs; and • Copies of partners' prior annexes, if applicable. Prioritization 44 CFR requires actions identified in the action plan to be prioritized (Section 201.c.3.iii). The planning team 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 under FEMA's HMGP or PDM programs. Both of these programs require detailed benefit/cost analysis as part of the application process. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application preparation,using the FEMA benefit-cost model. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require this sort of analysis, the Partners reserve the right to define "benefits" according to parameters that meet their needs and the goals and objectives of this plan. Analysis of Mitigation Initiatives Each planning partner reviewed its recommended initiatives to classify each initiative based on the hazard it addresses and the type of mitigation it involves. Mitigation types used for this categorization are as follows: • Prevention—Government,administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land and buildings are developed to reduce hazard losses.Includes planning and zoning,floodplain laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater management regulations. • 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 2—Planning 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 addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team, the 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; Airway Heights WA 99001 Primary Point of Contact 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 2—Planning 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°38'37"N 117°35'11"W. 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 as it is part of the Channeled Scablands. The "heights" in the city's name references 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 community—land 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 deparnnent of corrections chose Airway Heights for a minimum and medium security prison. • Climate: – Average Daily High Temperature: 58.5°F – Average Daily Low Temperature: 39.6°F – Record High Temperature: 108°F on 8/4/1961 and 7/26/1928 – Record Low Temperature: –30°F 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 the Spokane Tribe's new casino and the nearby Amazon Distribution Center requiring 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes • Economy–The City of Airway 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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 Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)compliance is presented in Table 2-2. This identifies the current status of the jurisdiction's involvement with 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. Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in 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 ARMC,Title 17,adopted 12/17/2012 Subdivision Ordinance X X ARMC,Title 16,adopted 4/2007 Floodplain Ordinance ARMC,Title 16,Chapter 16.08,adopted 2007 Stormwater Management X X ARMC,Title 16,Chapter 16.08 Real Estate Disclosure X WA State Disclosure Law(RCW 64.06) Growth Management X ARMC 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 2-3 LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Other Local Jurisdictional State Authority Authority Mandated Comments Public Health and Safety X ARMC,Title 8,Adopted 12/17/2012 Natural Hazard Specific Ordinance X ARMC,Title 18,adopted 12/17/2012 (stormwater, steep slope,wildfire, etc.) Environmental Protection ARMC,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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 County's Website. 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 The jurisdiction's classifications under various 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 The jurisdiction's internal Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan,and have identified the hazards that affect the City of Airway 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 2—Planning 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 of Airway 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, and their knowledge of the jurisdiction's assets and hazards of concern. Table 2-8 lists the action items/strategies that make up the jurisdiction's hazard 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 Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 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 Depai anent 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 Continue to maintain and/or enhance the City's 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 2—Planning 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 z IL O C C C o C Mitigation Strategy Project Status U U r Z U 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 plan. template and all planning requirements to 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 located in hazard-prone areas to protect actions,and therefore is removing it from structures from future damage,with the 2020 update. 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 w IL •E o - 0 0 o Mitigation Strategy Project Status U U U 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 dictate land uses within the jurisdiction. assessment into consideration. 5. Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP. 6. Continue to maintain and/or enhance the Carried forward. As the City updates its x City's capability to enforce its codes and codes,etc.,it does take the HMP risk regulations that result in decreased risk assessment into consideration. 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes 1 d [ ..., _�. "1 1 p 1 I I kV r i 1 Q{ 1 isitCtty of Airway Heights " ° tow �°"F ACe` "'Cr liquefaction "'' =.meq Lac 5 c7k r e County. 'u JA Susceptibility MI M+Xlxyr sre to ligh M WRY taw in Low III p rod. Liquefaction Susceptibility , ,N IMcdma+e III Vey Low Low to moderate Bridgeview Consulting 2-14 April 2020 CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS - I I I I . . . . — t 1,1 0 1 my. Notional lioringuaito D;7, .46,00, City of Airway Heights Ho fords Iloaucaost 10, ",(:gr or,(WHIM i;: CoiScoon National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soils Bridgeview Consulting 2-15 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes r ' F r { r r A Y A { J Y i tl Y - 1 - r City of Airway Heights • Steep Stapes map Landslide uses •.Arc DEM aacagar Cgm�imiklpticm Historic) landslide Areas Are os * ' & Steep Slopes 2019: USGS, !,Arc' OEM � Bridgeview Consulting 2-16 April 2020 CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS 1 ANDFIRf s 411 11 Aden Fore Fief-lc:vim fursiMeAcie4 If MI3j I 'It7t2rIrer-11,. 11 -p.r-I.TA'1,hpro1icrss of IsperlSccestrAy found sillsonsi swirls"Kiri t.4 rut,v.. A.Ap ph ifs,.'Irv!+..!t,.1 ..,?.-.r'iro111.,, tsrul fuel tope&Me foe 1..,I.hAAA.If. Ar.A;A I A..P.p1 I.,A...AA,r : I .irp PA,.p. RfeA.00frys'Ay Pup&Nips!1,Agriss,Ste:Ar, urro,ei l 1,-, i,..i.,•I I ',1,1., 'Cind litirtMe,fl ettl tO Vnillrilet.Fa.V.)b %NI(..-11..1 111::..i.i'ti.*•,r, 1 , ,,...,.,...„.K.,riepits Levi Trips:4111re nil essti,f000-A. P...., t.AI i l'Hi" t 4 • *°1 t * . . , I I , . — * * , r- . . . 11- 1641°*''' .. . , , '7,44: 4 7:7; 1 t14,4 e- - 1 i • 11,,,,,At i I , „ lc ' A 1 A . 1 ..,,,,, . , . . .. dill ' Aar' •,.. dr,o if,,,, „Jgb .,I1_ A ...•- .A ,,, , 1 : 1 , - - dCity of Airway Heights 61,4,,,, i-t-,,Fmi,, mop .11F*012 TI"Ibit' ,a, FBF,49, Loc.:too] ArsPerson 13 Fore gehoulor fuel 1. f6F1413 • FM1O Anderson 13 Fire Mode:Groups 61%44 • tirbori Behavior Fuel Model ,„,, ,,., MIMS Agicullure 1 I [ :21".1 c,', .......,2-,.. t3,,,,,,,,r4 4 44,0,6 • Barren , , 0 Waiet ,.. Bridgeview Consulting 2-17 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 1 .., • • . IP 1 ji . f . gage 41 • 1 X 1 H , i d — ..• dig% i . 41 It* ** 1* * ' 'I a morri . .. 1 . I ml , I —1 r. 1 L'-I-' Tf_ 4 I' • ' a,, a , , 11 i• 1 a .... 1 a 1 1 S. • '01 I 1 II a 1 11 . 1 '-'1'I', ,I7tr- T 1 * I "I 1 I , ' '--- ' * , a % a I t 1* 6, , lit 1 —1 . 1 • /Aeon Hi*Rehon irtiervail(MRI}t.1.,..--,.P ,. ''I,- t .' •-r::p-1_,-,_ : F. 44 ,,, 4,,r: 'I. .14 ...! tu elev. ,1,- x' cc I,„I ot**stat* .i'tt-tt,,tare 0- ,,I, Colfiktd IA the Lticrader.,,,1a,K.Ut brot6 p !! _1 teptes&nte._L,i• L eel Se 5 WS laver cal BPS Model documeol abort. - City of Airway Heighh • '''' • '-160 ....“-;',..°J,' . •11-1°5 atom 411116 46,al*601 101-1251rwr 61111. Spokani: C aunty, viA . 16 m*ean 4 51•reri Yean 126.150 TOW 4 Mean Fite Return Interval • a1,25 TOW. 6140'NKr, I'tt, I 6t.2.-4 T., * LANDriPE 2..L1.1 6 . 26-111*eau , 11!X)V0011 • MI MO too, i k Bridgeview Consulting 2-18 April 2020 CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS 0 r, r,` lam •! FA, pm ,. " • a A iii. ",,,,,..li ll LI ., . Ls . 00 W,... . 1 ':1". ) • 4111144, 11°L '. . "4 w 7 gg1 • fl_ . . rr 11. • 0 • Fira l.gir740 Graup 1 5:.':rr-rr f rr,-Rar.,rnmfr, rl 4 Vr+h ..._ .... • Flre Rrrg:rno Group it%�,.Yray 1 re R Turn rori.riL RCptaK e...•.r..1 . a r. • Fire Req,I+'Grasp tI 3$-XO Yeo +re ketrJrr n,l r'oI.Low&P":x..,1;.,.11' • Firs Arra -i..Group IV 35 1CI.1 Yeuf Fie Fretur r.,rrr,rrax.aepla.trl, rr."cii� F00 '•iw G/oup V r 090 Year Fife Re"u"n r rervoi.Any Srt erIty City of Airway Heights <> 'r.r,,,e11,.r.urmwpr 0 w..+w,v.y.rf.,d MA _q MEdHFslorfc Fre� " Reglrrre Giot,pf Vrrrc.CrrR(Aoyp r 0 0..,110Historic Fire ,A NOM 70x7 0 .1-1,rSerhe Gr...p r 0 ,,,,,,...rw Regime Groups . .rCGatir'rc LAL,go Pr Bridgeview Consulting 2-19 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 41111 { 1 sir 1 _ _ Y III 1g _ u ..—..,,.�....... i l n... ,404 7.1 106:. .y {— J �� uufi �41ir°� r � ' � mow'tio _ W St 1111 Y.q'rlasnn C.,,,1,110.1 00.a IA.'ply ^ ..oy)pl.yl''1°'Cwlu;+fr-r«f I}s^S • Vaq'alalian.1...,A1'pry Oast 11111,5*ti.r,",_.Noop o 'wag,.2131o+r Cxpco,_,D-7 377, VaQaAalon CorrepfWn CI014 11 A, =w Wepe-r:11.0 r.Ctepart.rie VapaIalen Cark1G11arr Cott II...Mrde TJfia Y... al. v_•.]a1'afi'ee,Dap arloa 51,581 • Vaq*lanan Conduon Oast III.A Fr]h 6.7-67% City of Airway • Vestfaxlen Compton Class HI.s'+'nrr rsa' WeN,?e".''11K2n Cwp+7rh.nr da i• a Ci Akway Height' raCeassa^eonaaroa traue..a e,. at .�cr• `r .• loravar Vegetation Condition Class il - _ANDFRE 20 • Bridgeview Consulting 2-20 April 2020 CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS i Y di d Y 1,1 4 li A V — _ ,, . Y 1 I Y 1 V Gewer i' 4 1 t d 1 1 P G: d d 1 6 11 I 11111:j-1 , I Y , d , 1 1 Y , 0 1 _ y r w tl Yr I ♦ r 1 1 City of Airway Heights w dand40 ex,, ,� Y, .-,"tcr")rf, .L,. iiiii LYrbon Wildland Urban Interface ,rit&Oce iwul; -Qt. i 0w6 * WUICommunities Cl,m High Risk w'1 r,kik murnt,rs ptiA L14:4.r,1<r,4,;'iia:.:. r ,r„rw. 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 providing representation on the County's Planning Team, the City of Cheney 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 Thomas Jenkins,Fire Chief Primary Point of Contact Meeting attendance, planning 611 4th Street Cheney,WA 99004 team facilitator for City's internal Telephone: (509)498-9291 planning team; authoring of plan; 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 Alternate Point of Contact Meeting attendance; assistance Secretary with authoring portions of plan; 112 Anderson Rd. capture information; assist with Cheney,WA 99004 Telephone: (509) 498-9240 risk ranking and capturing of information for capabilities e-mail: sbeeman@cityofcheney.org assessment and strategy update. Update of profile. Bridgeview Consulting 3-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 regionally dominant City of Spokane. Additionally, Cheney's growth and development has 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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. 3.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)compliance is presented in Table 2-2. This identifies the current status of the jurisdiction's involvement with the NFIP. 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 3-2 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management in your community? Planning Dept Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in 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 toprovide 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 Public Works/Light Dept's risk(e.g.,tree trimming,clearing drainage systems,chipping,etc.) Mutual Aid Agreements/ Yes Yes Spokane County, State DNR,and Local Memorandums of Understanding MOU's Bridgeview Consulting 3-5 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 3.6.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 Planners or engineers with knowledge of land Yes Public Works/City Planner,Engineer development and land management practices Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes Public Works/City Planner,Engineer, City construction practices(building officials,fire Building Inspector,Fire Marshall inspectors,etc.) Engineers specializing in construction practices? Yes Public Works/City Planner,Engineer Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes Public Works/City Planner,Engineer natural hazards 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 Public Works/City Planner,Engineer 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 schoolprorams? 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes 3.6.4 Community Classifications The jurisdiction's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 The jurisdiction's 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."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score 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 assessment, and their knowledge of the jurisdiction's assets and hazards of concern. Table 3-8 lists the Bridgeview Consulting 3-9 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes action items/strategies that make up the jurisdiction's hazard 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. TABLE 3-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 Support adequate public fire protection. New and All 1,7,9 Fire Medium Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local, Existing Budgets, Property Protection, County, Grants Emergency Services, Region Recovery,Natural Resource Protection, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#2 Encourage tree trimming on public and private property. New and SW,W 2,5,7, Light Dept Low Enterprise Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local Existing 10, 11 Funds, Property Protection, Grants Emergency Services, Recovery,Natural Resource Protection, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#3 Develop hazardous materials evacuation drills. New and SW,TD, 1,4,8 Fire Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local, Existing E Budgets, Property Protection, County, Grants Emergency Services, Region Recovery, INITIATIVE#4 Continue training and exercising for possible terrorism/active shooter events. New and TD,AS 1,4,8 Cheney and Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local, Existing Eastern PD Budgets, Emergency Services, County Grants Recovery, INITIATIVE#5 Assess the vulnerability of identified critical facilities. New and All 1,4,8 Cheney PD Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local, Existing Budgets, Property Protection, County Grants Recovery, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#6 Continue to support the countywide initiatives identified in this plan. Bridgeview Consulting 3-10 April 2020 CITY OF CHENEY TABLE 3-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 1,3,4,8 DEM Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local, Existing Budgets, Property Protection, County, Grants Emergency Services, Regional Recovery,Natural Resource Protection, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#7 Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this plan. New and All 1,4,8 DEM Low Local Short Yes Preventive Activities, Local, Existing Budgets, Property Protection, County Grants Emergency Services, Recovery,Natural Resource Protection, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#8 Where appropriate, support retrofitting,purchase,or removal in hazard-prone areas to protect structures from 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 Dept Grants, Property Protection, Local Emergency Services, Contributi Recovery, ons INITIATIVE#9 Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into other plans,ordinances or programs to dictate land uses within the jurisdiction. New and All 2,3,4,5, Planning Low City Short Yes Preventive Activities, Local, Existing 11 Dept Funding Property Protection, County Emergency Services, Recovery,Natural Resource Protection, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#10 Implement wildfire mitigation recommendations identified in the Spokane County CWPP. New and W 1-12 Spokane Medium Local, Short Yes Preventive Activities, Local Existing Conservation Fire Property Protection, District,All Grants, Natural Resource County Fire HMGP, Protection, Districts PDM Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#11 Continue to maintain and/or enhance the city's capability to enforce its codes and regulations that result in decreased risk exposure of new development. Bridgeview Consulting 3-11 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 3-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 Existing Funds Property Protection, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#12 Consider,where appropriate,the adoption of higher regulatory standards that will result in an increase in the community resilience of new development. New and All 4,5, 11 City Staff and Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local Existing Council Funds, Property Protection, Grants, Emergency Services, Recovery,Natural Resource Protection, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#13 Continue to maintain compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This will be accomplished through the implementation of floodplain management programs that,at a minimum,will meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP,which include the following: • Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance • Participating in floodplain identification and mapping updates • Providing public assistance/information on floodplain requirements and impacts New and F 4,5, 11 Planning Low Local Long Yes Preventive Activities, Local Existing Dept Funds, Property Protection, Grants Recovery, Infrastructure Systems Protection INITIATIVE#14 Continue to build partnerships with railroad companies to mitigate railroad hazards,access issues due to crossings being blocked during natural hazards. New and TD,H 1-12 Fire Dept Low Local Long No Preventive Activities, Local, Existing Funds, Property Protection, County, Grants Emergency Services, 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 3-10. STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Current Status bfi an E °° d o 0 o 0 o � Ct Mitigation Strategy Project Status U U Z U 1. Continue to support adequate public fire The City has recently purchased new ✓ ✓ ✓ protection. equipment and a new fire apparatus. With 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 ✓ ✓ ✓ public and private property. in those areas that are the responsibility of the City's jurisdiction;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 ✓ ✓ ✓ evacuation drills. exercises and inclusion of public and 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 1 ✓ ✓ possible terrorism/active shooter events. fire department and both police agencies engage in local and county active shooter and rescue task force exercises. 5. Continue to assess the vulnerability of The City annually identifies priority ✓ ✓ ✓ identified critical facilities. facilities through the 6. Continue to support the countywide The City has continued to work with the ✓ ✓ ✓ initiatives identified in this plan. County and local planning partners in supporting the initiatives of this plan. 7. Continue to actively participate in the The City was a planning team member for ✓ ✓ ✓ plan maintenance strategy identified in this the 2020 update,and completed its annex plan. template and all planning requirements to 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 8 IL o P o 0 0 o Mitigation Strategy Project Status U U r 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. 9. Integrate the hazard mitigation plan into The City updates its Codes and Ordnances ✓ ✓ ✓ other plans,ordinances or programs to on an as-needed basis or when Federal or dictate land uses within the jurisdiction. State mandates and initiatives require 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 ✓ ✓ ✓ mitigation recommendations identified in on an as-needed basis or when Federal or the Spokane County CWPP. State mandates and initiatives require 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 ✓ ✓ ✓ city's capability to enforce its codes and on an as-needed basis or when Federal or regulations that result in decreased risk State mandates and initiatives require exposure of new development. change. 12. Continue to consider,where appropriate, The City updates its Codes and Ordnances ✓ ✓ ✓ the adoption of higher regulatory standards on an as-needed basis or when Federal or that will result in an increase in the State mandates and initiatives require community resilience of new development. change. This planning committee reviewed 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 ✓ I ✓ good standing under the National Flood County and local planning partners in Insurance Program. supporting the initiatives of the NFIP. Bridgeview Consulting 3-15 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 V . i - '" 4 t 4 I i 4 I 4 4 4 4 A 1 4,,,,,,- i /* - '‘, I 4 i" k , 4 4 0 t, & - ,44 r . o ic,—(40:401 1 rir dY ,.‘k , ift -,„011' 1,4 Ai , t , s- - ' < A 0 Alt I 1 0 ,0 . ,kio ,I ' r ; *40 ,..,, - ot 1 I 'k 6 30r ,o I ..., f , i 4`i1V,,\', '' st 0 0 i Pr , I - r Ao of ) ," 1 i ,„— iii: . , , toNtr, , / , • ' di ot - t , I , .., _ i 1 0 1 .0 It ., I ,d 4' 4 ... I... I i I e3tyCity of Cheney ir Zone A *Zone AO mop I rk.! lri,1,,,,, :horkee Rivernhoom Fkod locatot Spokane County WA Hood Hazard olood event hiaord Antos Areas. Ate0X xolll 0W.O.",Ott Flood Hazard Areas IVAA,20I9 40 ZOnt=,PJ WWII**Ibittlyne of 04 IT On,* 1 I MA, il,)1 ) On Zone X PAW*not rit0 It: *Zone Ac mil& - 44 tr/e,rent 1 r,,,4.t ,-4 Bridgeview Consulting 3-17 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes A r13171 litt!Otor- '' - 1"1,60,CCe 1,„ ,,‘,. "--1 I mult,*040 ..ortam ' .1 ,s am esIllrnafot ur trke , , , • ,,I Ahot Zlvot4 doat.p as a - 1 ^ .,diPpwe tli rtmt oellairver L very to rowtocoar * ,..°70,00C1(X0 mem a,frocferorte •,,,,,toWertlina." , 11 a , "111 1 1111111 yr - ' I , I 4 I i , // , ../ 00 , ,' _ 7, /--., .„., ... ,, , 1 , , # o Glycit y of Cheney $411C4ptibial sal Suscoviible Map _ 1 IIII0.0g14 LOW Pt....4.0 10001,01 Spokane Conty, WA Liquefaction 1 Su sc ePlibibly A modelcor lc,tiv,,E vmv Loreto I nw 1.tktomrr Liquefaction SusceplIblItly lo, moderato III Very tow Low to Moderate I now Not al c.-Ifeltor4 of 41,...utoc Nat,CM ototenr 0,,,mo map Bridgeview Consulting 3-18 April 2020 CITY OF CHENEY _ , _ - 1ê .1U 1 01°11 •4., .444 f d EityCity of Cheney Noil000l EGON:poke '"""*I'''? Map tocofo, Hazards Itirdvc - Spokane County. WA hrogroro(NE141P) o4 CiassificoMo National Earthquake Hazards b LD C LL . Reductionf ge a m (NEHRP) Sails „ * . , Bridgeview Consulting 3-19 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes IM.3,11 - - - I 0 t Gay City of Cheney Mop Widk-rmci 400. wt.,. • moderate tocatet ' - ty, WA Urbun Ite0 OAP WIldland Urban Interface Interface ONUII 410lh Low Hrgra RIM( , , (WW) High Risk Communities Cornmunitlec N ;DINP „'DIE Bridgeview Consulting 3-20 April 2020 CITY OF CHENEY I I, .., , . . , . . , f - - - - - - - -1 i : ' - I ir rl r , 1 I. l' i. . . , ,. „._ , .. . . . ' "' P' . .4.. , .. 1 1 1 . • a-7 It ' „,,, il I 1Ara..-k, ,,,,. 1,11P- V101P 4•11Pel,k111:1P 11 I.1-1.1.1•P P I .. Aeser,rs 1.3r rcl joirrir. N-ri -r P,,1 °acing 0.0vrI01,. cr -I urloce fuel'coot.),... I ...- ,.'' I.ctd1 size cic 0.1e,type: INI ri.e .,HI.;t .x., I.• gr,E.e3 tv,,,t•PW/Fi• P oi, , 1 1118-CaljArIg hJ el IN 11-. 11705S b1115.1- P.1-1b0,'Pt-, 1• V 11' , 1:,•1 1,1.14 Ord surtoce catlo.h.,„ ,,,ollor,e,o,c.I size do ,,r 1 •r,4 ,,,,.. ikletuall rle-pit or d rnst,,,fe of 43x.r.ct.r..4n - , -BFM8 NoP elyCity of Cheney tocatot OuNdetion 13 Fire _ oKory2 Cour.t, L',,', Fuel 15F,.. • FRIMIC Anderson 13 Fire Model Groups lilf-M4 . UrtAln sk Behavior Fuel Model L ' , FlifiviS Apliturfure 1,4 144” I ArdA l''' . '.'" '-.' , • eale n ............... . FIIFM? • Wale* Bridgeview Consulting 3-21 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes N I 1 i. i ,_._ W m 410 il. a ° 4 r, ' 1 t ,j ii 0 ' . rd, 9. 1 i i I di IF 1 _ mos lir 410Plop i 7. - 40.4040 .. "4 . ' 1 .ti t� ' . ,, 1,� . •- ., L !r I . rc .gym* I . :I� ' M 'd v+7"' ' * 4 •I % - ' ,'1 y..... .: .—.A. 1 qct, • M. 'N4 Iti f Of f i -1 N+5. '' - - '' . Y tW 1574 . '' I A tlR I Te t - *., • nledN,yl 4.-1,1104,,C:yns I A Jai,..LowYe.?CP4'10^z Gt"+pcYTurC^Co 1F"[ l • V4u,MIl l 1 wrryflk•.•flow,111 cor Ic rmcgra a YE.,,ynlgrnn rogeerltre 17:I:Y'. V..0,400an wt. 9,hc CI.,,,II A M,)VM,i'7"'4 4a0,,'eervikor Oeputr.tr 34 Vt. • dcgcluI•an'_c.nalt,G,.Clabs II 6 0.1Y.4n. ..7 Hyh Vepelpl'm J $? 1441.. • 'ir arlrilinr'r.nrPt,r.n f;Doss IIF A"',•T'• 1,..•C.ep']A.ra.i.7- % • Ve ..............._..._..,.'� y y'+ ... e7elrtiaan nnrM.n f.."719 IIIA I,. ;,lir*r,[ tim",M..,54..I[1L"' C>cr y C I�/ afi C e n e�l rHMn,44.(6.4ilm.1 CAI,MK, q17 r - - -,lo County, WA pp 4 Vegetation Condition Class •.. t A Nr)FIRF 7014 ...,, e.10n0 F;-- A. •.r.,j._..«--rias_-,..._n!A .•-:..,=..:.". Bridgeview Consulting 3-22 April 2020 CITY OF CHENEY .• a---t -I li I 14 la I tt- - (. . I 4 i 0 '' 4 * . 0 11 — 7-ti4"lt, 1 171 4.1 A 1 ,,,-....4._1--P,,--. 1 r-1 .-•., " 'Y * .0 4 (1' 1 L I I' , • L -- - . 0 1 . ei , - e _ at* ... _1- * * 'R: , 1...1..:L: f-'. ' ''' *• I "'"' ''--..i; N „,.. , • * 1 '" -,, , ,-- I I • Fir.tegime Group I.- ' ler Hu flietur,, ,,tttwroi ..00r&Mxed .6,,-,t., • Fife Regime Group II 2: 1._.at I it kri hire'vial kepOcerner'5, ,..1'. . . Fire 1 eglme Group Ell "", 2C0 Yeur Fire Pf.torr,iv•tetorui LOw 8 Mixt,Jr * Firs itogiono Group IV '5 ?co Yoili;Ire Rryliar,kntervo • Firs eoraiino Group V'2X)Year Fre weturn intervot An v Severity tUtyCity of Cheney <> ,.t.o..,0.0 0 iorator I ' Hisktric The <> Spokane C:._ t, WA 14,'kV,*r..,-.tr. <> w*h•• ft. Reolme Groups ,. Historic Fire tANDDRI at?P 0 h....co-.c.e....,i 0 rm." Vokorte 1 Couoty 1 Regime Groups • ....t“..00,0 t.,.....r w I * 4--- 1 41> VI",Fd4,..k% ,,6.• I — — .-.' Bridgeview Consulting 3-23 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes An MO W : I L ' • 1 . I 0 A 41,1 11 ,eimm 14 l 1411111 gir r.'4'041pr4 . _ , a iiimantw, i„, ENt , p I 40± ii MI O 1. irtlf 97 "4 ' Ill le..111111. ,,, '41 t p_al 11111111iliagen,Alt„ . ' Arrijorrir iS Neer*41FAA111reir 7 . f * • 41 I 0,01 1 I/4741 I P• " * '' ' a V" •,,4 t N..'.,k,..1 , Ablitib 40 411044, T :Ar 4 . "111117407.410e! a,' S . .404.4#0„ .,- . #. ' .0. 1 44.4. Jo, - ..sit.44 ,,f c -. ..... 11 z ' —1-- '440.44J ` 44t. iti' ir -1 --111110tairciti bit ,..1C 0 a *.e4 _ L am lorm,!, 1 1 lio 4 .- # , --.0 , I I - lir 4. - ' et,,,, t'••• • `"Air'44414 0' ii- 4° .- ' I- --I ;" * ,^.,,,' " :4:,,,,,, / o • * i '—' * H .,- "LPL r , " —1 - - 4 . " r ' . tiro tolvon intonrol(Mill)if 1.t••,i.Mant.hin Ire OverOc,le def,CteD en'tes Jr.ler,he gateeoreed 1161 ,,_,..0 fife Q.ciirne PAP R",s..^terded J,,,I#L4 L LC..upOol8r1ld roStOilw il•,. , prne crofccron5focs po to tOCNICief'V5IC.K7011 in 1,,,,,I ,Orewelea.0*tr.e LAN11,F LH liophysc ot Seflioqs[MS)over aid VS Model CAOCUrilen.allicp ex City of Cheney • 0,,,,..., • #0.40####. . i, ,. , • .1.. locator I —1 40 t 103'leaqn ., • /4%Yean ' ,, 1 _ __ WA A I., • 14,24)ve.cm, 4, 51&I fem .. ', ,rJ Mean Fire Return Interval ircontizI • 7,75 vsmo 61-70**on .1'..,, i5t-XID"I•cr t # ,n, , i.,,I., . 2*XI Year% 7:40 fee= . iii,300 Yam otb * 1 * 11-3,5!eon el-WI'YEKITI • VI WO Yaks 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 providing representation on the County's Planning Team,the City of Deer Park 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 Roger Krieger, Community Services Primary Point of Contact Update Annex Template data; Director 316 E Crawford Avenue coordinate meetings with City Deer Park,WA 99006 Council members; attended planning Telephone: 509-276-8802 team meetings and workshops; e-mail:RKrieger@ci.deerpark.wa.us attended annex development workshop;conducted risk assessment review and hazard ranking process for presentation during October 1st 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 316 E Crawford Avenue Alternate Point of Contact Coordinate meetings with City Deer Park,WA 99006 Council members; assisted with the Telephone: 509-276-8802 update of information, and e-mail:DCragun@ci.deerpark.wa.us information gathering from other departments as appropriate. Bridgeview Consulting 4-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 winter. Because of Deer Park's location between the Cascade Range to the West and Rocky 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 season's cold air masses traveling southward across Canada, sparing the City from the wort effects of Arctic air in the winter. Still,Deer Park's normal year snow accumulation is in excess of 46 inches. • Governing Body Format— Deer Park's government structure is established as a code city, 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 – The City of Deer Park's economic base consists of retail sales and services; 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 also identifies the jurisdiction's 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. Bridgeview Consulting 4-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 4.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)compliance is presented in Table 4-2. This identifies the current status of the jurisdiction's involvement with the NFIP. 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 Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in 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 2—Planning 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 The City was part of the County's 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 addresses Yes This 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 2—Planning 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 The jurisdiction's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 The jurisdiction's 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 2—Planning 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 assessment, and their knowledge of the jurisdiction's assets and hazards of concern. Table 4-8 lists the action items/strategies that make up the jurisdiction's hazard 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. TABLE 4-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Preventive Facility,Local, Cost Sources of Activities,Structural County, (High/ Funding Projects,Property Region Applies Medium/ (List Grant Timeline Included in Protection, to new or Hazards Low)or$ type, (Long- Previous Emergency Services, existing Mitigate Objective Figure 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 Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, BenefiFacility Estimated Preventive ,Localts? , Cost Sources of Activities,Structural County, (High/ Funding Projects,Property Region Applies Medium/ (List Grant Timeline Included in Protection, to new or Hazards Low)or$ type, (Long- Previous Emergency Services, existing Mitigate Objective Figure 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 11 Activities, 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 5,7,8,9, District,Fire Fire and Information, District Grants, ongoing Preventive 10,11,12 FEMA Activities, Property Protection,Natural Resource Protection INITIATIVE#DP-6—Continue to maintain and/or enhance the City's capability to enforce its codes and regulations that result 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 4-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Preventive Facility,Local, Cost Sources of Activities,Structural County, (High/ Funding Projects,Property Region Applies Medium/ (List Grant Timeline Included in Protection, to new or Hazards Low)or$ type, (Long- Previous Emergency Services, existing Mitigate Objective Figure 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 8,12 Activities, 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 i 2 N z an °q c o ,_ 7:3O PE• 0 0 ;'4 Mitigation Strategy Project Status U U U 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 April2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 4-10. STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Current Status ,79 bfi an E °° 7:3 o O o o o o Mitigation Strategy Project Status U U 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 1 ✓ ✓ 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 1 ✓ ✓ 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 IL P o 0 0 o Mitigation Strategy Project Status U U r 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes I I N t I I I — i � 1 � n � I � 1 _ -. I # I - I 1 h I I I � T x I F I I - 0 9 IF a. Cityof Deer Park NaBanar[a+Mtquakw wo�c®e. ' Hazards.Roducllon Spokane County, (. w, Program(NERR P) Sob Classilkokon National Earthquake Hazards •,. .,� :,,: :: ` X00 10 V Reduclion Program (NEHRP) Soils rma ros Bridgeview Consulting 4-16 April 2020 CITY OF DEER PARK I. y I r r r I a � r r. Y a 1 , 1 r 4 I a q t I x t I ti r I a — Yr 4I City of Deer Park 9 Zone A •Zone AO M m p 1ri, LM1:4 Yi, L000101 5 one County WA Flood M'azotd now eyera^ s2.4.03%.1 Art:OS 00,4 e/M!F O. :N w Flood Hazard Areas rxr,.rea• 7� iEialll,7014 �IC7 n r,�a, FEMA. 2019Zane X mow mart naPt:. ,•Zone A r r I�,-1Y 11.070,0-r .. ....... .:.r3 n,rr7r Bridgeview Consulting 4-17 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes rcJro 1 Vvrta,timoarCei DiWon of ---*Oothe&ral'h 00,50ortes Mk .,.110 fe PaFAX,WAR*Or,latt.Of ,abge&has boon pattithva al _rate oP I"MOM ,.takit.