Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandoutspu`I tC 1/5-/z015-- CHAPTER 21. CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX 21.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact Deborah Needham, Emergency Management Mindi Mattson, Emergency Management Director Coordinator 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Telephone:425-430-7027 Telephone: 425-430-7041 e-mail Address: dneedham@rentonwa.gov e-mail Address:mmattson@rentonwa.gov 21.2 JURISDICTION PROFILE The following is a summary of keyinformation about the jurisdiction and its history: Date of Incorporation—September 6, 1901 Current Population-95,540 as of April 1,2013 Population Growth—The City experienced,rapid growth in the two decades from 1990 to 2010. Thepopulation increased from 39,340 to 90,927 in thosetwenty years for a cumulative population,growth rate of 230 percent, or an average of 11.5 percent per year. Growth has now slowed in the City. In the three years from 2010 to 2013 the city grew 5 percent, and annual average growth rate of'1.7 percent, which translates into an average annual growth rate of 1.7%. Location and Description—The City of Renton comprises approximately 24 square miles at • the southern end of Lake Washington in King County. It is located about 10 miles southeast of downtown Seattle. Renton is 'situated at the -center of a_regional and international transportation network. The City is surrounded by freeways and is in close proximity to air, sea and rail transportation hubs. The City has its own airport and seaplane base. Renton is bisected by State Route 167 and Interstate 405. The dominant natural landscape features are Lake Washington, the Cedar River and the Green River. The topography of Renton'varies, with generally flat areas near Lake Washington and hilly areas in the east and southeast. Elevations range from about 45 feet at Lake Washington to about 400 feet in the hills. Brief History—originally an important fishing area for Native Americans at the confluence of the Black and Cedar Rivers, Renton was settled by people of European descent in the 1850s, leading to the displacement of the Duwamish people. As the influx of settlers continued, the early Renton economy developed around coal, timber and clay production from the hills surrounding the downtown. In 1911 a major flood provided the impetus for diverting the channel of the Cedar River to prevent future flooding in the City, and in 1916 the Black River disappeared when the Montlake Cut lowered Lake Washington. The building of the Renton Boeing plant during World War II brought thousands to Renton seeking employment. To this day, all 737 jets produced by Boeing have their final assembly in Renton and are launched from the municipal airport.Renton is also home to several important regional government facilities and major corporations, including the Federal Aviation Administration,'the Federal Reserve,Providence Health& Services, and PACCAR. 21-1 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2:Planning Partner Annexes Climate—The climate of Renton is moderate, with mild winters, averaging 154 precipitation days per year, and warm, dry summers. During the year temperatures range from 37 to 78 degrees and extreme temperatures rarely go below 28 degrees or above 87 degrees. The average annual rainfall is 38 inches. Average monthly precipitation varies from 6 inches November through January to less than an inch in July and August. Average annual snowfall is 12 inches. Humidity varies between 44 percent and 95 percent in summer and winter, respectively. Winds are variable and prevail from the south/southeast at an average speed of 7 miles per hour,seldom exceeding 22 miles per hour. Governing Body Format—The City of Renton operates under the laws of the. State of Washington as an "optional municipal code city," governed by the Renton Municipal Code. Code cities have broad authority within their geographic domain. Renton is governed with a mayor-council form of government. Renton voters elect these eight officials "at-large," meaning there is no geographic representation to any position among thecity's policy makers. The city consists of ten departments: Administrative Services, City Attorney, Community and Economic Development, Community Services, Court Services, Executive, Fire & Emergency Services, Human Resources and Risk Management, Police, and Public Works. The Fire & Emergency Services Department assumes responsibility for the adoption of this plan;the Emergency Management Director will oversee its implementation. Development Trends—Renton has a mix of land uses throughout the City. Industrial and commercial uses are located primarily in the downtown areas of Renton. The city center area includes mixed-use residential and commercial land, with both single and multi-family homes. Single family residences dominate the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, wheremost residential growth is still occurring. In addition,.there are pockets of mixed-use commercial centers aimed at providing services for residents living along the eastern edges of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for Renton's development 20 years into the future. The vision includes an emphasis on infill development occurring in existing neighborhoods rather than sprawl and an increase in multi-family housing in the downtown area. 21.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The assessment of the jurisdiction's legal and regulatory capabilities is presented in Table.21-1. The assessment of the jurisdiction's fiscal.capabilities is presented in Table 21-2. The assessment of the jurisdiction's administrative and technical capabilities is presented in Table 21-3. Information on the community's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance is presented in Table 21-4. Classifications under various community mitigation programs are presented in Table 21-5. ' 21-2 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal -Jurisdictiona State Authority Prohibitions 1 Authority Mandated Comments Codes,Ordinances&Requirements w , Building Code Yes No Yes Yes International Building Code 2012 Edition adopted by reference with State Amendments 51-40 WAC and City amendments RMC 4-05-050 Zoning Yes No No No RMC 4-2(also covered in Comprehensive Plan) Subdivisions Yes No No No RMC 4-7(RMC Title IV) Stormwater Yes No Yes No 4-6-030.C.