$0040,1 V00 ,mail 1 3 widon w e.tilrflaf*of stse on what isor oe&Clive,.al 43 ,Oft Of eGlhowake shotmo .4(00t4 floptili MO fManOevso Ctiptitifftp fO lou*IOCIA3ft _wstappiecf separaatelp,am time lit - , +1,10400011 MO not itatAehaboo ,-hoogh pOtr dopOod%rrfetf DO ,,, •., I' 004,1"4741,01.110M1Yrd 1 0 PeaulP ad .6, IP 14,.._.....N , 1 I 1 I ' 1 A , I • a asissamil In so 1 - II , om israfral le 1 nu mete \ City of Deer Pork * L0 r.-Lurii,D Nal Skacopillble AO 0 p SPOkare CC,Jr1?y WA Liquefaction , e Mill ,,.it L CV, 'N... locale, Susceptibility a mitst,t2r,it,thy ,,,V 0.0.oht tO I:)V, gi 4,wtoir,rt r UClUefetenOrt Susceptibility modware a sissy tow tt--- tow 10 MOLN‘f O1Q I1 tt , . Bridgeview Consulting 4-18 April 2020 CITY OF DEER PARK r – I ANI3Fliff'S„110 13 Anderson Fee Reedrici F 'P'P',",X1r4 Ir'Srt,Aiil I. ter.tetercls dishoot dishibirtioes of foe:'r..i.tr q r!ond drorrer) toadoef keel coreponeoPs Flme one dre':11 ,,,,e,c'ones clod fsfel Npes,The Le,1 models um fie.-;..,1 1.1 the mosi r.:nonmoo 1 fur Orrvrvg f;..el tsepe r,c/osi,t;nriti,''11,1tAlf i^ret f11 slds,,,1 inr11,0, rind.....ddc-ei dreo Po vf,11.wee r:lig)bV WF ri•Cl•'••l'''"' 11'1,"''''' fsedtles1 dept, fled mnivrwe of fs.finolion " -''' tz,,,, — 'v.4....",,I 4.44 '1Fr , -'- , , . ,, , . .., . 411. .._, . MI „, . • 1 , , ' ' ',":.-I;;,,Hr44•441,;1054:41.* r ''' , , ,A 0.1•.,,,,,,„„„t,,,,,,kb,1 iio, I. • ,.. . , , ,, • - 'T '' . ' 410",,,,,,-,'AV' j'01•1','' tie"::-.1.7, . -4- .''‘' . '.i rt I" ,.„.711;;:* ,, ,..„,, . 74+ .:1*.m,irf::4* 1 , '. ,.,„ ,, • ' Nei,.-4 '-- -7---;. ,,. c- , - '' '',1,11), ,,,,,, ' .','4••••: - :7-';'''' '',' '-'1 '„,:4ri'''' :"(il' ' 443"P''' –1.• • ,'-," , 111.....t...,di , — , 1or a, \---101,,,,_„I__••• --- - •- '' . ,,,,,,;6,440., r, i, ' - -12.? 3". lir • , - ' P Its" 4 , . 1 i - t 1, l . ( , riShrAt3 Map , .„--.. i City of Deer Park okin•dervan 13 Fire •-,,,311P County WA e...t,0...-io,Fuel .• Fhr Rii, Anderson 13 Fire Model Groups i 116144 • drtAle , , .. , Behavior Fuel Model , L ..„, „. . refs Apiturfure ..,„',„,..!„.,..-; Cjoi.vi " 4-4. .A6 . eceren silt ' 1,..!..!••,:-.JIPE .:.1 I",. • Wale, Bridgeview Consulting 4-19 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes k 1 eqff F = - 1 ` •.W *,t.. - At,,:-. ... I ,Fr 0 w 1 r . 4 w� r .. T q } r is r Y •` \ sO. I.. .•'., it • a' 41 ... I • Fife Regjnrne G-aup I it Ftr.Rehtrrr Inrr.•Iyrll t.,+, 4r«:'.1 t",,•...irp • 71r.tawny Gaup II= t:xe,rrr Fre Rrrttrro(rrrrrval 1,11, r,,;.,,. ,411,0 I • We Regtrne Group I>t ')-200 Yea'Fire kcilur•-inter+mal l 7w M t,•_.5r.1',empty • Fir.I!lg.m Crroup IV,.',5-2',4J Y cot Pre Return Inrencil,Pc pier;+_ri.i r Sr,vofytyi • limp*pima Group V.•2uci roar Ere Rely!)ht.rroo Any'SryvEmry City of Deer Park Historic Ana rr.ks.yticswp 0 ,.�r .v.,„ Map . —� � locator Spokorie Col_ ':' WA 0 r..:+..y7.�r.,r•ir• ' i�' Wu!.. Regime Groups ,,' Historic Fire t OrTMi /orf 0 •-•.•...v.—. .@. p r uou I Regime Groups =r.=•. .*0440 M <3y r,.4,eci►'r rrc.,,v :i s s Bridgeview Consulting 4-20 April 2020 CITY OF DEER PARK I 1 rill! 04 , r ,. .r ,4 . P � SVP' . w"> i �, y w !' ' 1 rr*' • Jam kit.. , 1.., • I. I4 • - .0) I- M+on Trim I1phon IIHfrrd tam ower goonulies rr'+e a+erQQ perk-4 _, ,.e 'r4.. _ m._ >I=r,�,r•"ed halo/cat Ire ae ie Mile,s raerded I",., „1... _ ~.'p ",. L'.0 #5101 IC pt r"e ro, ,Yle rnorixrenstoc i in-I I.:=r ;,r 5.. r ,_ '+lin I_e,nod teLtesenlec by tyre LANL'I I,"I. I1 _;I '.1 ._Ili I"/", '-,,'. 'Y_'J•-;I in_ 'AIr:.',n City of Deer Park . 0,u..,,r . ,1/4,.....,roan rr.vauTOO Map Lawlor * t.,='. ,ryn Coun fy',. WA • II-t3 Veer% ♦ 46-!11 YEclrs, MI-125Yc,�s i-�• • ti xi teen 4 51 61 Pr.:,- .:. _, ,.,-;r- 4 -- Mean Fire Return Interval :A1'4431-11%, 20,7e, «, • 76:141 Yetm f 40 Toon 4 LI.3X1#400#4 -.1. .. A,rn ♦ 31-3°.Teal% t#14!veers '.x'77-5 yen. r,.,,'.�u I. Bridgeview Consulting 4-21 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes "1 T a * , 1 9 1 1 1- • �fu i VII ir ;..��• _ -. t 4J 14,1 \\.\\%. • Yegolalwn ConQllan Clan I LOW •!e jePu'rfx,Gr,6a'Tura G 157, • ifsynaltaa CundUWn Clan I.6taw Tc rA140•31e Ya•]afarnn r•operlue 1 7:176 • Yrgelalgn Camino.Clan 11 A MJ3elata r 4cw.'r v;7er.71br.DrpurNte 34'Sf7Y. • Vepelalion Con41Wn Clan MP 6 nenue^ate•v Hq'h VepelUtIM Ge#• *u•e 51 E.51, • Yellelalgn Can41kM Cla.)III A High, vruel!)P O ,57'J.Y6 /+'l Park • Ys9elalhor Condwron ClanIrl.i Yery rrlir v!.jrrc�IS•r�0.-0.r^(e.5 51..I DC'[ City of Deer Pr�00Me`[e*ra*alwar[Aw�w. ew n,e bdirre 41 Spokane County' WA , Vegetation Condition Class ap, } l, 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 to providing representation on the County's Planning Team,the City of Liberty 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 Brian K. Asmus, Chief of Police Primary Point of Contact Meeting attendance, capturing of 23127 East Mission Avenue information; review risk ranking; Liberty Lake,WA 99019 review final annex and County Telephone: 509-755-1141 basmus@libertylakewa.gov base plan. Present plan to Commissioners for adoption. Darin Morgan, Sergeant Alternate Point of Contact Planning Coordinator; Meeting 23127 East Mission Avenue attendance, planning team Liberty Lake,WA 99019 Telephone: 509-919-0451 facilitator; authoring of plan; dmorgan@liberiylakewa.gov capturing of information; conduct 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 2—Planning 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. • Liberty Lake was once known as "Spokane's Inland Seashore." With natural beauty and attractions like boating, entertainment, dancing, and Fourth of July celebrations; many were originally brought to the area by electric train. • In the 1970's,the former Carson Hill became known as Holiday Hill,which is located on 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. • Also, in the 1970's,housing opportunities increased north of Sprague Avenue. • The early 1990's saw a boom in housing development with the creating of Homestead and Meadowwood, as well as commercial and industrial development. • The annual Liberty Lake 4th of July celebration continues with music, dancing and fireworks. • Upon incorporation on August 31St,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 18.1°, average minimum temperature in July is 56.5°. Average precipitation in January is 4.52", average precipitation in July is .04". • 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 Lake's economic base consists of retail sales and services; recreational and healthcare services; motor vehicle and recreations vehicle sales and light manufacturing. The largest employers include: Itron, Spokane Teacher's Credit Union, 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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. 5.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)compliance is presented in Table 5-2. This identifies the current status of the jurisdiction's involvement with 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 Bridgeview Consulting 5-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 2—Planning 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 The jurisdiction's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 The jurisdiction's 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 Severity Location Time Duration 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 2—Planning 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 assessment, and their knowledge of the jurisdiction's assets and hazards of concern. Table 5-8 lists the action items/strategies that make up the jurisdiction's hazard 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. TABLE 5-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 SW,E,W 2,4,12 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,W 1,3,4,8 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,W 1,3,4,8 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,W 1,4,8 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,W 2,10,11 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,W 2,3,4,5, Planning, Low Local Short Term Yes Preventative Local,County ,L,F,V,D 11 City Admin Activities Bridgeview Consulting 5-11 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 5-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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/Conserva Grants Region tion Districts INITIATIVE#12-Continue to maintain/enhance the City's capability to enforce its codes and regulations that result in decreased risk exposure of new development. Existing WE,E,W 4,5,11 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,W 4,5,11 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,W 1,3,4,8 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 ctct w an 5, c o .o 0 o o � ct Mitigation Strategy Project Status U c r24 Z U 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 2—Planning 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 19th. 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 t d 1 � � N � 7 A ' � I V I i r r r+ V I ( r V • • rlip City of liberty Lake auM�q ) Map Nallonolf wakr Harands.RTduc lion i a c a l a r SP krirte CO'Ll''ity, WA Program ENRp Sols Ciaxsikafiwa National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Sails a Bridgeview Consulting 5-15 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes , - # ,I I,.„. i - 11111111 1M' _ .. ‘li. *la%Ill t'A tr lik. IlL ,yPieitti e0c, „le:,, , sus Ed= ,ar ii loos*,iliit i 'f pralir I ddid, 1 ilk in I; "4 UMW to vivarto i).1#,. ........ Si i 4 ' *II 4Thatch.MOO e00101 e.ay t7... tortimhtd`Put Pilw.:**011.VV. ' -1,-.0...,•Triarlon a;a rexa,00 ,, ike vsoario sviceplible City of Liberty Lake lit LI silion ."PC1h Lbw ' ' ''A'. suc:uac cepubotty a AitoCierate.c.floV v II FirCkr.K4k Liquefaction Susceptibility r1 1 Ow mr.„0 ,tr, *'ivory Low 10 I., 1,,,,kverole Al- - , „, - April 2020 Bridgeview Consulting 5-16 CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE 1 I ,.,,,,,,„"?..".....7I r r I r r r 1 P , I I I r Y F P , N. I I S ""'"'° City of Liberty Lake ,P lone A f Ione AO M a P 17:.irvi ?;._t.7nr.? ;.a a al at • 5POkC)C*COW"ty, WA Hood Hazard nou'ut, rr1P ,i,:, 1,:t Are,,, Amos ove,...$1.0 .... �. Flood Hazard Areas OEMA.w;{ •Zone AE *n * . a IFMA, 20IVb-t...A.,kl..ztaI ' Zone X nwR«,a,ne , a2%annual ch w , I, 4,:04°°ma. lip zone AE m. ».,Pn. flOod;want "PRS i. - -vv.,, L.... if Pa-;Yn•,7y4 41WM1w4,4r 1,1°14 Bridgeview Consulting 5-17 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes ...... l ANDElli'f',„,":1,r1 '3 Andet SW1 P-ri,- ii,rhov,,,r,,..-rr,..Ir. ;_d F mi 31 - ,I _15.KILt eitiebutiore of Fuel i*o...„...," ding raw Idaloceg e We irrrseicd rtimon F. .i- m ' -riv fuel ooar,ese LI*..,i r-.1 I•• :. ,rn,t. si,v,;hael l vpe(rluts ix.,...!, .., (13133i S.3,°3. 31 1.1.1.0 la violent+,o 1 o.i t;rvvvitirec,„"ri.„, , .., mcit'lr- ,•-x. A" , 1 , .., - 1 $ o r , v 4 A. 4 ...... ' - , _ 1 . • . , . II i ,'"4.---;- 1 4' 411(r • lit 61: ' ..! . .., t'9 i 410 :itl . t r ' 0 r , If' , ' A * • „ 4 7 , 1 Y 4 I 'r1:1;34;' lk H.?4, • , A, ' ..*Ir a IN _ 1 4 . II - , ......- •• - , - _ _ ' - City of Liberty Lake ifoil 1.,., :5E1,...,1 r.dervdo 13 fire r i ,c, mr'''''k43"2 a'rr" • 4.3".49 behowoor Fuel . FIFK4 NO Map tocaror A Anderson 13 Fire Model Groups I:, ferftoArt 40 Leiden * Behavior Fuel Model t.....1 . fIIIM5 1-1PF "4,,r," ,„,,,....,4..4 t,„ coo.v1 , FH,Fmt, . stamen • t1iotA7 * Walee Bridgeview Consulting 5-18 April 2020 CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE i 1 "Ail 9 .411 r" .r . e ..' s iii rye, I 11 * "II , -. w / •r . . __, ,. ii. „..._ . : . ... 7 a • I *1661e o r M r YAM ,,;- . ..` ypi r r r r. _ . I ...writ • Fire Regi•rle GraLip 15 35 Yr!n Fre i•--I r, Inlrrwri.to &Mor l .. • Firs Regime Group 3 .35 Ye.Jr Fir ar..r r+Inrrrvut Reps iLernew.." -.* I • Fire Regime Group IR 3.5-200 VrEr Fite Return'ralerrtil.I.rtvw&Next,i' • • Fire Regime Greve IV 3,5-'0)Mita,ter.Rrhrr.a lnt!t■ajl RCi*x-Frr+t- I',-.-.•r • Ft,.1.y .r1,..ir V 11. r- II F F. r_+i r•r ,:'II hnySNralrlr ---1 lilt City y a{ Liberty Lake ,..4.0.0-u r 0 bees,vw�felAPA Mo p 1LocosHitoric Fire s WA r'". yr T,' + + w,,.Regime Groups y Historic Fere toualA it toll ,0 r,.N.r-.r;...r,. <> t Regime Groups <> ,... ..1..+040M Bridgeview Consulting 5-19 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes ii 41' 64.9 .Hat .•i,. '''' M4 ---- - -4,--H-1 „ ...,,,,,,,„,,,j 1 III 7- _ ,,,, '-ti,-1 r. A010„;k1,-. I . • , . , . I,,,''',,' ' ',1 wire0,00k i, _ — ..--e. .--- *04sto: — ir!”. ' t 1 tt''''' ,Q, 1,4\ '', , ' ...,.,- ,-.1., I 0 1,lid 7"4 1 t.idt0 ' • . t .. r , ,„ 1, ....„.., ,_ ley., „ olik ifik,,,,, 10 , 1 4,,, ,„ _ , ... - %• v 1 ',tt , . •-..Mean Piro tehion Fritervail(Mill)'oye'quortiliestr, r•,"•••4•4 t• •4. ,• .4_, ',4_,OoOd heslo-rcol Ire*-47r*-45 r.r1• '' rfer-•14 1 ,":10ACtrbOr, ,, ,1r.,r ' .1 IN.V100 K 01'',, ,,r*n(K-Irrof L., I.- - ,-cwrifext of rr'%,-I, 14 I-,, •r 4, 4 14o*4 ^, 1 •^1 trrsrofoo f-,..,r, A N .,i,I City at Liberty Lake • 0,0,...,7,, • ,X,...k,'k WI o p locafet 4iii) County. WA . tr 1,3 wears 4114 444-%/4 . , A . 14,24)Vean . 51 ra fe,,,. ..... , - Mean Fire Return Interval * • 71 75 Irson 04 70* ' , , , , • 3le IV YOOti. 7:4X1.V,_1 rmr.....r.:.= • 11-30 Bridgeview Consulting 5-20 April 2020 CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE A - ' i * .1 50 , . . ... ... ......., . . ,... '4r*, „.. . , . . , .. d • .. "" i 1111, IFANLI' sir ..004..,„ ,:;1„,i,..L ,,,•Ve. -11, itik 141*, '- ' 1. '=,-.^ 4-:"'- ,', .;'1,30;i!,4*:::' .,..:::•::-';a.'N. - ' ' ,, , , --- ' . --'4r, I ' (1 _.4.. . . _. ..,„ ,,.• , , ,:.„...„,..,.., .4., ,„.„„.„,„ ..._._..;.• _ _:; , , ,.. ..„ 11.'4,1.4) 1 . , ,0 : , L.-.:-.--1, ,:-.---,-:: .....i1: - AP . ,„,' ,,,- , 1 :, . , k. - ,i'eu '-:.. ,..N-, ' ' ' \ k'1.1 id- „.„. • , ..... . ... , . ...,_••• ,'.. .,.. ..a... iht . _ 1 , I i • • ' 41 .. — CelildNdifft Clam LA.",..,L4. VOI,Te_i,.61'.JeL,1,-..-1.,,.1„,7 J, 6.7.,,...I c oggigg ciess I g,L.,.,to MadercRe Vve.cjarlect.,„ _ r.r.cou,e • VI°11°1111:Coonndfflon C Loss I.A .....aLl.erat.,Let1,7,..t.log.,..4.," ...,,, ..,Li.s,,,,,.„6„. • 4/.11341,3110e1Conamon Coatis r .: ,Liii,04,Lv2,1,..,,,x,11,,,,,citcom,..67 8...iric, • %,ncr.r.ent,CondMia.r Cions t'A L,),,i„c;0, ,,,,6%.,6,t,j6,,,, 0,64 irm • hi 2 p City of Liberty Lake ..,..,,, „flaffig. .... L I,,, NA -„.,,,,, , , , .. .4-k-.J 1..1' ,:..-',• :'.' , Vegetation Condition Class *,,.., .,... eit--- ,A ZIFIFF, ...':4 .Leo CL"dliv.e.CeAt IkA ' e L.00 ctettLfw 013.1*II . , . •• . . ,.• ... . .. , • April 2020 Bridgeview Consulting 5-21 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 1 a ' t . r w 11 rt ! la 1, is $ $ v ill Liberty lake . ,.. '^�. •CIIyofUberty Lake Map __I Spokane(oUI'ICy WAWiVond 4111, E.1-0•21-4- "r-4- r :dr,wn•r. inealar f Uis-ar Midland Urban interface interface(WUI) + K I-, *I RIgh R;sk a (Win) High Risk Communities CcsmmtIn s 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 to providing representation on the County's Planning Team,the 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 Primary Point of Contact Meeting attendance, planning 124 S. Lefevre St. team facilitator;authoring of plan; Medical Lake,WA 99022 Telephone: (509) 565-5050 capturing of information; conduct dross@medical-lake.org public outreach with council and citizens during Council meetings; present final plan to Council for adoption. Scott Duncan,Maint. Supervisor Alternate Point of Contact Meeting attendance; author 124 S. Lefever St. portions of plan; capture Medical Lake,WA 99022 Telephone: (509)299-7715 information; assist with risk sduncan@medical-lake.org ranking and capabilities 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 2—Planning 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 20th 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 Enforcement. The City contracts with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office for police 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 – The City's economy is flat but consistent with few fluctuations. The largest 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 Fairchild Air Force Base. The City's economic base mainly consists of retail sales, recreation 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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 efforts, and classifications under various community programs. 6.5.1 National Flood Insurance Information Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 6-2. This identifies the current status of the jurisdiction's involvement with the NFIP. 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? Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) No Bridgeview Consulting 6-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in 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 The City was part of the County's 2019- 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities, educational outreach efforts, 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 Ongoing public education or information program Yes City Administrator, Spokane County Fire District 3, (e.g.,responsible water use,fire safety,household Maintenance Supervisor 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 The jurisdiction's 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 Severity Location Time Duration 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 2—Planning 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–5O%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 3.20 High 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 assessment, and their knowledge of the jurisdiction's assets and hazards of concern. Table 6-8 lists the action items/strategies that make up the jurisdiction's hazard 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 6-10 April 2020 CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE TABLE 6-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 ublic 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes 1 IL VIM MIN illlig ii 111110,iisr‘1 ' , - -4,•411 as 1, IPII !iiii( ,, ,,t, , 1 I lialtuatinatimii lull, - / .ilmmariiimmalsiiirit .11p wir if ill / i I Will 1 „ , lopp, umea..rc. .x t.. ,alar or øu *shoe •, Nsok W laNe ge±.pic of how o.n.ru.,. t f0 IPA _ hum boo'GCAno from of low sscesceort tIly. - '1/4,41. ill AAEC%toolerkrwl to,beffifoci L1'MU' CAIR WPM/100%1rsta4l AN thOW Oartnel+moremota ate weed kfoefeabh` 1111. 0City of Su/captibie Nal io-nce'v 1.1 M o p edico Lake Liquefaction IIII011 w Y sePw.31 inca - .. Stiscep14h%1Niy Madetille 10 F1j y Vr•,rV Lewto l qw .Nrc1n•?rk Liquefaction Susceptibility wtoderare III Very tow Bridgeview Consulting 6-12 April 2020 CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE I �« I .� ., ^ _. — -. i _ .� 1 0 III 11 1 r „ r I �wI Y O. 111Y V � � Y Ohl I P y �• I 1 aaR 5 ,r" I t 1 % 1. I r a % M4 1, *m. % 1pp titI f r 1 1 1 1 He _i Li Map _..� Cl}''r+ of NallonolEaeM�gwakr ,.. ," - 1.. iacalar 1. Medical _aKG Hazards RTduclion Program(NEM P) �F.�. l, Soh Ciomsiftcobon r `' 1 V 3c National Earthquake Hazards l *CIWIOI 1 Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soils ,., a ., a Bridgeview Consulting 6-13 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes L _ _ _ 41 1 4 .4 1 # 1 t 1 1 1 I , 1 .44 fiCity of 4 Zone A •Zone AO Mop f%°moo/chance 4•'44 rr 14 1,701 FibodtOctot Medical Lake Flood Hazard flood event tototed Arens Spokane County, WA Amos mcgiete•Vadet1 MIMS 1114-4 0T10,014 Of thdlian.1100:Ingcst 147 17 r AA 49 •Zone Af a.m.!" 105thriff Flood Hazard Areas Pkw,flpicrin •Zone x *County ip lone AE 2%annual chance taw A4.40.11#4444, abcd event 4,44.,4,4744‘ I -4,TA N-7yr (solvraw k10,34 Bridgeview Consulting 6-14 April 2020 CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE ,, .. , i .. ,,,... ,,,,. •• u I ,7',As, • ,•,,,,. s, .4 i . * I - . i I , ,'g ,,* C.,." ...e itik,' It,11.,,—.... . . .i.....) ' - , '..'.. ..i.: 1 :,,, A - ,4 .. . 1 01, u , t. .i.,..e•, .76°, ' ,, , ,, s•„. , , 4 Sr . ., ••• % , * • 0 ,, ,,, - - . , 4 .•- • * 4',01 , J • ••• , ".„ , , • ' •,. , I ...14'n.-- ,prrtl , lik ... , 11' ',,,, ..T2Fle-,...H., ,v/ •bl,e . . - . ‘ i, 6, _ %- - " .. .. 1 41.4 ,pt p 4 ' ''', Fi ,,, '.- 1 p 4 , .0if 1 , tr, Cf.4 4" .1 I ''''';4.7' 1.. t * ...., , , 1011 ,. ;: 41" I -; r - , I . .11 '''' '''' ''' 11 A WI 10r.,I ri o PDX iristirt hr, .r-I•„1,,:r i,..,,10•44xit-vir,,, .1 * r 1 4,.Y.',:',chslinc-f deNtraiti,J607,1, 4 II -I .::.I A trnind orric:'.1 -,,r4.1:,— ,,,---,.-4-.-v-•-nt-,avr clrid cic-f..p.-1 .„Tr,r-ilavimt ur,1 , ,- !,1..,,,.. ',H.•.t• t`r .1,..,/ft 61.(r4 ttintid t.,Ho,,r,tx,,f.,,.g -4.-" ,•... .3I0'.• ...". .,q, 4,,h. ,..,Poi •r-t,,Of- (rr thr4,1 I:,,).firn... [ItLas,we..1 A riAlrg;I,.011. — -- H! ,,,I Map eCity of al Fl '.. , fl" e.c..0., MedicLake Anderion 13 Fire .-,,,., .....:-: 4, iellevioe fuel Spokane(70t.,14y WA Model Otoups ,'n.t.,..4 . tiban Anderson 13 Fire . , ..„ . t,,, AgriCunute Behavior Fuel Model . exwery ÷- 1 LA NDF1RE, 2019 . .,....,.,, 0 Woler Bridgeview Consulting 6-15 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes I. �, , 01 fil 11 WIillir, '1 i .w P 1 N II PI i 1 e � ir .. -...-a w 11 1 1 , rl , T., ,...- 'morL i' a Cc 0 �.� .,, 4` . w ,° of LI. it • . •Jr " " 1 A1 ' t rit1 „ 1: i w k au w ro ■ . wY . • F e Rrgyime Group '5 YOU/Fire Re',.wrr,bef yv(1, L..:�..:&Mbcd S ,Er.. tl t.." I .. • Fre A eQirne• Group 1 :5lotor Mt.:Rehm,kPIY wo:1i !•;;y,•wr.F.1 r*rif Se vt^ro^, �'11'" . Fla Aogirtw Gt,%p I4 s$ ?IX)Yrrfr fir-Rrk,r 1 r , I .w P Mc. d 5.rvr•ritr • Ps/0 PG9into GrDLp V -200Ycryr Firs Rett,-n Ir,-r,,.rl „,pleIrCnrnf SCVrxn1 v • fire Ng 9.M147 Gro,.p V,:?6;()Yr,'";In cRrltarn Irl......01.AnYy S+:ti^Cnly _ Ettli Iiiii)City of 0 rw.w,s•.Clomp• 0 Wadi*wpatara Map I Medical _OKe Historic Fire iwicatar Regime Groups r•.:.0,.�f.,�.,r. , w,,.. . tANhr14![ all r {`� r..ww,a..u,..n• <> w'M+wn 9(Or4e, Historic Fire 0 ,,ua.ry,-,Orpui,M *C0411ritv i Regime Groups ,,co rn er. .,¢v Bridgeview Consulting 6-16 April 2020 CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE „17..141V,vi , 1-„- 'i VAli ' ,i)f• 'A',n'', , - 11 , 1 , 1 , 11 .- - , , . . - '$,F , • , „ , - - , . : • •• I' '',i.1 'I .--- ', , ,‘,.. . . 9 a'l , !,•' ' „,,I 0 I\44 li, di '-'1 , ) . B, ,,a el •,Y4 its ,no,. -1%-„, .„,, n ,,,,, , '',,i -1;4 . 1. Is 11,,,rif,[' .' L °III -',,-.107,1/ , a —1 .. ., 4 ,.....,„,,I,,,,tilt(,1VVI,X1f,V r -6,pc.t.,n,Ini..mvell{Will)tile(' '4, 0,0-RI 6,n1r ,1, moo,.r,. r .,i.0,,en(1,1 I,ti roK,al hr.•r 9rne, ,,.. ii a, ,, , i L1rr,hr r II,1 r.'",.-•-hfrOCtrirr'I. ”r _,1 ,,„..-.,J•w:Jbylt,•' ."'"• ' "' . -• • •'F-i-•I IT, - 111(1 P,PS P,•-,II 0 • -— M a p • 6.-.1,, o'.. . x".''' lacc.Ont City of • Ilirmedical Lake • Iii,247 r , ; ' * Cow,? WA • ?I,;s v son to,70 v. • 2*110 Ir.Oti. ' Mean Fire Return interval • ,,,4,,,, I 41 N)FiRF 20r5 !,P112r1:1 , 1 , * 11-3.3!eon ,. . ,. ... . April 2020 Bridgeview Consulting 6-17 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes I r} i Of,,,,,, rP 4 SA .kii,„4 fti MM - y' 44'Y 1 ,, 1 1 t .yy fig.. y�g�e, .. . t . .�._ , k 1, I I� 0 V I ' �. n ihill'a , I 4 ! I L . 1 . he 1, i Ty w r �. � ,'�Ns; *tet r «e 1 .v I w p t r a '..4 I „ ea• 1 1 N ' I..-.._. ..1 • YageIal,ar' Cr,anc•n Class I W.rV'.u., .eaerwar,Lams.nX.±L Id,, L • yegelal r,.-,‘Class MI `M L.,1 caa,ale Vrvyry els;,n L>^pa,i,,r I i'-33'6 r. 1 • yeaelal - -/,e•n Class M.A,we,elenin.,;,LI,. vey"/escoaa,braa,,.rce 3a-,RA • yeyprl pl,il• rnulwn Claim KS rN.tiy}.17ru til H.]!1 144r]G1 ntr:Yl 4sW(.isIl.,eaa$1-6!'.•7. • yyelm.:,, ,dredlba Class NIA Iriy, ,issjalaati.l C.ggl'.Tlua 67,3i'.G • yoyslalsor,CanlMssa C ass ALS'VA,V Hrory Vabga'C.I ir,CSaFav,na 94.I S'S,, 1t} of y. w�.�.,rw�,.rr.� ,�.�.. ,rrr,.a{•+�re�ceI,rlama Ali tip iiiipr Medical —0(e.: iacaiar 4, rw Vegetation Condition Class ,, c.w , *qty _:t"..,..i.R L.21314 40.0a.Lerw►b+4 C:.aa as I K a Wun'V.ctmaa013.1*as .w &w .'" _ _1 Bridgeview Consulting 6-18 April 2020 CHAPTER 7. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ANNEX UPDATE 4000 a1icy 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 addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team, the City of Spokane Valley 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 Mark Calhoun Primary Point of Contact Directed the development of the City Manager (Original) City's Annex. Assisted with 10210 E Sprague Ave Spokane Valley,WA 99206 identification of planning team 509-720-5100 members; provided information; mcalhoun@spokanevallev.org attended kick-off and planning meeting; reviewed plan and maintained contact with County HMP team. Jenny Nickerson Primary Point of Contact Captured relevant data required to Building Official 10210 E Sprague Ave complete plan; attended internal Spokane Valley,WA 99206 working group meetings; assisted 509.720.5305 in plan authoring and review. jnickerson@spokanevalley.org Bridgeview Consulting 7-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Local Planning Team Members Name Position/Title Planning Tasks Bill Helbig Alternate Point of Contact Attended planning team meetings City Engineer 10210 E Sprague Ave as required; Captured relevant Spokane Valley,WA 99206 data necessary to complete plan; 509.720.5320 attended internal working group bhelbig@spokanevalley.org meetings; assisted in plan authoring and review. Marci Patterson Primary Point of Contact Attended all planning meetings; Executive Assistant assimilated all data and 10210 E Sprague Ave Spokane Valley,WA 99206 information necessary to 509.720.5108 complete the annex template; mpatterson@spokanevalley.org served as primary author of plan 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 was originally populated by the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene tribes. Antoine Plante (1812- 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 23°F to mid- summer average highs at 85.4°F. • 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 – The City of Spokane Valley's key economic drivers are manufacturing, retail, and 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 city's retail mix-13 percent and 12 percent,respectively.The city's retail sector continues to grow Bridgeview Consulting 7-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes and innovate.New companies that recently chose Spokane Valley as the first site of their expansion into Washington State include Duluth Trading Co.and Amy's Donuts. The largest retail employers 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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. 7.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)compliance is presented in Table 7-2 This identifies the current status of the jurisdiction's involvement with the NFIP. 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 Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in 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 Version: Intl Code Council Building Codes under the State Building 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 The City was part of the County's HMP 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 City Manager's Office 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is 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 2—Planning 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 The jurisdiction's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 Rating Date Enrolled 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 The jurisdiction's 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 Severity Location Time Duration 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 2—Planning 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 assessment, and their knowledge of the jurisdiction's assets and hazards of concern. Table 7-8 lists the action items/strategies that make up the jurisdiction's hazard 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 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 Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Tenn, Plan? Recovery,Natural County, assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund,etc.) Short-Tenn) 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 Existing Hazards Spokane Spokane Information/Preven Valley Valley, tative Activities Community Washington Development Assoc.of Building Officials, Idaho Assoc.of Building Officials Washington State University Energy Program, Intemationa 1 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 2—Planning 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–Continue to maintain and/or enhance the City's capability to enforce its codes and regulations that result 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 1 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 7-10. STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Current Status an o o a 0 O � � O o N N c Mitigation Strategy Project Status U Ur24 ( Z U COSV 1 —Enforce updated Building and X X Energy Codes. COSV 2—Educate residents in flood-prone X X areas by providing informational pamphlets. COSV 3—Protect the aquifer from critical Title 21;Environmental Controls,has been X 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. COSV 4—Continue to maintain compliance X 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. COSV 5—Consider participating in the NFIP X Community Rating System. COSV 6—Where appropriate,support No action has been taken X 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. COSV 7—Integrate the hazard mitigation plan No action has been taken and this has been X 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 an a 0 O � � o O N N C Mitigation Strategy Project Status U U 4 U COSV 9—Continue to maintain and/or X X enhance the City's capability to enforce its 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. COSV 11 —Continue to support the X X countywide initiatives identified in the plan. COSV 12—Actively participate in the plan X X maintenance strategy identified in this plan. COSV 13—Provide scour protection for Ongoing Bridge Maintenance Program X X 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes - SpoAunr Faller .,g 1 a I A i a N k r 9 C 1 t, I — h I ! L. ,A , µ w - r ...ti.— » r • yrs _ N r r r �. a t' 1 . . t ' a r • w II . i a n 1 _ r IM} Bridgeview Consulting 7-18 April 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY A w I 5-----1 P a r Cft Of Spokane i alley I ' I . ,,,-—ri . , o t 7 • - ! t-/-o-4-t-S -. — -,.A- .. _„�, , ,:.. ix�. _ ..•.rte f --)•.: ' . -' i • � • --. "`g^rte.� . r t, • [ _ •,,� y w -� Ysv i 1 ql” .. o w• . may, 1.. ,, rt R' ii .�w ' ( s• - , s .. • "t t t r r � p r Bridgeview Consulting 7-19 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 1 i x 4 a — -•_ J..""1 . i 1 4 _ d _1 I. $ 4 1 n 1, " . A 1 1 4404.1 1 1 - N., ' I 1 P S. -i % Ir t 1 1 '" 1 f1 „ I 1„ 1 .„ 1 u r 1 1 1 Nolionol Earthquake .. ...'..,.;:,•".''i. .-.�'•s., ' Ma p Hazards Podur Ion Z o r a l a r A Program(NEf4IP) 'So$1 C1aaafrcatson r, . S o.kanR unry, W . .It Iptritunwe National Earthquake Hazards r Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soils Bridgeview Consulting 7-20 April 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY i y I " ,,,„„2"\"0. s w 0 I l v, I L I' Ir I I ^ µ "r' k i 1 I I r 4 I r I II:� Ck I -. -11 W " .. _ . i - 4 — t r ," — t., r7; villr. _ —114 I� i w''''.lI 'r Zone •Zone AO - mop 1... ?]riood' k rl'•h.,,ami lrOd Lorain/ Ilm Flood Hazard arentB riarsd s .0.010 Val ler AMU •:+r-rw woo Atm..M rS.~woo a n:iww kxanq of!.t n OttArr.A/194.Ione!Ar * floodpidn +Ione X FlOC9d Hazard Areas •• 0Zone AE ' . ^-+-xpalchrr+-r .,.......... FEMA. 2014) 1f'',.-":r,r;71.yr 0009,aw•++aw,i Bridgeview Consulting 7-21 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes s, - _ - - _ r_� I ,I I 7 L 1 1 I b 1 — P„ 1 1 r f 1 Iti 1 — 1 .. 1 + r _'9 . . e r - - r 4- i 1 T - 1 4 1 • ♦ r. 1 I ti 1� - 1 1 r 4 M, 0.I _x I 10 ak, •I onctiOeiti,r SGSSteArcSloDE Mop 1.-_ landslide ,; rl r'r;� .r., TSGS ;.Arc DEM P.o calor .000Va1 Teti compilation Areas 40 * Historic Landslide Areas & Steep Slopes .., . ..._ i mir i �WA-DMR 2017: .15G5 t,Arc DEt.� �,..ti Bridgeview Consulting 7-22 April 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY • • • d s•-ss.nbr NU Suicep Olo Mop „ry LVqvefnWllan ai, rw. Pouf P.oraia. Lel leY Sv:ceplibillfI;*�-�' ••'+VIOW kCiln* tWirQr,,k Sookone Counry, WA Liquefaction Susceptibility lcw la Mti M-(116 twr Lom, „ro Bridgeview Consulting 7-23 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes I-Elmer-11x riisfort di'ilhib I • ni L•ed cvtr-,1 fr,r•,I,•ir,•org 1 untrire lue.4(.:•Ifl 4,ponerilt„.,.rt onr:rie 4,"4;4-. i r.,:', (,3r1,1 tUell 1"vpr% i,,..'11,•,models,tin 11,-‘crihrd RYV kt" 'RAt fml`nrivrm NIT c:c7.yrv.3-:.1.1 typo ,guil.t$1,1%PI,liribrt i•trvi 1 1',.,,,i1 klotirtig ond.artmtl ortvi k"vrAime,NI'..b'Y WO c4761,1^1!•-I r ir,mx,rif hmtirkt drp1r. r7v-1 mniloire.,r,'r•.,"1-1:-Ii-Jn 1, ,•7; 1 A .4" * , awrilktir,'" ... ... '.4 • .0. T,, ,,,,,, , . .• ,, r. 4.... . . , ,0 ...^ .. , . I * ,., r : ° '' 1 " '''• i - P .. - . . . ., 041" • N.,i, • ' ''- ' 4,* v.. l'.. t*'. .. .... ,..0"..ane ...L*One CoUnty, WA ,P,tm I 1 F,1..,,i 1.. Map 13 VM 41 14009 41:1;;,.. Locarat *adman Fire ,- ; Grew 4-0 Rehurror f uel Model&loops F1310,43 . FBffe 10 ..4,— FOFM4 41, Urban * Anderson 13 Fire Behavior Fuel Model '- 4, firFfrkr; . 6;u %OW,' LANDFRE. 2019 % reFm7 4,,, Bridgeview Consulting 7-24 April 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 41, (10 W - 4 ■O � Iri '. i �. d • Fire Regime Group I- 1.•I,F , • Fir*R*gim*Group 0 s 4.. r,s I rc;i'er.. i a. • N.Regime Group II'I 200 Yccr 11re Re., IntC9tii11, I • Fir*Rwgim*GrO•Jp IV 2F•U Y60/lea kcI,r,Inter, •r•1'; • Rrw R*gwne Grouq V •: ,. v . , r SPOkane '.' F•.,,.kw•..CY+.vF lee+are .► Nhtarfc fire p ar.. v.s.awd Z o r a s w Regime upsVVal Iii IANGFn1.Groups i trs.yrd 111011,141 Historic Fire Regime Groups orrc.r o rMr..�u.,�„r• Bridgeview Consulting 7-25 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes ti .. yam, * y „ r I” 414,0f1 Fire 4ervrn rMervai[MM} ,.n •f.. ,�� ;..,,,.. i... +c c-C*FirfrCenefil fleSIO1bC 01 Ft "P-1.• _+.,matt r 16cA rt.: • :t t'..°.I 0+00Cipr+'u51CyrC.c]1 fin'rpen+7t1 r,,:4,...,.-,t,-47 4Y'frre LAl^➢C7FI.'F 111.::F'I ^. I'PIF*0 :F':r-,1*,", ,A:f,:1.:,1 • r.,...-,.11:-r .1 1 r r y. f 1.v F:. w Mop eorara. SDokone Cau,nrv. W • Mean Fire Return Interval :' ' cwnry Bridgeview Consulting 7-26 April 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 1 i "V 11111 94 le 11 Ind ... ll d' k • itx o. u ''''''4'SA 44 4 d�ll�ilh�i��µl4� 0.l lir rpo '" a .y m�� mt u'��711�� _.. hill pp . . 01 • 'rq.lulsr ,:..w Ilan Clan I v.:,ly 4o.. ^fib.pevoso.GepC4+urve r,f..,', x vrarlul.ar•.',, han Clan I.II'-w ta lA a1a^ale Vd^yn9OPbli CrOf ..v .. 77.1E • vnineco•,r -.:Killian Clan ll A"'.77evore lC 44w YeZ.•0..9;11,.Gmeprcroxsp 3"f..M. • Yegelul•ar .-rrulho i Clan III' rar•alr la HCh Vegelatl r Gei^ra'xS. i 1651, • V gelallar cn$$I el Clan Ill A,+r.Y, VejrlAlfil^1[.rp•XIxxr 67.3% • Vuy.lalun Candllon Clan 111.1'.1444.1493*' 'dx`"3•i'rr Inn 1-.4419.114 i444 54•I00& yrp.-*l..,C6m141M+1 CIMl44 MinJUp"WP Cltlbcy H rturriCre Ann" a p Spa <144111.4, ,.1po'k .f •- A e , Yea C era/1t'Y .'T/L.w. 41/'1.p„P if & I Vegetation Condition Class •Y4.c1 C”" Ce*Orkly f I Ah'}J1-1kr ./0/4 14419**IM lltl+COW In w1n..,«x,�.V,..rx,,. .,eau nerrw+ ..�«.,mwr��wl^.m• n„-.z. Bridgeview Consulting 7-27 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes Pleasant Prue* 4 liancisn ' I H 1 4 1 r 1 I 1 I _ - " ra • 1 — w Poncierova 4E1 Spokanep ' Spokane County. WA Comm*Eu► + I�'-Jvr,S}; eorabar Urba 4000Val ley InFrNfa�Ce aver, {WUIJ 11, Wildland Urban interface High Risk 4, 9h Communities ... " (YYUI) High Risk communities WA.GFrR,Mcaeesti:tiIti WA,:1Nk,b1.C7rr Y'.20 18 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 providing representation on the County's Planning Team,the 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 Fairfield,WA 99012 Contact information,attended county meetings, Telephone: Phone #509-990-6105 developed strategies. Established 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 Phone #509-995-4059 meetings, assisted in strategy e-mail: publicworks@fairfieldwa.com development,provided information for the Capabilities Assessment. Terry Liberty,Town Planner Planner and code Provided information to complete PO Box 334 enforcer annex,attended planning team Fairfield,WA 99012 meetings,provided information for the Telephone: 509-230-7030 e-mail: fairfieldplanner@gmail.com Capabilities Assessment. Cheryl Loeffler, Clerk Town Clerk Provided information to complete PO Box 334 Fairfield,WA 99012 annex,attended meetings, assisted in Telephone: 509-283-2414 strategy development,provided Email: townclerk@fairfieldwa.com information for the Capabilities 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes • Current Population-620 as of 2016 Census • Population Growth—The Town of Fairfield's population has remained relatively the same 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 – The Town of Fairfield's economic base consists of Agricultural and healthcare 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 identifies the jurisdiction's 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 efforts, and classifications under various community programs. 8.6 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE INFORMATION Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 8-2. This identifies the current status of the jurisdiction's involvement with the NFIP. 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? Who is your community's floodplain administrator? (department/position) 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities, educational outreach efforts, 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 managementpractices Bridgeview Consulting 8-5 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 Ongoing public education or information program Yes Both Conservation District and Cooperative (e.g.,responsible water use,fire safety,household Extension have shared public information/education 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 Through the county's noxious weed 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 2—Planning 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 Stone Ready County Firewise Yes CWPP through Conservation District 2015 8.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The jurisdiction's 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 Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being 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 assessment, and their knowledge of the jurisdiction's assets and hazards of concern. Table 8-8 lists the action items/strategies that make up the jurisdiction's hazard 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 8-9 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 8-8. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region to new or Low)or$ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services, existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Tenn, Plan? Recovery,Natural assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund,etc.) Short-Tenn) 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes • II , w _ , W M 1 W W v 1 • v, ., w 1 1 1 - I r � 4 p I d w t I � r � r � � r I u � i ✓ City of Fairfield 111 Zone A !►Ione Aa mop I•r„��u 1;1'lw1:0 trr.771 flood ia[arau .Spokane County WA 6'$ood Hazard ,k7uoro*mos Areas .ea,wrr r s^chart*vP Flood Hazard Areas rEMA,Iti$Yn,le trtosa. I�ax } 0M • ,�,.:. '- •Zane X. I Py •y. !2V�� MIO.PT.nY .. ... Ione AE .? mrwral chow 1 Bridgeview Consulting 8-12 April 2020 TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX I q I s I I 1 w q Y Y I Y I 1 _ I _ - 4 w — - - — — — — — — - - - - - - - - I - - - °- - 4 f I I t 1,1 I�N�orwllorn+grlalk� n.......:,�,..,;,.. 44ap City oi•Fairfield HazardsNMducrion 1acator 5p cne County. WA Program(WHIP) Sons Classi6ca'hon National Earthquake Hazards a 4 Reduction Program (NEHRP) Sok Bridgeview Consulting 8-13 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes lel 1 II ttl • y 'F4 I 4‘41 ;al '141 City of Fairfield rolo$./xt pplibla Ma p , L, Jcilorl 11114° Lrsw PeCIP 112COPOt OlibetY Morierclk litork E Very Low to low 11118,e,d, Liquefaction Sus( 'ptilciiity VON.LOW Sooktliel county mode** Bridgeview Consulting 8-14 April 2020 TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX I n 'd1.6.•0 1.01 f}17.Ardersrr,14v+•Ftrt :r Fr,0,,,Mrsdei IF'9.frvd};sI rer r,!+0r11s distinct ristrih,i hr:... ...l..:r ,•;.•-1r../I,.,nit orourg t ssol• rr 1410 l+rrrgrSr,!rrf °I,4'.km1:e0rN.0001 •s14r31 4101,1 h./4-10.1,40.i Ttre 111011 rrrl-d r.ire L crither9 is* .. I•r±yrr,r',irr l fire"L.020s rvg",,0.l trFhr'•s..t,t5ltwtl r'i„rit i 1 1•A .r 14r41yrl1 42Jodirvg .''.un ',Aim s* ,I f.,;::.nIt i.11k1 I .•,.._ L. us l CS7tri(};ri1H,rlr, r'—'.. 6 fueltred depl r•:!n,,h.'xe of ea ,.I',., P 1 rilli” O', II,4# I I d` r -,r1 111 IIIII 111 1 fi t '` ." _ I. f 1111 NM IIIII MI ill III ' ii 1111111111111 I 01 1 �.."::: . 4 , 1 W J,. � nmmar 1 1 c� e M 1 r ni JO ' 1 I I 1 it t f r%rx,, '' a. a' I�,r, d" t City of Fairfield I!IM, 164 Me Me 11400 Anderrsorr 13 Fke I.:rFM C,:rs+wf, • FNM# i a c drt a" Be-harlot hued I ,", FRP►A) . F&FMtp Anderson 13 Fire Madel Groups ♦ lirtxtn r ,, Behavior Fuel Model , Afoicouure ANTI k`k Ati.1y ♦ 04---0,--- $' * Bridgeview Consulting 8-15 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 1 , I. - - , . I ' ....._-__ \ ____ 01 I* _... , —--I ._,_...' ..., Ma . - 11 di . i IN a - , \ * 4 , - - - 7 r IV i e 0 / 1 I . Mean Fite RePurn Inlerrol f Wel).,,,,,,1 ,'Ives tr.i ova(ocit,p&.<11 • ' ,I-",:c*:corn;oh'ii. rt:r_t^4',." Ji.fi3 legme CrlorcCt.iwuricAi in he , ^,,,, ,!1,e tYCKICifir t*SIO/KOi 111 , pEolcd;Eyre-se-me:1 t4 Ine L ;;1,-,.. .i , . ',I sewrogs rsrs)oyei crld ms moiiai o*currienra_ 1 . , 4 4•4 x,,ugata. m.......m.a. City of Fairfield • iocolot • 11-15.7•015 • 461C, 1, 1r:okanc County WA • iiixo,eam Mean Fire Return Interval • . 20 Ca/team 0-4 " * Bridgeview Consulting 8-16 April 2020 TOWN OF FAIRFIELD ANNEX 11 I • `': 1 i . 1 - ' ---2'.‘'-' '-', 4e V FA_ ,, '' f,II -– 4 1 _..,,,_le k.' „..,..- # 4 . \ 1 (4 t. '4'14 11 1 „....- .., , .,... pi., . - -.. ,'„iinfr-7' '3; Lo.e..m..- , .,,,,,, . R-.--—emsup 0 '''.v,,, , .q.etur^'fr''ertn,T.'00,1 R,N)hat el I \, -, ,kk,.,' ,. FiFtlegilm•—0 iv i.s.-2t.4-1,,,,,..,-,,..i0..tutr,infvo Any seveiTy • Fire it..”. p IV 35 "i;.7,;.,Re%fgrl lei- j1.' ."!tt • Fire Reisme,,,_......v,410 ye 4,..., ohlcoo70, 1 • MO 1894".......'. 0. 4 # '''''" * '"''''°''''''" 4 019.0 H.5 r ,.• g Fairfield , r„rcup5 Pey,' * City or r LI . , .,' 0 -.... .4,". ... R"''''*-..e._ ReFigiismtoeric'or'Foirure 'ps April 2020 Bridgeview Consulting 8-17 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes H ��111111��.3" - r 11111111111111 si11' " 1 1 "Ill 1i d 1 lliiilR? 1 11119 j • N ,44.,,4 off,f,fft 1,11 1110111111111,,11, 126."111111111111111111111"11111"111111111111111111111117.,`,,, ' ,LII��) ss-.41,„"a:2' .n..^S''ji1/1l ..4 - A "b II 3, V l r i f f • YrprlwF•ar;''','Z';',.:`,-'..:', -,afil6cvl C''v1s I.A'Jay Lo.,'lc7otatrun Ga,z,!-La,Lt 1d'R.. • -,,-.'t r• Cntll14[.ry C'..i I!.c,—rq 1.:;',3,"1,7L,... .4;7"1, ! '1l47�Ecv',`,. �t.1r y.,,,,,,;,...7, . • Ysy7clv^.:.r' _u•�d fh.1 C'rrss 11 A•,icraarr7Pe F�-lc'w.'.. .,s,-;.,),..:,`,.=Z",:: epel or L),parturc • •:ryerm o''+mnan Ca'1s•11 a^'kp7lyule '''r1pf,vnvelur,t.rl.cc;rr,1 S!-bt,:. • v.yll." •r .nr1ilkc•n Cep+•'11 A t91j.ti«)r.lu^rtr1 fwtw:.tr,rn-,.,. • .r +•.... ....,.i, �..111 n :.yW.q"c,,1 k)n L7MK,'ssn„F+'VA.1;h?lF City of Fairfield , , .��,. Map . 1 ,acarol , rug _. _ _._. , ,u,V . - ..�...., Vegetation Condition Class � rr- r:nw7l, , * 0 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 Base Plan. In addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team, 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 2—Planning 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: Lake Outlet Regulating Structure (including two 3' high by 4' wide slide gates). 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 Channel Water Control Structure (including 7' high by 5' wide radial gate and 3' high by 5' 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 3/4-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 2—Planning Partner Annexes integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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.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 The assessment of the district's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 Sy stems/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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the district's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 The district's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 Stoma Ready No Firewise No Tsunami Ready(if applicable) No 9.6 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The district's 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. After internal discussions, the District's Planning Team computed 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 2—Planning 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 Hazard CPRI Vulnerability Description of Impact Rank Hazard Type Score Rank 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 Severe storms impact the District's flood control 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 Hazard CPRI Vulnerability Description of Impact Rank Hazard Type Score Rank 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 One of the District's structures could be damaged in 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 items/strategies that make up the district's hazard 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. TABLE 9-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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-1—Produce 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 9-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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-2—Provide 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-3—Repair 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-4—Reconnect 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- Clear 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-6—Support 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 Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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-7—Actively participate in the plan maintenance strategy identified in this lan 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 2—Planning 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 b ct 0 y J 0 o a o y 0 Mitigation Strategy 2019 Project Status U U Z U NL 1 The County received LiDAR information for the X District in 2017.An inundation map for the District is currently being produced with assistance from the NRCS. NL2 Ways to effectively and efficiently distribute X information to those living in the District are being explored. NL3 NRCS is providing assistance in analyzing a cost- X effective solution to repairing the barrier. NL4 On hold until an agreement can be reached with the X landowner NL5 Programs offered by Fire District and DNR X NL6 Continuation of efforts from 2015 plan X NL7 Continuation of efforts from 2015 plan X 9-12 NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ANNEX 7 NEWMAN LAKE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT P tw DISTRICT BOUNDARIES % id la ., $a 1 v a ai d 7.3eN- T 27 N. a x t 14 is u! 11 ct !]f 1. 1 Ai Ib IS i♦ r it021 22 23 4. ra € , ._ w 54s 2 ]Si'''3 rr� r i4 la 0 T2711. — to T.2$14. ��'+ a a 1I Pi s l x J .t. z —t—.,...,;\ fir.— 3 N 13 E li P' 22. Y4 N '1# 2+ 3+ Fd'O .-- 1 4.1 G 1 1 1.0" *�1 mats 4p°K 9-13 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 4-2: NEW 1t 1� I .AKF W'a 4:FUSFUED",r.1d'W I I II FACTLTFY LUCA'1.1Q S ay i 4,7; Y%I l W • e '—`—'7"L'''.1-' '2"- "TI' .:\ f-.2`If I'.r--'4 t J SIF e r A '-� ittr Va,a nab n ft. r 4 ar- -- r�c•*Iaw I.. • / 1.n �`' d /,{�� . r f - '� ' Lam."+.�..; /..o:', ~ 5 •a._—_ •tea••'r ..«a.. - N, ; Zi a z, A ,i }gym P ....,r. ovoildilt 11 /I as OUTLET STRUCTURE T...,__,-,T, Sf w. t w. a a. , , f PROJECT MAP i NEWMAN LAKE WATERSHED te 'r Mfr SP CK MIC CO3J N-'F WAS MI$GT:M SJ NST '97i I� .�- AERATOR PUMP.Coles, N F CHANNEL A'ATCR CONTROL STRLCTURE ' 3 v ANIS DISTRIBUTION PIPF. ,,.c,„.„,.._, - .-7,-__`.rth . i'J .r I '4 t - NEwmAN LAKE SL7NP COMPRESSOR t3LJlLD,ING _ I. gayea Q+E 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 serves as an update to the district's 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. 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. In addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team,the Spokane Conservation District 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 210NHavana Spokane,WA 99202 Operations Manager (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-Chokerg 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes and livestock practices, promote sustainable forestry practices; promote energy conservation and enhance wildlife habitat. For fiscal year 2018,the District's annual operating budget was approximately$2 million. 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 District's daily operations as well as its 19 regular employees. The Board assumes responsibility for 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: 8th 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 , . ,t..,•,._,;;;,#4,2".51•?;;40-4,:i. . • r",":" ..,;',,,s,'"•••, ..,,..- .:, I: i•1 I " - -7 , 1.v.t.'.,'.,k'.",,:' v •"' 10 (..,„, ift „,,-,-,F , , .',. ,' -01 . " 0;iiM J rft:5°: - 1 '''''''' ..0; r" 411‘ '' i(o'' 0101,4"'''a,; tf' 1 d ...,404 1 .0 ,, ,_ , „ ,— —.' ' " I. , • my Lake Nillwoo• the lev keine i,,. i ,.• f ' ' .., „ - ( Airway Heights • ' !Al ..ul' r,.,„,..27, -to ,,a4 , ( idic:a' l L', ak„e "v -;LeJr 1 Cheney I po ekr0 Id I Spangle Fairfield Waverly loeil, 0 ,/ j ( 4.7 ' Latah ,,,' : ! " , ' I ' • ,• , • _ 4.II..... ..I. , „ Al..... ../.. N t.-.....=.:'.1.-- .„„,,.m.„.... 10.0:n - 1 Jo.4,02 4 1 132 5 5 7 5 1[Mile.; Spokane Conservation District Cr--c kaAi' Boundary Map j : ,g ;, .)•-•7[ ..L-,,, _....— C ,graph,T undsav, F. April 2020 Bridgeview Consulting 10-3 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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: 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 The assessment of the district's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes 10.6 COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION The district's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are 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 Stone 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 district's Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 2—Planning 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 of the District's structures including damage 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 In the last five years,we've experienced three 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 2.85 Low Spokane County has a relatively low seismic risk. However, seismic levels up to 5.5 have been reached in the past. The District's buildings are made of concrete or steel, limiting the impact. 4 Flood 2.1 High The District's 8th 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 could also impact the risk to the District's 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- owner's 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 extensive. While buildings wouldn't 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 items/strategies that make up the district's hazard 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, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. TABLE 10-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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,F1„ 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 rogram 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 2,4,5,8,1 SCD 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 10-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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,F1, 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 facili 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 district's 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. In addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team,the 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(a�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 depaitnients, 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes which is approximately 75 percent of our call volume. On October 16th 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 southern 2/3's of the District is primarily rural with agricultural and timbered 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 district's boundaries are shown on in the map provided below. 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 the jurisdiction's 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: 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the district's administrative and technical 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 The district's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 Stoma Ready No Firewise No Tsunami Ready(if applicable) NA 11.6 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The district's Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified 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* The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most hazardous situation. *Specific to FD 3. Bridgeview Consulting 11-7 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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. 3 Flood 3.05 Medium Are District has very little area that falls into 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 items/strategies that make up the district's hazard 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, 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 11-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 durin 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, New 6,7,8,9, Operations, Capital Long Term Public Information, County, 10,11,12 Prevention Preventive Activities, 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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. [LA.JATZ PI G"ra a^ V O C, F L'l+nos n7+tip . I,rpt•,r,Y ,1.141.0 TO, 'Ma C1r.nrryr 57 4:Qlt ./JIwC Abiit �ttta�i94 •rntira odn 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 district's 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 Plan. In addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team, the 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 Deer Park,WA 99006 project 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 Deer Park,WA 99006 attended meetings; Telephone: 509-467-4500 coordinated/gathered necessary e-mail: howardj@scfd4.org information. Attended workshops with County. Asst. Chief Bill Neckels Alternate Point of Contact Assistant on Project capturing and 315 E. Crawford St Deer Park WA 99006 gathering information as 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 2—Planning 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. The district's boundaries are shown on in the map provided below. Spokane County Fire Districts Legend 0 Fire Stations qy ra 11 Municipal c p _. v ¢ enact Rdaaoroy Ra S+Municipal Fire Service [baa{� ,41 Unserved areas -- ` Mp Zg 4 _ J�,. municipal BOUndane3 '� Aiwkpauv}R• _ thine. �a. .. N Railroads. I fro,ri2hip 8 Rangens AS i Doer Park o r paw Pw0 W2000r1000twn'St V ° - Fire i-. T ,, }'` 0clrict1 28 P;1 28 Ales 1i G" II i.. 75 10E N _ Su*:Rd Imbn Cluurnrr Ra • , Taaman Rd N -... 777 las- Ri" Al 1 Nn r,x ad • 2 ry ar i N a • ";i I ' T 27a 27 , ear N i $r '7 N Le,,,,,i' .Sr �q Ifr t 111 I C� r _yal r4n y CRZ . �'i�9 ova To I �\ iii' � , r r 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 2—Planning 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 the jurisdiction's 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: 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 The assessment of the district's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal 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 The district's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes 12.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The district's Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified 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 Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 district's structures. 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 None of the Fire District's structures have been impacted by wildfire,however,the district's number of responses to wildfire continues to increase(on average)year to year. It has been a few years since the Fire District experienced a `large' loss of structures 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 necessarily `earthquake prone' 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 Washington are still classified as `active'volcanos. 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 2—Planning 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 items/strategies that make up the district's hazard 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, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. TABLE 12-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region to new or Low)or$ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services, existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Tenn, Plan? Recovery,Natural 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 1 6 High High Yes Yes NO 1 2 2 High Mod Yes link 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 an update to the district's 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. 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. In addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team,the Spokane County Fire District 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 Nine Mile Falls,WA 99026 station,etc. Telephone: 509-796-4793 Bcobbscfd5@gmail.com Mason McCann,Asst. Chief Mason McCann/Bethany McCann Planning for roads, equipment, 17217 W.Four Mound Rd Nine Mile Falls,WA 99026 terrain,training etc. 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 Bcobbscfd5@gmail.comfuture growth 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes Population Growth—Based on data tracked by Spokane County Assessor's office, SCFD5 has 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 Assessor's office, SCFD5 has 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. 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. The district's boundaries are shown in the map provided 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's capabilities with respect to Bridgeview Consulting 13-3 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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: • District's Annual Capital Improvement 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 assistance. The District's current approved Hazard Mitigation Plan Update supports the effort of this regulation and plan update.The Federal Emergency Management Agency approved the District's 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 The assessment of the district's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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. Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. YES Engineering&Roads/Spokane County CEO/CFO/Spokane County Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. YES Information Systems Department,GIS, 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 The district's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 district's Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified 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 2—Planning 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 Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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, school kid's danger in walking to school 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 items/strategies that make up the district's hazard 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, 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 13-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region to new or Low)or$ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services, existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Tenn, 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 and company's New All 1,2,3,4,5, SCFD5 High General Long Term NA Preventive Activities, Local, Hazard 6,7,8.9, Fund, Structural Projects, County, 11,12 FEMA, Property Protection, Region DNR, Emergency Services, 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, Hazard 6,7,8.9, DNR Fund Preventive Activities, County, 10, 11,12 WAFAC Structural Projects, Region Property Protection, FEMA Emergency Services, DNR Recovery,Natural 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, 7,8.9, 10, Fund, Preventive Activities, County, 12 FEMA Structural Projects, 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, Hazard 7,8.9, 10, Fund, Preventive Activities, County, 12 FEMA Structural Projects, 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 Public Information, Local, Hazard 8.9, 12 Elevator,WA Funds, Preventive Activities, County, DOT, FEMA, Structural Projects, Region Spokane State Property Protection, County Road Funds Emergency Services, Department Recovery,Natural Resource Protection Bridgeview Consulting 13-10 April 2020 SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT#5 ANNEX TABLE 13-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region to new or Low)or$ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services, existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Tenn, 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,roofmg,screening,vents,defensible space. Existing All 1,2,3,4,5, SCFD5 High General Long Term NA Public Information, Local Hazard 6,7,8.9, Funds, Preventive Activities, 10, 12 FEMA, Structural Projects, State Property Protection, Funds Emergency Services, 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 Tenn NA Public Information, Local, Hazard 7,8.9, 10, Local Preventive Activities, County, 12 Grants Structural Projects, Region Property Protection, Emergency Services, Recovery,Natural Resource Protection INITIATIVE#8 Update SCFD5 Fire Apparatus's to respond to hazmat responses Existing All 1,2,3,4,5, SCFD5 High FEMA Long Term NA Public Information, Local, Hazard 7,8.9,12 General Preventive Activities, County, Fund Structural Projects, Region 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 2—Planning 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 C4. ro-.v, nwmwe II /;:.�� 4 n YMw.4[M+r.k 5001 '�l „ 1 N+u.Y Yr+ l 4 ��T.'. il .r,. f r r r�. , -..10\,.:2,,, , ,. 1 Ilff I1L I I I- X Y i.�1 1 111 1 Liffiri CM I —. 1 . • G -448 ..._ . . . .. " sa - j , 1'1 Er_i [kJ 1" 1 1=1 ,J� tr ..__�-___. . 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 serves as an update to the district's 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. 