(Adoption of 2009 King Management County Surface Water Design Manual). RMC Titles IV and VIII. Post Disaster Recovery Yes No No No RES 4133,2/27/2012 Real Estate Disclosure No No Yes Yes WA State mandates certain disclosures by Real Estate agents under RCW 64.06 Growth Management Yes No Yes Yes State Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70,City Comprehensive Plan,RMC , Site Plan Review Yes No Yes No RMC 4-9-200(RMC Title IVJ Public Health and Yes No Yes Yes Seattle-King County,RMC and City Safety policy and procedure. Some state mandates on public safety. Environmental Yes No Yes Yes RMC-4-3,Growth Management Act Protection Plannin Documents, General or Comprehensive Plan(latest update Fall (Currently in draft form—will be adopting the Hazard 2007 general;June 2011—specific(Ord.5612) Mitigation Plan by reference just as was done with the Recovery Plan) Is the plan equipped to provide linkage to this mitigation Yes plan? Floodplain or Basin Yes No Yes Yes Growth Management Act,adopted by Plan reference Stormwater Plan Yes No Yes Yes Growth Management Act,adopted by reference Capital Improvement Yes No Yes Yes Required by the city budget document Plan as well as the Growth Management Act, by reference What types ofcapital facilities does the plan address? Transportation,Utilities,General Governmental(which includes,Fire,Police,and Community Services/Facilities. How often is the plan revised/updated? Annually Habitat Conservation Yes No Yes Yes RMC Title IV,Aquifer Protection— Plan 2000,Growth Management Plan, adopted by reference 21-3 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2:Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-1. LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY State or Other Local Federal Jurisdictiona State Authority Prohibitions 1 Authority Mandated Comments Economic Yes No Yes Yes Comprehensive Plan adopted by Development Plan reference Shoreline Management Yes No Yes Yes RMC 4-3-090,Department of Ecology Plan RCW 90.58.90 Community Wildfire Yes No No No Renton Fire Department Master Plan Protection Plan 1987 Response/RecoveryPlanning e Comprehensive Yes No No Yes RES 4163,adopted 11/5/2012. State Emergency approved January 2012 Management Plan Threat and Hazard No No No - No • N/A—Have a current(2012)Hazard Identification and Risk Identification and Vulnerability Assessment Assessment associated with 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Terrorism Plan Yes No No No Annex to current CEMP Post-Disaster Recovery Yes No No No RES 4133,formally adopted 4/27/2012 Plan Continuity of No No No No Draft plan continues to evolve,not Operations Plan formally adopted by Council Public Health Plans No No Yes No RES 4130 in 2012.Agreement with Seattle/King County.Have Emergency Support Function#8 of CEMP that addresses in part. TABLE 21-2. FISCAL CAPABILITY Financial Resources Accessible Or Eligible to Use? Community Development Block Grants Yes Capital Improvements Project Funding Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes Yes User Fees for Water, Sewer,Gas or Electric Service Yes. Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds Yes Incur Debt through Private Activity Bonds Yes Withhold Public Expenditures in Hazard-Prone Areas Yes State Sponsored Grant Programs Yes. Development Impact Fees for Homebuyers or Developers Yes Other Real Estate Excise Tax;`King County Flood Control District-Basin Opportunity Fund 21-4 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-3. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Staff/Personnel Resources Available? `j Department/Agency/Position Planners or engineers with Yes ' • Community and Economic Development(CED): CED knowledge of land development and 't '',;' ;;;. Administrator/Planning Director,Associate Planners, land management practices Senior Planners,Planning Manager Engineers or professionals trained in := ' Yes 5• CED:Building Official,Building Plans Examiner and building or infrastructure Building Inspectors construction practices Public Works: Civil Engineers,Engineering Supervisors Planners or engineers with an Yes :, .!• CED:CED Administrator/Planning Director,Associate understanding of natural hazards Planners,Senior Planners,Planning Manager, Development Engineering Manager,Construction Inspectors Community Services:Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager Public Works:Civil Engineers,Engineering Supervisors Staff with training in benefit/cost .< Yes '• Finance:All staff analysis. Surveyors No.- f• n/a—contracted out Personnel skilled or trained in GIS Yes;. : . • CED:Engineering Specialists applications j .' Information Technology: GIS Coordinator Public Works:Engineering Specialists Scientist familiar with natural No_ ; ;• n/a hazards in local area Emergency manager YeS. I• Fire&Emergency Services Department,Emergency Management Director Grant writers Yes • No position in the city is wholly dedicated to grant writing. • Available personnel have written grants in the past from the following departments and divisions:City Clerk, Community and Economic Development,Community Services,Emergency Management Division,Finance,Fire i &Emergency Services Department,Human Resources/Risk Management,Police,Public Works 21-5 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2:Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE What department is responsible for floodplain management Community and Economic Development in your community? Who is your community's floodplain administrator? Community and Economic Development department/position) Administrator Do you have any certified floodplain managers on staff in No • your community? • What is the date of adoption of your flood damage January 1, 1987,Last updated on December..3, prevention ordinance? 2012 When was the most recent Community Assistance Visit or October 2,2012 , Community Assistance Contact? To the best of your knowledge,does your community have .No any outstanding NFIP compliance violations that need to be addressed?If so,please state what they are. Do your flood hazard maps adequately address the flood Yes,but FEMA's delay in updating Green River_ risk within your community?(If no,please state why) Floodplain Maps has created uncertainty about the accuracy of the maps in this area: Does your floodplain management staff need any assistance ;Yes,floodplain administratortraining and or training to support its floodplain management program? certification If so,what type of assistance/training is needed? Does your community participate in the Community Rating Yes,and Yes System(CRS)?If so,is your community seeking to improve its CRS Classification?If not,is your community interested in joining the CRS program? TABLE 21-5. COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATIONS Participating? Classification Date Classified Community Rating System Yes ." 6 10/1/2009 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Yes E 3 August 23,2012 Public Protection Yes 3 Not available StormReady Yes Blue 8/21/2103 Firewise No ' . N/A N/A Tsunami Ready(if applicable) N/A N/A 21-6 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX 21.4 JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NATURAL HAZARD EVENT HISTORY Table 21-6 lists all past occurrences of natural hazards within the jurisdiction. Repetitive flood loss records are as follows: Number of FEMA-Identified Repetitive Loss Properties:None Number of FEMA-Identified Severe Repetitive Loss Properties:None Number of Repetitive Flood Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Known to Have Been Mitigated:N/A TABLE 21-6. NATURAL HAZARD EVENTS FEMA Disaster#,i, Type of Event if applicable).:.: Date Preliminary:Damage.Assessment : Severe Winter Weather 4056 ' 2012 225,105 . Severe Winter Weather n/a s 2011 No;PDA done Flooding 1963 2011 m.