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 addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team, Spokane County Fire District 8 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 Lonnie Rash,Assistant Chief Primary Point of Contact Planning Coordinator; Meeting 12100 E Palouse Hwy Valleyford,WA 99036 attendance, planning team facilitator; Telephone: 509-926-6699 authoring of plan; capturing of lrash@scfd8.org review final annex and 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 Telephone: 509-926-6699 capabilities assessment;review final annex cwyrobek@scfd8.org and County base plan. Marty Long,Division Chief Planning Team Member Prevention Education Tasks; public 12100 E Palouse Hwy Valleyford,WA 99036 outreach; author portions of plan; capture Telephone: 509-926-6699 information; capabilities assessment; risk Mlong@scfd8.org ranking. Thomas Hatley,Division Chief Planning Team Member Meeting attendance; author portions of 12100 E Palouse Hwy Valleyford,WA 99036 plan; risk ranking; capture information; Telephone: 509-926-6699 capabilities assessment thatley@scfd8.org Bridgeview Consulting 14-1 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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. tia d 1(v4 - J S .. _ �. .. 1 P la R u>uuu u �� i "�95ulaopum i �>. . ,aa�itiumufs,iu , 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 2—Planning 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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: 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 • District's Annual Capital Improvement 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. • 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 The assessment of the district's administrative and technical capabilities, including educational and 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 available on the County's website for citizens to 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 The district's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 Stoma Ready No Firewise Yes 5/2016 14.7 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING The district's Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the 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 2—Planning 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 District's structures. 10 of the structures 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 district's response to wildfire events has 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 Landslide 2.7 Medium While 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 14-5 HAZARD RISK AND VULNERABILITY RANKING Hazard Vulnerability Description of Impact Rank Hazard Type CPRI Score Rank 4 Earthquake 2.65 Medium The entire planning area is susceptible to earthquakes. While all of the structures owned by the district fall within the"very low"liquefaction zone, all of the 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 to the district's structures 6 Flood 2.4 Medium None of the district's structures fall within 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 items/strategies that make up the district's hazard 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, 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 Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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- $10,000.0 Activities, reduction in Community 0 new Emergency responses. Risk Services,Recovery. Reduction Division INITIATIVE#3 The District has a sustainable and robust pre-plan program that includes rural farming areas. The District will seek out grant funding to assist in maintaining this program through continued public education. Existing SW/WF 1,4 Spokane Low General Long-Term No Prevention Public, County Fire Fund Education, District, District 8- Emergency Local. Community Services. Risk Reduction Division INITIATIVE 4 Seek grant funding to conduct a Wildland Urban Interface Assessment with Mapping. The District has significant Wildland Urban Interface areas and is looking for the ability to identify,map and educate those in the hazard areas of strategies to reduce impacts of wildland fires. Bridgeview Consulting 14-11 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 14-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region to new or Low)or$ type, Timeline Previous Emergency Services, existing Hazards Objectives Figure if General (Long-Tenn, Plan? Recovery,Natural assets Mitigated Met Lead Agency Known Fund,etc.) Short-Tenn) 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 document serves as an update to the district's 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. 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. In addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team,the 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 writing of District's annex;provided input regarding kjohnson@scfd10.org District'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 mrisleyg scfd 10.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 osandavol@scfd10.org review of document, providing information and review of risk assessment. 15-1 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 protection area's land use is 65%residential,30% open space, and 5%commercial. • Spokane County's population consists of 85.1%non-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 County 26th out of 39 Washington counties for health behaviors, 22nd for quality of life, 26th in length of life, and 23rd 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 2—Planning 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-year period, our"Providing Mutual/Automatic Aid"average is 169, ranging from 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 region's population grows,more business and industry locate here, and the climate gets warmer and more arid over time. The Spokane region has a"dry summer continental"climate,which is typically hot and arid during the summer months. The average precipitation is 16.52",but only 5.85"is rain. From July through August, the rainfall averages 0.63" per month. With region's weather patterns and 30% of our service area open space, we expect to experience more Wildlife Suppression responses; Over the three-year period, 2015-2017, we experienced 103 NFIRS Series 100 "Vegetation Fires",totaling 431 acres. The worst year was 2015 with 51 vegetation fires totaling 396 acres. • The district's boundaries are shown on the map provided below. 15-4 SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX .. f°' o �� ,,_ Spokane County (niii.e Mite andRry • Fire District 10 71 ®Pira 6i:r � _ \,t d4t \ Y '1 L 6314N Dover Rd N.1%.11 111 11 6,,k, :, a I n 19421 W ..',, Trans Rd \ r a ' N 1 _—i 929 S 14115 Ga•rfield Rd 112 Brooks Rd * 2 xi Sue Airway m w: H hts ° 549k ' o 'g‘ 1" \Tu i Lawton si Spokane e 1 i f4ot.p'Y a'. 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 2—Planning 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-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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: 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 The assessment of the district's administrative and technical capabilities, including 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 Professionals trained in building or infrastructure Yes Spokane County Building Department 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 Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Haz. use. Yes A joint position with labor Emergency Manager. Yes Spokane DEM 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 2—Planning 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 The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 The district's classifications under various hazard mitigation programs are presented in 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 2—Planning 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 district's Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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 3.3 High Aircraft Crashes; areas within the runway 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 2—Planning 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 items/strategies that make up the district's hazard 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, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. TABLE 15-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 INITIATIVE#5 Continue to work with Spokane County Conservation District to identify community wildfire hazards. 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 Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region 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 Work with the appropriate rail,transportation, and county agencies to ensure available access to areas serviced by the district. New All All FD 10,Rail, Low General Short Term No Emergency Regional Hazards County, Fund Services Additional INITIATIVE#7 Work with county to ensure the roads are elevated in areas effected by flooding which impacts egress 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 INITIATIVE#8 Continue to assess landslide hazards in the area that would land lock communities. 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 2—Planning 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Priority a 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 SCFDio 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 S F0 10 Safb1C9:,Ta3 SCFD 10 SI30ona Only byTlrne - Lapentl •s® �. b.` f1907-J r50T_4.... 1 ar cmc-E ...Li _. r tl.'furr! ,#'� 10034 t ' 1 �., 1065-4 .. " aw l' r 160:1-8 g 10 .4.w ,, ,i a gat no • — AVC k'— _ C6')t-c: :0241-CON: 1601._4. 1170#-A. :Ian;r. 1oos-0 10112-C ,.16. C504-A - ?1st �{ .. 1641-0 C r yV ,.+r .I,, :Pl. , ,\ C30re Thu,va 7002 $ [ W 4 p t, ,fir W6d,t11 y I 1 { ', -. rt �l lid, �, .° i 1"61 0303-Arrm3•A q�r' �a 15-15 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes SCD fol SarrtMce Araa _ffilJ N lagand F11 Rogion SLa11OR6 b'1f Time :I,4- ,4 #"-, L- 1.- C rR o , , , . ,1 "a �" c ‘140' CM-, masa ',1 N ' 1 . 1)1 '-'• 1, i ',,' LL,..- . i ) 'C,31-9 ' - . . w •Its 1 t .' ;Pito i 1 4,„ . INS-Ek 1 6 % 190.4-A 1o0Y-.', 6005-[! 1092-. 7. 0 0._.1 S hwpa C'Saf a a-.•. ,.s' ..__... 1002-8 13111 E. nvIr2C .1--R. 4w- r,' .1 41164-0N I Ma C1 fay af• itts' ', 44^fp 441 4 0304-41. aoaa a 8 I Ili, I. 15-16 SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX • CF61PCty2+JT7-29t9. L _.._.._. 'w _ r,_.„rF • � n SCFD 10to totv Ee?waryvmere .... — • r.-Mrfr-,: . -I } 42:11,.'' Vii. -AMC! --.......orARMABS/4 a n rte. """'".1.” `,. fva4-!AJ e3 arm__ i ,rsn..a.,. Yyyam .,a... M !h spa.s N, .e ^ _.,...r 4 -• 4 a , i 0 i. $ , -r- a _ . e "'1,: q,,i 1 YtaiM :: * W s r-,i °.' ,� t g d I alt it cso3-Ar III �. O MC ®' I b * I , .... u �m cmo® a ,a 4"41 — a a I, w m<, ' r ,�airiF- y r ¢;rM1:.n•e eyM • • i t �-'�-" ar ab°M1' Ott„ i, I 1111 IN Oita*et r °A i stto «f • III o. ww a `,C 13Ce- •. ww5 ,1 •V '' I[0 a u(,2.g - mesa .:ft..". ditgi. rntw4 - - r+ti-n lAi P 1 15-17 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes 5C,O 10 S:01210A:.aaa[tr,0 1100401 r: " ..�� Qd11O-Si 1 Nu Stat-D41-: 7.6 kW.GJ"^ n,y l L Itl - ` ..,w ,. t\ F p,.51h� . - _ yr 01•4•411C‘444 i 54� 4 6 14 t ,m , tM • . 'I- ..- ,� fes. ,,pp -u rp_ 1, . , , , ...... . a i Leal k,\,. V / ,,. i. . 1 4 d 4 . Ss. l' .1 ' ..,-:\ r SIF-...��. j „.:\'\\ :-'' '4'.21:1°152,.„.:!..;:f:7' ' -1fe iN%40.' . / „me '� ,. ► . ,f f!;Sbfrx'1 1 Stat 3l, t �1 ' �.. 0`016118 ”. '" . — • � . } ▪ .•' "d' rmi - C3816-C_, ►" :rt-r f,' ;tl .CSOS•A * l lir; scat. N i ,21,,„ . f 1 6 %^ Tanen 15-18 SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 10 ANNEX SCFD 10 CFE Denelry 2017.2019C518O R FM Raglan:All Agencies F j uaggno + 9 999 I, rrk,. r ".+r..,,.a.a �IMX 1 d .1 cw.krr ,or::tu rs 0.0 ^- °r ..teYlt . eahala .�` .9'" `° Lam:. • w_ �i yll • � l +" � � k ,_ p , .., „ rimr,e• ,', • ie' .�.! � eta:r 1 ... ri 9RMrY�liar-, J yt, lEgire h � wY 2 P t M A BO r `ltapdn 1 r t �. CSASA • w � '1 ., ,..,- /. Imi Ik342{: .. L. .r'? trice 3 Air 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 Depaitnient, 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. In addition to providing representation on the County's Planning Team, the 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 Tim O'Brien, Deputy Chief 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 2—Planning 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 Depaitnient is governed by a five-member elected Board of Commissioners that has the authority for conducting the public's 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 11th 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. The district's boundaries are 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes integrated into other on-going efforts. It also identifies the jurisdiction's 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.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 The assessment of the district's administrative 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 SVFD's Prevention Division construction practices. Planners or engineers with an understanding of Yes SVFD's Prevention Division natural hazards. Staff with training in benefit/cost analysis. Yes SVFD Personnel skilled or trained in GIS or Hazus use. Yes SVFD's IS Department 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 SVFD's Prevention Division (e.g.,responsible water use,fire safety,household preparedness,environmental education). Natural disaster or safety related school programs. Yes SVFD's Prevention Division Public-private partnership initiatives addressing No disaster-related issues. Multi-seasonal public awareness program. Yes SVFD's Prevention Division Bridgeview Consulting 16-5 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 SVFD's Prevention Division Other No 16.5.3 Fiscal Capability The assessment of the district's fiscal capabilities is presented in 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 The district's 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 district's Planning Team reviewed the hazard list identified within the Base Plan, and have identified 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 2—Planning 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 The Calculated Priority Risk Index scoring method has a range from 0 to 4."0"being the least hazardous and"4"being the most 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$3.5 million to combat the fire. 3 Landslide 3.1 Medium Potential to hinder delivery of service in portions of the district. 4 Flood 3 Medium Residential,businesses and roadways may be impacted. 5 Earthquake 2.85 Medium Minimal damage regionally 6 Drought 2.75 Medium Drought customarily does not impact structures,but would increase fire danger. 7 Volcano 1.75 Low Impact from ash on the fire response vehicles could be significant. Increased calls for service may exist due to health-related issues for individuals with breathing/health related issues. 16.8 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The District adopts the hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the Planning Team described in Volume 1. 16.9 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN The Planning Team for the district identified and prioritized a wide range of actions based on the risk assessment, and their knowledge of the district assets and hazards of concern. Table 16-6 lists the action items/strategies that make up the district's hazard mitigation plan. Background information and information on how each action item will be administered,responsible agency/office (including outside the district), potential funding sources, the timeframe, who will benefit from the activity, and the type of initiative associated with each item are also identified. Bridgeview Consulting 16-9 April 2020 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 16-6 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Initiative Type: Who or What Public Information, Benefits? Estimated Sources of Preventive Activities, Facility,Local, Cost(High/ Funding Structural Projects, County, Applies to Medium/ (List Grant Included in Property Protection, Region new or Low)or$ 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 1—Develop a Continui of Operations Plan(COOP). New and All- 1,3 SVFD Low SVFD Short term No Planning/Emergenc Local and existing Hazards y Services County INITIATIVE#SVFD 2—Develop 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 Partici ate 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/ # Met Benefits Costs Exceed Costs? Eligible? Budgets? Prioritya 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 b nct o o a o o Mitigation Strategy 2019 Project Status U U Z U-°-!I 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 2—Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 16-8 STATUS OF PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Current Status b 0 y J 0 O a O . 0 Mitigation Strategy 2019 Project Status U U Z 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. Spokane Valley Fire Department s.nnw '" ..._ 1 - The OKw al*glum v aa.r L+.• .P-•w rwvar - w tw a*,.L r:w..rpwill....,-M.,. •-"naw .' s 4 •r � '. rw... a13� � -. #ala I.: wfA M - ' ''''.y' =d.* q5. n.. r I '1 k 1 . _ r Y / r lilt i ID .. ... I Id i' L.: 54c1 i- .µms to :ssw•.. ;l 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 herein as "planning team", whose makeup includes the project management team (county and consultant), consultant members, and those planning partners responsible for the plan's written development; ✓ 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 partner that is seeking linkage to the plan participated in the plan's development. The best way to do this is to clearly define "participation". For this planning process, "participation" is defined by the following criteria examples(this list is not all-inclusive): ✓ Estimated level of effort. It is estimated that the total time commitment to meet these "participation"requirements for a planning partner would be 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 partner"participated"in the process to the best of your capabilities. There is flexibility in defining "participation," which can vary based on the type of planning partner (i.e.: City or County, vs. a Special Purpose District) involved. However,the level of participation must be defined at the on- set of the planning process,and we must demonstrate the extent to which this level of participation has been met for each partner. ✓ 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 consistent with those in the "base" plan or have policies and recommendations that complement 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 jurisdiction's plan is not considered to be "in place,"meaning that in essence,they have no hazard 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. A"Letter of Intent to Participate"or Resolution to participate to the Planning Team. 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 jurisdictional annex template which is the basis for each partner's jurisdictional chapter 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. Each partner will be asked to perform a"consistency review" and "capabilities assessment" of all 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, maintaining that eligibility will be dependent upon each partner implementing the plan's 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 as outlined in the "Planning Partners expectations" document provided by the planning team, in order to obtain Disaster Mitigation Act(DMA)compliance for our jurisdiction. Mr./Ms. will be our jurisdiction's point of contact for this process and they can be reached at(insert: address,phone number and e-mail address). We understand that this designated point of contact's time will be applied to the "in-kind" local match for the grant that is funding this project. To aid in the determination of this local match, we have determined that the hourly rate (salary and benefits included) for our designated point of contact is $ . The funding source for our point of contact's position within our jurisdiction is 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 partner's expectations package. — A sample "letter of intent"to link to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. — A Special Purpose District or City template and instructions. — FEMA's 2013 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 2—Planning 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 public's 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 jurisdiction's 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 jurisdiction's 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. 8-2 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 partner's 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. 8-3 Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2—Planning 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 Planning Partnership's review will remain in the partnership, and no further action is required. • Automatic removal from the partnership will be implemented for partners where these actions have to be initiated more than once in a 5 year planning cycle 8-4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business Z new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment, Citizen to the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane County Human Rights Task Force By-Laws BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley resident James Johnson was appointed to the Task Force on September 25, 2018. The term of appointment is generally four years, but as terms are staggered and this was the first time Spokane Valley had a position on the Task Force, his term expires on March 31, 2020. An announcement was posted on the City's webpage and was published in the local newspapers seeking a volunteer to serve on this committee. The deadline to submit an application was 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, March 18, 2020. The City received four applications; electronic copies of which were emailed to all Councilmembers on March 19, 2020. Mayor Wick conducted interviews of the four applicants and is recommending the appointment of James "JJ" Johnson. OPTIONS: Confirm the appointment; do not confirm the appointment; take other action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I Move to confirm the Mayor's recommended appointment of James "JJ" Johnson to the Spokane County Human Right Task Force for a four- year term beginning immediately upon appointment, and expiring March 31, 2024. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mayor Wick ATTACHMENTS: Citizen applications Application Form for {CoblturrlittcesIBogrt'pis/Comunissioitts SOW�� '' —� � s ,id 'fit` LL D Return completed form to City Clerk: -r �. Spokane Valley City Hall 40.000 Vatter l ' . I 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5102 cbainbriclge rr,spoktutevalley.org [Note:To meet an applicatiozS-dailinl aMlalfiorf!t(tntVibt:l1 'd or e-mailed. However,the Clerk's office will need an original,signed application prior to appointment.One application per position please.DO NOT SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNLESS THERE IS AN OPENING.OPENINGS ARE POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBPAGE AND ADVERTISED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. Call the City Clerk if you have questions.] I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE: [Check one box;note requirements} [ I Planning Commission—Must be a Spokane Valley resident.(See chapter 18.10 SVMC) Terms are for three years.Applicants are selected without respect to political affiliations,and serve without compensation.[ Lodging Tax Advisory Committee(LTAC)-Need not be a Spokane Valley resident. (See chapter 3.20 SVMC) Terms are for one or two years.Committee consists of five members: One Councilmentber:appointed by the Mayor,confirmed by the Council. Two who represent a business required to collect the tax(hotels,motels,etc.). Two involved in funded activities(such as a non-profit organization to increase tourism). Identify the business or organization you represent • [ ] Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee(HCDAC) HCDAC includes two Spokane Valley residents;terms not to exceed three years. Spokane Valley appointment pending final approval by Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Spokane County Application and Supplemental Application also required. [ x] Spokane County Human Rights Task Force —Terms are for four years.Must be a resident of Spokane Valley. The Board currently meets 2"d Tuesday of each month,3:30 to 5:00 at Catholic Charities, 12 E 5`1,Spokane. [ ] Spokane Housing Authority(SHA)—regional committee,five members,Terms are five years. One individual directly assisted by the Authority,jointly appointed by Spokane Mayor,Spokane Valley Mayor,and Chair of Board of County Commissioners. Two individuals who work or reside within Spokane City limits. One individual who works or resides in unincorporated Spokane County. One individual who works or resides within Spokane Valley City limits. Check uwitlr the City Clerk concerning a vacancy on this committee. [ ] Tourism Promotion Area,Hotel Advisory Committee(aka Hotel/Motel Association)--Terms are for three years. Spokane Valley appoints two members,and one ex-officio(a member or Council). All nominees must be operators or employees of lodging business within Spokane County. [ ] Other: Christopher L. Baca, Sr Name(please print): 1725 North McMillan Lane Spokane Valley 99016 Complete residence address: Street City Zip Code Complete mailing address(if different from above address): same Length of time residing at current address:_since 7/1/2019 U.S. Citizen? [x]yes [ ]no WA State registered voter? [x]yes [ ]no What is your preferred way for us to contact you: [Note:ffyou have an unlisted phone timber, or do not wish your email address made public, do not include that information. Once this document is submitted to the City, it becomes subject to public disclosure.] [ ] Home Phone: [ ] Work phone: [ x] Cell Phone: 907-821-8609 [ ] Other message phone: [x] E-mail address: (please print clearly): cbaca99901@gmail.cotn [ ] Regular mail to residence or mailing address shown above EMPLOYMENT: (Please start with most recent) 1. [x] present [ ] previous Name of employer: Retired Address: Phone: Position held: Dates of employment: 2. [ ] present [ x] previous Name of employer: Peacehealth Address: 3 800 Tongass Ave. Ketchikan, AK 99901 Phone: 907-228-8300 Position held: Clinic Manager _Dates of employment: 09/2011 —06/2019 3. [ ]present [x] previous Name of employer: University of Texas at Galveston Address: 712 Texas Ave Phone: 409-772-1011 Position held: _Clinic Manager Polunsky Prison Dates of employment: 2009 -2011 4. [ ] present [ x] previous Name of employer: Harris County Hospital District Address: 2525 Holly Hall St Phone: 713-566-6408 Position held: Director Quality Control Dates of employment: 2008-2009 EDUCATION: Name of high school_St Michaels High School Address: 100 Siringo Rd Santa Fe,NM Diploma or GED: [x] yes [ 1130 Trade school/college/university: Name of School_New Mexico State University Address: 1130 University Ave, Las Cruces,NM Diploma: [x]yes [ ] no Degree or certification earned: BBA Business Economics Trade school/college/university: Name of School_University of Phoenix Address: 4025 S. Riverpoint Parkway Diploma: [ x] yes [ ] no Degree or certification earned: Master of Arts in Organizational Management Other relevant certifications/licenses: VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE: Name of social,fraternal,organizations,etc. I. [x] current [ 1 Greater Spokane Valley Rotary Club 2020- 2. [ ] current [ x] previous First City Rotary of Ketchikan,AK 2011 -12019 3. [ ] current [ x] previous Ethics Board 2014-2019 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. Local, state,or national government boards, committees, or commissions on which you serve or have served. I. [ ] current [ }previous Medical Group Management Assn. Board Member 1988 - 1991 2. [ 1 current [x] previous Academic Assembly of the MGMA Board and President 199 3. [ 1 current [x] previous Association of Managers of Obstetric and Gyn Academic Clinics 1983 - 1986 4. [ ] current [ ] previous 5. [ ] current [ ] previous REASONS for applying for this committee, commission, board: Having worked in Medical Schools and Health Science Centers for most of my career,then in Prison Clinical management, and recently in a private non profit health care environment, managing about 100 employees and physicians, 1 have always worked closely with our available HR and Human Rights resources. 1 believe that a strong and continuous education of the employees and public regarding respect and equal treatment is paramount to a healthy working relationship. 1 am new to this community and see this position and Task Force as an avenue of service I may be able to contribute to strengthen our County business. By signing this application, ] certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that all information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 further state that my appointment would not represent a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest with the duties of this position. 1 understand this application is subject to disclosure pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. .3(L 3 (70 Signature Date Signed RECEIVED MAR 1 ll 2020 City of Spokane Valley Office of the City Clerk Application Form for Committees/Boards/Commissions po n— a Return completed form to City Clerk: .000V alley ay Spokane Valley City Hall 10210 East.Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Phone:509-720-5102 chainhridu(tt spi,kaoevallov.org [Note: To meet an application deadline,applications may be faxed or e-mailed. However,the Clerk's office will need an original,signed application prior to appointment.One application per position please. DO NOT SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNLESS THERE iS AN OPENING.OPENINGS ARE POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEEPAGE AND ADVERTISED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. Call the City Clerk if you have questions.) I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE: [Check one box;note requirements] [ ]Planning Commission—Afu.st be a Spokane Valley resident.(Sec chapter 18.10 SVMC) Terms arc for three years.Applicants arc selected without respect to political affiliations,and serve without compensation. [ ] Lodging Tax Advisory Committee ti CAC)-Need not be n Spokane Valley resident. (Sec chapter 3.20 SVMC) Terms arc fur one or two years.Committee consists of five members: One Councilmember.appointed by the Mayor,confirmed by the Council. Two who represent a business required to collect the tax(hotels,motels,etc.). Two involved in funded activities(such as a non-profit organization to increase tourism). Identify the business or organization you represent [ ]Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee(HCDAC) HCDAC includes two Spokane Valley residents;terms not to exceed three years. Spokane Valley appointment pending final approval by Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Spokane County Application and Supplemental Application also required. [Spokane County Human Rights Task Force —Terms are for four years.Must be a resident of Spokane Valley. The Board currently meets 2'4 Tuesday of each month,3:30 to 5:00 at Catholic Charities,12 I?5't'Spokane. [ ]Spokane Housing.Authority(SHA)—regional committee,five members.Terms are five years. One individual directly assisted by the Authority,jointly appointed by Spokane Mayor,Spokane Valley Mayor,and Chair of Board of County Commissioners. Two individuals who work or reside within Spokane City limits. One individual who works or resides in unincorporated Spokane County. One individual who works or resides within Spokane Valley City limits. Check with the City Clerk concerning a vacancy on this constmlttee. [ ]Tourism Promotion Area,Hotel Advisory Committee(aka Hotel/Motel Association)--Terms are for three years. Spokane Valley appoints two members,and one ex-officio(a member of Council). All nominees must be operators or employees of lodging business within Spokane County. [ ]Other: Name(please print): `rho wt t&. sLE L- Complete residence address: 50i5 ill• [2. S (2o. SPOk.4'Jrr V# Y gg2.1 �* Street City Zip Code Complete mailing address(if different from ab9ve address): N(A Length of time residing at current address: )SI rs U.S.Citizen?[ yes [ ]no WA State registered voter?[Ayes [ ]no What is your preferred way for us to contact you: [Note:Ifyou have an unlisted phone number,or do not si'isli pour e- mail address made public, do not include that it formation.Once this document is submitted to the City,it becomes subject to public disclosure.] [ ]Home Phone: [ ]Work phone: C [v'Cell Phone: SOcl-415--1000 [ ]Other message phone: .9 [M}'E-mail address:(please print clearly): Ypt,GKeiz- werbniM® GNWtL.ciM [ ]Regular mail to residence or mailing address shown above EMPLOYMENT:(Please start with most recent) R rl -b '" SW-V 2_,0 19 I. [ ]present [1Orprcvious tr-T1S�ftVtr fC Name of employer: W t./W I) ootraI tN65--r 1-E A Address: ("of tA14 1ST AV.) SPOICANO Ci vitt qR 2ca( Phone: 504-Z32- F3100 Position held: $it. eit0TeGY ii JAG6R Dates of employment: 7005— 712.019 2. [ ]present [Nrprevious Name of employer: UriLrrI PAM6 RS of Ameg,ICA Address: 7600 -1tPM (O.i e Nvr+--e rSc 2-514.15 Phone: Sb'l-7-01-2.302. Position held: flu S'r~c-r MP.JJA6ERr tote-rat of Dates of employment: 2oc4- 2005 ({toner MGrriT 3. [ ]present [✓]'previous Name of employer: ITS a1 INC• Address: zttl K• MoLTEP- RD.$ (..IBEI Y LA+- , W, 9Ro14 Phone: 501-124-4Roo Position held: Dates of employment: 2 i -200+ 4. [ ] present [trevious Name of employer: Ga MhtonfWEAt-TI-i ePISD U Address: 01 N.©EARBaterJ !4V•• et-I1CA601 IL- 1.0k,lo Phone: Position held: ?MLLT(p.E Dates of employment: Nil- 'ZooI EDUCATION: Naa of high school WAR-Ref.) T6 WNhi1IP +I,S Address: SPO ra• 01Pr M )6 ISD,c f�ttANe e It_ t 3( iploma or OED: [veyes [ ] no Trade atoollcallege/university: Name of School CAeDtn1At.STRrr'cH(01i/0411y Address: _rat�al 14• YAIE.S t Mtt.W►644.1z4- , VI 5%217 Diploma: [✓ryes [ ]no Degree or certification earned: e.4c1-1et-oR of SeigiOCe" MAnk46eMe?ur Sheol/college/university: • Name of School t:E+-1,0•64,1*A1 L•of Worvil. Address:_I -foul gl..e-tsl. fleigeArtk•-7e 5, IL 6,01e( Diploma: [ryes [ ]no Degree or certification earned: MASTegg 1+J riaolTEcC molibiGuhtewr Other relevant certifications/licenses: 144SeCr 1cW hove MC►1't' 'Rof o14 [NP)i CEILTl FI EP ,Sc_Ru4 MAST'- 2. VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE: Name of social, fraternal,organizations,etc. 1. WS current [ )previous 5ecop.D I(At�va S7 2. current [ ]previous AMf;:;te-O.N RED GR-VSc' ((aaar & TGRNt A551E 1t'e'`T) 3. [ ] current [ter previous 6R4146, cIRE I Pf-- vol•c0J-r<efe 1=11C1~11j J AUP anti" 4. [ ] current [14 previous GMA.P.Ogr C1 rvizkO PM5SOGtPin0N -- Iecrarr+Ie1/41-1-R6e4tmee egestvElaT PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. Local,state,or national government boards,committees,or commissions on which you se e or have served. 1. [ ]current [4iprevious V7242N SPS ADVI$D.Y BbAPP-CHAIRPEfLSatJ 2. [ ]current [Vf previous ITP..DN tASEP$ ADV•SoR`! BopP.D - B0ACC. mem tar Ie. 3. [ ]current [vf previous INt.AIJD NW Plitt BOARD-- S1°GRSTAQ`1 - 2006-3 2.att-12- 4. [ ] current [.]`previous IMtit-ND NW PM( P VP GaNtMuNI G'crcoNS Zoo$_q 5. [ ] current [ ]previous REASONS for applying for this committee, commission,board: Tr1t 5 o epoP-TUNtTY 1$ e',<-rye 106 -re' Me Wel) vna Thar of P o12TuN rrY REte,t<S El:r mi4A4A-1v R 160.473 r-Ok TAW tr1Y-0 crritez• 1I.-4I S is A warm y ,a,uD IMF()Pz-roT cgaocE-r'o Go rJTi4 r t3LtTE By signing this application, I certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that all information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 further state that my appointment would not represent a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest with the duties of this position. I understand this application is subject to disclosure pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. Signature Date Signed RECEIVED MAR 1 it 2020 City of Spokane Valley Office of the City Clerk March 13,2020 City of Spokane Valley Attn: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Chris, Please find my attached application for the position representing the City of Spokane Valley on the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force. In addition,I included my resume to provide a more detailed background prior to my retirement in 2019. I am excited and appreciative for the opportunity to be considered for this position, and I hope that my qualifications are a good match. I am a compassionate,amiable, determined and dependable person, and I can lead, facilitate,and work in both team and individual contributor roles. Thank you for the opportunity to be considered for this position and please don't hesitate to contact me at any time. Best Regards, Thomas"Tom"Cuilla Thomas R. Cuilla 5015 N. Rees Road -Spokane Valley,WA 99216 • (509)-475-7000 SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS I am an experienced professional with a proven track record of successful results as a project manager and a leader. I enjoy project management, process improvement, team building, relationship management and I am passionate about providing excellent customer service. I enjoy interacting with people,and I work successfully as a team member or as an individual contributor. Some highlights of my experience and certifications include: • Extensive experience in Project Management • Project Management Professional (PMP) certification • Certified Scrum Master (CSM) • Extensive managerial experience---budget, personnel • Stanford University Certified Project Manager PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Inland Northwest Health Services, Spokane,Washington 2005 -2019 Senior Project Manager/Team Leader Wells Fargo Building(2012 to current) • Manage multiple IT projects from cradle to grave, including project definition,project monitoring, project completion and to initiation of customer billing • Manage and mentor staff • Prepare status reports for leadership Based at Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center (2005—2012) • Managed projects while based at Sacied Heart Medical Center, including small to large projects.Examples include the HEV project,the Med Reconciliation Project and the Obix installation project. • • Led a team of four project managers in the full project lifecycle to complete projects • Collaborated with Clinical Engineering to create departmental processes • Trained employees and administered evaluations and salaries Utility Partners of America,Greenville, South Carolina 2004 -2005 Project Manager, Director of Project Management • Developed several process improvement initiatives and created new processes • Managed large scale automated meter retrofit project deployments(National Grid Electric) • Helped Utility Partners of America leadership secure a large scale automated meter retrofit project with the SCANA Corporation,and I managed the deployment • Assisted leadership in developing the structure for the company's project management team and I was responsible for hiring staff Itron,Incorporated, Spokane Valley,Washington 2001 -2004 Project Manager • Defined customer project requirements, developed project budgets, timelines and project plans, monitored performance and provided appropriate status reports to stakeholders. These implementations included working with vendors, subcontractors and customers. • Responsible for managing subcontractors to deliver successful project implementation services for automated meter reading projects. These projects were on schedule and under budget. • Core team member for a new product introduction project(the"Mobile Collector"), which is a highly successful hardware/software product Experience prior to 2001 available upon request EDUCATION Master's Degree in ProjectManagementwith Academic Distinction -DeVry University/Keller Graduate School of Management(2000 -2003) Bachelor of Science in Management with Academic Distinction- Cardinal Stritch University (1998 -2000) Diploma in Middle Management with Honors -Aurora University School of Business & Management(1991 - 1994) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS and CERTIFICATIONS Serum Alliance-Certified Scrum Master(#200074) 2012 Project Management Institute-certified PMP(#44587) 2003 Stanford University Certified Project Manager Professional 2003 EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES Secretary-PMI Inland Northwest Chapter Board- (2011 - 2012) VP of Communications-PMI Inland Northwest Chapter Board (2008 -2009) Secretary-PMI Inland Northwest Chapter Board- (2006- 2008) t ti's o WElL Ah [ppClr110N OF MIND AND HEART To Whom It May Concern: 1 am writing as a reference for Tom Cuilla, I have known Tom for over 15 years. Torn was one of my customers during my tenure at Itron. I found Tom to have the rare combination of excellent business sense along with technical skills that he used to drive a major project at his utility. This was an enormous project with hundreds of people involved and widely dispersed geographically. We had many challenges with the project and Tom handled them professionally and in a way that kept the project moving ahead, The project was a success and Tom's direct involvement was a major part of the successful implementation. I invited Tom to join Itron's Users Advisory Board where he served as a representative to the company for hundreds of customers, He did an outstanding job and was elected as Chairman where he also served very well, Several years ago,Torn approached me about joining Itron as a project manager. His background and demonstrated leadership skills made it an easy decision. Torn joined Itron and served as a Project Manager in my business units where he was instrumental in several successful installations.His role was to lead various levels of employees and customers through challenging timelines with critical cash flow effects. I have witnessed Torn as an effective leader driving through numerous challenges in complex organizations. I wholeheartedly endorse Torn as a calm yet direct professional who will be a great asset in managing multiple priorities,people and projects. Sineer- , , J9'.in Hengesh T)rector, Gra uate Studies In Business Visiting Associate Professor School of Global Commerce and Management Whitworth University i hengesh@whitworth,edu 509-777-4455 300 West Hawthorne Road • Spokane,Washington 99251 • 509.777,1000 ■ www,whitworth.edu • 19720 NW Tonasbourne Dr. Suite 320 Hillsboro, OR 97124 512 318 2154 www.Inuavari.com INNOVARI October 26, 2016 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to provide a reference for Mr. Thomas Cuilla. I have known Tom for over 20 years and have come to know him both professionally and personally. Mr. Cuilla has demonstrated the highest level of competency in wide variety of career assignments he has had. His background and expertise in Customer Service, Meter Technology and Project Management has driven successful programs across the utility industry. I worked side-by-side with Tom on several successful projects, such as a new meter reading system and a new performance reporting process at Commonwealth Edison in Chicago. His ability to quickly get to the heart of an issue, and bring the project team together to get it resolved in a timely manner, greatly enhanced the success of projects he was involved in. His adaptability to new processes and technology gave him the ability to create a vision for where a company needed to go and his determination assured that the projects would be completed on time and on budget. On a personal note, I have found Mr. Cuilla to be of the highest moral character and integrity. His values will support even the most demanding corporate expectations. I was proud to work closely with Tom and am even prouder to call him a friend. If I can be of any more assistance in your consideration of him for employment, please do not hesitate to call me at 816-804-2157. Sincerely, William P Herdegen Ill Chief Operating Officer *CAPACITY FOR CHANGE RECEIVED Applicatioah Form for Committees/Boards/Comrnissions.AR 1 $ • 2020 SY.0%\a'ne Return completed form to City Clerk: l Spokane Valley City Hall City of S okane Valley 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane VailOfijjV l40 City Clerk Phone:509-720-5102 cbainbridge@spokaneyalley.org spokanevalley.org [Note: To meet an application deadline, applications may be faxed or e-mailed, However, the Clerk's office will need an original, signed application prior to appointment. One application per position please.DO NOT SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNLESS THERE 1S AN OPENING.OPENINGS ARE POSTED ON TETE CITY'S WEBPAGE AND ADVERTISED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. Call the City Clerk if you have questions.] Y AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE: [Check one box;note requirements] [ ]Planning Commission—Must be a Spokane Valley resident, (See chapter 18.10 SVMC) Terms arc for three years.Applicants arc selected without respect to political affiliations,and serve without compensation. [ ] Lodging Tax Advisory Committee(LTAC)-Need not be a Spokane Valley resident. (See chapter 3.20 SVMC) Terms are for one or two years,Committee consists of five members: One Councilmember:appointed by the Mayor,confirmed by the Council. Two who represent a business required to collect the tax(hotels,motels,etc.). Two involved in funded activities(such as a non-profit organization to increase tourism),_. Identify the business or organization you represent [ ]Snokane County Housinsr and Community Development Advisory Committee(HCDAC) HCDAC includes two Spokane Valley residents;terms not to exceed three years. Spokane Valley appointment pending final approval by Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Spokane County Application and Supplemental Application also required. [X] Spokane County Human Rights Task Force —Terms are for four years.Must be a resident of Spokane Valley. The Board currently meets 2"d Tuesday of each month,3:30 to 5:00 at Catholic Charities, 12 E Soh Spokane. [ ] Spokane housing Authority(SHA)—regional committee, five members.Terms are five years. One individual directly assisted by the Authority,jointly appointed by Spokane Mayor, Spokane Valley Mayor,and Chair of Board of County Commissioners. Two individuals who work or reside within Spokane City limits. One individual who works or resides in unincorporated Spokane County. One individual who works or resides within Spokane Valley City limits, Check with the Ciiy Cleric concerning a vacancy on this committee. [ ]Tourism Promotion Area,Hotel Advisory Committee(aka Hotel/Motel Association')—Terms are for three years. Spokane Valley appoints two members,and one ex-officio(a member of Council). All nominees must be operators or employees of lodging business within Spokane County. [ ] Other: Name (please print): James A. Johnson Complete residence address:_ 13224 E 4th Avenue, S uokane Valley_, Washington 99216 Street City Zip Code Complete mailing address (if different from above address): Same Length of time residing at current address: 25 Years_. U.S, Citizen? [X]yes [ ]no WA State registered voter? [X]yes [ ]no What is your preferred way for us to contact you: [Note: If you have an unlisted phone number, or do not wish your e- mail address made public, do not include that information. Once this document is submitted to the City, it becomes subject to public disclosure.] [ ]Home Phone: [ ] Work phone: [X] Cell Phone: 509.994.7392 [ ] Other message phone: [X] E-mail address: (please print clearly): JJJohnson1ome,1 msn,,.eim [ ] Regular mail to residence or mailing address shown above EMPLOYMENT: (Please start with most recent) 1. [X] present [ ] previous Name of employer: Spokane Public Schools Address: 200 N. Bernard, Spokane WA 99201, Phone: 509.354.7134 Position held: Instructional Material Resources Dates of employment: 06/2010 to Current 2. [ ] present [X] previous Name of employer: Moment l?ratne Inc _ Address: 13224 E 4th,Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Phone:_509,994.7392 Position held: President Dates of employment: 06/2005 - 12/2009 3. [ ] present [X] previous Name of employer: Brooklyn Iron Works, Inc; Address: 2401 E. Brooklyn Avenue, Spokane, WA - _ _ Phone: 509.468.2310 Position held: Senior Project Manager Dates of employment: 03/1999 - 06/2009 4. [ ] present [X] previous Name of employer:_SidePlate Systems,Inc Address: 25909 Pala, Suite 200, Mission Viejo CA 92691 Phone: _800-475-2077 Position held: _Program Manager -_ Dates of employment: 05/2003-06/2008. EDUCATION; Name of high school_Central Valley High School _Address:.82I S. Sullivan Road,Spokane Vlv, 990374 Diploma or GED: [X] yes ] no Trade school/college/university: Name of School. Eastern Washington University Address: Cheney,WA Diploma: [ ] yes [ ] no Degree or certification earned: Trade school/college/university: Name of School Community Colleges of Spokane Address: 1810 N. Greene St. Spokane, WA 99217 Diploma: [X] yes [ ] no Degree or certification earned: Mechanical Engineering Other relevant cerifications/licenses: Washin ton Award for Vocational Excellence VOLUNTEER EXPEIfliENCE; Name of social,fraternal, organizations, etc. 1. [ ]current [X] previous Spokane Valley Girls Softball Association 2. [ ] current [X] previous Pasadena Elementary PTA 3, [ ] current [X] previous 2nd Harvest Food Bank 4. [ ] current [X] previous American Heart Association PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. Local,state, or national government boards,committees,or commissions on which you serve or have served. I. [X] current [ ] previous City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission 2. [ ] current [X] previous SCC Mechanical Engineering Advisory Committee 3. [ ] current [X] previous Pasadena Park Citizens Advisory Committee for Long Range Planning _ 4. [ ] current [ ] previous 5. [ ] current [ ] previous • REASONS for applying for this committee,commission,board:.Have served on SCHRTF since Fall of 2018,and .arn currently a critical member working.on an-annual awards banquet in conjunction with the City of Spokane . — -Human Rights Commission and-the lnstitue of Hate Studies-at Gonzaga•University: Dean Lynch, President of SCHRFT,has requested I re-apply and continue that and other work with the Task Force. By signing this application, I certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that all information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, I further state that my appointment would not represent a' conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest with the duties of-this position. I understand this application is subject to disclosure pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. March 18, 2020 Signe. re Date Signed RECE1VE6 Application Form for CommitteesBoards/Commissions *wane . Return completed form to City Cleric: °!fin 1 3 2020 Spokane Valley City Hall y,�t SAY Spokane Valley �, eY' 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valle Phone:509-720-5102 cbainbrid e s okatteya of the Qity Clerk [Note: To meet an application deadline, applications may be faxed or e-mailed. However,the Clerk's office will need an original,signed application prior to appointment.One application per position please. DO NOT SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNLESS THERE IS AN OPENING.OPENINGS ARE POSTED ON THE CITY'S WBBPAGE AND ADVERTISED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. Call the City Clerk i fyou have questions.] I AM INTIRESTED IN SERVING ON THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE: [Check one box;note requirements] [ ]Planning Commission--Must be a Spokane Valley resident.(See chapter 18.10 SVMC) Terms are for three years.Applicants arc selected without respect to political affiliations,and serve without compensation. [ ] Lodging Tax Advisory Committee(LTAC)-Need not be a Spokane Valley resident. (See chapter 3.20 SVMC) Terms are for one or two years.Committee consists of five members: One Councilinembcr:appointed by the Mayor,confirmed by the Council. Two who represent a business required to collect the tax(hotels,motels,etc.). Two involved in funded activities(such as a non-profit organization to increase tourism). Identify the business or organization you represent [ ]Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee(HCDAC) HCDAC includes two Spokane Valley residents;terms not to exceed three years. Spokane Valley appointment pending final approval by Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Spokane County Application and Supplemental Application also required. • Spokane County Human Rights Task Force --Terms are for four years.Must be a resident of Spokane Valley. ! ` The'Board currently meets 2'd Tuesday of each month,3:30 to 5:00 at Catholic Charities, 12 E 56 Spokane. [ ]Spokane Housing Authority(SHA)--regional committee,five members.Terms are five years. One individual directly assisted by the Authority,jointly appointed by Spokane Mayor,Spokane Valley Mayor,and Chair of Board of County Commissioners. Two individuals who work or reside within Spokane City limits. . One individual who works or resides in unincorporated Spokane County. One individual who works or resides within Spokane Valley City limits. Check with the City Clerk concerning a vacancy on this committee. [ ]Tourism Promotion Area,Hotel Advisory Committee(aka Hotel/Motel Association)--Terms are for three years. Spokane Valley appoints two members,and one ex-officio(a member of Council). • All nominees rnust be operators or employees of lodging business within Spokane County. [ ]Other: Name(please print): /1/0.71-b,f L rt (goo-y-11 rna h Complete residence address: (2)C1 'A. .t" i'"S rd b bGril1 vo, i e ' ( p.C)(( • Street City Zip Code Complete mailing address(if different from above address): Length of time residing at current address: S U.S.Citizen? },yes [ ]no WAS to registered voter?tr,yes [ ]no What is your preferred way for us to contact you: [Note:If you have an unlisted phone number; or do not wish your e- mail address made public, do not include that information, Once this document is submitted to the City, it becomes subject to public disclosure J [ ]Home Phone: [ J Work phone: Cell P]ione:4;nq•'atp3.'ic-V-13 [ J Other message phone: �E-snail address: (please print clearly):,1(r, 1^, hi``�, -F late e 1,-,"..:t I ,C.n•n..,.. - _ [ ]Regular mail to residence or mailing address shown above EMPLOYMENT:(Please start with most recent) 1.(;,4 present [ 3 previous Name of employer: ' . 0.. fy, . 'Sc, 6 Di 5 Address: 16'11 C• ')t;rolaf,Nil- CNOJ 1 Phone: Spcj •5��"�"i�S(o ' Position held: i,l- 11 I Li' StuQQDri- 'S FFc Ic 41 s-" Dates of employment: I b/1(n o Io l� Scanned with CamScanner 2, [ ]present r-{7Q previous Name of employer: t! AA �� L A _t Phone: Address: Dates of employment: Position held: 3. [ ]present [ ]previous Name of employer: Phone: Address: Dates of employment: Position held: 4. [ ]present [ ]previous Name of employer: Phone: Address: Dates of employment: Position held: EDUCATION: Name of high school Ont Vers tkt4 , Gdicol"1t � Address; 0119,0 f.- nct Diploma or GEDIV yes [ I no Trade school/college/university: qC�a nName of School ok CQm(1itJ71 Ca.-e .Address: 1 fl D • Off�►'� Sk Diploma: es [ ] no egree 61 certification earned: -4"co�r�S'['i f\m Trade schoollcollegeluniversity: Name of School ' ctkrn 11.)Pt . v n1V't(St4ddress: fid{'' s ". Diploma: dyes [ ]no Degree or certification earned: Other relevant certifications/licenses: VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE: Name of social,fraternal,organizations,etc. 1. [ ]current previous Par.eyyk- 'P,rnbo,_wwi cry-IIA. .S1nkrtot}rrn latsS44Avatlir., NS/ pj 2.[ ]current [ ]previous 3, [ ]current [ ]previous 4. [ ]current [ ]previous PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. Local,state,or national government boards,committees,or commissions on which you serve or have served. 1.�`�,(]current [ ] previous l,Jat,t 4Qn G)-0,+c C._xuCsc4tuon adV.ekrl' CfJ P Rock--rd 2. _ ]current previous cAvia 411.0_ nk 6 run I4tnN ecte r V- ccmlvivh kc x (,,rc 3. ]current previous`Pcx t VaktJ C. tveak-i0, hfv-t - C111(3.-t 4, current [ ] previous S Cit.1 01,150(% �nnt'tJ S llJL_S bkrr<0i o' r> S. current [ ]previous REASONS for applying for this committee,commission,boarder li10•.vt. £x' -x`StV - t'r`yr. 1 k our QoYr, v u tca—A- j1\ feC1A _ r, rt, , (Dirt,0 r Dirt,0r 4-1-;ms, wind Iqc. mord0-f- row\iym..,\-* f'0 V`t'S. ,b`r\ tr ovr SpuYv.n.� Cumrvzur•\- • By signing this application, certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that all information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further state that my appointment would not represent a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest with the duties of this position. I understand this application is subject to disclosure pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. Si nature L Date Signed Scanned with CamScanner CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Requalification GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Community Development Block Grant Program — Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Chapter 39.34 RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: In 2017 the City entered into a three-year agreement (2018, 2019 and 2020) to participate in the Spokane County CDBG/HOME Consortium; April 7, 2020 Admin Report to Council. BACKGROUND: In 2005, the City became eligible to become an entitlement community. At that time, the City selected to defer its entitlement and participate as part of the urban county. Every three years the City is asked how it would wish to participate in the CDBG program, and since 2005, the City has chosen to defer its entitlement and participate as part of the urban county. The City is once again being asked to select how it wishes to participate in the CDBG program. The four options that are available include: 1. Accept entitlement status and receive CDBG funds directly from HUD; 2. Accept entitlement status and enter into a joint agreement with Spokane County; 3. Defer entitlement status and participate through the State CDBG program; or 4. Defer entitlement status and participate as part of urban county with Spokane County. Since 2008, the City has received a 20 percent set aside for CDBG eligible capital projects within the City limits. The set aside is a portion of the County Consortium for CDBG award. Since 2008, the County's average award is about $1.4 million creating an average City set aside of about $285,000. In addition to the set aside, many of the City's community partners (Meals on Wheels, SNAP, water districts, Spokane Valley Partners) also receive CDBG funding from the County. Since 2008, the City and its community partners have received an average of 39 percent of the County CDBG award, and as of April 1, 2019, the City represents 33 percent of the population of the County Consortium. For program year 2020 and 2021 (2021 is in the new requalification period), the City has committed CDBG funds to assist eligible homeowners with assessment and connection charges for the Barker Road sewer project. Spokane County Housing and Community Development is managing this program. After review of the four options at their April 7, 2020 meeting, the City Council asked staff to contact Spokane County about the feasibility and logistics of entering into a joint agreement should the City chose to accept its entitlement. The City Council also concluded at the April 7 meeting that it was not interested in pursuing option 1 or option 3. Tonight, staff will relay details of follow up discussions with Spokane County (Community Services, Housing, and Community Development Division) regarding the possibility of the City becoming its own entitlement community and entering into a joint agreement with Spokane County. It's important to recognize that a joint agreement means the City will accept its entitlement status and ask Spokane County to administer our CDBG program in addition to its own program. The key takeaway from this and the discussion with Spokane County is that a joint agreement would require a duplication in services and would ultimately result in significantly increased administrative costs to oversee both programs. The duplications include: • The City would be required to produce and maintain a Consolidated Plan (5 year updates) • The City would be required to update an Annual Action Plan . • The City would be required to form and populate an advisory committee to review and process CDBG applications. • The City would be required to conduct applicant workshops. • The City would be responsible for financial reporting and responding to audits. • The County would still have oversight and administrative responsibilities as a joint participant. As our own entitlement, HUD estimates the City would receive approximately $650,000. Under a joint agreement it would be expected that the maximum amount allowed (20%) would be used to pay for administering the CDBG program. Using this as a baseline, the City would have approximately $520,000 of CDBG funds to allocate within the City under a joint agreement. By comparison the average amount of CDBG funds allocated to Spokane Valley and its partners through the existing agreement is $605,000. Spokane County anticipates that the 20% for administration would likely not cover the cost of administering the CDBG program through a joint agreement. After detailed discussions with Spokane County, it appears that a joint agreement is not appealing to Spokane County considering it would result in more staff resources to administer the program. Essentially, there are economies of scale that are obtained when participating as part of the urban county. Staff did look into options for increasing the presence of Spokane Valley in the consortium during the discussions with the County, This included options for expanding how the City participates in the selection and funding processes conducted by the County through Community Services, Housing, and Community Development Division. A few other discussion points included: • Increase the City's set-aside • Increase the consortium visibility on materials • Increase the number of Spokane Valley representatives on the advisory board These possibilities incorporated into a revised cooperation agreement may provide Council with the increased responsibility and participation discussed during the Council's April 7, 2020 meeting without taking the larger step of being our own entitlement community. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: As noted above. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP — Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: Cooperation Agreement for CDBG and HOME Funds COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND RELATED FUNDS (HOME,AHTF,HHAA) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between Spokane County (hereinafter called the County) and the City of Spokane Valley (hereinafter called the City)this day of ,2020. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and other applicable laws, Spokane County is entitled to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for federal fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023; and WHEREAS, the amount of CDBG funds to which the County may be entitled is in part dependent upon the population of other CDBG eligible applicant cities and towns which by this Agreement elect to participate in the CDBG and HOME Entitlement Program with the County; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Cooperation Agreement, which is entered into pursuant to, and in accordance with the State Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34 is to plan for, and administer the CDBG Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual benefits received hereunder,the parties agree as follows: 1. The City may not apply for grants under the Small Cities or State CDBG Programs from appropriations for fiscal years 2021,2022, and 2023,the years during which the City is participating in the Spokane County CDBG and HOME Program. 