-$23,500 ;:: Severe Winter Weather 1963 i 2011 No'P1DA done : . ...-:.:'. .` Flooding n/a ' 2010 515,303 Severe Winter Weather n%a 2010 r_ No PDA'thine- `.' ..`•: Severe Weather n%a- . .,_;2009 No PDA done Flooding 1817.: = 2009 11;607,310.: ' . Severe Winter Weather 1825' T'' . 7 2008 199,879 ':_... Severe Weather n/a- (2008 No PDA done. Flooding 1734 2007 4;827,545 Severe Weather n/a :.:.'` : 2007 No PDA done Severe Winter Weather 1682::, . 1 2006 239,281 Flooding 1671:; j 2006 Y$5,019,223 Earthquake 1360 3''2001 1,750,240 :::; :,.:., : Flooding 1172 1997 20,000,. Landslides 1100 1996 159,790 Flooding 1079: ` 1995 Norecords available:: Flooding 883 j 1990 No;records available Flooding n/a: ,: 1982 No records"available, `. . '. Flooding 492 1975 No records available:` '`.:. Earthquake 196: _:; 1965 No records'available 21-7 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2:Planning Partner Annexes 21.5 HAZARD RISK RANKING Table 21-7 presents the ranking of the hazards of concern. Hazard area extent and location maps for earthquake, flood, and landslide hazards (including coal mine areas) are included at the end of this chapter:These maps are based on the best available data at the time ofthe preparation ofthis plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. TABLE 21-7. HAZARD RISK RANKING Rank i:`.. °;: 'Hazard Type;:" Risk Rating Score(Probability x Impact) 1 Earthquake ; `:32 2 SevereWeather 30 Severe:Winter Weather 30 4 Flood: .;;:'::: .::: `:°:21 Dani Failure 18 6 Landslide 15 7 Volcano j 11 8 i Wildfire:.:;._` 7 9 Tsunami : :._ .c I 0 Avalanclie 0 21.6 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLAN INITIATIVES Table 21-8 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. 21.7 HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN AND EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Table 21-9 lists the initiatives that make up the jurisdiction's hazard mitigation plan. Table 21-10 identifies the priority for each initiative. Table 21-11 summarizes the mitigation initiatives by hazard of concern and the six mitigation types. 21.8 FUTURE NEEDS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RISK/ VULNERABILITY Existing databases containing information about individual structures, particularly for privately owned structures,may not be accurate, and may not have information on very old structures.Any efforts taken to improve the quality of data in those databases will improve the understanding of impact on the community. Likewise, future studies of levee integrity along both the Cedar and Green Rivers would add to the knowledge of flood risk present in their floodplains. 21-8 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-8. PREVIOUS ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Status Carry Over •Removed; Action to Plan No Longer': Completed Update Feasible`..!Comments RN-1 EM included in citywide planning effective in 2011,now iongoing. RN-2 Becomes Initiative#2. RN-3 ,-:. :•": Becomes Initiative#3. RN-4 :,. Becomes Initiative#4. RN-5 ' Project completed in 2013. RN-6 Becomes Initiative#5 RN-7 :; .. Projected completed in 2010. RN-8 Similar to RN-4.Combined them into Initiative#4. RN-9 sV !Duplicates other more specific projects in plan that are ongoing. RN-10 .: j Similar to RN-21.Combined them into Initiative#9. Many similar projects combined under new initiative#1. RN-12 Vs. Many similar projects combined under new initiative#1. RN-13 : Many similar projects combined under new initiative#1. RN-14 i Becomes Initiative#6. RN-15'. Becomes Initiative#7. RN-16 Combined with RN-25 into Initiative#8. RN-17 .' , Project completed on February 10,2010. RN-18 Already covered by other projects,incl. ongoing compliance with ecological mandates.Remove. RN-19,:`: " • Completed in 2013.Permanent practice,not needed in plan. RN-20 .- Completed in 2013.Permanent practice,not needed in plan. RN-21 a Similar to RN-10. Combined them into Initiative#9. RN-22 Becomes Initiative#10. RN-23 t Similar to RN-4.Combined them into Initiative#4. RN-24 " Project completed in 2011. RN-25 Similar to RN-16.Combined them into Initiative#8. RN-26 Determined to be a response plan element,not mitigation. RN-27 Outside of control of city staff RN-28 r Outside of control of city staff RN-29`; Outside. of control of city staff RN-30 Completed RCC Transfer Switch in 2012. RN-31 Outside of control of city staff. 21-9 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2:Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-8. PREVIOUS'ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS Action Status i Carry Over .Removed; Action to Plan :No Longer' Completed; Update 'Feasible• :Comments RN-32 2 Becomes Initiative#11. • RN-33 i' 1 Becomes Initiative#12. Will use existing information in database,not staff time. i Becomes Initiative#13. RN-36 . ,:;: This; project duplicated RN-30.Completed in 2012. RN-37•- Becomes Initiative#14. RN-38 ` Project completed,maps updated when checked in 2013. RN-39 t a Assessment shows no current building or infrastructure threat. RN-40 ` ,r;I i B ecomes Initiative#15. RN-41 : ' Project completed in 2011. RN-42- ". <:: iResponse oriented,not mitigation.Remove. RN-43 Outside of control of city staff Remove. RN-44 r'" • ': 2013.Permanent requirement,no longer needed in plan. RN-45 1!!!, X2013. Completed annually. RN-46' I 2013. Completed annually. RN-47„: " ' .` 12013. Completed annually. RN-48 .' Project completed in 2012. RN-49 • Current assessment shows all feasible measure already taken. RN-50{ " 1Project completed in 2013. RN-51; Not feasible or appropriate based on current risk assessment. 21-10 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met - Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? RN_#1: Continue to maintain'compliance and good standing under:theNational..Flood Insurance Program: This.'will •,be"accomplished th ough the ;implementation:'of floodplain management programs that;' at•a minimum;:will meet the mimmuni requirements ofthe NFIP,which include the following: ; Enforcement of the adopted flood damage prevention ordinance;:';;;;. " " . '. Participating in floodplain identification and mapping-updates,and.; Providing publiC assistance%information on floodplain requirements'andyimpacts : ';;r New:and Flood 2,4,10,12 Public Low Local Budget Short Term No existing Works/CED RN_#2:Identi '-and. ursue.fundin" .o"" ortunities to im lenient mitigation,;actions. "`: New and All 5 . Emergency Low Local Budget Short Term Yes existing Mgmt. RN#3 Develo ublic"and; private.sector artnershi sto foster hazard Mitigation activities.`PP__ .__..:...nP...__ _._.___...._....P._ _.__P_..._.....__.-_N ,.,_-rw-__g _.___..,.._-_..._-.__w_...__. µ._._ ..__.._._New and All 13,14,15 Emergency. Low Local Budget Long Term • Yes existing Mgmt.RN#4:;Develop.detailed:inventories-ofat-risk.buildings,'infrastructurec"ritical facilities,and:imp' ortant• transportation or utility system components,and prioritize mitigation'actions:. w New and All 4,5 CED/ Medium Local Budget Long Term Yes existing Community Services/ Public Works RN#5:Integrate the.Mitigation Planf ndings'into planning and regulatorydocuments.and progra ns :.;,r_ y New and All 2,10 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes existing RN.#6:-Continue to:enforce,maintain and update King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2:Planning Partner Annexes TABLE 21-9. HAZARD MITIGATION ACTION PLAN MATRIX Applies to Included new or in existing Hazards Objectives Lead Estimated 'Sources of Previous assets Mitigated Met Agency Cost Funding Timeline Plan? RN#9:Continue to be a member ofthe FEMA Community Rating System,and work to identify and implement measures and"policies to increase Renton's Community Rating System score to reduce flood insurance Cates. New and Flood 2,3,4,5,7,8, Public High Grants/Local Long-Term Yes existing 9,12 Works Budget RN#10 Re-evaluate future land use/zoning designations in FEMA mapped 100-year floodplain., New Flood 2,10 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes RN#11:Encourage new developments to include underground power lines. New Severe Weather, 1,2 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes Severe Winter Weather RN#12:Evaluate the seismic vulnerability of critical city-owned buildings,utilities,'and infrastructure and establish priorities to retrofit or replace`vulnerable facilities to ensure adequate seismic performanceof critical Existing Earthquake 1,4,5,6,9, Community Medium Local Budget Long Term Yes 14 Services/ Public Works RN#13i Disseminate FEMA pamphlets to educate homeowners about structural and non-structural retrofitting of vulnerable homesand encourage retrofit; v. Existing Earthquake 4;6,14 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes RN#14;Obtain funding and retrofit important public facilities with significant seismic vulnerabilities_",. Existing Earthquake 1,5,9 Community High Grants/Local Short Term Yes Services Budget RN#15:Limit future development in high landslide"potential areas. New Landslide 2,8,10 CED Low Local Budget Short Term Yes RN-16Continue to support the county-wide initiatives identified in this plan, New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,1 City of Low General Fund Short term No Existing 3, 14, 15 Renton RN-17--Actively participate in the plan niaintenance,strategy identified in this plan: New and All Hazards 4,6,11,12,1 King Low General fund Short term No Existing 3, 14, 15 County OEM,City of Renton 21-12 CITY OF RENTON UPDATE ANNEX TABLE 21-10. MITIGATION STRATEGY PRIORITY SCHEDULE Do Benefits Is Project;'.i Can Project Be Funded !.: Initiative :Objectives 4 Equal or Grant- Under Existing i s' -Met. 1 Benefits Costs,° Exceed Costs? - Eligible?. ,E Programs/Budgets? ; Prioritya 1 :1i..'::_4`:: " .i Medium Low Yes No;:.' '..,=-- - Yes 2 f.:. ::' 1 :_" ''; Medium -Low ::::'s Yes No ::_ . ? Yes Medium- 3 !: ` .: .3. ; Medium i Low Yes No 4 2 Low r_`:Medium. 1- Yes No ;. i Yes i' ''Low i 1 5 ;; 2 : ,, Low Low Yes No. i Yes Medium I Medium Low:'' .' Yes No ' . . Yes Medium 7 5, 3. High .High:- ': Yes Yes':. ----- No ----- High 8 3High High } Yes Yes: 7.1 _ No(not entirely) I' High 9 ;.' ::'8 -. 1 Medium .' Hi h '._Yes Yes_ .. , No Knot entirelyl Medium 10 's,„ ,:2:' Medium Low Yes No:., . Yes 11 2' iMedium '. Low `. Yes No `: `. ' ----- Yes High.. 12 6`__' " ' Medium 'I Medium:Yes No'~; - . Yes i•.'. 13 ;:. ':3 Medium Low Yes No ` ? Yes gh 14 3 • • High .: Hip °' Yes Yes'` N° 15 3. Medium Low ! Yes is :..'No._= , Yes High: ' 16 7 Medium a... Low.':: ; Yes No: Yes High , 17 7"_.. I Low :_ Low Yes Yes . ._.. Yes' g- rihigh a. See Introduction for explanation of priorities. 21-13 King County Regional,Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 2:Planning Partner Annexes TABLE(21-11. ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION INITIATIVES Initiative Addressing Hazard,by Mitigation Typea 3.Public: .. j 4.Natural 1...:`_,: "•i 2.Property ?,:Educationand 1 Resource 5.Emergency ; {6. Structural Hazard Type s Prevention; Protection I . Awareness:, Protection ;.":• :Service's Projects Avalanche f: .':`ii/a.; n/aa;, . ,. i n/a n/a `.' . =°-i n/a Dam Failure i.',= 1:7 :. :? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,; 1,9,16• 7,8 9,16 " i 7 9,10 f; Earthquake 17;: ; 2,3,12,13 : 3;16 r: 2,3,4,5 t„` ;:16 _; ' :. 12,13 Flood •1,7,17 ' 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 1,9,16._y i 2,3,4,7,8 9;16' '''' 7,8 9,10 Landslide 17-3;14;16 .;. _, 16_ x^_—_ Severe Weather 17 ,`:::; 2,3,4,11 . , _3,16._. ' Severe Winter 17.'.`:°,.• 2,3,4,11 3,16. Weather 3 I Tsunami n%a:. n/a, n/a n/a n/a n/a Volcano 17:";:.,•:? 2,3,4 3;16 .•'. Wildfire ' 17 2,3,4 3'16;` a. See Introduction for explanation ofmitigation types. 21.9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Two of the hazards assessed and named in this annex do not have applicability to Renton: tsunamis, and avalanches.Renton is sufficiently far inland that a tsunami event will not have any direct effect within the city limits. Although there is potential for a seiche (sloshing of water in an inland body of water that can occur during an earthquake), the effects.of the earthquake will be substantial enough that the additional damages of a potential seiche are not considered separately from those of an earthquake. Likewise, it is highly improbable that Renton would ever experience an avalanche,so that hazard is also not addressed. An additional risk posed by abandoned coal mines is present within Renton but not specifically called out in this plan. Since the primary hazard in Renton associated with coal mines is collapse, those potential impacts and mitigation measures have not been individually addressed but are captured within two other hazards that cause land movement: landslides, and earthquakes. The City of Renton prepared maps of the coal mine, flood, landslide and earthquake liquefaction hazards, separate from those prepared as part of this regional hazard mitigation plan update. These are included with this annex, along with the hazard maps generated from Hazus,for clarity about the locations of these specific hazards. 21-14 City of Renton w [ 1 r i=J _ rSensitive Areas k Fes' iG. I - `ate ... P'.. . N. faMill ''' ' L!'''''-. ' attc.„.:,.._,.. ---;:'- ;;; 3/4. II:,,4.f ,, , 1 . •., y - -5'.7i. t[ Ni It! . 1 TitilW .: ,j‘ N: -.. i, .0,- A t,;.,11.1..1 a eR x.";' N . z 1 moi 34 1 ,,,,,ci, , ,.:.,:%.,.- .1 444gF e LLL i ftEill ;/ -'4•.:i INI- - 2 ' --11'.. ' .- -V 6 7"111111W p J/ a,. Flu!' Oiisty. V 72,,,,...d:. S' ys, r v,.„,., T { o,. y n i9 a.}'" k aw n t t F-T` a I' ."' ' y t_Ss .. i6"°' est r t` ---'11- 3",- a n i sk..s:4t:M?' 1'44 r , ,.,:1-4....).--: s'xl 11111111L.., 7 13 r, mT` t 4.— .p jr uti r---a-; s ilk 11 swim..i.,?- 41,,, z .. tri 1., _ iiii 3 in - x.... $ . .4- 1 k 11 1-1 7,- .., ...., ,4,..... 4 1 S sachil lai f; x t ., f:›5;:'444 4 1 I_ a wL. Z . 12. ii- fi— Data Sources.City of Renton,King County 4: Schools/Education Facilities This document is a graphic representation,not guaranteed Coal Mine Hazards to survey accuracy,and is based on the best information Fire Station/EMS Station available as of the date shown This map is intended for Renton City Hall Severity City display purposes onlyOil.D1 Valley Medical Center HIGH Information Technology-GIS mapsupport@rentonwa.gov a Airport MODERATE Printed on:10/14/2013 r,I,- Renton City Limits UNCLASSIFIED Ls t?l t• r k f all' City of Renton bI A• 4„. •i,/ I t 4-., __ Sensitive Areas wK i Vii. i s `'. 6 14 %,-. _ s fes”,-.. ..C! J Mu+' i . .L..;_iff, 1, „=".--A L,r 1:. r M 4 r„., • 2 •Olt - 4-- ,1,.. •. 4 ti t 1111 . - IzTil • i‘gii --'-",,,,,t., , . -....,,,,; , - PM. ,-,41 ,„., i, ..,.....,..„ y . Ti r f 11;•-• "• A1 _ { 1111 WI t 1 aayv ' t3 t ' Vt.. 3 I N ' ' ." 44141411Atil ,, ii: -la 07, 01,1_,, A 4A ill..aS L ijyE 40,k.:1 -..r i I wow . ,,,.. _ A-• '''.- Y'71--4.,.\•.-, 37. iki.•,,,A. ,: •.„i ,:- ,• fr,45,41KA; , _, -- _ 4-1 ' 4`1 Lam::.,.., IIIIIII IY 17 -,viva 1 '.-J a ft .+ , S i „ 1 Lir , .4. ,.. JO ..., m4...:\ j.., a, ,i,- .)-.: , ii,..- 2.-- 14 a Y- I i - S.f N 4 : -- -. 1 . - .:1 . ... , ' . ,- i...,,Lfi 0 Ob 0.6 Data Sources.City of Renton,King County A Schools/Education Facilities This document is a graphic representation,not guaranteed to survey accuracy,and is based on the best information it Fire Station/EMS Station Flood Hazard available as of the date shown. This map is intended for Renton City HallCitydisplaypurposesonly. Information Technology-GIS SI Valley Medical Center mapsupport@rentonwa.gov L,1 Airport Printed on.10/14/2013 c,r- Renton City Limits City of, fr.' ;wi ' x City of Renton g A 4: 4', 4*: : • ill Sensitive Areas e ' `' ate.-(,.', r' . :r 1116 "J.- s x a ... --4,,,,..„. -- , T-----,',,,,, ,. 'I.,: , r ..,,,,,...„,, st E w,.... ..„.„... i ...„,.... ,..._„•,.,,. ,... . , ,, ft '. -II 2 - ', \ IIII ' .,,z,.\,,,.,ti,:. . 61"1 - %kw ,„, r- - IiilL 11 g'.....,..)4 1 , _,,,?/-40,4,_- ,-.. miltro ''' in - 7-05. . .6.::,:-'',.4,,‘‘ ' 0":, ‘ 4t.ilt iihmhi,J, 421wo..1 1174.44441 , e Ito or n M F F c F •I Ft s c p Vat 44a,' 1 ikt Al 4 i 11 11n. ,, i H r ' =` ' i •L......• ....._ . ..,..:,. ' tom i i .--, , -It t t- _ , .- -. — c A f x . j , C tr*''—'t; F:.. 4, tF 1 i I 1,'`..; IN!5.5,;NI ..., __./r i 4.::,. ....; i1, s r,..- + t_ I J w 0 025 oahIt ; --1 j l., ` i o. Data Sources:City of Renton,King County a Schools/Education Facilities Landslide HazardThisdocumentisagraphicrepresentation,not guaranteed to survey accuracy.and is based on the best information Fire Station/EMS Station Severityavailableasofthedateshown. This map is intended for Renton City HallCitydisplaypurposesonly. K Very High 01 Valley Medical Center Information Technology-GIS High mapsupport©rentonwa.gov Airport Moderate Pnnted on.10/14/2013 Renton City Limits Unclassified 777 _ y +y_r { y wr 4 1 i .>.X '2.7&ii' d V"-+`h f..il l 1R" f r A _.*. y ;k r City of Renton «Ir x /kr- Sensitive Areas om 0 i f.F. L .t.,4 3L...filip- „..-% .s_4' '41.. '‘,-, iii? = .,.„„i. k i*k . . tispi*,$,:.. / b:, ,..-.,, 1 ' '11--k- - - '—'-' , • -v- ri 'Lziril ''L--- , ' , \ J ..& fes. b `b•....., Vii.r Cyt w t 1..... wItt 414 l 16-41;,0-:. li4: r' et tile Mi71 . MAE it ''" ts3 f z E .. r. vg MEAL rf. i , .elvift,„ l.: r 3iiM ' i 1.1:.it.. ...2',„•:2.,..,-,,;.,.:,_:.:1,,%-,-.- -1--,,,'.„-..,,,,,,,;,,:.,..:,,,, tt:,,,,;:i:„TLi„.",...,,,,,, .-_, -..-.:„,",,,;:.-:iin ?',:!:".wit , „: 7 -. r'--- ....-:=, 1 : yam• ti, { CIY;-IjF 'AIS— ..1-- 1 '''-'6,1111--- "kum,t_. ,...,+ t' ti 4YFt°rs" '., 1j,:,_, i.- ..',.:-A, ''' ,. - '- .., ';...,. le 6ix v.-- :••,,- - L,,,:,-,-,:.-,:::-.--,-.::,- ,.,.-.......,,,_.-- .:--..;.:5,,..-.,..7,..k1F' r C4 '- 1 '.*'''''' --- – : ''' i'f".4. J'A'' '' ' • -4 tr,:i;:: -.4.*' - . ‘," ', j.',:,... .,,_ I i. --tt.,L,I,J.. 1 % to -. kierl 4,,; 4,4„ ' 4: ,LL - 4`- '; .. L Ilik, 1 Ti y# r ' t r I =_--"-- t iy , i. , „y r- 0 j 7 r 4 , r, p i,,, t tai,AtAt,,,,i,'.-7-r 1 ' * vwr4 - t F '.... 7--• y,/•tom Data Sources.City of Renton,King County 4, Schools/Education Facilities Liquefaction SusceptabilityThisdocumentisagraphicrepresentation,not guaranteed to survey accuracy,and is based on the best information Fire Station/EMS Station low available as of the date shown. This map is intended for Renton City HallCitydisplaypurposesonly low to moderate al Technology-GIS l Valley Medical Center K moderate to high Imapsupport@rentonwa.gov II`ii Airport K high Printed on 10/14/2013 1 t Renton City Limits N CASTLEG. CITY OF RENTON 4:,-;,.:-...t *2 ir GCF o Critical Facilities0 , ,, . , a - 4 and Infrastructure r, r oot . o . ., -,C©ritical Fac ilitie s cah * 4',"'-t`Washmg3 , h , \ ` VMX Government Fu nction j r 4r,r •t , I r r d HazMat A.1.,:.3..;'.fttA?Ft ,p9 t .>, -_ j- ,i Medical Care A 1,01'!":- .,,,I,4e.::-..-1 C 1 g Protective Function 41u + 4 • i+,,..-x x l;' 1 t g Schools t= :a ¢ f a 'a y ?, 's v : { Other Facility pdy 9 1 .y.. t 1 t ppy • C, s Ftil Critic alInfrastructure o o na pe , o Bridges Nk n4itt Itr.,r r 4'f .i"' _,•. I , I . i, Communications s , %sem" F u• 4 l. 7 i;Dams r 4i f` r ,moms rt I Water Supply Power" a i.1,1,a1H ur- ,-. r .... 1.=__ lrnrktovDuwamisliI3RDrti Transportation 5 cCr fk Wastewater. 41, i lle i" r A, sf },r t. w,pG ' ,j.P _ ,` N y1 • r •;9,y + `c,.a_ b i 1- 1)q( r.• • v '. --. A . MgL n:' r L -_ 40', SOUTHCE TER ' -.7:1-i- ce 1.' Y r- ' u ' I -- RENTON MAPLEGreen1iQrryI • i EVIW' Rrver : R1 t qua- r 1 Al {E!' w e t s.r 3 I Locations are approximate.N o i s Base Map Data SourcesI mr% tau N.i fl5.= tt. I - a Cr' King County,U.S.Geological Survey F - ti i I 'e OR t 7 il'I N Clime'H t. t----' •`,.' King County 1 TETRA TECHC_.i ,".•!` 43RD a--- --180TH © CARR. Y•' FT,r ,. a t r/ . _ 11 ,4 a 1 1 o K. l r - - - 1 192ND' o row wl) j10-- EAr1 • .. ,. 1 1 ••,, 1 e eS T 0 0.5 14aII .. 41. 161- s s Miles cm3 ,''_:: man CITY OF RENTON Liquefaction Susceptibility e Susceptible Not Susceptible High Bedrock i Moderate to High Peat Moderate Water Low to Moderate Ice Low 1, Very Low to Low Very LowI.5 r-- SUNSET I Liquefaction data provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Divis dkENroN_SsHQugH s Data is based n of Isosolely ogy non EarthResources. geology I published ata scale of 1:100,000. A liquefaction susceptibility map provides an i,, T1, estimate of the likelihood that soil will liquefy r. '. 128Th`'""" as a result of earthquake shaking.This type of 3RD map depicts the relative susceptibility in a x=r__ 1 ,-'_ range that varies from very low to high.Areas9 underlain by bedrock or peat are mapped e separately as these earth materials are not 4, x liquefiable, although peat deposits may be yi I subject to permanent ground deformation T x caused by earthquake shaking. 518 SO UTHCENTER''s 1 - IQ: t- O' r 4' c`4 , ---,.,+ -. 'RENTON 4.1.1,i:v,.. 4, &""` :.1..,,,-....." Base Map Data Sources: 9t :>r'? rr King County,U.S.Geological Survey r'_-' t t. yY@..kg King County TETRA TECH y j d4RD - —180Th1i, 4 ?' # ',40re '1 ' PETR I SKYr' n- t I 192ND 196TH N t A ar 0 0.5 11Fi7dov Miles a CITY OF RENTON National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program NEHRP) Soil Classification r Site Class B-Rock I Site Class C-Very Dense Soil,Soft Rock Site Class D-Stiff Soil Site Class E-Soft Soil Soil classification data provided by Washington i State Department of Natural Resources, Geology and Earth Resources Division. q. The dataset identifies site classes for44 approximately 33,000 polygons derived from the geologic map of Washington. The methodology h chosen for developing the site class map required the construction of a database of shear wave 11 velocity measurements. This database was E;,H created by compiling shear wave velocity data I from published and unpublished sources, and 4TH through the collection of a large number of shear I281f. wave velocity measurements from seismic 3RD refraction surveys conducted for this project.All of L_ these sources of data were then analyzed using 4590, 7-L f- — '----- 1 r the chosen methodologies to produce the Statewide site class maps. I T t'L'EVAEL. Base Map Data Sources: King County,U.S.Geological Survey kgi King County ry{TETRA TECH ry c W + E 1670 0.5 1 I'''.'s Miles 405 CITY OF RENTONNEWGA1tS'TLEGaF 1$FEMA DFIRM I Flood Hazard Areas1•, 1:.. I Floodway AfrO al 1 Percent Annual Flood Hazard i0.2 Percent Annual Flood Hazard I) I c I 3 r y P 1., ) - ?. Flood hazard areas as depicted on draft FEMA p S 1/ = l - Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps(DFIRM). z 1 J The 1 percent annual flood hazard is 1 m t Al,- c `q 1.. f commonly referred to as the 100 year Tad s ; l RFHr floodplain. The 0.2 percent annual flood y r r i,• +, Div hazard is commonly referred to as the 500c 4:I i # x •, _ .Ssgpvgy h year floodplain. y il ' 6TH To T 4• 2Np Xr JDuwam•sh l —_River J OD rl'!` r1 4r—' 1 ., ', t -i_. 43/ I -1 I) D'' . Jt 4 . J .+r Q r'-_ - - l-'1. x I 5 F . \ e T • f Fy pac • a l Z• \ D Cedar ir '-'SOUTH cc Riveri.'. Ji, f.s,: CENTER -'+ + o r . 6 I Green` s RENTON a Rrveri ti e .! -,,!,,N( A I j (tel%-{ •,> -. i 1/,/..-r1-._ .:. 1.; • f -1 ice Base Map Data Sources: 7 ! lir. 15/+ ,: , t King County,U.S.Geological Survey g'II!_S.• w ,t- M-' r, r-_ j King County INTETRA TECH u,f/.{- 3,43RD---- 180TH-- I` TROT •_ W tif ..f7 A l'-'''.IP / s 192ND Qom.... :. ',ie _ _ yt a' 0sjj i 1 .. rt..t5 airill t q. 5 Miles a s SEW CITY OF RENTON 99• OASTLE GOLF 4 Landslide Hazard Areas s ) rt t ice, All Hazard Areas f) 1.iI ; }p '< The landslide hazard areas shown have been merged PV af': from three assessments for use for planning purposes: f - WA DNR Landslide Areas data provided by the t l l Washington State Department of Natural Resources, t f^ Division of Geology and Earth Resources.This dataset L ------,1 contains 1:24,000-scale polygons defining the extent of87...,t,mapped landslides in the state of Washington,compiled i 7-4iF chiefly from pre-existing landslide databases created in I l different divisions of the Washington State Department c IJ ofNatural Resources to meet a variety of purposes.u L ht'7 .;, y M ' 'P King County Slide Areas-Landslide areas are areas I. 5 itc „• n,f, i' rr I; I. R cN subject to severe landslide risk identified in the Sensitive a b 04, ;›-Areas Ordinance asofA.Any area with a combination : ii" $• y' 90 1.Slopes greater than 15% p. rr'' ,i `.,1e,....4". r ,, ato 2. Impermeable soils(typicallyfrequently i r s per roisilt and clay) interbedded with granular soils(predominantly sand and p-',N 4 ! I 1, gravel)iy I - 3.Springs or groundwater seepage. l B. Any area that has shown movement during the i r, ac. i HObcene epoch(from 10,000 years ago to present),or r • > k that is underlain by mass wastage debris ofthat epoch.• a , /c n C. Any area potentially unstable as a result ofrapid J f • './ 1-----.:,-... stream incision,stream bank erosion or undercutting by ti r-"— _: J z wave action. F,Q _ ;—! i^r-_______:_,-0.Any area that shows evidence of,or is at risk from, G,Q I - l snow avalanches. d9 \1 ,i j E.Any area located on an alluvial fan,presently subject 5 e 4<< Fy L_---- r to or depositionno'f stream ttransportedinundation deposit debris flows or r ,r1 l •$ d. l r eV '• Slope/Soils Analysis: Cesar. 1.Areas of slope greater than 40%. Slope determineds R+ver - using a DEM generated from 2002 LiDAR data. Slope SOUTHCENTER 1•., data provided by King County DNRP. 4.,40 2.Areas of Qf(alluvial fans), Qls(discrete landslides), j and Qmw (colluvium and the cumulative debris from t'niWdi t l small indistinct landslides that accumulate on and at the base of unstable slopes)soils as identified in surface WM li. t geology data provided by King County DNRP. x i ai i f Base Map Data Sources: r sem King County,U.S.Geological Survey l' lY a' ' e e• ilp•v R/C`^•`7 Q TETRA TECH 77-:'..- 43RD ---- -180TH-, 1,Tr+'O 7 44,`11 O. . , / — Dsrfy Y m rs10/ F 1.,° •* V iv s a ;r x l 4 F'r r, f c`""— l 1"" i• I ` T a N t e foto w e e e:' [ 1 0 0.5 1 r _ x '..Alb g O Miles w CITY OF RENTON 2008 LANDFIRE r Fire Behavior Fuel Model m " '' .Anderson 13 Fuel Classes w Burnable Non-Burnable 0 FBFM1 0 Developed 0 FBFM2 O Agriculture i 60 FBFM3 0 Water FBFM5 9 Barren p 4 FBFM6 zs +i f FBFMBt' wI:1-0 SUNSET r ._t'^ r. 0 FBFM9 0 FBFM 10 9 FBFM11 Fuel Class data (LANDFIRE REFRESH 2008 F7l k If_1.1.0))provided by the Wildland Fire Science, r ' Earth Resources Observation and Science o Center, U.S. Geological Survey. The LANDFIRE91> .r6 fuel data describe the composition andGucharacteristicsofbothsurfacefuelandcanopy0 % typicalsurface arrangements orfuel.Thirteenffuel o a collections of fuel properties" (Anderson 1982) were described to serve as input for Rothermel's rr' MAPS 4 mathematical surface fire behavior and spreadE' y x ' . model(Rothermel 1972).These fire behavior fuel F models represent distinct distributions of fuel t loadings found among surface fuel components a ,. 1'',' (live and dead),size classes and fuel types. The SOUTHCE TER fuel models are described by the most common eferfuelbrush,timber tter or4( slash), loadingandsurfacerearatio Rr i:,,,-, by size class and compoent fuelbed depth and moisture of extinction._." e •1:!,,x r y fie a:' Qdx s= x E Base Map Data Sources.Y King County,U.S.Geological Surveya La TETRAti:.I. 1 ias.nI 92NDv1-, S 41" Yx rIr Um l•.i. x „t.W E 1 I 0 0.5 1167rt t •re o oa s 111.111= Miles 1 z 11"it w fltA i ,King County fir r Office of Emergency Management KING COUNTY REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agency Review Submittal July 2014 rr„ I4. TETRA TECH 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hazard mitigation is the use of long-term and short-term policies, programs, projects, and other activities to alleviate the death, injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. King County and a partnership of local governments within the County have developed and maintained a regional hazard mitigation plan to reduce risks from natural disasters. The plan complies with hazard mitigation planning requirements to maintain eligibility for funding under Federal Emergency Management Agency grant programs. PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING IN KING COUNTY Federal regulations require periodic updates of hazard mitigation plans to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. A jurisdiction covered by a plan that has expired is no longer in compliance with the federal requirements for hazard mitigation planning. King County and a coalition of 39 planning partners prepared an initial hazard mitigation plan that was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in November 2004. This document represents the second comprehensive update(the first update was made in 2009). The 2009 plan update process was truncated after back-to-back disasters in 2009—January flooding and March snowstorms—and the emergence of a significant flooding threat in the Green River Valley due to problems at Howard Hanson Dam.The truncated process resulted in a significant decrease in planning partners covered by the regional plan(12 local governments). Many of the original planning partners developed their own plans or let their plans expire.This 2014 update is a return to a truly regional planning effort. Fifty-four local governments are covered by this plan update, including King County, 26 city and town governments, and 27 special purpose districts,as listed in Tables ES-1 and ES-2. The team that prepared the current update also prepared a five-year progress report of actions completed by all planning partners whose existing plan is replaced by this update. In the reporting period covered by the report,the partners started or completed 165 of 283 initiatives,58 percent. TABLE ES-1. MUNICIPAL PLANNING PARTNERS King County City of Issaquah City of Renton City of Algona City of Kent City of SeaTac City of Auburn City of Kirkland City of Shoreline City of Bothell City of Maple Valley City of Snoqualmie City of Burien City of Medina City of Tukwila City of Carnation City of Mercer Island City of Woodinville City ofClyde Hill City of North Bend Town of Beaux Arts Village 1 City of Duvall City of Pacific Town of Hunts Point City of Federal Way City ofRedmond Town of Skykomish ES=1 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements TABLE ES-2. SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT PLANNING PARTNERS Coal Creek Utility District Shoreline Fire Covington Water District Skyway Water&Sewer District Highline Water District Soos Creek Water&Sewer District Kent Fire Southwest Suburban Sewer District Kent School District Valley Regional Fire Authority King County Fire District No.2 Valley View Sewer District King County Fire District No.45 Vashon Island Fire&Rescue King County Hospital District No.2(EvergreenHealth) Water District 111 Midway Sewer District Water District 125 North City Water District Water District 19 Public Hospital District No. 1 (Valley Medical) Water District 20 Riverview School District Water District 90 Ronald Wastewater District Woodinville Water District Sammamish Plateau Water&Sewer District PLAN UPDATE PROCESS Updating the plan consisted of the following phases: Phase 1, Organize and Review—A planning team was assembled for the plan update, consisting of staff from the King County Office of Emergency Management and a technical consultant. The team conducted outreach to establish the planning partnership. A 19-member steering committee was assembled to oversee the plan update, consisting of planning partner staff, citizens, and other stakeholders in the planning area. Coordination with other county, state and federal agencies involved in hazard mitigation occurred throughout the plan update process. This phase included a review of the existing plan, the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan,and existing programs that may support hazard mitigation actions. Phase 2, Update the Risk Assessment—Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage resulting from natural hazards. This process assesses the vulnerability ofpeople,buildings and infrastructure to natural hazards. Risk assessment models were enhanced with new data and technologies that have become available since 2009. The risk assessment included the following: Hazard identification and profiling Assessment of the impact of hazards on physical, social and economic assets Vulnerability identification Estimates of the cost of potential damage. Planning partners used the risk assessment to rank risk and to gauge the potential impacts of each hazard of concern onrtheir jurisdiction. The mitigation actions recommended in this plan include some that address limitations in the modeling caused by insufficient data. For example, in light of the Oso landslide, King County has initiated an effort identified as an action item in this plan to better characterize landslide risks in the County. ES-2 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Phase 3,Engage the Public—The planning team implemented a public involvement strategy developed by the Steering Committee. The strategy included public meetings to present the risk assessment and the draft plan, a hazard mitigation survey, a County-sponsored website, and multiple media releases. Phase 4, Assemble the Updated Plan—The planning team and Steering Committee assembled a document to meet federal hazard mitigation planning requirements for all partners. The updated plan contains two volumes. Volume 1 contains components that apply to all partners and the broader planning area. Volume 2 contains all components that are jurisdiction-specific.Each planning partner has a dedicated annex in Volume 2. Phase 5,Plan Adoption/Implementation—Once pre-adoption approval has been granted by Washington State's Emergency Management Division and FEMA Region X, the final adoption phase will begin. Each planning partner will individually adopt the updated plan. The plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the plan's progress periodically and producing a plan revision every 5 years. This plan maintenance strategy also includes processes for continuing public involvement and integration with other programs that can support or enhance hazard mitigation. RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Based on the risk assessment, hazards were ranked as follows for the risk they pose to the overall planning area: 1. Earthquake(High) 2. Severe Weather(High) 3. Severe Winter Weather(High) 4. Flood(Medium) 5. Landslide(Medium) 6. Wildfire(Medium) 7. Dam Failure(Low) 8. Avalanche(Low) 9. Volcano(Low) 10. Tsunami(Low). Each planning partner also ranked hazards for its own area. Table ES-3 summarizes the categories of high, medium and low (relative to other rankings) based on the numerical ratings that each jurisdiction assigned each hazard.The results indicate the following general patterns: Earthquake,severe weather and severe winter weather generally ranked as the highest risks. Tsunami and avalanche were not ranked by most jurisdictions. Tsunami, volcano and wildfire tended to receive medium or low rankings based on the geographic location of each jurisdiction. Tsunami was ranked as a higher risk for coastal communities; wildfire was ranked higher for jurisdictions located farther from the highly developed areas near Puget Sound. Volcano was ranked higher for jurisdictions in the southwestern portion of the County near lahar hazard areas. Dam failure,volcano and wildland fire tended to have low ratings. ES-3 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements TABLE ES-3. SUMMARY OF HAZARD RANKING RESULTS Number of Jurisdictions Assigning Ranking to Hazard High Medium Low Not Ranked Avalanche 0 0 6 48 Dam Failure 1 8 20 25 Earthquake 49 5 0 0 Flood 10 25 17 2 Landslide 5 28 17 4 Severe Weather 40 13 1 0 Severe Winter Weather 44 9 1 0 Tsunami 0 3 11 40 Volcano 0 11 34 9 Wildland Fire 3 5 26 10 MITIGATION GUIDING PRINCIPLE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following principle guided the Steering Committee and the planning partnership in selecting the initiatives contained in this plan update: King County is a region that promotes community resilience by eliminating or reducing risks and adverse impacts from hazards, while encouraging hazard mitigation activities by all sectors. The Steering Committee and the planning partnership established the following goals for the plan update: 1. Protect life and property. 2. Increase public awareness of hazards and mitigation opportunities. 3. Protect,restore and enhance environmental quality. 4. Leverage partnering opportunities. 5. Enhance planning activities. 6. Develop and implement cost-effective mitigation strategies. 7. Promote a sustainable economy. The following objectives were identified that meet multiple goals, helping to establish priorities for recommended mitigation actions: 1. Increase the resilience of critical facilities, infrastructure and government operations to ensure continuity of operations during and after a hazard event. 2. Consider the impacts of hazards in all planning mechanisms that address current and future land uses and integrate hazard mitigation goals and objectives into other existing plans and programs within the planning area. ES-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. Develop, improve and protect systems that provide early warnings, emergency response communications and evacuation procedures. 4. Use the best available data, science and technologies to improve understanding and stakeholder awareness of the location and potential impacts of hazards, the vulnerability of building types and community development patterns, and the measures needed to mitigate hazards. 5. Seek feasible mitigation projects that provide the highest degree of hazard protection with the best benefit-cost ratio. 6. Emphasize the hazard mitigation message in and promote the value of public outreach and education programs,such as Take Winter By Storm and What to Do to Make it Through. 7. Improve coordination among all sectors to mitigate hazards. 8. Reduce hazard-related risks and vulnerability to potentially isolated populations within the planning area. 9. Retrofit, purchase or relocate structures in high hazard areas, including those known to be repetitively damaged. 10. Strengthen codes to improve the hazard resilience of new construction. 11. Leverage social networks and other social capital mechanisms to educate the public and stakeholders and promote resilience. 12. Seek actions that protect or improve the environment for future environmental conditions. 13. Form private/public partnerships to leverage and share resources. 14. Partner with the private sector, including small businesses, to promote hazard mitigation as part of standard business practice. 15. Educate businesses about contingency planning countywide, targeting smallbusinesses and those located in high risk areas, and promote employee education about disaster preparedness while on the job and at home. MITIGATION ACTIONS Mitigation actions presented in this update are activities designed to reduce or eliminate losses resulting from natural hazards.The update process resulted in the identification of nearly 700 mitigation actions for implementation by individual planning partners, as presented in Volume 2 of this plan. In addition, the steering committee and planning partnership identified seven countywide initiatives benefiting the whole partnership,as listed in Table ES-4. IMPLEMENTATION Full implementation of the recommendations of this plan will require time and resources. The measure of the plan's success will be its ability to adapt to changing conditions. King County and its planning partners will assume responsibility for adopting the recommendations of this plan and committing resources toward implementation. The framework established by this plan commits all planning partners to pursue initiatives when the benefits of a project exceed its costs. The planning partnership developed this plan with extensive public input, and public support of the actions identified in this plan will help ensure the plan's success. ES-5 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Volume 1—Planning-Area-Wide Elements TABLE ES-3. ACTION PLAN—COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION ACTIONS Hazards Addressed Lead Agency Possible Funding Sources or Resources Time Line,/ Objectives CW-1--Continue to participate in and support the"Resilient King County"initiative. All hazards King County Office of Local,possible grant funding Ongoing 1,3,4,7, Emergency Management FEMA,DHS)13, 14, 15 OEM) CW-2—Continue to maintain a website that will house the regional hazard mitigation plan, its progress reports and all components of the plan's maintenance strategy to provide the planning partners and public ongoing access to the plan and its implementation. All Hazards King County OEM King County OEM operating budget Ongoing 4,6,7, 11, 15 CW-3--Continue to leverage/support/enhance ongoing,regional public education and awareness programs(such as Take Winter by Storm and "Make it Through") as a method to educate the public on risk, risk reduction and community resilience. All I laiards King County and all planning Local Ongoing 4,6,7, 11, partners 13, 14, 15 CW-4--Continue to support the use,development and enhancement of a regional alert and notification system. All Hazards King County OEM Local,possible grant funding Ongoing 3,4,7, 13 FEMA,DHS,NWS,NOAA) CW-5--Strive to capture time-sensitive, perishable data—such as high water marks,extent and location of hazard, and loss information—following hazard events to support future updates to the risk assessment. All hazards All Planning partners Local,FEMA(PA) Short-term 4,7 CW-6—Encourage signatories for the regional coordination framework for disasters and planned.events. All Hazards King County OEM Local Ongoing 3,7, 13, 14 CW-7—Continue ongoing communication and coordination in the implementation of the King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. Flood King County OEM,King Local Ongoing 2,4,5,7, County Department of Natural 10, 12 Resources&Parks,King County Flood Control District ES-6