2. The City may not participate in a HOME consortium except through Spokane County,regardless of whether Spokane County receives a HOME formula allocation. 3. The Spokane County urban county qualification period is federal fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023. 4. This Agreement remains in effect until the CDBG and HOME funds and income received for federal fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023 are expended and the funded activities are completed. The County and the City may not terminate or withdraw from this Agreement while the Agreement remains in effect. 5. The County and the City agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower-income housing assistance activities. 6. The County and the City will take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the urban county's certification under section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, regarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. This includes the obligation to comply with section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as well as obligation to comply with other applicable laws. 7. The County will not use CDBG or HOME funding for activities in, or in support of a City that does not affirmatively further fair housing within the City's jurisdiction or that impedes the County's actions to comply with the County's fair housing certification. 8. The City has adopted and is enforcing: a) a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and, b) a policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to, or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions. 9. The County and the City will not obstruct the implementation of the approved Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan and subsequent Annual Action Plan(s) during the period covered by this Agreement. 10. The County has final responsibility for selecting CDBG and HOME activities and annually filing the Consolidated Housing and Community Development Annual Action Plan and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 11. The County and City are subject to the same requirements applicable to CDBG subrecipients, including the requirement of a written agreement set forth in 24 CFR 570.503. 12. The County and City may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of such funds to another such metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any other funds, credits or non-Federal considerations,but must use such funds for activities eligible under title I of the Act. 13. The City agrees to participate in the Regional County Homeless Program and Regional Affordable Housing Trust Fund Program, both which authorize Spokane County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) to serve as the regional body for reviewing proposals, initiatives, and making funding recommendations for Affordable Housing Trust Fund (2060) and Homeless Housing Assistance Act(HHAA-2163, 1359, and 2331) activities. 14. The Spokane County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) will review CDBG, HOME, Affordable Housing Trust Fund (2060), and Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA - 2163, 1359, and 2331) program policies, plans, and applicant funding proposals and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners funding of applicant proposals. 15. The Spokane County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) will include a representative of the City appointed by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners in consultation with the Mayor and/or Council of the City. This Agreement is entered into on this day of ,2020 by: City of Spokane Valley Spokane County Mark Calhoun Al French City Manager Chair,Spokane County Board of Commissioners CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program Update Grant GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.58 —Shoreline Management Act PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of the Shoreline Management Program BACKGROUND: After an extensive public process, the City adopted a comprehensive update to its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in 2015. This comprehensive update was originally scheduled to occur in 2013. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires that the City review their SMP by June 30, 2021 and every eight years thereafter. The review timetable for local governments is established in RCW 90.58.080(4). An analysis of the amendments made to the SMA since 2015 shows that the amendments needed to maintain compliance are relatively minor and are summarized in the bullets below. 1. Update cost thresholds for docks 2. Update cost threshold for substantial development 3. Modify definition of development to exclude dismantling and removing structures only 4. Include exceptions to local review for certain projects 5. Update permit filing and appeal procedures 6. Add ADA permit exemption 7. Update wetland rules and guidance 8. Add 90-day target review for WSDOT projects The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is offering grant funds for the periodic review of our SMP. The City is eligible to apply for up to $28,000 to complete the periodic update. The grant application must be applied for by June 30, 2020 and the grant funds must be spent by June 30, 2021, and there is no match requirement. The City expects to hire a consultant to complete the periodic review. OPTIONS: Council consensus that staff bring this matter back at a future meeting for a motion consideration; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus that staff bring this matter back at a future meeting for a motion consideration. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If awarded project funding, the City could receive up to $28,000 to conduct the periodic review of the SMP, which funds would be used to cover consultant fees. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2020 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Balfour Park Resource and Conservation Office (RCO) Grant Discussion. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council has discussed RCO grants, a Balfour Park development project, and acquisition of land from the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on four recent occasions. • At the February 11, 2020 Council Winter Workshop, staff lead a discussion on the subject of potentially applying for RCO grants for a number of City park projects including development of Balfour Park and acquisition of approximately 45 acres of WSDOT property located east of Flora. • At the March 17, 2020 Council meeting, staff presented a Motion Consideration to Council for the acquisition of the 45 acres of WSDOT property, with the intent that the City would apply for an RCO grant, the proceeds of which would partially reimburse our initial out-of-pocket cost. Council opted to forgo taking action and asked staff to work with WSDOT on putting the acquisition on hold for 6-months. • At the March 31, 2020 Council meeting, staff presented an update that noted discussions had taken place with WSDOT, who indicated they would likely be agreeable to a 6-month delay before selling the property to another buyer. Council asked that staff return in 60-days with an update on the property and staff noted we would keep in touch with WSDOT in the event they had a change of heart. • At the April 7, 2020 Council meeting, staff presented proposed Resolution#20-006 authorizing staff to apply for an RCO grant for development at Balfour Park and WSDOT land acquisition. Council opted to forgo taking action on the Resolution and asked staff to look at reducing the Balfour Park project scope from a total of$2.5 million to $1.0 million. BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2020, in a presentation to City Council, staff indicated that the City is interested in applying for a development grant for Balfour Park and an acquisition grant for the Flora Road Property. Pursuant to that, the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) requires a resolution. There is a fifty percent local match required for both these grants. The City will be requesting $500,000 for the Balfour Development Project and $1 million for the Flora Road Property acquisition from the RCO. During discussion on April 7, the City Council suggested to reduce the Balfour Park Phase 1 project cost from $2.5 million to $1 million. Staff was asked to come back and discuss the impact to the project scope by reducing the project budget to $1 million. A Phase 1 project should address three key points: (1) Balfour Park is envisioned as our community's gathering space; (2) City Council has indicated that they would like to see a Phase 1 project that connects visually and physically to Sprague Avenue and City Hall; and (3) that the City's grant application needs to be as compelling and competitive as possible. The original cost estimate for Balfour Park in 2013 was $3.8 million. The Balfour Park Master Plan was updated last fall and the cost estimate was increased to $6.2 million. This new estimate is based upon several factors that staff will be discussing with Council. Reducing the Phase 1 project to $1 million on a $6.2 million project will create an improvement that will have much less of an impact on the park than it would have been based upon the 2013 cost estimate. Staff will provide options showing what could be done for the original Phase 1 project at $2.5 million and what can be done for the $1 million. Staff will be seeking Council direction on a Phase 1 project amount and whether or not to move forward with an RCO grant application for Balfour Park. OPTIONS: (1) Place on the May 12, 2020 agenda a Resolution authorizing RCO grant applications for a Balfour Park development project valued at$x,xxx,xxx including a $500,000 grant request and/or a WSDOT Flora property acquisition grant request of$1,000,000; or (2) Take other action as appropriate RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff is seeking Council consensus to place on the May 12, 2020 agenda a Resolution authorizing RCO grant applications for a Balfour Park development project valued at $x,xxx,xxx including a $500,000 grant request and/or a WSDOT Flora property acquisition grant request of$1,000,000. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The RCO grant request for the Balfour Park development project may be as much as 50% of the project cost up to a maximum of $500,000. The RCO grant request for reimbursement of a portion of the WSDOT Flora property acquisition cost may be a maximum of $1,000,000. It is noteworthy that if RCO selects either of the City projects for awards, the funding must be approved by the State Legislature during the 2021 Legislative Session. STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation architecture . interior design . landscape architecture Balfour Park — Phase I City of Spokane Valley — RCO Grant Application 105 N Balfour Rd, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 has ` +� t4 r, may,�{S - - A._.*ITh• - i. re 4 .,'r 4' ..-0., . , .�. , 4,f,.L -p,��, r � , $ � f. ^ {` ----1-7 --i--,,,.* ._---------'—'____----- ----, 7-' ..,,,0(.---: --4 7-: ;70?-1,...3t114 -L',.17; ,, ,,,._:,;_ :it': . r.,..11-.7.':::4'74: 14,1."' ::1,','',-,,..,1-„,,,A. .'t'T'e:,„•.-A.' 4'. ''' -_ aEingl BERNARDOWILLS ARCNiTECTS PC architectinterior design landscape architecture Presentation Outline Site Location Preferred Overall Master Plan (Full Build-Out) Preferred Overall Master Plan Aerial Perspective (Full Build-Out) Budget Cost Increases from 2013 to 2020 (7 Years) Phase I — Scope of Work Summary ($2.5 Million Dollar Budget) Phase I — Scope of Work Summary ($1 Million Dollar Budget— "Evaluation") Alternate Project Scopes to Meet $1 Million Dollar Budget Questions 2 Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO W I L L S ARCHITECTS PC architectinterior desig1 landscape architecture Site Address: 105 N Balfour Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 i -. ,. -- _ e 6E i_t—.ref_f Me 1. e '�`i" ' �ATAA Best Carpet Real Property• # _.q - r � _ •''' - lir'----.r*I t `�&Upholstery � -- � p � � � _ ;��-:-. — �-Managemepi Spokane... �a ` of " mit ,iii. Ni or Wale Rpartmenis Rr, RF I It. - L I� ¢• I�. r :..- N L . F Jae.uelme ..3 i 1 $ tail - Baho QPM a -- E ' EM'�i Ave EMain Avc M _ m } i tk' 3 n ' " .„ , _ __,� r nd.It Aduernsing + + Ba El @hoo L�o.o,o Tort ;=' 1r . Si ..e e * tle SpokM Methodist .=.0.(wf a akeo'Tit av -- -� United_ t a. T ai-IIII ,' Suga jt : 1a .' - Bakery Sh�np -w, BJan, .�.. ° "' a` ats- . #it rs Balfour Park - .5 Be ow ' .- ala BellazaRu.1 ; -- .- �•'�c _ " € Auto Trim_Design " d 1" ac' � a e .34 - S, - .,; 'A a`te tavadahlev - FLa Michoacana •Mexican Restaurant - ' _ '" +{ ,, { Ta�k�eo`utavailahle F* ., — :+ _ ), SVFD Univversity `„Int Ho,bed u j.-= +drl AiregS etlon B e mg!Boarpa keeee 5%Or-}� Lao Mrchoacana re BO .� s - �� A bye s-, 3 r� 'VR Fast Food•.s 9_ j PaEeteriapNeveria.,. $ .. I 1OGFurniture Gallery 1 ♦ �F Bruchi s —Ise GraAm .1. .. ♦ �,_ ry s' 1.^''`.CI y'a,Y Takeout ayadahla r r =9jJ �r _ - < Spr ue Avg< ..' S'hhr•IneerSi us - .AutoNation 11 ' '''.1: a Taco Be1110 -K . Volkswagen S oliane t""g Spoken Valley ,,, gaffe Pe-rt`z �� f4r Takeout •avaiarei__!! 1"'"gai+iid+-„ a t t, i s , . . + #• r 4 , s '4`7` McDonald's 1 -�� f k = `� veli Fa=a[ s -#jypokan-Valley - ' ire 1_- �-.: .� ,Delivery and ,rte .. ',banSub. `' P y.- tddine ,,,-.1 t L, � •-,e e�./ 0, .rnu'' .jattabe .i .�y�♦� apwrc�ne Vi311e � �;: �i � �_.'� � r .r or � ,� �.+� r------,r1 .� a t�5�, '4' [ ' `t t—, Spokane Valle i , ., _& % [ Darcy's Rest urand r - '- r rL,> * „ tl I ening QeparEment s "' a . 3 an Wits l c. �c. tet! t k-F b"?P -` pout availaN 'r' `0' 1, 15�+ t "tl! i i _ . . r ., "Ftp' ^� a .. .is+- a+.r� ♦9F�sF:�4+rsa �`.' .i �`�' ♦ 'a ' 3 --2_ Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO WILLS AR,HITECTS PC architecture interior desig1 landscape architecture Approximate Overall Project Scope Boundary Line (Full Build-Out) a Rgt a, ., - '�Sa�Aa est ca pet Reel P operty,� 'r - _ r2 - �, = a olSiery an"" ne`t Sokane... 1r m iihmal f ern or Vale pa n s� "_ Al ,a s ':' liirgir �: ' 3 - C t' s "Jacqueline N eg I" a *- s.' .. eest • � °� �r t .3 sA Bafi,.o, OFivi 1111111.11111 .-. _ �nrarid;tt3Advertaini� • w �iit ,_T, '-.�'1 °,`t *hao C •o Traria Ch II a I9.sJ I - 3 ,at3o'uat a+adab lt' Su.�a�Mrr rna z #" a. ,,vey Cl :.� Q �S- 2 { V.4 ! r - r Sala) a Be11'a za•u6r , acres 7 — 3 2.8 /1 R ' 1 r t Km av [: L, L.V ',Km aiaWe. 43 sh1 vxi�'Af x; HoppP.t 7� _ - rc-f- acres St v,.'�' BrevI uCmpan ,�. �, i' i x. a �. 1 •rhysf # laG 23Mr�hoacan`s' • �� .. p rrir arh s e Paleer3a f�Neverra - t miiii I'�.r tJ Yii JTr��Rt Ft n -t r - J t n. or F ..I C aam # .A.3 ? .of f1. _ s•k- 4.le #4 l''' coq -=7 ! s Jf1nnF1 f _ _, .. s . i. ~4616 �� - €� 'I, Ya tib It C�ak'IL,1 Ci a U voile A' �" s \ S s C R a 4 'f.' rv, a wail> 1e.I a an Vallee ,yam '' a uaNairon 5uha_ � �e " � � � � L��'��;7Y� T,¢�3i 4 t'1r^-�i-, t7� sa 'Stipvcnkane Valls . .1DD ` m _. �Fs�r _ -€ $ 14 3a /-?Spoka�eV I.�J a s ® rtlg g + � "� �, yam'{r,§p- " , .- <s" ' s.• '4 1` - - .€, ILINN ° 4 -2-_ Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC architect '.. -. interior desig1 landscape architecture Preferred Overall Master Plan (Full Build-Out) l P FIRE AC,CE55 ROUTE ___ _ ONTO OM SHELTER AHO PLM1Zh y --'77- _ _ FRONTING ONT - V • -`-'f':.., Y . .8a •I { .v . PLAY WALE �1 MEANDERING PATH SYSTEM- " t J - \• " _ i "� € NEW BASICS TBAL LARGE OPER PLAY AREA- rr •4�--ii, xP - . .4 COURT '" • 10:0 POTENTIAL FUTURE PARKING '' t I ~ ,` •. it • E%PNISION J1� I STREET TREE LANDSCAPING E s�- PLAY AREA/EQUIPMENT AND BUFFER PLANTINGS N � V k [ ` -` - F7JSTING VOLLEYBALL .'F-• tt. /__, �. r COURT TO REMAM TRASH ENCLOSURE - q f .. j ¢0.... 1'', •-,ry.J - • - - CHILDREN'S SPLASH PAD -.,� - + r- READING GARDEN.VARI MINI - M - H t![ /;---1,- x,R AAWNIRiEATER ADJACENT TO P � ` li t Y a RECONFIGURED CHILDRENSROOM4INLIBRARY RANKING LOT I_� *' � j -- NEW MLR,TI•PURPOSE SHELTER �— 't. 441102-: - ',�'R - � y WIT11 RESTROOM/STAGEIMDVIE - • -_ l - �4 T - . SCREEN ADJACENT TIU P. 4:-..- ��:.. .4tit 'FI PERFORMANCE SEATING SPACE , _- .. _ �" JI -� - DECORATIVE FENCING 'i} -"F. -.I ANO LANDSCAPING SNARED PARKING FOR - . - r.e:fir. LIBRARY AND PARR,119 CARS 9 9L.. dg 3 - j T (i y - -GATEWAY SIGNAGE iLIBRARY „b �[ BUS DROP OFF _ .4 .,L _ C.<_ ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES -M'-', 2 _e - AMPNFTk€ATER MULTIUSE CIVIC PLAZA SPACE_ - • - . . - . _ CC WITH DECORATVE CONCRETE ' { - '� .cc. RIVER PATTERN AND NATURAL - } ''..1-',;.. 3 } FIRE STATION lANDSCAPEBWCDERS dr r 5... • +mo IL 4 L= ( J d. n i SITE Liam G - '1, '<'' ' , `;_� m PUBLIC ART OPPORTUNITY s t ,f--,,,-----1 . _ . _-. 1 "J Y_..��aA.�P .., _, �. _ - Z..SHARED PARR AND LIBRARY ENTRY PLAZA WITH V- -, FOR WATER FEATURE_BUS STOP AND-�` - RR-Aar'', s CARS LIBRARY PARKING 94 INTERPRETIVE DlSPLALY - - �Y. � •._ � J- x '. OPPORTUNITIES SPRtiGI]E' 11 x •— ROVE CULTURAL 5 TIREA ACCESS ROUTE bAATMauTH li "4�^ ��' ` HISTORY COURT CONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN .. L a, - 1 CR6551NG AT DARTMOUTH _ --- .._ - h Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO WILLS ARCHiTECTS PC architect '.. -. interior desig1 landscape architecture Preferred Overall Master Plan - Aerial Perspective (Full Build-Out) - sic ,,t.,;._ f, , _ - w a �j __ .Y = 3 g it s 4 ' ,r ! �_ • mar t~.r _ _ ,; -,19. 4 s ;t' ,.,' y-4 ' 4, �.'1 • �-..,, Yy' F 3 u ' 6 Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO w i S ARCHITECTS PC architect - interior desig landscape architecture 2013 Park Costs - $3.8 Million Dollars VS. 2020 Park Costs - $6.2 Million Dollars* *The costs of construction have continued to increase over the last 7 years, 2013 — 2020. * Average inflation rate anticipated back in 2013 was 3.5% annually. Accounting for approximately — $931 ,000 dollars in inflation. * Minimum wage in the State of Washington has cumulatively gone up $4.31 per hour since 2013 according to the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. In addition, the Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Rates have also significantly increased since 2013. * All splash pads in Spokane County are now required to be full recirculating systems/no pass-through systems allowed (an automatic increase of approximately $200 - $250k). * According to The Associated General Contractors of America, in 2019 alone, "...the Spokane region was the third-fastest- growing construction job market in the country during the year ending in May..." and had an 18% percent increase — the third- largest percentage gain, in construction jobs among metropolitan areas nationwide between May 2018 and May 2019 alone. Bottom line... the costs of doing business, especially construction in the Spokane region are rising... so the money won't go as far. 7 Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application Eingl BERNARD 0 04 ILLS AR,HITECTS PC architectinterior desig1 landscape architecture Preferred Overall Master Plan - Aerial Perspective (Full Build-Out) r .` w f �j S a u, A. ----___,_,....„*.,2_, = 3r its 4 '€,r ! �_ �L t. - . 4#4 r "`, ',,:4:29 4 -- 7,..,:,,,,4-'N,. ,y, '- 9 _ w - /' '1 Yy� F3 u T ' 8 Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO w L L S ARCHITECTS PC architectinterior design . landscape architecture Phase I — Scope of Work ii. �B i Or'tr --- * �. ,gid ? + 'I - " i. if- E _� j t +1` s s 4111. !� - s Z` ,E�C - 63 I ` _Ias . : "s <�j :a , h ilea .' _ s _ =�: 44 r . . 1 r rr! - .i71 , l.,,::::::--'*:-....,....-----":""...:11-,: .„...1:'' 7^ � ii �_� g"' iiiiim ±i :;"WV Ai .% Lti ----- er 16 . 1 , ,,,. ; Nr `� �C ' _ ! '. ►to ;.�t 9 mr Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO OVILLS ARCHITECTS PC architecture . interior desig1 Handscape architecture Phase I — Scope of Work (Approximate Boundary Line) 1J1'. ' 3 C- _ - w i ''y ..{.. O _,„ it „, ?..•,:„. , 4."'-' .,,_','4. ....,z ...........,._____ . . r ,_ ,„ . .f.,_ 05., - - _ i r.b irta , - l ''' '4 - 4........ ......,.. • - - - . . ....*. .3e- t �.`.� ° �. k x:77._ ill, . ♦ _#.. - ate'., £f 0 .. 7 _ - '£ a . k ', c 7 -`_ SPS:., •' 's _ t _ ,, s • j ___ TI y,fes �- i`. lir 's. �` , ok ' - " 7.4"' ID of �' . .„... , „As.- 'P e ''''''1 ',,' _ ;, !wit:rie ri;,„ .:7,1,...7.4:;_.'',,,,''4.:;-.__,,- ''''' '.40101---'7-----0. : .._. 4,...','- t -.-.,.7--1.Z.....1! ,,,',..-,;':"-..-'6.: ": : ..".10;.- =..,- 1..."; - t 11141t a # "7;1 10 $2.5 Million Dollar Budget Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC architect - -. interior desig1 landscape architecture Phase I — Scope of Work Summary ($2.5 Million Dollar Budget) Hi •• .1 • \- ' ' ' ' —40 IL '' . , . ig, .!- . A.,.:.,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,:e: - --.-4'4'•t• $ k: cm..) o '.-;i!::::!MI,-,1!'!'ilan ill!,lr .., =.'-•' tra, .',.- ' • r ". rr •._*: ---.---'-'-*/.,..•:•:-.-:i:-:•::':-:i:-:-:':•i:-:-:-E. , , _ -, _.... -1 -.'7:rtfv::- .' ':-:-... ::-:. C> 111 ''''4':' :•:.... :4.!,s:::Hi::::::i::'-:-. _ 1 , i*-,a, :•-rstiwya rPW1tita- I. ' n 1 LW 4,,,"12.4r0M41 s'"...' c•-•:•,._ svn----,•WrY .-------- . i--° -,..,•• °°- .:-s- - .Y . .-:_„- _ .--....,....:„ . ..:..„...... , _ -L.,,, ,,• ..., o ....,,....:::-.-- , „ 7 , '' ' - :-.----„ • .„...„...-. .i.,:ilt.,.. -;- ,c9- , ,..,..,,,,,r,..,,m, .,...,,:;:,,.:-,,..... ..;„,_: , c sFA-7-fivo 9.105**64' t"tni•leive fox sr, 4• '\\." Ares-5v .:, :.'!'i'''.t'..:'4!.,..:': -]!:::::.. --**::-';:'•-- -4 --'P. \ .0tr4App- ogv;y. A.:..::.: 7 i. . ,' t.TTA-0"'' i,.`•_R'!!:•-.Eni: / "4 -''' , rt :-.,11,, ' • i:•,:•.tV• PArk•:: ..., -.., ,i,,,,,i.:,, .,_,,, ,,, ,,L•i,... -:'‘.,,,Nitk,..,.'_: , w'rivvF,40A,73litiE::-.!. i:1)..41.: ': %. .-fl.--ii-4,4,,,,i.•:.:,,,";°°5. ! 11 - °-_, -' -.. :' -5„ 4 --,-. 6r':"-.7 .\11 -------------------4,4,-----••:s:s•4-3-••=:s:s ...,•,:n4:44:-.14,,,,,,„-4,,,,,,n,-\4 •-'q,t,••mKamati-v2a-ZWAWiNikia&NR-tOgMV4ft, - '-\---'--\'-''--'\''7'''''I'''"'''-'-''''''' ''-'\''-''-'--\'-'''- •"- ''r•7'''-'•"'A•'-'•' •"O_''---' ' -•4•--.•w-444,•-•,,..\--,.•:„-.,•-:-:• -.••.,-\.,• -••40,_x--••-,,, :n:-a..-.-..- . 4.:,, ,, KiNaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM• m-,,:4 4 4,ft:-N,A,„,-,,,, „.„.,4„„,„,,,, ,, ,_ •.,-,.,..-,.7--;.,772-Tw-7- 7,-_ --. .i.•;---;-.. - I, BE OV Balfour Park-Phase I-City of Spokane Valley-RCO Grant Application ILLS Phase I - Scope of Work Summary ($2.5 Million Dollar Budget) n � . r . .. 0 -,-...:.:::::).-.:•*. :•:::.--.-- --.-..ka"-----,..: ... .. - , ... .. , • ....lib 1 '''' '.••:.-• ...'4.:4."Illiv. -.-:jil...:, x u / � f e✓a - 1 , ` i� 1 r.. € .41040 __ ::. :,::::.:/.:::::::::::.:.:::::::... ::„:_.:..-....::,..,:.::::............::,...::.:.. ,... . . . • • ,, f..;e. ; ., -.,....-,-,..., ,.:• ,,,.5- "wit—•.. -•: : architectinterior desig1 landscape architecture Phase I — Scope of Work Summary ($2.5 Million Dollar Budget) Project Overview: Improvements for the Phase I Balfour Park renovations with the approximate budget of $2.5 million dollars. Base bid scope of work includes... Contractor Mobilization Irrigation Earthwork/Excavation Soil Import/Placement Site Utilities including Electrical, Landscape Plantings Domestic Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Mulch Topdressing Sleeving/Conduits to Implement Future Site Lighting Phases Site Structures/Furnishings Amphitheatre C.I.P. Seat Walls Hydroseed/Lawn Repair Site Drainage Contingency and A&E Fees Hardscape/Parking Lot 13 Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO W I L L S ARCHITECTS PC architecture interior desig1 landscape architecture Phase I — Scope of Work (Approximate Boundary Line) * , . '7•••-• -1. 1i6,,A, It. .-\,11 " — .`v-Vk`. f """ ' - 011! ' .....- r _ , {J ,In ""illit'....,.... 4., . . - .$ _ „, ...., . „,... . , \ . , __ ,_. , ,.. , , .,...,... _ .. . ,..,,,,„ t .v. '€ i ii ,__ --'i ,_ Ai_JP: 4. ...„‘te,...;,i,......z, r 04j -" 14.... f sl li 9 � ,' t,. t` • t �. . ..< �_. : it �l 004.L J .- =n may" ts_ . _ - E, ',,,,wR_ ` ,t .r 'N )a esyF ;` 'ir f, ! 14 $1 Million Dollar Budget — "Evaluation" Balfour Park-Phase I-City of Spokane Valley-RCO Grant Application BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC ii,__.,,,:„.:_;:_,..._ i. .. . aor ch it e c.,_t u, r e . in:r,,. i.„.,,:) r..„.,,,d e sig1 landscape: architecturer e Phase I — Scope of Work Summary ($1 ., . ,,,,„,,..„,,,w..--, Million Dollar Budget — "Evaluation ) ,.....,:;40.- V • t • 4..f _— 4 * s., _ 1 1.—- — , 0 /P/AOWAse- ,,,Prta‘r,"12-) '''.-- —--'?,." .1.•'''. -...,7 _,: --77374-t,,.. ,.) -No. ,-,--,1:4-17:::,,,,t,.„,-„,,, , i._ ,,,:.4,-w ,-,,,, .,... ,a,,:,,,..-.- -:-__-_..__ _..-zgi.v,,,-",--ti ' • '' -''' t -=''''''''-,725':*' ...%,:\ \ 4'' -0-01-r 4. --_'4,-,;-' --,f--•.., -`:,-.:----'1 .7-:-,-;?;-4,--R.F.A.t-ii,-;' ,I.'----',..'-X...,--,-"' ---'.:-.: 1„,„„--1'.. 4 , _,._--.._—•.„-, .:::. - . WF ', :'.-- -,7..---::%'-.:,',..e'---174.34-;_'---. :.-.1'.. ---i.a,'.'-:..1 -' ' . •', -- „,.__..._ ... ., _„.„..,...... -' ii ri4-:;--.-11.- tropre"5 i',.,:i.,.{. , - '• ''''4.`„,_.- ---.,__ .----.-- iiii3O- -- , i ,.....i--:,-:pii.3-,,,,,„ ...v,„ ...,: a i,,.,, ,,- - ...-'• -..--.....• * ' -='-, ..- a Aix' 'N'----::', :'.::-:•::::-:-.?,`.?.--''-',- - . - ( ' 1 i''',--:'----, 0.14w fl'iii-T114-5-- rr•fart. '..: ii i 0:3,,,:,,' ''' _.:iir --'-' -- ,..,:v •--'''',.,,riocovr,.. ,. - , --;,--; --4, k:'.--'''''' '''iFX44ii,,TeP--- — ' P, :7-': . • ' ', •:1.•'..' '' ' fe..-'11'3*:=-21'-_-7,-----:'4 7 ----'1' ,,-5: ., , --.1- .., ''',4', t . :i4 -/ = — 7 Avis' _. Intowir mrifiviR-vs — _.. . , . . ,.,„p,,,,,- ,,i .u5-A' ' -... lip,: : 15 i 4-. — .. .„, ,/ : .\4„, ..4..,., ,-,.-”, . 1 OV -.77.. Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO ILLS Phase I — Scope of Work Summary ($1 Million Dollar Budget — "Evaluation") -'s ' : . "''''''''----'7:..*-'-'71'.'''';-----:"' \ 4''':."::::::;::: n''' .::':',.'::,'::1-: - . . .t t,gs: �. r ' ' v_,. 1 a :'"x r • ::0.:::.. : ..„. .,..ri--.i.-f-:::-_-_,,_,-.. _ ti 0 aliir L ,, ..„........•*,...7........... .fes �� a • -...:-..'......::::-..:•,'......?-1..iii'',:-)..-...,.:.-.?"•:::::::-::.;:-... -:•.- '-..--.':':'.;.''.'..- ..."-.::'..--:---....:-:-?..:'.;:-.:::::::::,.:::1::.....- ---, • .-....,...,,,f,.,,, Z. e 4 .t.--7-'' :••:. :.:::. •:::::::::::.)...7.:•...-:::.••:--.•.: - . • . ....•:••.: : •• : '. • •• ef• V: '. ' '‘.\:1V Mk ,t 0 k -- - — ,•••••:•::•:•••••••••:::.:.:-:•::::::.:•,........::::::::::::::::::::::: , . .. . . . \ 1% ,z,-7-4.'''':4-4'''';-.- ..::::::::::"::::::: :.::::::::::.: :::::::::-:::,:::...:::.:H:,::..:: '. ' ' 41„7::,,, v ‘rcr. . :_.vs_. .:,;;.\.„:.asz.:.,zz.\.,\za.:. ‘„u\\,\ ,\,:4:::::,.1:17-'>:-::444‘.4:4‘.11x4)::411:,:f':14tilkilik*--;14,,,,,s44.1::::::...'''';':.::::‘:.::::..:::':"1.** IA:....'. :.::I.::,*:.**' ' '';'...: '''. \ \ , „ Balfour Park-Phase I-City of Spokane Valley-RCO Grant Application B E R N A R D O WILLS ARCHITECTS PC architectinterior desig1 landscape architecture Phase I — Scope of Work Summary ($1 Million Dollar Budget — "Evaluation") Project Overview: Improvements for the Phase I Balfour Park renovations with the approximate budget of $1.73 million dollars. Base bid scope of work includes... Contractor Mobilization Irrigation Earthwork/Excavation Soil Import/Placement Site Utilities including Electrical, Landscape Plantings Domestic Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Mulch Topdressing Sleeving/Conduits to Implement Future Site Lighting Phases Site Structures/Furnishings Amphitheatre C.I.P. Seat Walls Hydroseed/Lawn Repair Site Drainage Contingency and A&E Fees Hardscape 17 DOES NOT MEET THE $1 MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET!! Balfour Park-Phase I-City of Spokane Valley-RCO Grant Application Eingl BERNARD 0 04 ILLS ARCHITECTS PC architecture . interior desig1 landscape architecture $1 Million Dollar Alternate — Reduced Amphitheater Scope? "," t a .;-- ------v-40e r 'a ` ii ‘74<1.'I = g ' r —$fir 4 me Project Overview: Improvements for the Phase I Balfour Park renovations with the approximate budget of $1 million dollars. Base bid scope of work includes... Reduced Amphitheater/No Grade Changes Reduced Landscape Turf/Irrigation/Plantings No Stage Structure/Restroom Facility No vehicular access from E Main Ave or 18 No site utilities Sprague Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC architect -. interior desig1 landscape architecture $1 Million Dollar Alternate — Passive Park Scope??? 80 • 4.4. . ap` '�' _''' v! 'Sr�`j t 1110 a "' ' �� ¢ •,..f„ �.a»rw�mow.. - r '^`. *�'. z +, �iT -. - - ,_ r _. ,._ ....„ • , . y-' � 1 �� i ,I of- /Ik !f'�' A� , 4" �j , ,•` Mc' ;A,—• *- >. a 11! p . f... ,.. 7.01,4, 11 ,�r 1.e.•: ' g� • ri y 11 i Vii' .'! ^ilrc, it,. 1 —J-'.r, .,.. ,, . i f`, d f ri ,,....11.__77'. '� .:i !, �T �f , •it"�, J_4 u .—rte '—r �- .,-,- , „... 1 taillio... .--."4.4./4 ,! t.,eirlp.__'--- __' '''''t'-._, .,1 rib_ ., .. .,:,(:,,,,,_ 1i 19 _ - Balfour Park(Hybrid Plan)–Phase I–City of Spokane Valley–RCO Grant Application BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC architecture . interior desig1 landscape architecture $1 Million Dollar Alternate — Passive Park Scope??? .t. " fir + .,d) - -' - 1%:-4:-..k'_ 'r C ' yt- f -' t { t4111/Aft '; ,.1 { * 'l fr r„ . kj ' -�` 1 '- '-e ' r= - . � ' _. + zkA. p > q` ,*.t i' sJ°.AMP - y ... `-d1J- i Project Overview: Improvements for the Phase I Balfour Park renovations with the approximate budget of $1 million dollars. Base bid scope of work includes... Site Utilities including Electrical, Natural Landscape Turf/Irrigation/Plantings Gas Connections to existing Balfour Park Hardscape/Picnic Shelter 20 Access from E Main Ave -.` -- 111111111111111111 Balfour Park(Hybrid Plan)—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC architect - interior desig landscape architecture Seeking City Council Guidance On: If it is the Council's desire to seek an RCO grant for Balfour Park — What is the value of the project we should be pursuing including a $500,000 grant? Does the City Council want to pursue a $1 ,000,000 grant to reimburse a portion of our out- of-pocket acquisition cost for the WSDOT Flora property? Note: RCO will rank the grant applications for both projects — HOWEVER funding for these grants must be approved by the State Legislature in their 2021 Legislative Session 21 Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application Eingl BERNARD 0 04 ILLS ARCHITECTS PC architectinterior design landscape architecture Questions? 22 Balfour Park—Phase I—City of Spokane Valley—RCO Grant Application BERNARDO W I L L S ARCHITECTS PC DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of April 23,2020; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council& Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings May 5,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 28 ACTION ITEMS: 1.Motion Consideration: Pines Rd GSP Project,Final Engineering Design Contract—Bill Helbig (10 min) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Six-Year Proposed TIP—Adam Jackson (15 minutes) 3. Commute Trip Reduction 5-Yr. Plan Update—Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 4. Commute Trip Reduction Interlocal Agreement—Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 5. Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting 55 mins] May 12,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 51 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Resolution RCO Grant Applications—Mike Stone (5 minutes) 3.Motion: Bur. of Justice Assist. COVID-19 Emerg.Supplemental Funding Program—M.Koudelka(10 min) 4.Motion Consideration: Commute Trip Reduction 5-Year Plan Update—Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Commute Trip Reduction Interlocal Agreement—Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting 45 mins] May 19 2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 121 1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) May 26,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 191 1.PUBLIC HEARING: 2021-2026 TIP (10 minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2021-2026 TIP—Adam Jackson (5 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 4. Admin Report: WSDOT Land Acquisition,Flora Road—Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting 35 mins] June 2,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 261 1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) June 9,2020,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 21 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) June 16,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 9] 1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) June 23,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 161 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports June 30,2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 231 1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 4/23/2020 9:59:53 AM Page 1 of 2 July 7,2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 301 1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) July 14,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 71 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Council Goals&Priorities for use of Lodging Tax—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) July 21,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 141 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) July 28,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 211 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Council Goals&Priorities for use of Lodging Tax—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports August 4,2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. (possible no meeting if National Night Out is observed) August 11,2020, Special Meeting: Budget Workshop 8:30 a.m.—2:30 p.m. [due Tue Aug 41 August 11,2020,Formal Format, 6:00 p.m. —Cancelled August 18,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 111 1. Council 2021 Budget Goals—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda August 25,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 181 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Aging&Long Term Care Update Trunk or Treat Appleway Trail Amenities Utility Facilities in ROW Art Sculptures Placements Vaping Artwork&Metal Boxes Water Districts& Green Space CenterPlace Roof Replacement Bid Award Way Finding Signs Comp Plan Amendments Western Dance Hall Lease Donation Recognition Fee Resolution Cost of Service Analysis Flashing Beacons/School Signage Graffiti Health District Re SV Stats Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Naming City Facilities Protocol Park Lighting PFD Presentation SPEC Report/Update St. Illumination(owners,cost,location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Draft Advance Agenda 4/23/2020 9:59:53 AM Page 2 of 2 City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre-Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 1 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Pre-Application Meetings Requested A Pre-Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community& Public Works Department scheduled a total of 17 Pre-Application Meetings in March 2020. 30- 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre-Application Commercial Pre-App Meeting Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial Pre-App 6 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Pre-Application Meeting 9 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 1 111 Annual Total To-Date: 55 Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 2 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Online Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 265 Online Applications in March 2020. r 400 0,11 200 A ,..'_ -f i 00 1111 II ,1- 1111 mil N i 1C d u$ 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Trade Permit 11 Right of Way Permit Pre-Application Meeting Request Demolition Permit = Sign Permit Reroof Permit itik4 Other Online Applications = Approach Permit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Approach Permit 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition Permit 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Online Applications 0 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre-Application Meeting Request 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reroof Permit 5 25 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right of Way Permit 37 51 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Permit 6 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade Permit 139 109 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 187 197 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 649 Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 3 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Construction Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 489 Construction Applications in March 2020. 600 400 200111111 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial -TI Residential-New IN Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 24 70 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial-TI 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-New 55 48 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial-Trade 13 16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Trade 118 71 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Accessory 8 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition 3 *7 *5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign *10 *8 *10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Construction Permits *232 *258 *323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 463 483 489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 1,435 *Includes Online Applications. Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 4 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Land Use Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 105 Land Use Applications in March 2020. 200 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec .a, Boundary Line Adjustment ® Binding Site Plan PreliminaryState Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) Mt! Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 3 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short Plat Preliminary 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Platting 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 68 146 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 85 159 10 �� ill iiiW Annual Total To-Date: 349 Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 5 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Construction Permits Issued Community& Public Works Department issued a total of 472 Construction Permits in March 2020. 600 400 �., 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial -New Commercial -TI Residential-New ® Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 23 49 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial-TI 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-New 43 48 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial-Trade 13 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Trade 84 91 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Accessory 7 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign 6 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Construction Permits 212 209 279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 390 433 47..1Cr lir IF Annual Total To-Date: 1,295 Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 6 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Land Use Applications Approved Community& Public Works Department approved a total of 41 Land Use Applications in March 2020. {,¢ I 60 +h, '` ?(AT,,1 nil 40 0,111 I d A At . 20 r 3 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment _ Binding Site Plan Preliminary State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Platting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 23 39 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 23 39 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 103 Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 7 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Development Inspections Performed Community& Public Works Department performed a total of 977 Development Inspections in March 2020. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. r,. 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018 2019 -- 2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2020 999 1,148 977 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 1,113 772 1,050 1,402 1,417 1,363 1,300 1,485 1,285 1,525 1,139 1,030 2018 1,026 990 1,441 1,384 1,619 1,754 1,413 1,483 1,338 1,452 1,165 962 Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 8 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officers responded to 55 citizen requests in the month of March. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 80 60 .... 40- i 20 .. "t�(�(�➢F?X7N lYl)(�3l!}sgy�^y�)11))179)'r!r,lrl7i�rfJJ)Ylrr)j/)}Ifjplf/// ) 7%9rNl7il r)1�I Pvnfr)!rd?ill�r r lJn)trY)>1 iil»))n'Y 1 r'N)��i'%'�'+r)1+�9rv1)N)»rPY7M%)19)/>)A93)y. -""" i`ilt�(rio)/rrrf%////,%,%i/l/%i//,!/,!//ill,�FlF%/!!lel,Irl%i)///!�/i)�lr/1)r%//f/iJ�;l`JII�Q9/)/JI(IGi(Glrll/!GlI�NiAI(IlIF�I��I(Ilrn�if((III(fil,rrlriOl}V'If/ltl/(rlr/1(/�ir1/'11i�%(I '. 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CE-Stop Work Order Environmental General Nuisance - Property Complaint, Non-Violation Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CE-Stop Work Order 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Complaint,Non-Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 4 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuisance 32 40 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property 10 18 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 46 60 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 161 Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 9 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Revenue Community& Public Works Department Revenue totaled $371,956 in March 2020. 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep ❑ct Nov Dec -} 2020 2019 -,- Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2020 $230,256 $402,862 $371,956 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0%1,005,074 Trend $159,604 $156,291 $228,212 $198,243 $251,439 $198,641 $204,983 $242,691 $194,002 $216,861 $192,571 $179,943 $2,423,484 2019 $162,441 $228,717 $265,529 $195,244 $241,906 $233,496 $355,943 $304,988 $228,157 $294,794 $299,906 $349,821 $3,160,942 2018 $177,431 $117,425 $220,845 $206,090 $234,009 $158,168 $260,179 $362,478 $253,342 $270,649 $204,016 $169,751 $2,634,383 2017 $174,349 $146,874 $133,382 $221,935 $309,558 $265,383 $134,394 $135,242 $149,194 $197,639 $232,319 $159,618 $2,259,887 2016 $212,038 $183,405 $375,848 $187,053 $356,403 $229,293 $124,020 $264,735 $243,514 $163,819 $139,562 $124,778 $2,604,468 2015 $71,763 $105,035 $145,457 $180,895 $115,321 $106,864 $150,381 $146,012 $95,805 $157,403 $87,053 $95,749 V457,738 Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 10 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2020 - 03/31/2020 Building Permit Valuation Community& Public Works Department Building Permit Valuation totaled $36,676,762 in March 2020. 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -4-• 2020 2019 -- Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2020 $22.13M $20.94M $36.68M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $79.75M Trend $10.62M $17.16M $23.50M $15.92M $22.33M $20.71M $19.56M $20.58M $16.55M $14.51M $28.27M $13.64M 1$223.34M 2019 $5.66M $22.21M $19.46M $12.46M $23.15M $15.02M $46.65M $18.80M $14.36M $17.16M $35.18M $34.15M 1$264.26M 2018 $12.84M $6.35M $27.60M $7.87M $9.55M $26.26M $29.25M $25.44M $20.69M $21.88M $25.46M $6.70M 1$219.89M 2017 $23.82M $18.37M $6.98M $30.99M $35.66M $35.63M $9.78M $9.05M $8.88M $10.05M $67.10M $16.78M 1$273.09M 2016 $7.83M $28.14M $55.63M $10.10M $36.56M $19.11M $7.07M $41.53M $33.68M $9.06M $7.76M $5.52M 1$261.99M 2015 $2.93M $10.71M $7.82M $18.16M $6.73M $7.53M $5.05M $8.06M $5.15M $14.42M $5.86M $5.06M ,9"' 'M Printed 04/01/2020 12:47 Page 11 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 03/01/20 - 03/31/20 MAINTENANCE Agreements for Services Adopted and In Operation * Budget estimates ** Does not include March Contract Name Contractor Contract Total % of Contract Amount Expended Expended Street Maintenance Poe Asphalt , $1,500,000.00 $0.00 0.00% ■ Street Sweeping AM Sweepind. $560,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Storm Drain Cleaning AM Sweeping'''. $202,587.50 $0.00 0.00% ■ Landscaping Senske AM $62,985.00 $0.00 0.00% Weed Spraying Clearwater $39,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Emergency Traffic Control Senske $15,000.00 $2,926.35 19.51% El Litter and Weed Control Geiger Work Crel $70,000.00 $10,779.90 15.40% gi State Highway Maintenance WSDOT 1 $265,000.00 $90,041.40 33.98% I. Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Spokane County $737,000.00 $111,081.12 15.07% Dead Animal Control Mike Pederson A $20,000.00 $2,550.00 12.75% gi Snow Season - October 2019 - April 2020 immallimmumb On Call - Graders Multiple $500,000.00 $76,062.32 15.21% On Call - Plow Drivers Multiple I $265,000.00 $99,681.17 37.62% ■ On Call - Sidewalk Operator Valley Landscape $40,000.00 $5,593.38 13.98% Citizen Requests for Public Works - March 2020 Request Submitted In Progress Resolved /Waiting Construction - CPW 1 0 1 Construction - Development 1 0 1 Construction - Private 1 0 1 Downed Tree/ Branch 2 0 2 General Street Maint 4 0 4 Hazard on Street 1 0 1 Illegal Dumping - Objects®_a 7 0 7 Report a Pothole IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 0 4 Sidewalks - repair 1 0 1 Street Sweeping 4 0 4 Vegetation/Weeds I 2 0 2 SOLID WASTE 1 0 1 STORMWATER 6 2 4 Traffic 10 0 10 Signs: Missing/Damaged 13 1 12 Plowing Damage 1 0 1 Totals 59 1 STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for March 2020: • Geiger Work Crew— Litter Pickup, tree trimming. • Pothole patching. • Winter snow and ice operations. • Poe Maintenance Contract—Guardrail repairs • AAA Sweeping Contract—Arterial sweeping and residential sweeping began • AAA Sweeping Vactor Contract—Cleaning drywells WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/spokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.org/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of City Stormwater Utility activities for March 2020: • Continue Design Report task for the Drywell Retrofit with Pavement Preservation Water Quality Dept. of Ecology Agreement. Environmental tasks SEPA, and Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Cultural Resources are completed. • Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility: Completed/posted SEPA Determination of Non- Significance, Completed KPFF/COSV agreement for design services. • In concert with the release of the revised Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (Dept. of Ecology), COSV Stormwater Utility began coordinated effort with City of Spokane, and Spokane County to evaluate the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual for equivalency. • Continue process to identify the merits for jurisdictional coverage under the UIC program. • Continued updating the Stormwater Utility 0 & M plan. • Advertised the 2020 Roadway Landscape Maintenance contract. • Completed and submit ecology 2020 Stormwater Management Plan. • Participation and support Glenrose, Central Park Flood Insurance Study. • Completed and submit 2019 NPDES Annual Report. • Continued annual management and/or participation of the following service contracts: o Roadway Landscape Maintenance Contract—Advertised contract. o Street Sweeping Contract— Begin Spring Sweep—AAA Sweeping. o Storm Drain Cleaning Contract— Begin contract work. o Roadway Weed Control Contract— Not yet started. • Continued working on the following tasks: o Responded to stormwater related issues, 6 sites. o Stormwater action requests 2020. Current status to date is shown below: Stormwater Action Requests (Incl. Public and In-Staff Requests) March - 20 Total Requests Logged Since 2009: 625 2020 Completed Project sites: 5 Completed Projects 2009-2019: 287 Locations not warranting work: 289 Total Project Backlog: 79 2 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING The following is a summary of Development Engineering activities for March 2020: • Assisted Building and Planning Division with preparation of design requirements for (10) Commercial and (6) Land Use Pre-Application meetings. • Prepared multiple Recommended Conditions of Approvals for preliminary plats and Dedication Languages for final plats. Reviewed multiple final plats and submittal packages to record final plats. • Reviewed civil plans and drainage reports for Engineered Grading Permits associated with commercial and land use projects. Coordinated with private Engineers and Developers. • Reviewed civil plans for the following projects: o Sammy's Pit Stop (EGR-2019-0083) o Summerfield East 9th Add—26 lots (EGR-2019-0084) o Prairie Meadows—31 lots (EGR-2020-0001) o Flora Road Short Plat—3 lots (EGR-2020-0003) o Eljay Oil Grading (EGR-2020-0006) o Empire Physicians Clinic (EGR-2020-0009) o Mansfield Townhomes (EGR-2020-0012) o Vivacity Care Center (EGR-2020-0013) o Flora Road Apartments (EGR-2020-0014) o Quarry Apartments (EGR-2020-0015) o Barker Mini Storage (EGR-2020-0016) o Barker Retail (EGR-2020-0017) o Boone Ave Short Plat—7 lots (EGR-2020-0018) o Pacific Way Alley (EGR-2020-0019) o Summit Chiropractic Office (EGR-2020-0020) o 15th Ave Short Plat—3 lots (EGR-2020-0021) o Moskalenko Short Plat—5 lots (EGR-2020-0022) o Ponderosa Drive Short Plat—8 lots (EGR-2020-0023) o Spokane Conservation District Office (EGR-2020-0024) o Boudreau Commercial Project (EGR-2020-0025) o Dolphin Commercial Center (EGR-2020-0026) • Met with citizens and developers in Permit Center to answer inquiries and discuss design requirements for potential commercial and land use projects. • Conducted preconstruction meetings, performed site visits, prepared punch lists, reviewed surety estimates, and reviewed and approved construction certification packages to finalize final plats and to issue commercial building certificates of occupancy. 3 CAPITAL PROJECTS "* Public Works Projects jpy. Monthly Summary-Design&Construction March-2020 Bid Estimated Total Proposed %Complete Project# Design&Construction Projects Funding Ad Date Open Construction Project Date PE I CN Completion Cost Street Projects 0143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation(PE&ROW) FHWA-STP(U) TBD TBD 95 0 12/31/22 $ 6,484,000 0249 Sullivan&Wellesley Intersection Improv FHWA-STP(U) TBD TBD 90 0 12/31/20 $ 1,370,000 0265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project FHWA-CMAQ 05/24/19 06/14/19 100 99 12/31/19 $ 886,367 0275 Barker Rd Widening-River to Euclid FHWA-STP(U) TBD TBD 95 0 12/31/21 $ 3,190,800 0291 Adams Sidewalk Infill Project TIB-SP 02/28/20 03/20/20 100 0 12/31/20 $ 507,051 0295 Garland Avenue Extension COSV 04/05/19 04/19/19 100 25 12/31/20 $ 2,900,000 0302 Ella Sidewalk:Broadway to Alki CDBG 02/28/20 03/20/20 100 0 11/01/20 $ 431,487 0303 S.Conklin Road Sidewalk CDBG 02/28/20 03/20/20 100 0 11/01/20 $ 179,520 0309 Local Access Streets:Barker Homes COSV 04/24/20 05/13/20 90 0 12/31/20 $ 50,000 0310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Rep. FHWA-BR TBD TBD 0 0 12/31/20 $ 337,625 0313 Barker Road/Union Pacific Crossing FMSIB TBD TBD 90 0 12/31/22 $ 1,434,000 Street Preservation Projects 0267 Mission SW-Bowdish to Union TIB-SP 03/01/19 03/22/19 100 97 12/31/19 $ 2,196,922 0269 Evergreen-Mission Connector to Indiana FHWA-STP(U) 04/05/19 04/26/19 100 98 12/31/19 $ 822,050 0285 Indiana Ave Pres-Evergreen to Sullivan COSV 03/06/20 03/06/20 100 0 12/31/20 $ 2,343,166 Traffic Projects 0259 North Sullivan ITS Project FHWA-CMAQ 02/14/20 03/06/20 100 0 12/31/20 $ 1,104,209 0293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP HSIP N/A N/A 100 3 12/31/21 $ 180,000 0294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels HSIP N/A N/A 100 0 12/31/21 $ 78,000 0300 Pines&Mission Intersection Improvement FHWA-CMAQ TBD TBD 0 0 12/31/20 $ 588,000 Parks Projects 0268 Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Sullivan FHWA-STP(U) 06/28/19 07/19/19 100 50 12/31/20 $ 2,516,550 0304 CenterPlace West Lawn Phase 2 COSV 11/22/19 12/20/19 100 10 12/31/20 $ 2,000,000 0305 CenterPlace Roof Repair COSV 05/01/20 05/15/20 90 0 07/01/20 $ 571,000 Design Total %Complete Project# Design Only Projects Funding Complete Project Date PE Cost Street Projects 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement COSV 12/31/20 20 $ 142,021 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF&Trent COSV TBD 27 $ 1,710,000 0273 Barker/I-90 Interchange WSDOT TBD 95 $ 900,000 0299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont TIB-UAP TBD 15 $ 2,825,000 0300 Pines&Mission Intersection Improvement FHWA-CMAQ TBD 0 $ 588,000 0301 Park&Mission Intersection Improvements COSV TBD 0 $ 153,500 0311 Sullivan Rd./SR 290 Interchange Project COSV 12/31/23 0 $ 500,000 Street Preservation Projects 0286 Broadway Preservation:Havana to Fancher COSV TBD 65 $ 100,000 0292 Mullan Preservation:Broadway-Mission COSV TBD 25 $ 75,000 4 PLANNING AND GRANTS WSDOT's City Safety Program WSDOT administers the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program and funds projects under the City Safety Program (CSP). In November 2019, WSDOT announced the CSP call for projects, making available $25 million statewide for projects that address data-driven safety improvements. In February 2020, City Council authorized the City Manager to submit 6 projects ranging in cost from $165,000 up to $2,000,000, generating a total program request of $4,424,200, with a $20,400 City match (5% local match). Applications were submitted on March 3, 2020 and due March 6, 2020. Washington State Department of Commerce Electrification Transportation Systems Grant Program Spokane Regional Transportation Council and Avista Corp. have partnered to submit a regional application for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations for public use.The City would participate by applying to install charging stations at City Hall and CenterPlace. Avista will be responsible for all matching costs required by the grant program. The City would be responsible for any ongoing operations and maintenance costs associated with the charging stations. On April 14, 2020,City Council authorized the City Manager to partner with SRTC and Avista to submit an application. Applications are due June 1, 2020. USDOT's BUILD Program USDOT administers the Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development (BUILD) discretionary grant program. On February 18, 2020, USDOT announced its current call for projects, making available $1 billion for capital projects. On April 14, 2020, City Council authorized the City Manager to submit an application for the Pines/BNSF GSP to BUILD. Applications are due May 18, 2020. Pavement Management Update Public Outreach &Education On October 29, 2019, staff received Council consensus to move forward with an ad-hoc committee for input regarding the City's pavement management program. Staff will work with the Mayor's office to develop a recommended committee membership program and roster.This information will be brought forward to council for a motion to create and appoint the committee and its members. Further, this outreach process will be contingent upon StreetScan's pavement condition survey work, see below for more details. StreetScan—Pavement Condition Evaluation In September 2019, StreetScan surveyed 100% of the City's street network to evaluate its current condition. Through January 2020, staff worked with Nichols Consulting Engineers to perform a Quality Assurance back check on the received data results from the StreetScan. The NCE scope of work identified differences in the PCI reporting when compared to past methods used by the City, however, it concluded that the StreetScan data was just as reliable, or more reliable,than the previously collected data provided by the City's previous consultant. Final findings and reporting of the pavement condition survey has been shared with City staff and a final quality assurance review has occurred through the month of March. Final delivery is anticipated in April or May 2020, when staff will be available to present the findings to City Council. 5 FIRST QUARTER REPORT JANUARY-MARCH 2020 "bkane .000VlyF PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE • One word that sums up our quarter is"COVID-19." It really CONTRACTS WORKED ON: put everything into a tailspin. In the beginning, phone calls poured in to cancel or postpone reservations at CenterPlace, • Professional Services for Valley the parks, and special events such as walk/runs. CenterPlace Mission Horse Arena Environmental and the Senior Center were closed; however,we still had Survey staff working in the building. Some staff started working • Professional Services for two RCO from home. "Social distancing" became a commonplace Grant Applications phrase. More and more citizens were in the parks,so there • Amendment#3 to the Professional Services for the Browns Park 2019 was more trash and cleanup. Then by order of the governor, (2020) Improvements all the playgrounds needed to be somehow fenced or • Use Agreement for radio-controlled cordoned off and have signage explaining why. This is car track at Sullivan Park approved something we never imagined to see in our lifetime. Hours by City Council. after the fencing was in place, citizens tore some down,so we were right back out there again. But people are adjusting and respecting the way things needs to be for • After years of non-use and now, for the most part. deterioration,we are preparing to •• f ‘j,„. • e ' Ni`` ' " ' demolish the Valley Mission Horse tM -.Or* Arena.An Environmental Survey was ,z3 la� performed. We will be contracting � . ,�• ;' >„ , with a consultant for a master plan for ,y the space. It is exciting to think of all • t the recreational possibilities that will be engaging to the public. • We have been working with • The Browns Park 2019 Improvements project continued. Community& Public Works on the The contractor is back on site. We hope to have the project CenterPlace Roof Repair project. Plans finished by the end of May. were put together with a consultant • Initial work on the 2020 Parks and Recreation Department and the project went out to bid in budget began with updating the Business Plan. February. After careful consideration, it was decided to reject the bids and • Staff completed our department's portion of the City's re-bid the project with some changes Annual Accomplishments in a PowerPoint,which were and go out to bid again in April. presented to City Council. ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE, continued • '" n'ry r ' 1 '" '► • We have met with the YMCA regarding the swimming pools and getting ready for when the Governor's order of"Stay • Staff has been working with a consultant to help the Home, Stay Healthy is lifted. City apply for two separate grants from the Washington State Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) for • Construction on the CenterPlace West acquisition and development of park land. The Lawn Improvement project got acquisition grant is to receive up to $1 million to be underway. Staff is working with staff applied to the purchase of the 45.73-acre Flora Rd. from Community and Public Works on property which WSDOT owns. The other grant is a the construction management. The development grant for$500,000 to go toward the first transition already is dramatic with all the phase of the Balfour Park expansion. Staff also toured earth movers and heavy equipment the properties with the RCO Outdoor Grants Manager clearing out turf, old asphalt, and the for Eastern WA to offer advice and information with roundabout. Several large trees were this process. saved and replanted nearby. Utility work and digging is also in progress. • The Centennial Trail Coordinating Council continued to meet monthly. For each calendar year, the jurisdictions rotate who will act as meeting chair and manage the agenda and meeting minutes. It is Liberty Lake's turn for 2020. • Staff members of both Parks and Recreation and Economic Development met regularly to discuss promoting our City, better communication, and how to work together to benefit the City. • Construction work started back up on the Appleway Trail Evergreen to Sullivan portion. Staff meets regularly with Community and Public Works for this project. It will be complete by summer. • Staff was meeting regularly with City Hall staff, law "" � enforcement, and social organizations as part of a "Homeless Huddle." The group is discussing and planning ways to help our homeless/transient population to receive the help they need in their lives. CENTERPLACE REGIONAL EVENT CENTER • CenterPlace hosted 237 events in the first 4-4.ra„l, A,,, quarter of 2020. In comparison,177 events r""'"° " ' were held in the first quarter of 2019. The last " . "'1—II .° event that was hosted at CenterPlace before '� - the "stay at home"and limitation on large events was March 13. As mentioned, 16 CenterPlace's doors were locked to the public. v All events that were booked for the middle of March through April have been rescheduled. - ik fh R .1r11114L-111gilir 11'0 6 + II'""'' ' �. . A' Approximately 155 events have been cancelled `1 S Pl III I,It%�) 1h.' or rescheduled through the end of this year. 1111 RECORD "" - Staff has been very busy updating customer TI.ex - .* -. ,-- contracts and refunding or rescheduling the ,,rd, events. • CenterPlace staff participated in the NW Premier • The CenterPlace maintenance crew has been Bridal Festival held at the Spokane Convention very busy during the downtime. A lift was Center January 11 and 12, 2020. It was a very rented. They swapped out our lights in the successful show despite the large amounts of Great Room to LED bulbs which will save us snow which negatively impacted the number of money and qualify for rebates from Avista. participants that attended. They have been painting, doing maintenance on vehicles, and washing second floor • During the weekend of February 22-23, KPBX windows. Public Radio held their annual record sale for the first time at CenterPlace. The record sale is a • Also taking advantage of no visitors to the fundraiser open to the public and draws building, the parking lot was re-striped, which thousands of participants. hadn't been done for many years. • In February, Carol Carter, CenterPlace Coordinator, participated with the first annual Hospitality Northwest!collaborative educational forum,which ' was held by the Hotel Motel Association at the A► DoubleTree Hotel. It was a great event that IMP' provided the opportunity to talk to the group " - .,.- during a session to highlight our free and ample , - -- parking and describe the construction of the West - _ Lawn that would be starting in the spring. .",.14 .a . „IALV... -.1.0.4 10-- , "'" 11I r- ■ill'— . 411.:''.0 7 RECREATION AND AQUATICS City of Spokane Va!1•' • We coordinated with East Valley School District to confirm and finalize our I'arlrs & RecnaIi n +. meal program sites for this summer. Terrace View Park and Valley Mission will serve breakfast and lunch, and Edgecliff Park lunch only. We again . t collaborated with the Spokane County Library District to bring some exciting %f1:141 1 r 11•. kick off events at our Free Summer Park Programs. } ( ,ri • Summer Movies in the Park planning also began. New this year will be a * themed Harry Potter Movie in the Park located on the new CenterPlace West i,i, Lawn Outdoor Plaza. Due to a great partnership with the Spokane Valley Kregistra""n 5h"`March 10th Farmers Market, movie attendees will be able to shop at a Harry Potter 1624 themed Farmers Market before the movie begins! This is one of two outdoor 509.720.5200 movies planned for 2020. "Abominable" is planned for Valley Mission Park in The Spring & July. The movies are sponsored in part by Washington State Employees Credit Summer Recreation Union. Guide was designed • Tina Gregerson, our Recreation Coordinator, applied SPOKANE PARKS and printed. Guides for and received a grant with the Spokane Parks FOUN0ATt-N�-,� were mailed to all Foundation to provide funding for scholarships for past program Summer Day Camp and Teen Camp. The Parks and Recreation participants. Department was awarded this grant for$1,040 to assist low income families Planning began for with registration fees for children and teens to attend our summer camps! our Summer Day • With the help of theMake a Splash in a Kid's Life program, the City of Spokane Camp, Free Park Valley is able to offer free swim days, free swim clinics, and scholarships for Program,and Teen swimming lessons! Again for the 2020 swim season, every Spokane Valley Pool Camp.* will offer one free afternoon open swim session weekly from June 15-August 27. Free one-day Saturday swim clinics will be offered at each pool, sponsored *We are hopeful that by the Spokane Parks Foundation. '~ i ` our summer camps, ry1KE ASPLASH classes, programs, in a kids life COVID-19 impacts for Recreation: and events running as scheduled. We • Three March Adult Dance Lessons (Ballroom, Swing, and Partner Dancing)were are monitoring the canceled. Participants were issued prorated refunds. Registrations were not COVID-19 situation taken for April Dance Lessons, as the entire April dance session was canceled. and will adjust programs and events • Registration was set to open March 30 for all spring and summer recreation as needed. programs. Registration has been moved to May 4,which could be extended Arbor Day again Celebration • The Arbor Day Celebration which was scheduled for April 18 has been Postponed until p 1 20210 postponed to the fall.This event is planned and coordinated by the Recreation tgEk 2426 N Disc.' - Dept. includes vendors and appearances by Smokey the Bear (Washington Juin us ror a tree Planting al Discovery Playground. lfollowed arnins ohacelebrating dinteractive Praystoprot:tP: Department of Natural Resources), the Spokane County Library District,Waste Inrorma rib nal booths rt lit or located throughour ''''''very nfayground giv17,,frien dly tips,t"Is Management, the Inland Northwest Community Gardens, Franz Bakery,WSU and inPormati'n to take.home with y'u! Free crafts and activities for kids! Sponsorship&vender ie giii Master Gardeners, EVHS Green Team, and the Spokane Conservation District. oppar[vnit�es avaalahlef rmn or shmr! SPOKANE VALLEY SENIOR CENTER • The Senior Center has a new Association President, Larry Murdza, and Vice President, Gary -,�- c 6a Brady (both previous board members),who were appointed to It 1"70. their positions beginning January 1, "' 74" ;" 2020. " • A 50/50 Valentine's Day raffle was held the week of Valentines Day. • The quilting group meets the second Monday of each month The Senior Center collected $163. to work on a variety of different projects including cosmetic bags, pin cushions, tote bags and more.Their FebruEMI ary v project was a heart wall hanging. It's fun to see the beautiful *IP 9 and unique projects this group creates each month! 5Q/50Ckan r anda�Vy Fri'da ,'%..:',',\.c J,:. 1 . r 4$Ie/f'�Ka Bore Des �. . . y [ 41 - p • New Senior Center opportunity: Hearing Aid Specialist,Jim • The large knitting and crochet group is busier than ever on Schauble, is offering free Mondays.The group creates scarves, hats. gloves, and hearing tests every second blankets to donate to local charities around the area. Since Thursday in the Library.This is a 2006. the group has donated over 500 items! great free resource for seniors struggling to hear or in need of advice on their current hearing instruments. Numbers That Count,., January February March - * " , l[''� 2,296 2,186 1,11 "" ' ' ; Total Attendance + ,, G. 21 20 NA L New Members r • i CLOSED • The Senior Center's Wii bowling group, "Valley Pin Pals." placed first in the local Wii bowling tournament with an • Due to COVID 19, the Senior Center average score of 273! This is their first win in a local was temporarily closed starting tournament. Their large trophy is proudly displayed at March 17, until further notice. CenterPlace. Mark Werner Ozzie Knezovich Chief of Police Sheriff- - Li Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011•, \� k Services provided in partnership with / the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. TO: Mark Calhoun, City Manager FROM: Mark Werner, Chief of Police DATE: April 20, 2020 RE: Monthly Report March 2020 ADMINISTRATIVE: In early March, Sheriff Knezovich swore in a new lateral transfer, Deputy Emilio Carrillo. Deputy Carrillo is 34 years old and married with three children. Emilio served in the Army for five years as a military police officer. After serving in the military, he earned his Bachelor's Degree in Business from DeVry University and worked the last five years as a police officer for Los Angeles Police Department. Emilio and his family enjoy an active lifestyle and look forward to living in Spokane Valley. Chief Werner attended the quarterly Safe Streets Task Force meeting along with others from the Sheriff's Office. He also participated in an Executive Core Team Meeting regarding New World software,with members from area law enforcement to discuss the current status of the software as well as future planning. Mid-month activities began focusing on the COVID-19 Pandemic and most scheduled meetings were put on hold. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of March,prior to temporarily closing SCOPE stations to the public due to the COVID-19 Pandemic on 3/13/2020, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • S.C.O.P.E. Basic Training (six new • S.C.O.P.E. helped with some Food Bank volunteers started in February) drop offs • S.C.O.P.E. volunteers made masks for • S.C.O.P.E. volunteers initially patrolled medical employees and first responders neighborhoods. • S.C.O.P.E. volunteers helped with traffic control for distributing food to Central Valley School students Page 1 March 2019 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location #Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 4 26 32 58 East Valley* 16 79.5 144.5 224 Edgecliff 8 87 2.5 89.5 Trentwood 8 100 39.5 139.5 University 17 172.5 19.5 192 West Valley* 17 158.5 43 201.5 TOTALS 70 623.5 281 904.5 Volunteer Value($31.72 per hour) $28,690.74 for March 2020 The SCOPE Latent Fingerprint Team closed down operations mid-month in March. With volunteers out of the office, no data was provided for the first couple of weeks of the month. S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 39 on-scene hours (including travel time) in March, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control; 21 hours were for incidents in Spokane Valley. There was two special events in March, at Eastpoint Church, where traffic control was provided, as well as the Train Show at the Fairgrounds. Total volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 1,184; total for 2020 is 3,409. Abandoned Vehicles Jan 2020 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Tagged for Impounding 42 40 14 Cited/Towed 0 1 0 Hulks Processed 8 14 10 Total Vehicles Processed 124 118 58 Yearly Total of Vehicles Processed 124 242 300 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of # of Hrs. # of # of # of Non - Vol. Disabled Warnings Disabled Infractions Issued Infractions Issued Issued January 4 22.5 2 25 0 February 4 18.5 3 30 0 March 2 6 0 8 0 YTD Total 10 47 5 63 0 Page 2 Spokane Coup #of # of Hrs. # of # of # of Non - Vol. Disabled Warnings Disabled Infractions Issued Infractions Issued Issued January 2 16.4 4 10 0 February 3 12.5 1 10 0 March 2 9 0 4 0 YTD Total 7 37.9 5 24 0 OPERATIONS: Armed DV Suspect Shot by Deputies: Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies shot an armed adult male suspect at the scene of a reported domestic violence incident in the early evening in Spokane Valley. Deputies began life-saving efforts,and the suspect was transported to the hospital for additional care. The Spokane Independent Investigative Response Team (SIIR Team) is at the scene and conducting the investigation. In early March, at approximately 4:25 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies responded to the report of a domestic violence incident at an apartment complex located in the 12100 block of E. Cataldo. The caller stated the victim called telling them the suspect, the boyfriend of the victim, was intoxicated and attacking her and her young child. It was reported the suspect had access to firearms, but it was unknown if he was armed or if medics were needed. Multiple deputies arrived at the location within minutes and quickly advised they needed emergency backup. Initial information indicated that deputies gave commands, and the suspect had a gun. Soon after, deputies advised shots had been fired, and the suspect was hit and on the ground. Additional radio traffic stated the suspect was breathing and continued to reach toward a firearm. The suspect was detained, and life-saving efforts were provided until Spokane Valley Fire and AMR personnel took over. The suspect was transported to the hospital where at last check,he was in critical,but stable,condition. Thankfully,the victim, deputies involved, and no innocent citizens were injured during this extremely dangerous and rapidly-evolving situation. Following standard protocol,the four deputies who fired their weapons were placed on administrative leave. The SIIR Team is comprised of agencies in Spokane County, including the Spokane Police Department, Washington State Patrol, Spokane Valley Police Department and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The Spokane County Sheriff's Office released the names of the Spokane Valley Deputies involved in the Officer Involved Shooting(OIS) incident: Deputy Jesse Depriest began his law enforcement career as a Reserve Deputy for the Spokane County Sheriff's Office in 1993. He continued as a Reserve Deputy even after he was hired full- time in 1996 as a Corrections Deputy at the Spokane County Jail. In 1998, Deputy Depriest transferred to the Patrol Division, where he continues to serve our community. As a 23-year veteran of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Depriest has been assigned to several specialty positions to include: Traffic Unit, Motor Unit, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit, School Resource Deputy Unit, Bike Patrol, and is currently assigned to Spokane Valley dayshift Page 3 Patrol as a Field Training Officer. He also provides instruction as a Reality-Based Training/Patrol Procedures Instructor, a Field Training Officer Instructor, and he has received several letters of appreciation, recognizing his professionalism and excellent work during his career. Prior to his law enforcement career, Deputy Depriest served in the United States Navy for five years. Deputy Tim Jones started his law enforcement career with the Bellevue Police Department in 1997. Then he joined the Coeur d'Alene Police Department in 1999, where he was awarded the Medal of Honor, and a Letter of Commendation for deescalating and safely ending a situation involving a suicidal male threatening to jump from a bridge. Deputy Jones joined the Spokane County Sheriff's Office in December of 2002, where he is currently assigned to day shift Patrol in Spokane Valley and a member of the SWAT Team. He received a 2014 Unit Merit Award-SWAT Team as well as several letters of appreciation recognizing his professionalism and good work during his 20 plus year career. Deputy Tyler Kullman is a 14-year veteran of law enforcement with the last 9+ years with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. He and his partner K9 Zeus are active members of the K9 Unit and also deploy with the SWAT Team as a K9 Team. Deputy Kullman is an instructor for Patrol Tactics and Reality-Based Training (RBT) and previously taught Defensive Tactics. In addition, he is a Certified Washington State K9 Instructor and K9 Instructor for the Sheriff's Office. He has received a Spokane County Sheriff's Office Certificate of Appreciation Award, an Annual Unit Merit Award-SWAT Team,and assisted during Canine for K9 Events,which were held in previous years. Deputy Joseph Reno was hired by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office in July of 2019. Previously he served from 2009-2014 on the west side of our state as a Washington State Patrol Trooper. Student Arrested After Using Brass Knuckles During Fight: A 16-year-old student,initially involved in a mutual fight with another student,was arrested for felony assault after he used a set of brass knuckles during the incident. The victim received medical attention for a cut to the back of his head. In mid-March, at approximately 7:50 a.m., Spokane Valley and East Valley High School Resource Deputy Bruner responded to a reported fight at the school. Through the investigation, Deputy Bruner learned the incident was initiated by a 17-year-old student who began challenging a fellow 16-year-old student, and eventual suspect, to a fight over Snap Chat during the weekend. When asked why he did this, the student said he wanted to see how tough the suspect was. The fight was"planned"for Monday,but the suspect wasn't at school. However, the suspect did attend school the following day. When the student realized he might have to fight the suspect, he approached the 16-year-old victim and offered him $100,000 to fight the suspect in his place. He said the victim willingly accepted. The victim told Deputy Bruner another student approached him and jokingly offered $100,000 to fight the suspect. He went to the suspect's location, and they started fighting. During the physical altercation, the suspect pulled out brass knuckles and hit him in the back of the head. A witnessing 15-year-old classmate said he heard rumors about a fight taking place in the gym. When he went to the location, he observed the suspect and the victim fighting. During the fight, he noticed the suspect was wearing brass knuckles, and the victim was bleeding. At that point, he tackled the suspect to stop the fight. Page 4 Informed of the fight, Deputy Bruner located the suspect in the front of the school as the suspect attempted to leave. Deputy Bruner noted the suspect had blood on his hands when he was detained. The suspect was arrested and booked into the Spokane County Juvenile Detention Center for Assault 2nd Degree, a felony. School officials are aware of the incident and are reviewing the actions of the involved students to determine any possible administrative discipline. Mother Arrested for Attempted Murder 1St Degree after Trying to Suffocate Her 5-Year- Old Son: Spokane Valley Sheriff's Office Major Crimes Detectives arrested a 38-year-old female suspect for attempting to suffocate and overdose her young son, and she planned to kill herself. Her son remains hospitalized in satisfactory condition at an area hospital. The female suspect was booked into jail, charged with Attempted Murder 1St Degree. In mid- March, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies responded to a welfare check at an apartment located in the 12500 block of E. 3rd Avenue in Spokane Valley. The female who called identified herself and stated she tried to suffocate and overdose her five-year-old son, and tried to kill herself. Arriving deputies contacted the female suspect and detained her while other deputies immediately provided medical assistance to the young child who was in and out of consciousness. After being advised of her rights, the suspect said, "It didn't work. It didn't work It wasn't supposed to happen like this. Dying is hard. A lot harder than it looks." She stated she crushed up several pills, and they both ingested a mixture of medications. She said, "I'm so sorry! My baby boy, I'm so sorry!" adding, "The chemicals from China are meant to torture and kill all of us." The young child and the female suspect were rushed to the hospital for further medical treatment. The child was hospitalized and was in satisfactory condition shortly after admission. After being treated,the female suspect was transported and booked for Attempted Murder 1st Degree. At her court appearance, her bond was set at$1,000,000. If you're feeling lost, hopeless, depressed, thinking about suicide, or harming someone else, please take a minute to contact one of the many people who want to help you. Call one of the numbers below, contact an emergency room, a Fireman, a Deputy, an Officer, your church, a family member or friend, and simply say, "I need help. " 509-838-4428 First Call for Help 1-800-273-8255 National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 1-800-273-8255,press I VA Suicide Hotline 9-1-1 Emergency Services Suspect Shot in the Leg During a Dispute: Spokane Valley Deputies arrested a 36-year-old male suspect after he was shot in the leg during a dispute with the resident of the home. The suspect received medical treatment for a non-life-threatening injury and later booked into the Spokane County Jail for Burglary 1St Degree. In late March, at approximately 12:05 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a residence located in the 8400 block of E. Rich for the report of a male who had been shot. Arriving deputies contacted the suspect and the adult male resident/victim. The male suspect was provided medical attention for a gunshot wound to his leg. The victim was not injured during the incident. The victim stated the suspect showed up at Page 5 the victim's residence looking for the vehicle he loaned to a female friend. While they spoke at the front door, the suspect claimed he could see his electronic device sitting on the victim's table. An argument ensued, and according to the victim, the male suspect tried to force his way inside the home. As the victim tried to stop the suspect physically, he said a pistol belonging to the suspect fell on the floor. The victim pushed the suspect outside and picked up the pistol. He aimed the handgun at the suspect and warned him to stop, but the male moved toward him, reentering the home. The victim said, fearing for his safety, he fired the pistol, striking the male suspect in the leg. The suspect told deputies he had loaned a vehicle to his girlfriend, and she hadn't returned it. He used a GPS system to track the car to the general area of the victim's home. He knew the victim lived nearby and went to the victim's residence but did not locate his car. The male suspect contacted the victim, and as they spoke at the door, the suspect stated he noticed his radar detector on a table inside the home. They began to argue, and the suspect claims the victim pulled out a pistol, aimed it at him, and threatened to shoot him. The male suspect said the victim lowered the firearm and fired once hitting the suspect in the leg. Major Crimes Detectives responded to the scene to conduct the investigation. A check of the victim's and the suspect's names, revealed both are convicted felons. After receiving medical treatment, the suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Burglary 1st Degree. We encourage residents who have operational surveillance cameras outside their home to go to the Sheriff's website and register their home and video cameras. Thank you. https://www.s .okanecoun .or•/1080/Sheriff • b (-11) ‘ ;1 _.. VIP Video Identification Program CLICK HERE n volumulir loin the VI P program L 0 C K LOCK OBSERVE CARS SHOULD KEEP GARAGE ITEMS IN AND REPORT NEVER RUN DOORS CLOSED YOUR TRUNK UNATTENDED Page 6 Spokane County Sheriff's Office ccoUNt), '"--1 % Regional Intelligence Group © ,r. ; ,p� Spokane Valley Districts ,f' ,. 1BR Classification: Burglary 2 f G c) 120 f I 100 i I 80 ii 60 2016 4 A --°NOP --2a17 I 1—A-2018 40 2019 I 4(--calendar 2020 20 1 ' C j Q co Q f-- U 5 U W a U d w LL w p VI Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 72 55 51 33 February 73' 53 26 20 March 78 42 33 37 April 87 49 36 35 May 73 47 34 57 June 93 59 29 38 July 89 51 44 48 August 103 56 51 57 September 91 78 38 50 October 71 37 48 46 November 92 32 49 40 December 63 33 47 40 Grand Total 985 592 486 501 * IBR Offense: Burglary/Breaking&Entering 220 Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only 'nauthorized persons pursuant to RCW x2.56.420 This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. Spokane County Sheriffs Offices couNTys Regional Intelligence Group 0 1 c Spokane Valley Districts ir " IBR Classification: Murder NonNeg Manslaughter RIG 9 1.2 PI 1 1 1 ♦ X • ♦ • 0.8 — 2016 0.6 2017 l --2018 0.4 1 2019 --W.—Calendar 2020 0.2 I I 0 1 >- > = w >- w r 1-- cc s cc ce K cc — -, vi w w w w v d Q Z 7 [O 00 00 00 > > < < -. 0 2 2. z cc 7 w Hw w Q m Q 1- V i 0 w a. 0 p w LL w 0 v) Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 n Jauary 1 February March 1 April May June J. July 1 August 1 September October November 1 1 December 1 Grand Total 4 2 1 1 *IBR Offense: Mrder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. nauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 is s.. --4- n.-sr r, ,... ...:a-_..a cam:- __J.:....... Spokane County Sheriff's Office G.OUN7S si Regional Intelligence Group . 1-52 e}; 1 4h C YT'' , , ,...„,„ _, 4 Spokane Valley Districts4 '> IBR Classification: Identity Theft I?IG 35 1 I 30 1 25 I AIIP 20 1 I —0-2016 I I --14----2017 15 i 1111,41 ' i X2018 410041,, 2019 10 —At—Calendar 2020 I 5 I 0 > >- m -1 a u rs— cc cc cc a cc a u c ,(. z J cn w w w w m m m D < ¢ Cl_a )' - L9 2 0 2 2 z cc 2 Dw I— w w Q o w < LI 0 CI w D i w z O N Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2.019 January 9 20 19 February 1 24 16 10 March 22 13 13 April 16 22 19 May 32 21 13 June 19 17 5 July 23 14 12 August 9 13 14 8 September 7 17 13 14 October 7 15 21 17 November 10 19 23 12 December 8 25 16 7 Grand Total 42 234 210 149 *IBR Offense: Identity Theft 26F Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. inauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 n.., i......... .. is i.- ----'—i_ nr.r r.s__ ...LL�_..L•�.:.. _�a:..� Spokane County Sheriff's Office „, COUNTj Regional Intelligence Group Q,rn Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Fraud RIG 9 80 70 \ --.11104.101/4., ', ler 50 I 1I --2016 40 1—Mi—2017 V 30 1 ; i--*—2018 1 2019 20 i 1 Calendar2020 I 10 0 ,__ >- >- I >- w >- H cc a cc cc m a u — a z _, m w w w w a a z a 2 D ? = m m m m z ac 2 D w H w w Q w n O 0 u O L. z o m Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 23 26 69 65 February 17 36 46 32 March 21 37 59 63 April 15 43 55 57 May 8 53 67 56 June 19 57 65 50 July 26 61 55 65 August 15 53 62 65 September 16 66 49 55 October 42 64 60 75 November 38 54 56 68 December 30 43 60 49 Grand Total 270 593 713 700 * IBR Offense: Fraud-Credit Card/ATM 26B, Fraud-False Pretenses/Swindling/Con Games 26A,&Fraud-Impersonation 26C Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF, inauthoriaed persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 n,. _.0 is 3,-, .,s.— nnr c::__ ...:aLA..s 11-1.. .....47.... Spokane County Sheriff's Office s„couNTy Regional Intelligence Group o eei Spokane Valley Districts it ', IBR Classification: DUI RIG 9 45 f 40 A'35 i I i'llINPV 30 ¢- iA\ I 11( . 25 I I All i`tea i. 12016 za I / .F 410a�-2o1a 15 I . ..-._..2019 SIE—Calendar 2020 10 i 5 0 h I > > = -J > w >- I-• cc cc cc cc [C K V K Q Z J N w w w w ¢ < cc 0 2 an D D a 0 2 o 2 z cc 2 : w 1- w w < m < F U > U LU 1 0 0 w w w a v) Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 30 22 21 32 February 30 26 18 21 March 31 33 39 21 April 22 18 13 27 May 27 19 33 18 June 31 28 23 27 July 19 26 15 25 August 18 24 28 23 September 20 19 37 40 October 19 24 33 29 November 28 18 31 35 December 27 20 22 21 Grand Total 302 277 313 3191 * IBR Offense: DUI 90D Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. 'nauthnrized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 n.._-1-,--- — is i_ i nnr 411,—...acs—..+.ate:— 1:— Spokane County Sheriffs Office ,coUNry Regional Intelligence Group p51 , �,tirl % ,..„ Spokane Valley Districts " . � '�a; � IBR Classification: Drugs 1IG q 80 1 I 70 6011111' i i 50 A `?e-- —41-2016 40 ---07-2017 30 t --ie-2018 A2019 20 1 --Calendar 2020 10 1 1I i 0 r r T - r w r r u c cr cc cc cc u cc <. Z —' vi w w w w Q Q cc a 7D m m m m D D Q Q l7 0 Z CC 7 D w I- w Lu a m < I- U > u w a 0 p w LL wz Q Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019. January 5 19 42 52 February 3 30 38 42 March 2 30 64 58 April 1 37 56 67 May 5 23 36 40 June 2 20 56 30 July 1 21 57 45 August 16 26 43 54 September 28 25 33 43 October 18 24 52 44 November 20 39 41 56 December 27 25 48 40 Grand Total 128 319 566 571 * IBR Offense: Drug Equipment Violations 35B& Drugs/Narcotics Violations 35A Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. inauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 n. -t., _ 1s a __... -4 nnr t:I-- ,..:4.t---4 a1-:- --a.__ Spokane County Sheriff's Office �oovrvr),, Regional Intelligence Group a ' :� Spokane Valley Districts LL IBR Classification: Theft From Motor Vehicle A) I c_; �} 200 I 180 I 160 140 120 l 1 . I1 1 2016 100 I �;. —0--2017 ilk , 80 —ilk-2018 Itir - 1rr.. 60 I \\N). 2019 1 –0–Calendar 2020 40 0 I 1 >- )- I -J >, ?u r H s s cc cc cc cc u cc ,:, z. –' w w w w Q 4 m a , D = an m CO CO 7 CO 2 w H w w Q a0 Q F u 7 u Lu w 0 0w w w z o Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 101 99 75 51 February 76 104 32 44 March 72 94 78 72 April 134 130 62 120 May 108 78 69 140 June 177 107 66 84 July 138 97 106 112 August 131 69 87 98 September 103 118 85 80 October 124 70 104 97 November 153 52 112 96 December 119 70 70 112 Grand Total 1436 1088 946 1106 * IBR Offense:Theft From Motor Vehicle 23F Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. "authorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.4.20 a.. .........._-4— on ca,._ ...:.-_....�:- --a:-- Spokane County Sheriff's Office �COUN71. Regional Intelligence Group p al . 9 o p6N/A.„ Spokane Valley Districts '&' IBR Classification: Motor Vehicle Theft R I G 9 120 I 1. 100 80 --x-2016 60 I—E1--2017 ' i� 1—k-2018 40 2419 _,,e/11111110.11P N.,\Iiiinpor ,4111111116 ,..aini.I ,,, 1 —M—Calendar 2424 20 l f 1 I 4 >. >- _ _ w >- F- cc ,c cc cc cc cc U cc q z _, v, w w w w a Q cc a 2 n mm m m z ac w H w w cG a c0 a H U 3 U w a O O w LL w 0 Vl Year Month Count 2016 2017. 2018 2019 January 112 44 36 34 February 53 37 24 22 March 66 44 28 19 April 75 42 27 29 May 59 27 25 33 June 80 28 24 25 July 73 41 39 31 August 39 36 18 31 September 35 43 26 37 October 50 40 31 25 November 33 34 45 37 December 39 28 29 35 Grand Total 714 444 352 358 * IBR Offense: Motor Vehicle Theft 240 Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. 'nauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42 56.420 n...--t, is 1 Spokane County Sheriff's Office �COUN7 Regional Intelligence Group p i ,r r.n.� Spokane Valley Districts K , IBR Classification: Robbery RIG 9 14I 1 12 10 i • •8 , ir I —*-2016 i .-., ;.._.2017 6 ' /61k 1 1 —A-2018 \j/71 ' \ 2019 4 l \\/ 1f 1 E--Calendar 2020 2 N I 0 y } _ _i r cu >- 1- cc cc cc a cc cc u cc a z _i cn w Lu w w CCI W CO CO z ❑c 2 a w 1w w Q CO a H u (-) LU a O O w wz o Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 3 3 6 3 February 7 6 2 8 March 8 7 5 4 April 3 3 6 4 May 7^ 2 8 6 June 5 1 3 2 July I 4 4 7 8 August 3 1 6 11 September 2 4 6 8 October 10 4 5 7 November 10 3 3 11 December 3 1 4 10 Grand Total 65 39 61 82 * IBR Offense: Robbery 120 Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only 'nauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42 56.420 This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. Spokane County Sheriffs Office �,CouNrr Regional Intelligence Group R4 }�„ y-e) Spokane Valley Districts ." �t i; � IBR Classification: Assault R 1 G c 160 1 ♦ tee 1 140 120 loo .. - Allieijikjdllkk ' 1 1 gfrtfr iorirrier . 1 0 ‘1/4,,,,4pri ,.._ ___,0 —4-2016 so Ilor '� I --r'—2017 60 1 "' —A-2018 2019 40 --Calendar 2020 20 0 cC cc U m < -' in w w w w Q Q a D m m m m Z mom' w O� w w Q m Q I- U Li U w c- 0 0 w w wz a in Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 131 96 84 71 February 140 95 62 62 March 145 78 100 74 April 142 90 88 68 May 141 93 80 87 June 115 93 102 79 July 120 95 112 103 August 63 73 84 95 September 81 92 76 72 October 99 87 82 67 November 97 84 79 85 December 88 84 89 77 Grand Total 1362 1060 1038 940 "` IBR Offense:Aggravated Assault 13A&Simple Assault 13B Produced: 4/22/2020 1 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use povaPDF, inautharized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 n„ —L— — is . 4— nn-- su.... ...:,�_......:_ -._s:�� Spokane County Sheriff's Office ,c uN7}, Regional Intelligence Group Az,o to !,,_, tW,F Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft RIG `-1 300 l 250 200 — Alipp- ‘iiiKfilli 'llis°'' N'Sq1477 j �" I —4-2016 J'_30I C —E— —A-2018 :00 i 2019 -- Calendar 2020 I I u 50 1 I I i 0 I i 1 } y- I J } W Y F-- a: cc a: a: : a - -J V) W w w W a a cc a D D D m m m al D D a a ( 0 2 2 z a 2 D W I- W W a m a 1— U > u wa_ o o w LL W z 0 Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 240 205 238 238 February 208 199 165 188 March 215 214 208 212 April 232 203 202 208 May 194 235 230 230 June 263 251 223 230 July 242 236 236 236 August 203 222, 213 256 September 222 213 194 230 October 232 237 234 239 November 244 219 198 206 December 225 198 251 231 Grand Total 2720 2632 2592 2704 * IBR Offense:Theft-All Other 23H,Theft-Pocket-Picking 23A,Theft- Purse-Snatching 23B,Theft-Shoplifting 23C,Theft From Building 230, Theft From Coin-Operated Machine 23E, &Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 23G Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only inauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. Spokane CountySheriff's Office COUNT,j� s>f,�I Regional Intelligence Group O i Zvi; ,H,.: Spokane Valley Districts .., ,, •IBR Classification: Rape A' !tr `-1 18 i 16 14 12 10 —4-2016 8 1111°111\4111H --��2017 —�k--2018 6 i 2019 fCaiendar 2020 4v,-, s,s. .. ji.,\\</1/4.,/svIllif I 4 } } = J } w } 1— cC cr Ce cC CC CC U CC Q z _1 (i) w w w w < CCD m m m m z a 2 D w I w w Q m < a O w LL, O u w Z p Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 7 9 16 3 February 7 2 4 3 March 9 3 8 4 April 6 7 6 5 May 13 9 9 3 June 9 2 7 5 July 4 6 5 3 August 2 5 3 5 September 4 2 3 9 October 6 7 1 4 November 6 1 6 2 December 5 4 7 4 Grand Total 78 57 75 50 *IBR Offense: Rape- Forcible 11A, Sodomy- Forcible 11B, Sexual Assault Produced: 4/22/2020 with Object- 11C For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. inauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 n.._..b...,.... .. is a_ Spokane County Sheriff's Office t,COUN'_-o, Regional Intelligence Group c ti Y1 .1', :f -- Spokane Valley Districts ' a , IBR Classification: Counterfeiting Forgery R 1 q 30 1 1 iiI, I 25 1 44\ 20 1 I I A , ' —6—2016 15 —2017 1 Nio, -f-2018 I 10 2019 —a—Calendar 2020 5 i 1 I. I 4 r >- = w r w ›.- F a cc ¢ ce cc cc U K Q z --i vi w w w w 2m m m m z cc 2 D w F- w w Q un w ¢ a O Q 7 w LL wz p cn Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 14 9 18 22 February 13 11 10 13 March 25 20 24 17 April 6 20 22 13 May 9 26 21 10 June 15 15 15 14 July 11 21 15 10 August 17 14 17 13 September 11 20 14 11 October 7 18 11 14 November 15 9 20 21 December 12 9 14 15 Grand Total 145 192 201 173 *!BR Offense: Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. 'nauthorfzed persons pursuant to RCW 42.56 420 n..__L.__.- w i; a.. Spokane County Sheriff's Office COUNT ,, Regional Intelligence Group o { Spokane Valley Districts : t IBR Classification: Destruction Damage Vandalism 'SIG 9 250 I 200 150 ' 4'a*.44104 :�..�f141‘P' Ar Adik . . „, -401111liv 1410p 411111 2016 ''140 r' 2017 100 —A-2018 I; 2019 Calendar 2020 50.. I 1 0 I' } } = J } w YI– Cr K K ix cc d^ U cc a Z J V] w w w w Q 4 c 2 7 7 7 en CO en U] 7 7 Q Q C 0 0 2 7 z ,x ? w Hw w -‹ co 4 H U > w `" a O w w z p 0 Year Month Count 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 133 159 146 124 February 111 148 95 67 March 148 136 121 122 April 151 173 127 144 May 134 139 142 161 June 176 143 140 133 July 154 178 141 156 August 160 149 132 144 September 118 160 155 141 October 165 119 165 165 November 196 131 155 140 December 161 105 125 174 Grand Total 1807 1740 1644 1671 IBR Offense: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 290 Produced: 4/22/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. 'nauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 — CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2020 Department Director Approval El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately 20 minutes to discuss pending litigation and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman ATTACHMENTS: